Next gen MacBook Pro announced, starts at $2,199!

Super sexy laptop, great specs, but I just don't understand that resolution. What's the point when the display is so small? Nothing is going to take advantage of it, not web pages, not videos, not games, etc.Guppy507

It's to draw the idiots out and encourage them to play double or triple the price for nothing in return. OMG RETENANNA DISPLAYYYY!!!!!

Meanwhile the guy who spent $800 on an ultrabook has just as good a screen, the same or better specs, a superior OS, and an extra $2k in his pocket.

Super sexy laptop, great specs, but I just don't understand that resolution. What's the point when the display is so small? Nothing is going to take advantage of it, not web pages, not videos, not games, etc.Guppy507

It's to draw the idiots out and encourage them to play double or triple the price for nothing in return. OMG RETENANNA DISPLAYYYY!!!!!

Meanwhile the guy who spent $800 on an ultrabook has just as good a screen, the same or better specs, a superior OS, and an extra $2k in his pocket.

[QUOTE="JohnF111"] As far as i'm concerned the only thing Apple does right is slavery. On a serious note: Way too expensive for a designer piece of pretty plastic.Slow_Show

That is just a reasonable comment. Especially because I'm sure all the components in your PC/phone/TV/*insert consumer electronic device here* are sourced only from factories that run on rainbows and the power of love, right?

Super sexy laptop, great specs, but I just don't understand that resolution. What's the point when the display is so small? Nothing is going to take advantage of it, not web pages, not videos, not games, etc.Guppy507

The way that OSX handles resolution is not the same as the way windows handles resolutions. When you get a higher resolution in windows, you get more desktop space. In OSX, your desktop space does not change, the crispness of the picture is what improves.

So everything will be the exact same demension as if it were a 1440x900 or 1920x1200 or 2560x1600 screen, just sharper.

[QUOTE="Guppy507"]Super sexy laptop, great specs, but I just don't understand that resolution. What's the point when the display is so small? Nothing is going to take advantage of it, not web pages, not videos, not games, etc.GummiRaccoon

The way that OSX handles resolution is not the same as the way windows handles resolutions. When you get a higher resolution in windows, you get more desktop space. In OSX, your desktop space does not change, the crispness of the picture is what improves.

So everything will be the exact same demension as if it were a 1440x900 or 1920x1200 or 2560x1600 screen, just sharper.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="Guppy507"]Super sexy laptop, great specs, but I just don't understand that resolution. What's the point when the display is so small? Nothing is going to take advantage of it, not web pages, not videos, not games, etc.KHAndAnime

The way that OSX handles resolution is not the same as the way windows handles resolutions. When you get a higher resolution in windows, you get more desktop space. In OSX, your desktop space does not change, the crispness of the picture is what improves.

So everything will be the exact same demension as if it were a 1440x900 or 1920x1200 or 2560x1600 screen, just sharper.

The reason they call it retina display is because the pixel density is such that you cannot discern individual pixels at the typical viewing distance. For instance I am typing this on my 17" monitor and I can see a the pixels from a little over 2 feet, the dot on my i's is exactly one pixel. On a retina display it would appear to me as a circular dot, not a square pixel

I am going to tell you about a place, visualize it with me:

There is a place, where pixels are too small to be seen on displays from the distance people view them

In this place people do not know the word "anti-aliasing"

Come join me in this place.

The better apples huge resolution electronics sell, the faster we will all get to this place.

Some day friends, some day.

GummiRaccoon

[QUOTE="Guppy507"]Super sexy laptop, great specs, but I just don't understand that resolution. What's the point when the display is so small? Nothing is going to take advantage of it, not web pages, not videos, not games, etc.xxxLUGZxxx

It's to draw the idiots out and encourage them to play double or triple the price for nothing in return. OMG RETENANNA DISPLAYYYY!!!!!

Meanwhile the guy who spent $800 on an ultrabook has just as good a screen, the same or better specs, a superior OS, and an extra $2k in his pocket.

lookup how the laptop renders the screen on anandtech if you have a brain

it's not the same as windows

Anandtech shows the contrast of the screen is 850:1. These are the things which MATTER and the macbook is absolutely nothing special here. The industry needs to move forward towards' display's that can actually show real black and dont have any motion blur instead of increasing pixels that nobody can notice and yet eat up resources.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

I am going to tell you about a place, visualize it with me:

There is a place, where pixels are too small to be seen on displays from the distance people view them

In this place people do not know the word "anti-aliasing"

Come join me in this place.

The better apples huge resolution electronics sell, the faster we will all get to this place.

Some day friends, some day.

Gambler_3

4x3Ghz = 12

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

I am going to tell you about a place, visualize it with me:

There is a place, where pixels are too small to be seen on displays from the distance people view them

In this place people do not know the word "anti-aliasing"

Come join me in this place.

