It seems now apple is slowly leaking what iDevices wont be getting the iOS6 Features.
3GS and iphone 4 wont be getting the Map App, that replaces the google maps function. this is defiantly a case of Apple cutting support to older devices as a way to force users to upgrade as the maps are supplied by tom tom, and the tom tom App works great on iphone 4, and with some functionality on the 3GS.
3GS and iphone 4 wont be getting FaceTime over 3G, no real issue i've only ever used it once.
Where did you read this?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Commies count their quarters and the ArtSci wish they could, the Engs have the longest pole and slam it home for good, so big, so hard, so tall, it reaches all the way to heaven, so shut your hole, we climbed the pole, we're sci 1 ing 7!!!
I think the retina display is absolutely amazing. Of course, they still lag behind with other things, but i think they are going the right direction with the display.
It would be great to be able to edit a 1080p photo or video without it taking the full screen at 100%. Obviously its not for gaming, whatever apple claims. I really see it being used with a photographer/videographer needing something that he can edit without feeling cramped on the fly. It still would take quite some time to render, however.
Afaik, you can't use the full resolution, it uses it with scaling. I might be wrong about that though.
The price is still a bit on the high side. If they could get that around the $1500 range, probably still trying to stay on the low side of that, that would probably be pretty fair, considering that no other laptop is in the market with a resolution that size. But you know apple, charging a fortune for something bizzarre. Thats just how they are.
Well, at least they still have a somewhat-less-insane priced laptop for sale, the 13" MBP. Still, it's nowhere near as nice as anything else in that price range.. The retina ones are only better than current gen laptops because of the display, you can easily get a massive SSD for that budget.
Still, let's compare a 15" $1900 2.3GHz QC i7 with 8GB of RAM, a 500GB slow drive and the 650M to what else is out there.
Sager looks like a nice alternative...
15.6" 1920x1080 display (much better than the MBP!)
No dead pixel policy (wait, you have to pay extra for this?)
7970M with 2GB VRAM (WAY better than the MBP)
Identical CPU
8GB RAM (Same as the MBP)
60GB SSD (better than the MBP)
500GB 7200RPM HDD (faster than the MBP)
Price? $1849.
Yeah... Those non-retina display MBPs are **** for value.
On another topic, Mountain Lion for $20? i cant wait for it. Definitely worth $20 to get some new feature to keep going from an iphone/ipad to your computer fluidly.
Hackintoshing just got $10 cheaper. $20 for OSX vs $250 for the "ultimate" version of Windows 7.. Hard choice, right?
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.” — Albert Einstein
"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig." — Robert Heinlein
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.” — Albert Einstein
"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig." — Robert Heinlein
IFixit ranked it as the least reparable computer ever.
The RAM is soldered to the mobo, the SSD is nowhere near standard, and the display is all stuck together making it unserviceable. Also the battery is glued to the chassis.
-snip-
Hackintoshing just got $10 cheaper. $20 for OSX vs $250 for the "ultimate" version of Windows 7.. Hard choice, right?
That depends. There is no "Ultimate" version of OSX. So OSX is basically 5 times less then Windows 7 Home Premium OEM. Then again you get more support from Microsoft products for about 10 years (MSE for XP).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise, it's continuing mission to explore a strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no one has gone before.”-Gene Roddenberry
That depends. There is no "Ultimate" version of OSX. So OSX is basically 5 times less then Windows 7 Home Premium OEM. Then again you get more support from Microsoft products for about 10 years (MSE for XP).
Unlike OEM versions, OSX doesn't have a limit on the amount of computers it can be installed on (or at least it hasn't caused me any issues when installing it on four separate computers), and you need at least Pro to compare directly to ML/Lion due to Premium having the artificial 16GB RAM limit. In addition, there are features like full unrestricted multilanguage support and on-the-fly language switching in OSX that only Ultimate has.
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.” — Albert Einstein
"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig." — Robert Heinlein
More pixels is nice. I can see the pixels on my Gs2, which is 480x800, and the screen on the iphone 4s is perfectly smooth and crisp. It is a nice thing to have, but it seems most people here don't appreciate high pixel density, or don't have the eyesight to notice it.
