New thread for new Macs as of 6/11/12

[Bert Bates]

Not quite sure I know what to make of this from the Apple website, concerning MacBook Pro's retina display:

Supported resolutions: 2880 by 1800 pixels (Retina); scaled resolutions: 1920 by 1200, 1680 by 1050, 1280 by 800, and 1024 by 640 pixels

Previously we had "native" resolution, which was typically the displays maximum pixel counts, and then other resolutions which typically didn't look too good.

So, do we imagine that "scaled" resolutions will look good? Do we think that the OS will sometimes, automatically use "scaled" resolutions? For instance, at one point Tom Cook said that fonts are crisper than on a printed page - that could be because they're using more pixels to render a given font size than they used to, which would mean the screen resolutions they're touting aren't as easy to understand as we might think...

[Mark Spritzler]

I think you just confused me.

My take is that if the software was written to take advantage of retina display it would show amazing. If the app does not, then it would be scaled to the resolution you have set.

Mark

[Bert Bates]

So, for example, my current 17" laptop has 1680 x 1050 pixels. The new 15" laptop has 2880 by 1800 pixels.

Therefore, for rough estimate purposes, the newer pixels are half the size of the old pixels. Would that mean that for an app that hasn't been modified for the new 15", a given font and font size will be, to the eye, half the height (and width) of the same font size on my 17"? That seems pretty small. I'm wondering whether OS X is going to automatically do some sort of dithering?

[Bert Bates]

Aha! They are doing some "pixel doubling" by default:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5996/how-the-retina-display-macbook-pro-handles-scaling

But some intermediate "scaling" options too - so it looks like you could get 1920 x 1200, but how good will that look?

[Pat Farrell]

Bert Bates wrote:But some intermediate "scaling" options too - so it looks like you could get 1920 x 1200, but how good will that look?

How good does an iPad look when you run an iPhone app that is not designed for the display? It looks either small, or doubled and both look bad.

Of course, you really have to see it with your own eyes, running the apps that you usually run, to know for sure. Sometimes specs dont' tell the story.

[Bear Bibeault]

[Bert Bates]

For me it seems to boil down to how does "more space" mode actually look? One reviewer said that 1920 x 1200 on a 15" display was "hysterical".

[Bear Bibeault]

I saw one of these at an Apple store this morning. The display is breathtaking. In "more space" mode the text was way too small for 50+ year old eyes, but for the yung-uns, who knows...

In "Best" (native) mode, it was gorgeous.

[Pat Farrell]

Bear Bibeault wrote:I saw one of these at an Apple store this morning

So when do you take delivery?

[Bert Bates]

so Bear - in "more space" mode - text is obviously tiny. What other adjectives would you use? is text crisp? clear? fuzzy?

I guess I have to drive the 50 miles, I just don't want to

[Bear Bibeault]

It was still very crisp, just way too small for me to read comfortably.

[Bear Bibeault]

Yes, I know this is BIG, but it makes a point. Comparison of Mac retina staples with original Mac:

[Pat Farrell]

I went to our local Apple store earlier today. My buddy bought an Air. I asked about the Retina Pro and he said that they had none in stock, all sold out. No clear
news when they would get more.

[Bear Bibeault]

Yeah, they were looking pretty popular while I was there yesterday. While I was waiting for my own order to be brought out to me, three were sold.

[Bert Bates]

Ok, fwiw, Best Buy had a 15" retina on display and we played with it. My biggest concern has been removed... I already use 1.25x reading glasses, and they were more than sufficient to comfortably read whatever I put on the screen in "more space", 1920 x 1200 mode - hooray!

Anyone wanna buy a 5 yr. old 17" MacBook Pro?

[Mark Spritzler]

I am going to be envious of you Bert. I'll have to live vicariously through you for about a year till I can get a new Laptop. Unless I win the lottery.

Mark

[Bert Bates]

Well it's not a done deal yet Mark. And you have to give some credit, my current MBP is over 5 years old :smile:

[Pat Farrell]

Bert Bates wrote: my current MBP is over 5 years old :smile:

Five years?
Did it cost $15,000 when new and include chips that Intel had not yet designed?

There is no way that I could use a 5 year old laptop. No matter what brand, or power. I usually start running out of power after 24 months or so. By 36 months, I am usually screaming for a newer, faster, more ram, etc. machine.

This is somewhat due to my style, I tend to run everything on the MBP (or other laptop) including DBMS, Tomcat/glassfish/jboss, the IDE and lots and lots of programs, threads, daemons, etc. If I pushed the DBMS off to a separate server, I'd free up resources that could help the machine live a bit longer.

My current machine, a 2gHz x 4 MBP with 8GB of ram is still keeping up fine. Its only 14 months old.

[Bear Bibeault]

Heh, until very recently I still had an iMac G3 in service that I obtained in 1999.

Not as my main system obviously, but still working and in use.

[Bert Bates]

Ok, I fudged a little... I think I actually got it 4 years and 10 months ago. It's got a 2.33 GHz Core 2 Duo w/ 3 gigs of 667 Mhz SDRAM (maxed out ), a 160 gig drive and 1650x1080 pixels.

While not quite as amazing as Bear, my G4 still works. I keep it as a backup, but haven't used it for several years.

[Pat Farrell]

Bear Bibeault wrote:Heh, until very recently I still had an iMac G3 in service that I obtained in 1999.

Depends on your definition of "in service" but the firewall/NAT box that I currently use in production is a dual P3-700 box from 2000. This message will come through it. It was my main webserver (www.pfarrell.com) up until maybe two years ago.

I've got a bunch of workstations that I use for testing that are 2005 or so vintage. but none of my active usage machines are more than two years old.

[Bear Bibeault]

Pat Farrell wrote:Depends on your definition of "in service"

For the iMac it was my kitchen computer for surfing while a sauce reduced, and looking-up/storing recipes.

It's been recently replaced with a newer (but still late model) iMac.

[Steve Fahlbusch]

Bear,

why not have an iPad in the kitchen linked to the mac?

-steve

[Bear Bibeault]

Steve Fahlbusch wrote:why not have an iPad in the kitchen linked to the mac?

Actually, that's exactly where my iPad1 is.