The better apples huge resolution electronics sell, the faster we will all get to this place.

Some day friends, some day.

Gambler_3

But high pixel density looks better. When we have reasonable GPU solutions that can comfortably power these resolutions, it will be much better than current resolutions + AA.C_Rule

The cost of such resolution is battery life which is obviously one of the key areas for a portable device. The ipad 3 packs in a battery twice the size of the ipad 2 and yet they both last the same time, all due to some friggin pixels. What you lose in return is a heavier tablet that takes twice the time to charge. Not to mention the ipad 3 is worse than ipad 2 in gaming performance and can fry eggs when its hot.

I understand the macbook isnt for gamers but still this whole pixel density trend is affecting gaming devices as well like smartphones. We certainly dont have the GPU solutions for ultra high res gaming yet.

I will agree that we should wait for battery and GPU technology to catch up, before we go into crazy resolutions. But it can be noticed, though. My dad has a 3GS which has a 165 ppi screen and I have a Defy+ with a 265 ppi screen. The difference is very clear and means you don't need to zoom in as much too make out letters on a web page, so more words on the screen. On the downside though, the 3GS has a MUCH better battery life than the Defy+.C_Rule

But a laptop is never going to be used at the same distance from the eye as a smartphone so thats why the difference is not going to be big at all. My computer monitor has 90PPI and at every normal sitting position I cant see any pixels or anything that makes me feel the resolution is low. Ofcourse a 15" laptop could do with more PPI than what a 22" desktop monitor needs but 220 is just over board.

The only scenario where more PPI can only be a good thing is a non-gaming desktop.

Overpriced its a nice resolution but there really is no point 1080p is more than enough plus i'm not sure what would use it besides programs viedo still tops off at 1080p

[QUOTE="C_Rule"]I will agree that we should wait for battery and GPU technology to catch up, before we go into crazy resolutions. But it can be noticed, though. My dad has a 3GS which has a 165 ppi screen and I have a Defy+ with a 265 ppi screen. The difference is very clear and means you don't need to zoom in as much too make out letters on a web page, so more words on the screen. On the downside though, the 3GS has a MUCH better battery life than the Defy+.Gambler_3

But a laptop is never going to be used at the same distance from the eye as a smartphone so thats why the difference is not going to be big at all. My computer monitor has 90PPI and at every normal sitting position I cant see any pixels or anything that makes me feel the resolution is low. Ofcourse a 15" laptop could do with more PPI than what a 22" desktop monitor needs but 220 is just over board.

The only scenario where more PPI can only be a good thing is a non-gaming desktop.

They take into account what the probable viewing distance will be when calling it a retina display.

They take into account what the probable viewing distance will be when calling it a retina display.

GummiRaccoon

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

They take into account what the probable viewing distance will be when calling it a retina display.

Gambler_3

I think it is time for you to visit and optometrist.

[QUOTE="KHAndAnime"][QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

The way that OSX handles resolution is not the same as the way windows handles resolutions. When you get a higher resolution in windows, you get more desktop space. In OSX, your desktop space does not change, the crispness of the picture is what improves.

So everything will be the exact same demension as if it were a 1440x900 or 1920x1200 or 2560x1600 screen, just sharper.

GummiRaccoon

The reason they call it retina display is because the pixel density is such that you cannot discern individual pixels at the typical viewing distance. For instance I am typing this on my 17" monitor and I can see a the pixels from a little over 2 feet, the dot on my i's is exactly one pixel. On a retina display it would appear to me as a circular dot, not a square pixel

Why would somone spend $2200 on a MacBook "pro", when one can spend almost $900 less and get a superior product?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834230170

Why would somone spend $2200 on a MacBook "pro", when one can spend almost $900 less and get a superior product?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834230170

xxxLUGZxxx

[QUOTE="xxxLUGZxxx"]

Why would somone spend $2200 on a MacBook "pro", when one can spend almost $900 less and get a superior product?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834230170

C_Rule

It's superior because it's price/performance ratio blows the MBP out of the water. Anything the MBP has that's superior to the linked ultrabook is completely unnecessary. so it's irrelevant.

[QUOTE="xxxLUGZxxx"]

Why would somone spend $2200 on a MacBook "pro", when one can spend almost $900 less and get a superior product?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834230170

C_Rule

OSX is actually superior to Win7 in some ways.

Why would somone spend $2200 on a MacBook "pro", when one can spend almost $900 less and get a superior product?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834230170

xxxLUGZxxx

[QUOTE="C_Rule"][QUOTE="xxxLUGZxxx"]

Why would somone spend $2200 on a MacBook "pro", when one can spend almost $900 less and get a superior product?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834230170

GummiRaccoon

OSX is actually superior to Win7 in some ways.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="C_Rule"] How is that superior? >_> The only thing it has over the MBP is a better OS.JigglyWiggly_

OSX is actually superior to Win7 in some ways.

