If I could have bought a 13in PC with the same resolution and similar spec to my MBP13 retina for a similar price, I would have. Half of the models i looked at didn't even do 1080p, let alone 2560x1600
I'm switiching from windows to mac,but.....Why are they so expensive!
- Thread starter Kleegamefan
- Start date
- Status
If I could have bought a 13in PC with the same resolution and similar spec to my MBP13 retina for a similar price, I would have. Half of the models i looked at didn't even do 1080p, let alone 2560x1600
ShadowSoldier89
Member
you do remember correctly. And when I was working in repair my personal experience corroborated that report. That report is rather old at this point though, but Asus does make great computers, my little brother still games on a 5 year old Asus ROG with a GTS 360m.
I have little to add to this thread though, hardware specs is the #1 factor in my computer decisions with reliability a distant second. I havent used a laptop in 3 years or so (4 gaming desktops), but if I was buying one today I'd just snag an Asus with good specs.
jts
...hate me...
He's talking out of his ass tbh.
Apple are the prime display tech pushers. All the other LTTP me-toos then surpass the PPI years later, when the PPI was already super high to begin with and then all the wankers are like LOL cRAPPLE very old tech am i rite.
TekGryphon
Banned
No, the only people talking out of their asses are the ones claiming Apple have "pushed technology" for the last half decade.
Apple laptop screens are decent. It's the one area they'll actually invest some money in since it's the one area they can't hide from even the most tech illiterate yahoos. Not that it matters since the rendering power is too weak to do anything beyond movies, not that you'd want to watch 1080p movies on a non-HD (non directly scalable) resolution. I can't count how many times employees ask me to scale their resolution down to 1080p so they can process documents and watch media. That's not an issue centric to Apple, but it shows a flawed value perception.
But even Apple screen quality comes with a big asterisk. If given half a chance, Apple will (and does) skimp on that, too.
Look at the iPhone line. That scrub-tier garbage is STILL sitting at low 300 ppi with a sub-HD screen while Android flagships have been rocking 400+ ppi 1080p screens for MULTIPLE generations.
Dunno where to post this, I'd like to ditch my 5 year old MBP 13" and buy one of the new 13" retina ones. I've got a couple of questions:
- The MBP line was updated last summer. Is there any rumours on new models? Should I wait some months?
- Any news on Apple displays? Or good mid-end alternatives. That Thunderbolt one hasn't been updated in years.
jts
...hate me...
400 to 300 ppi is not a big difference. Just like 1000 ppi is not a big difference from 400ppi, because you won't be able to fully perceive it.
300+ ppi is high ppi. You cannot honestly look at a 300+ and say you noticed the pixels or that it looks low res.
Now when the iPhone 4 came out in 2010 @ 326ppi, the market was still stuck in amateur hour at 200ppi or so. It took more than a year for the Nexus line to catch up.
Same with the iPad, first tablet with such a high resolution display and high dpi.
Same with with the MacBook Pro.
And now the iMac.
It's not only about the resolution though. Apple have always pushed for quality IPS displays with a proper RGB subpixel arrangement and professional grade color calibration, full sRGB support and whatnot.
Meanwhile it was PenTile and over saturation time in Android land. Amateur hour.
You are right though, Apple does it because even the less knowledgable person can tell and appreciate, even not knowing it. They don't do 500+ DPI and quad-cores and 7GB of RAM that you need a spec sheet to tell that those are there. They do what contributes significantly for the user experience with the device. Their rendering power is too weak? Do you know the A8? The A8x? What planet are exactly you living in?
I'm done here. You can keep bickering if you want.
TekGryphon
Banned
Joke post? Must be joke post.
33% more ppi on a HD screen is "barely noticeably" better than a sub-HD screen? Next you'll be telling me that having 200% more RAM is of negligible value, even when developers are abandoning iOS rather than continue working in their garbage 1 GB RAM environment in 2015.
Oh wait, you did claim exactly that, LOL!
And oh lawd bringing up the iPhone 4. The phone where the screen was the only decent (hell, the only working) thing about it, and that done after the abysmal 150-tier ppi 3 and 3s. The phone that had a fucking recall because it didn't even work as a phone.
33% more ppi on a HD screen is "barely noticeably" better than a sub-HD screen? Next you'll be telling me that having 200% more RAM is of negligible value, even when developers are abandoning iOS rather than continue working in their garbage 1 GB RAM environment in 2015.
Oh wait, you did claim exactly that, LOL!
And oh lawd bringing up the iPhone 4. The phone where the screen was the only decent (hell, the only working) thing about it, and that done after the abysmal 150-tier ppi 3 and 3s. The phone that had a fucking recall because it didn't even work as a phone.
- Status