What i am trying to say, is that apple isn't doing any thing new or creative, despite how much it thinks it is. Also, the pixel density of the iphone 4s is beyond what the human eye can distinguish. So it seems that most people are incapable of apreciating high pixel density.
What i am trying to say, is that apple isn't doing any thing new or creative, despite how much it thinks it is. Also, the pixel density of the iphone 4s is beyond what the human eye can distinguish. So it seems that most people are incapable of apreciating high pixel density.
The whole point is that it's slightly higher or at the max density that a human eye can see. I'm very happy with my iPT4G, it was a huge upgrade over my 3G because of the screen alone. The image is crisp, and it's pretty much impossible to see pixels on it. Everything looks much better with that much resolution available.
On the other hand, I don't think the tech is ready for laptops/desktops yet. It needs to become more affordable first.
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.” — Albert Einstein
"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig." — Robert Heinlein
* Text looks like print or better. If you don't see a point to high resolution, then please go ask all magazine publishers to reduce their print to 50dpi so we can have a hard time reading it.
* Jagged lines are extremely easy to see on a computer screen with 100dpi, not so easy to spot with higher dpi. A 4K monitor would be better than 1800p, but we settle for "retina" for now until technology catches up.
* Some people have good vision (I happen to suffer from this ailment) and so are plagued by seeing pixels and having to deal with crappy resolution because nay sayers always complain "why do we need better technology? Why can't we just use the same old crappy technology that already barely works? I can't tell the difference anyway, so f$%# all the people who can tell the difference and stop updating technology." (Warning: tongue-in-cheek)
That's basically it: better text and more space to work on important stuff like 1080p video and playing games.
What i am trying to say, is that apple isn't doing any thing new or creative, despite how much it thinks it is. Also, the pixel density of the iphone 4s is beyond what the human eye can distinguish. So it seems that most people are incapable of apreciating high pixel density.
Right on. Sony had 1080p on a 13" monitor about 4-5 years ago. Apple is just now catching up, but all the sheep love to go on about Apple...
300dpi may be beyond what the human eye can distinguish, but it's better to be just beyond. That way one is guaranteed to have the best viewing experience. OTOH, having a higher density could come in handy for cases like editing full 1080p inside a window while only taking up 40% of the available space. (See my previous comment for an example.)
Right on. Sony had 1080p on a 13" monitor about 4-5 years ago. Apple is just now catching up, but all the sheep love to go on about Apple...
300dpi may be beyond what the human eye can distinguish, but it's better to be just beyond. That way one is guaranteed to have the best viewing experience. OTOH, having a higher density could come in handy for cases like editing full 1080p inside a window while only taking up 40% of the available space. (See my previous comment for an example.)
WHY DID YOU BUMP A 4 MONTH OLD TOPIC.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise, it's continuing mission to explore a strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no one has gone before.”-Gene Roddenberry
Wow, it's been 4 months since then? Time goes fast here...
Wait its October? Holy [profanity="shit"] (glad there is a censor edit: I have it showing profanity but it doesn't show, huh?) last time I checked it was August...
Where did you read this?
It's my thread, I didn't want to open a new one for feedback on a build I'm still $550 and some driver support away from.
Yeah, but it's expensive!
Afaik, you can't use the full resolution, it uses it with scaling. I might be wrong about that though.
Well, at least they still have a somewhat-less-insane priced laptop for sale, the 13" MBP. Still, it's nowhere near as nice as anything else in that price range.. The retina ones are only better than current gen laptops because of the display, you can easily get a massive SSD for that budget.
Still, let's compare a 15" $1900 2.3GHz QC i7 with 8GB of RAM, a 500GB slow drive and the 650M to what else is out there.
Sager looks like a nice alternative...
15.6" 1920x1080 display (much better than the MBP!)
No dead pixel policy (wait, you have to pay extra for this?)
7970M with 2GB VRAM (WAY better than the MBP)
Identical CPU
8GB RAM (Same as the MBP)
60GB SSD (better than the MBP)
500GB 7200RPM HDD (faster than the MBP)
Price? $1849.