In windows 7 a user has to be administrator to do anything meaningful. in OSX this is not the case. And elevating a standard user to administrator status for one action is far superior to having a locked down account and then having to switch users and log in as an admin in windows 7.

while I don't like apple I respect that they are helping push hardware to new boundaries. I also thank all the apple fans for buying the overpriced products :D

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="Guppy507"]Super sexy laptop, great specs, but I just don't understand that resolution. What's the point when the display is so small? Nothing is going to take advantage of it, not web pages, not videos, not games, etc.KHAndAnime

The way that OSX handles resolution is not the same as the way windows handles resolutions. When you get a higher resolution in windows, you get more desktop space. In OSX, your desktop space does not change, the crispness of the picture is what improves.

So everything will be the exact same demension as if it were a 1440x900 or 1920x1200 or 2560x1600 screen, just sharper.

Mac laptops have 2 things going for them...

- Aestheticlly pleasing.

- Good battery life.

They are still way overpriced. You can get a better quality PC laptop for hundreds or even thousands cheaper. Plus most PC laptops can be upgraded in certain areas.

[QUOTE="JigglyWiggly_"][QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

OSX is actually superior to Win7 in some ways.

GummiRaccoon

In windows 7 a user has to be administrator to do anything meaningful. in OSX this is not the case. And elevating a standard user to administrator status for one action is far superior to having a locked down account and then having to switch users and log in as an admin in windows 7.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="JigglyWiggly_"] nahJigglyWiggly_

In windows 7 a user has to be administrator to do anything meaningful. in OSX this is not the case. And elevating a standard user to administrator status for one action is far superior to having a locked down account and then having to switch users and log in as an admin in windows 7.

congrats on knowing how to delete everything

http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/11/3078215/apple-stub-etc-whatevs

The base model has a 2880x1800 "retina" display, a 2.3ghz i7, a GTX650m, 8 gigs of RAM, and a 256 gig SSD. The top end one, costing over $3,000, has 16 gigs of RAM and a 768gb SSD.

The specs are pretty awesome, but you certainly won't run any games at the resolution. And it costs a LOT for what you get. Does Apple actually think people will buy them?

WiiRocks66

http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/11/3078215/apple-stub-etc-whatevs

The base model has a 2880x1800 "retina" display, a 2.3ghz i7, a GTX650m, 8 gigs of RAM, and a 256 gig SSD. The top end one, costing over $3,000, has 16 gigs of RAM and a 768gb SSD.

The specs are pretty awesome, but you certainly won't run any games at the resolution. And it costs a LOT for what you get. Does Apple actually think people will buy them?

WiiRocks66

http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/11/3078215/apple-stub-etc-whatevs

The base model has a 2880x1800 "retina" display, a 2.3ghz i7, a GTX650m, 8 gigs of RAM, and a 256 gig SSD. The top end one, costing over $3,000, has 16 gigs of RAM and a 768gb SSD.

The specs are pretty awesome, but you certainly won't run any games at the resolution. And it costs a LOT for what you get. Does Apple actually think people will buy them?

WiiRocks66

I saw one in store, I have to say that display was the best I've seen on any laptop/PC. Yeah it's a lot but Apple products also have a great resell value so that's something to consider.

[QUOTE="JigglyWiggly_"][QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

In windows 7 a user has to be administrator to do anything meaningful. in OSX this is not the case. And elevating a standard user to administrator status for one action is far superior to having a locked down account and then having to switch users and log in as an admin in windows 7.

GummiRaccoon

congrats on knowing how to delete everything

ty

too much power can be bad for mac ppl

Lol, Macs, that is all.=3

[QUOTE="xxxLUGZxxx"]

Why would somone spend $2200 on a MacBook "pro", when one can spend almost $900 less and get a superior product?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834230170

Guppy507

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="JigglyWiggly_"] rm -rfv /*JigglyWiggly_

congrats on knowing how to delete everything

ty

too much power can be bad for mac ppl

As for the switching users thing, all you need to do is right click and Run As Admin, type in the password and away you go, not much different from typing sudo on linux.

Wow, this thread took off:P

Anyways, I went and saw one today. OSX is hardware accelerated and typically very smooth. And yet, it was lagging during simple tasks, like scrolling in Safari. I also tried the latest Chrome canary build, since it is optimized for the display, and it still lagged. Apple's own OS and software was laggy on it. Then I went to the new MBP without the retina display and tried the same tasks. It was very smooth. Also, I hate the fact that it doesn't have an optical drive. All in all, it was NOT worth anywhere near $2,200. For that price, it should have a 690m.