3 ms·

Your argument is silly and pretentious. The quality of the Retina screen is simply better—no fanboyism, no dogma, it's just a higher quality picture, period. I

Your argument is silly and pretentious. The quality of the Retina screen is simply better—no fanboyism, no dogma, it's just a higher quality picture, period. It's nice to read sharper fonts, it's nice that the interface scales natively, and it just looks great. It's not about "admiring" anything, it's not about being out-of-touch with the "real world audience"—it's just a higher quality piece of technology. Furthermore, this statement from the original article is simply false: "the 13” Retina, like the 15” Retina, can scale to a simulated 1680 × 1050, but it doesn’t look nearly as good" As the author notes, the only problem with the higher-resolution scaling is performance, and even then the Intel 4000 integrated graphics actually still handles it with relative ease. Apple is slightly ahead of their time here. The technology really is stunning, and in practical use it still works well. Performance is a slight issue when scaling to higher desktop areas, but the tradeoff for more real estate is more than worth it. The truth is that the screen gives you more options for how to size and use your display, not fewer as this article seems to imply. The limitations are slight, and in this and future models, software and hardware will surely continue to improve. In short: the death of the high-dpi display has been greatly exaggerated. Don't pay attention to this FUD, just try one yourself for an extended period of time.

brudgers 14y ago
The article's critique found shortcomings due to the way in which Apple's decisions regarding the display negatively impacted the utility of the computer. Different people have different needs. Some will engage in tasks which entail functional system performance; others tasks which entail gazing at their screen in admiration. There may not be a single product which meets both their needs.
- calinet6 14y ago
  My point was not whether your critique was valid—certainly you're allowed to come to those conclusions based on your own needs. My point was that your argument was silly and pretentious, and I stand by that, because you say things like "gazing at their screen in admiration" in an insulting fashion, as if those who appreciate a good detailed and bright display somehow have trivial and laughable requirements. I don't claim that there is a single product that meets these needs, but I do claim that the arguments brought on this product specifically by you and the original author are baseless. In other words, you're welcome to criticize the product all you want based on your requirements, but don't pass it off as though your snarky analysis is valuable in any objective way.
  - brudgers 14y ago
    I made no claims about the product. I commented upon Apple's branding. I find the way in which Apple brands it's widgets far more interesting than their specifications due to the way in which that branding affects online discourse. For example, your "argument" is centered on specifications of components rather than productivity in a way which parallels Apple's branding - to the point where your "argument" depends upon ignoring computing performance. Objectively, there is nothing wrong with valuing one set of specifications (display resolution) over another (computational benchmarks). But objectively, there is nothing right about it either. Except of course as it applies to an individual case. Pointing out that individual cases are the basis for determining what is better, is expedited by pointing to an absurd example. Perhaps, the one I chose was not absurd enough.

brudgers 14y ago

The article's critique found shortcomings due to the way in which Apple's decisions regarding the display negatively impacted the utility of the computer. Different people have different needs. Some will engage in tasks which entail functional system performance; others tasks which entail gazing at their screen in admiration. There may not be a single product which meets both their needs.

calinet6 14y ago
My point was not whether your critique was valid—certainly you're allowed to come to those conclusions based on your own needs. My point was that your argument was silly and pretentious, and I stand by that, because you say things like "gazing at their screen in admiration" in an insulting fashion, as if those who appreciate a good detailed and bright display somehow have trivial and laughable requirements. I don't claim that there is a single product that meets these needs, but I do claim that the arguments brought on this product specifically by you and the original author are baseless. In other words, you're welcome to criticize the product all you want based on your requirements, but don't pass it off as though your snarky analysis is valuable in any objective way.
- brudgers 14y ago
  I made no claims about the product. I commented upon Apple's branding. I find the way in which Apple brands it's widgets far more interesting than their specifications due to the way in which that branding affects online discourse. For example, your "argument" is centered on specifications of components rather than productivity in a way which parallels Apple's branding - to the point where your "argument" depends upon ignoring computing performance. Objectively, there is nothing wrong with valuing one set of specifications (display resolution) over another (computational benchmarks). But objectively, there is nothing right about it either. Except of course as it applies to an individual case. Pointing out that individual cases are the basis for determining what is better, is expedited by pointing to an absurd example. Perhaps, the one I chose was not absurd enough.