WWDC 2012 keynote roundup. Thanks superchunk!

[smbu2000]

rocketpig said:

smbu2000 said:

crissindahouse said:

i have no clue if the laptop with the retina display has enough power to play games like battlefield 3 with that resolution and i really don't like apple a lot but that laptop has to be good for photographers/designers and people like that isn't it? sure they could work on the photos or designs on a desktop as well with a high res screen but photographers as example are much of their time en route.

Gaming doesn't seem so bad, so far:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5998/macbook-pro-retina-display-analysis

Diablo III is actually quite playable at 2880 x 1800, at least in the earlier levels (I haven't had time to make it far enough in the game to tell how bad it can get). I managed to average 20 fps at 2880 x 1800 in the most stressful scene I have presently unlocked. Obviously things are smoother at lower resolutions. Diablo III exhibited some graphical anomalies at 1920 x 1200, but was fine at other 16:10 resolutions.

Whoa, so the new display offers a 1680 res option? That's fantastic. I was worried that the new displays would be stuck at the equivalent (appearance-wise) of the 1440 display. Considering how I plunked down an extra $200 to get the 1680 screen on my current MBP, that extra real estate is pretty important to me. Even at 1680, once I get all my Photoshop palettes laid out, I still barely have half a screen to work. With 1440, I'd have closer to 1/3rd of a screen for working.

Looks to be that way!

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5998/macbook-pro-retina-display-analysis

To recap, Retina Display MBP owners now get a slider under OS X's Display Preferences that allow you to specify desktop resolutions other than 1440 x 900. At 1440 x 900 you don't get any increase in desktop resolution compared to a standard 15-inch MacBook Pro, but everything is ridiculously crisp. If you're like me however and opted for the 1680 x 1050 "high-res" upgrade last generation, this won't do. Thankfully Apple offers 1680 x 1050 and 1920 x 1200 scaling options that trade a bit of image quality and performance for added real estate.

Even at the non-integer scaled 1680 x 1050 setting, the Retina Display looks a lot better than last year's high-res panel. It looks like Apple actually renders the screen at twice the selected resolution before scaling it to fit the 2880 x 1800 panel (in other words, at 1920 x 1200 Apple is rendering everything at 3840 x 2400 (!) before scaling - this is likely where the perf impact is seen, but I'm trying to find a way to quantify that now). Everything just looks better.

I also appreciate how quick it is to switch between resolutions on OS X. When I'm doing a lot of work I prefer the 1920 x 1200 setting, but if I'm in content consumption mode I find myself happier at 1440 x 900 or 1680 x 1050.