Why are the MAC's and apple stuff so expensive?

[Perineum]

Hmmm, I only see you arguing about the lack of advantages for a higher resolution screen. Please enlighten me with tests showing that people don't like more pixels.

There is a very consistent theme to your argument style. Comparing a useless screen to an SSD. Asking for tests showing people don't like more pixels.

Most people are stat whores. They'd pick something that was 0.021% faster or "better" everytime because it A: gives them something to brag about and B: they feel they got better value for their money.

People going to a gas station is a perfect example. If someone else was paying for gas most people would chose 94 octane to fill their car with, regardless of the brand or model of their car..... because they'd want the "good stuff". 94 is better than 87, right? Truth is, higher octane is the ability of gasoline to resist burning. Higher octane gas will run worse in your daily commuter than 87 would.

A retina screen is like a wing on a civic. It's like a sport edition of a minivan. Sure it's there, and people like it, but it is definitely useless.

I'm not going to be able to find a study showing that people don't like more pixels, much in the same way I'm not going to find a study that shows that people don't like anything that is more than something else.

Packing 4 times the amount of pixels into a 13 inch screen is useless. Packing that same number of pixels into a 30 inch monitor is worthwhile.

On monitors most peeps cant tell the difference once the pixel density hits a certain point. Its only a boon for photo editors and the such. Personally I want a 30" version. THEN it will be useful. Until then its a fancy toy.

I would definitely take one at 30" monitor sizes.

 

[BeaverBender]

You run Civ5 at that resolution? Must have like 10-20 FPS or graphics options way down low (in which case it looks like crap anyways). Office apps at 5mp are useless, photo's I can understand that would make a difference. I'm just saying you really don't need it and in most cases it does not make a difference.

As far as everyday life goes though for me, gaming, internet browsing, research and word processing the screen makes no difference. I would love to have it for my desktop because I could drive some games (although my GPU is still no where near as strong as I would like it to be to game at that resolution and it kicks the crap out of a 650m) but as far as a desktop goes with that hardware it offers nothing for me.

You missed the part where I clarified it was personal opinion and that I never said you can't get any value from it. I said I wouldn't get any value from it. Also I read a lot about the scaling and how things look on the "Retina" screen because I was considering buying one but I ultimately decided it would be a huge waste.

Yes, I run Civ5 at that resolution. It is a turn-based game so FPS is fairly irrelevant, to me at least, not that it suffers that greatly.

Office apps at 5mp are most certainly NOT useless. Have you ever tried running Excel like that? My god, the experience is amazing with all the extra rows and columns of highly legible text/numbers. If you used Excel as much as I do, you would never make a statement like that.

 

[Perineum]

So, I see you are now arguing with me on behalf of other members. Did he request you do this or are you just ganging up on me?

There it is.

When more people disagree with a Apple person than agree with him it's because we're ganging up, and not for just any other reason.

 

[BeaverBender]

There is a very consistent theme to your argument style. Comparing a useless screen to an SSD. Asking for tests showing people don't like more pixels.

Most people are stat whores. They'd pick something that was 0.021% faster or "better" everytime because it A: gives them something to brag about and B: they feel they got better value for their money.

People going to a gas station is a perfect example. If someone else was paying for gas most people would chose 94 octane to fill their car with, regardless of the brand or model of their car..... because they'd want the "good stuff". 94 is better than 87, right? Truth is, higher octane is the ability of gasoline to resist burning. Higher octane gas will run worse in your daily commuter than 87 would.

A retina screen is like a wing on a civic. It's like a sport edition of a minivan. Sure it's there, and people like it, but it is definitely useless.

I'm not going to be able to find a study showing that people don't like more pixels, much in the same way I'm not going to find a study that shows that people don't like anything that is more than something else.

Packing 4 times the amount of pixels into a 13 inch screen is useless. Packing that same number of pixels into a 30 inch monitor is worthwhile.




I would definitely take one at 30" monitor sizes.

Yes, I like to back up my arguments with facts and actual experience. You seem to be one of these people who relies on opinion and conjecture.

 

[BeaverBender]

There it is.

When more people disagree with a Apple person than agree with him it's because we're ganging up, and not for just any other reason.

You don't seem to understand the history behind this post so I will forgive your remarks.