Yeah... Those non-retina display MBPs are **** for value.
Hackintoshing just got $10 cheaper. $20 for OSX vs $250 for the "ultimate" version of Windows 7.. Hard choice, right?
"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig." — Robert Heinlein
http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/MacBook-Pro-with-Retina-Display-Teardown/9462/1#.T9k2ErWe58F
Its interesting.
2 or 3 months.A long-ass time.Oh boy, visual basic. I can barely contain my excitement. Not.
MBP 15" "retina display"
$3250
2.7GHz QC i7
16GB RAM
512GB SSD
With this big of a budget, you can get a monster computer.
1920x1080 no dead pixels screen
680M with 4GB VRAM (WUT)
2.7GHz QC i7
16GB RAM
512GB SSD
750GB HDD
Total: $3134
Sooo... It might not have this nice display, but it kicks the MBP's ass on everything else.
"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig." — Robert Heinlein
The RAM is soldered to the mobo, the SSD is nowhere near standard, and the display is all stuck together making it unserviceable. Also the battery is glued to the chassis.
That depends. There is no "Ultimate" version of OSX. So OSX is basically 5 times less then Windows 7 Home Premium OEM. Then again you get more support from Microsoft products for about 10 years (MSE for XP).
Unlike OEM versions, OSX doesn't have a limit on the amount of computers it can be installed on (or at least it hasn't caused me any issues when installing it on four separate computers), and you need at least Pro to compare directly to ML/Lion due to Premium having the artificial 16GB RAM limit. In addition, there are features like full unrestricted multilanguage support and on-the-fly language switching in OSX that only Ultimate has.
"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig." — Robert Heinlein
What i am trying to say, is that apple isn't doing any thing new or creative, despite how much it thinks it is. Also, the pixel density of the iphone 4s is beyond what the human eye can distinguish. So it seems that most people are incapable of apreciating high pixel density.
The whole point is that it's slightly higher or at the max density that a human eye can see. I'm very happy with my iPT4G, it was a huge upgrade over my 3G because of the screen alone. The image is crisp, and it's pretty much impossible to see pixels on it. Everything looks much better with that much resolution available.
On the other hand, I don't think the tech is ready for laptops/desktops yet. It needs to become more affordable first.
"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig." — Robert Heinlein
On the other hand, it does have intake, whereas the older MBP didn't have any except for keyboard and ports (the kensington lock is 80% of airflow...)
The point is to have high pixel density.
* Go check out http://financialpress.com/2012/06/12/why-go-retina-apple-dishes-out-lots-of-reasons/ and look at the picture they show there. That's 1080p being rendered FULL SIZE, pixel for pixel inside Final Cut Pro with plenty of extra space for the rest of the interface.
* Text looks like print or better. If you don't see a point to high resolution, then please go ask all magazine publishers to reduce their print to 50dpi so we can have a hard time reading it.
* Jagged lines are extremely easy to see on a computer screen with 100dpi, not so easy to spot with higher dpi. A 4K monitor would be better than 1800p, but we settle for "retina" for now until technology catches up.
* Some people have good vision (I happen to suffer from this ailment) and so are plagued by seeing pixels and having to deal with crappy resolution because nay sayers always complain "why do we need better technology? Why can't we just use the same old crappy technology that already barely works? I can't tell the difference anyway, so f$%# all the people who can tell the difference and stop updating technology." (Warning: tongue-in-cheek)
That's basically it: better text and more space to work on important stuff like 1080p video and playing games.
Right on. Sony had 1080p on a 13" monitor about 4-5 years ago. Apple is just now catching up, but all the sheep love to go on about Apple...
300dpi may be beyond what the human eye can distinguish, but it's better to be just beyond. That way one is guaranteed to have the best viewing experience. OTOH, having a higher density could come in handy for cases like editing full 1080p inside a window while only taking up 40% of the available space. (See my previous comment for an example.)
WHY DID YOU BUMP A 4 MONTH OLD TOPIC.
What is up with the Mac Pro? Seriously, an iMac easily beats it at everything but rendering (not that you'd WANT an iMac in the first place)