Why does Phe have to be stuck with the hand-me-downs? Why can't she have the new MBP?
| The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
| Apple Mid 2012 Refresh https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=8689 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Lenas [ Mon Jun 11, 2012 1:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Apple Mid 2012 Refresh |
New 15.4" MBP with a retina display, 2880 x 1800 / 2.3 ghz i7 / 8gb ram / 256gb flash memory. Shipping today. Good god. I can't stop salivating. |
|
| Author: | NephyrS [ Mon Jun 11, 2012 1:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
And a new design graphics card that looks **** awesome. GT 650M Kepler graphics- 1gb card. |
|
| Author: | Lenas [ Mon Jun 11, 2012 1:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Apple Mid 2012 Refresh |
Yeah, very seriously considering upgrading my early 2011 MBP to the new one. Wonder how well Diablo III would run at that resolution... |
|
| Author: | NephyrS [ Mon Jun 11, 2012 1:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Not a bad base price either. 2199. |
|
| Author: | Kaffis Mark V [ Mon Jun 11, 2012 1:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Where the **** does Apple get its retarded aspect ratios? |
|
| Author: | Lenas [ Mon Jun 11, 2012 2:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Apple Mid 2012 Refresh |
What's wrong with 16:10? |
|
| Author: | FarSky [ Mon Jun 11, 2012 2:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
16:10 is pretty standard. It's like 1280x1024 a few years back. Not TV aspect, but a standard one. Edit: Hell, my old Acer laptop had the same...that was a Windows box, and...five years ago? |
|
| Author: | NephyrS [ Mon Jun 11, 2012 3:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
For a computer, 16:10 is much better than 16:9, imo. 16:9 is better suited to movies, but for any documents, the additional vertical height is great. I love my 1920X1200 24" monitor. |
|
| Author: | Kaffis Mark V [ Mon Jun 11, 2012 3:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sorry. Meant to type resolutions. The aspect ratio's fine, I prefer 16:10 (why don't we call it 8:5?) to 16:9. But where the **** does 2880 come from? The rest of the world uses resolutions that generally double the range below it... so 2560x1600 is what you see monitors at if they're larger than 1920x1200... I've never seen a non-Apple product at the retina resolution, and it's an uncomfortable 25% higher pixel-count. Nobody liked the 1440x900 resolution, why are we scaling up from that? |
|
| Author: | Lenas [ Mon Jun 11, 2012 3:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Apple Mid 2012 Refresh |
Kaffis Mark V wrote: But where the **** does 2880 come from? The rest of the world uses resolutions that generally double the range below it... It comes from doubling the res from last gen of MBP's (1440x900). Kaffis Mark V wrote: Nobody liked the 1440x900 resolution, why are we scaling up from that? Says who? I like it just fine. |
|
| Author: | FarSky [ Mon Jun 11, 2012 4:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Those new MBPs are sexy. When I can scrounge up the cash, I may upgrade to it and give my current MacBook Air to Phe. Her old polycarb MacBook (late 2008) is finally starting to show its age (to me; she still likes it). |
|
| Author: | Midgen [ Mon Jun 11, 2012 7:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Why does Phe have to be stuck with the hand-me-downs? Why can't she have the new MBP?
|
|
| Author: | Leshani [ Tue Jun 12, 2012 8:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Midgen wrote: Why does Phe have to be stuck with the hand-me-downs? Why can't she have the new MBP? now that would have been awesome if Phe Posted it |
|
| Author: | Midgen [ Wed Jun 13, 2012 12:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Maybe she did? :p |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|