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...
Eliminate fossil fuel subsidies. (If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much room.)
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?
Joined: Oct 14, 2002
Aha! They are doing some "pixel doubling" by default:
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.
Joined: Oct 14, 2002
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!
Bert Bates wrote: my current MBP is over 5 years old :smile:
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 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.