
The
only review that matters - as detailed and in-depth as ever. "I'm giving the MacBook Pro with Retina Display our bronze Editor's Choice award. Making it the first Mac to ever receive one. It would have been a silver had the software story been even stronger (iWork, Mountain Lion, Office and Photoshop being ready at launch would have been a feat worth rewarding). And it would have been a gold had Apple been able to deliver all of that but without sacrificing end-user upgradability." The device has performance issues which Mountain Lion will address (to a degree), but for the rest, AnandTech's review details - without being pro or anti-anything - just how good this new MBP really is. As a sidenote, Windows 8 on the retina display further confirms the classic desktop is dead to Microsoft: it still can't handle high-DPI displays properly. With the desktop going the way of the dodo, why would the company make it so?
Member since:
2008-08-15
Perhaps I missed it, but please explain how Microsoft handles high-DPI scenarios any worse than Mac OS X.
Are you not aware that the Mac OS X interface is, by default, rendered at 1440x900? The native 2880x1800 resolution is not even selectable in Mac OS X and the highest resolution you can run is 1920x1200. And of course, running at 1920x1200 is not a pixel perfect match to the screen's native resolution, so there will be a image quality hit. If you wish to have the same effect in Windows, simply set the resolution to 1440x900. The display will put 4 pixels to 1, just like in Mac OS X.
In Anandtech's review of Windows 8 on Retina, they were actually able to select the native resolution and use 150% DPI scaling. Mac OS X doesn't even attempt to use DPI scaling at the screen's native resolution because it's not even an option. This is no bash at Mac OS X though, I can clearly understand why they chose to run 1440x900 as default. But don't get that confused with proper high-DPI scaling when running at the real native resolution.