 

[lowfat]

Please keep it civil people or else I'll have to start banning. h34r:

 

[Perineum]

Yes, I like to back up my arguments with facts and actual experience. You seem to be one of these people who relies on opinion and conjecture.

I have yet to see any facts in here posted from you. I've heard numerous reports from multiple people on how this screen makes performance bomb and how it's not quite like how you say it is.

I am also currently using a "regular" resolution monitor, and I'm not seeing individual pixels. The screen looks sharp and clear to me now. It's not going to get any more clear with higher pixel count at the same screen size. That's my experience.

If 1080 resolution looked like crap, then people wouldn't be taking that resolution and blowing it up to 80 inches because it would look much much worse.

...but that's not the case is it?

 

[botat29]

To come back on the subject, Apple are may be too expensive for certain person, but that's also what attract many peoples to buy one; " I have a Mac, what do you have ? " same thing can be said about car. I own a iMac and a Macbook air, I also few Linux Distro, I like to try new thing different from Windows but I still prefer Windows for many thing and I will not elaborate on it as everyone have their own taste, no need to force peoples to taste what they don't like.

 

[Canker]

My cat hasn't gone to math class lately, so my calculations may not be 100%.

fftopic:fftopic:fftopic:fftopic:fftopic:fftopic:fftopic:fftopic:fftopic:fftopic:fftopic:fftopic:

I'm going totally off topic here and risking future anal seepage because I wanted to point out that 87 octane gas in BC has "up to" 10% ethanol (it's 10%!), while 89 and above generally does not. Ethanol has about 2/3 (66%) the BTU gasoline does.

If you're buying 75 liters of 87 octane fuel at $1.29 per liter the cost is $96.75. If you calculate 10% of this as ethanol (7.5 liters) at 2/3 the BTU, this ethanol is roughly equivalent to about 5 liters of 87 octane gasoline without ethanol (.66 * 7.5). So, your 75 liters of fuel is actually more like 72.5 liters without ethanol. (75 - 2.5, or 96.6% of 75 liters of gas without 10% ethanol).

To find out if it's worth buying 89 over 87, simply take the cost of 87 octane per liter and divide it by .966. If it comes out costing more than one liter of 89 octane gas, fill up with 89. Also, if you're going on a longer trip filling up with 89 should mean filling up a little less often. People I know with fancy schmancy mpg counters in their pimp mobiles have confirmed to me they do get better fuel economy using 89 over 87 anyway, and this anecdotal evidence got me to actually figure this out one day.

People going to a gas station is a perfect example. If someone else was paying for gas most people would chose 94 octane to fill their car with, regardless of the brand or model of their car..... because they'd want the "good stuff". 94 is better than 87, right? Truth is, higher octane is the ability of gasoline to resist burning. Higher octane gas will run worse in your daily commuter than 87 would.

 

[AkG]

So, I see you are now arguing with me on behalf of other members. Did he request you do this or are you just ganging up on me? Was i asking YOU if it was hyperbole? Please show me these studies you speak of, although they don't really matter since we were talking about 80" screens so obviously 46" is not applicable. I love it when people use studies they think they've heard of that are not even relevant. You are correct that resolution becomes irrelevant above a certain point, but that point is much higher than the vast majority of current screens. I have showed pictures and Office applications on my MBPR and compared them to one of my other laptops and even complete laymen are blown away by the difference. Try it, you will like it... As Mikey once said on a commercial :biggrin:

Like I said, I have a 30" high-res screen and the difference is night and day.

rofl there is no conspiracy. No one needs ask me to comment on anything. I find this tech to be interesting. But laugh at the idea of serious professionals going "nah Im good" when offered to use a 30" monitor instead of their laptops built-in screen. If you think your retina display is great...good for you. But I doubt many would opt for it over a good 30" (you really shouldnt sit so close to the screen if you can count the individual pixels)....with the sole excpetion of some of the 'cheap' TN pannels at lower res. 25x16 produces good crisp images on 30" models when the panel is MVA or IPS. This is my opinion backed up by common sense. Same with the idea of using it for games. Apple laptops rarely have more than adequate GPU horsepower and their new ones are no exception.

You've asked for proof from anyone who has not agreed with your POV and claimed being picked on at every corner. Seriously, tone it down. Its good that you are passionate about tech, but you are at 8. HWC members would like you at a 3 or 4. Otherwise take that shite to over to [H]'s or semiaccurate's forum we really dont want or need it here.