| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
| Dispelling the 'Retina' myth |
| By Thom Holwerda on 2012-08-11 14:31:12 |
| "I decided to write this post after having too many heated discussions with many users across many blogs. After hearing repeatedly; 'The iPad will have a better display' or 'It sucks because it's not Retina' I figured it was time to break the argument down and dispel the 'Retina' myth." Fantastic post at The Verge. |
|
| Comment by kaiwai |
| By kaiwai on 2012-08-11 17:33:23 |
| Sorry to say this but how is this news? marketing hype is shown for what it is - marketing hype? I'm sorry for all the MacBook Pro 'Retina' devotees - I can't see the bloody difference between my MacBook Pro (2011) and the current MacBook Pro with 'Retina' display. Sure, I have glasses on but my eye sight isn't totally shot given that I sat at the computer looking at the two side by side in the shop and couldn't tell the difference. It reminds me very much of the point I made when chatting to a Sun Microsystems Java engineer regarding evangelising Java - generate hype so that people demand something even if they don't know what the hell it is but they've heard that they must have it in their device. Same situation here - how many people do you see demanding stuff and don't have the slightest clue as to why they should have it? I've seen it many times. Quite frankly I put Retina and Siri into that category - marketing hype used to drag customers in but when the rubber hits the road and is evaluated with a discerning eye the hype is seen for it is - hype. |
 - Score: 11 |
| RE[2]: Completely misses the point. |
| By akrosdbay on 2012-08-11 17:35:11 |
|
> I think you have reading comprehension problem. The article addresses that, saying: > That's right even the lowly 1366x768 resolution is "Retina" at more than 22"[..] 2' == 24". Duh? ..And it also shows how people normally use (or hold) their tablets. It is you that has a reading comprehension problem. At more than 22 inches means at less than 22 inches it is not retina. The articles uses pretty odd examples for typical use. Reading/Browsing in bed is not one of them. People tend to hold their books or tablets at about 12 inches may be 14" at times when in bed. |
| - Score: 0 |
| RE[4]: I understand the argument, but its messed up. |
| By Bill Shooter of Bul on 2012-08-11 17:48:06 |
| F*ck Style. Form after function. |
| - Score: 4 |
| RE[4]: I understand the argument, but its messed up. |
| By Bill Shooter of Bul on 2012-08-11 17:49:31 |
| That is a good point that I was thinking about after my post. Surface is designed to be both a tablet and a laptop. I just wish the screens were larger like 14-15 inch, and it was loaded up with plasma active. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE: Comment by kaiwai |
| By REM2000 on 2012-08-11 18:18:43 |
|
Im must be in the other category as i can tell a retina display from a few paces. For me Retina is all about text, web pages, documents and PDF's look a lot better as does a lot of the elements of the UI. I don't have a retina laptop but when playing with one i could see the difference straight away. I do own an iPad 3 and again i can really see the difference when looking through web pages and large PDF's it's a real pleasure to use one of these with the only device which displays text as well being a kindle (or any kind of ebook read). |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[6]: I understand the argument, but its messed up. |
| By 0brad0 on 2012-08-11 18:40:15 |
|
> You have the amazing ability to either be two people at once, or to reply to a comment not aimed at you. Unfortunately I have to disappoint you and say I am only one person and I can comment on whatever I want to. Edited 2012-08-11 18:42 UTC |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai |
| By Yehppael on 2012-08-11 18:50:29 |
|
I have a laptop, which, 80% of the time I use for reading. Not feeling the need for a tablet or e-reader yet, but I can tell you this; when I start reading, I don't notice how the book looks, the fonts, the colors, shapes, everything goes away. I remember the first time I got my first 1024*768 monitor, and most websites were optimized for 800*600 ... I don't want that experience again. |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE[7]: I understand the argument, but its messed up. |
| By SaschaW on 2012-08-11 20:19:42 |
| Do your parents know that you are still not in bed yet? |
| - Score: 3 |
| Smell our delicious vapor |
| By atsureki on 2012-08-11 20:34:47 |
|
Everybody sing along, you know the words: future speculative competitor product Y will be better than today's shipping Apple product that actually exists X, and the Apple fanboys are stupid for not admitting it, because I'm mad at Apple because nitpick Z. X = iPad Y = Surface Z = Retina We have our terms; now let's see the proof. > This is why the title says the Surface Pro has a "better" Retina display than the iPad. At normal viewing distances, there is no difference. None. Zero. Nada. The end result gives users an amazing visual experience while leaving more GPU headroom for things like scrolling, hardware-accelerated browsing, better games & more. It provides better battery life & less heat. "Pro" in this case means "Intel", and Intel means less battery life and more heat than ARM. (They showed off prototype Intel tablets at CES with cooling fans in them. Fans. In tablets.) I haven't heard or seen any direct comparisons with WP7, but iOS always significantly outclasses Android on touch responsiveness, so where's the problem supposedly introduced by Retina's GPU demands? Is the argument just that if anyone other than Apple made a Retina device, it would suck? That doesn't seem to fit the tone (/agenda) of the article. Also, Surface doesn't even work yet (froze on stage, they didn't let anyone touch it), so I doubt it'll set any new benchmarks for smoothness when/if it ships. I don't own any Retina devices (or even any iOS devices, for that matter), but I totally get it. It would be fantastic to zoom in and out on a PDF with my own eyes and face, as if it were a printed sheet of paper, rather than fiddling around with zoom and scroll controls. It's like a whole second layer of visual data constantly available. Displays have been the weak link in Moore's Law for a long time, and I like that Apple is trying to push them forward. So... yeah. Once again we're fantasizing about a future product that might be better than Apple's current product for various specious reasons. And probably still won't be. But you know what probably will be better than Apple's current product? Apple's future product. This is why boasts about vaporware are not interesting. Also, the Surface still doesn't work, and is still priceless. Great product. Huge success, I'm sure. (This Microsoft advertising blurb is a "fantastic post" while the careful breakdown of Apple's trade dress claims was a "terrible visual guide"? Thom, give it a rest. If you have any credibility left at all, it can't survive much more of this crusade against Apple.) |
| - Score: 0 |
| Resolution when you want it... |
| By bert64 on 2012-08-11 22:26:08 |
|
While it's true that the resolution offers little benefit from 2 feet away, there are use cases (such as reading books in bed etc) where you will use the tablet from much closer than 2 feet... Also instances where you will look more closely to see detail, eg when viewing pictures. For cases where the extra resolution doesn't provide benefit, you could always render at a lower resolution and scale with the gpu - scaling up video with a gpu takes very little power compared to rendering it at a higher resolution to start with. |
| - Score: 2 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |