This is hilarious….Has anyone seriously USED a rMBP??? Compared it to a non retina MBP in terms of speed and power? Its not even close.
You're right it's not.
The rMBP is so much more responsive and so much more powerful.
I think you have that backwards or something. The Retina versions use WAY more GPU power to do even trivial tasks. This is why the early Retinas were so damn laggy and HORRIBLE to use. Apple optimized the OS some more to make it usable and suddenly it's "so much more powerful" ??? Explain to me how two computers with the same exact i7 CPU can have one more be "way more powerful".
Retina Macs may look prettier in their displays with a proper App, but they sure as hell are going to be slower than the exact same Mac except for the Retina display because that Mac will have a lot more GPU cycles to spare. Now if you are comparing a Retina model to a slower CPU model non-Retina, that's a whole different story and has NOTHING to do with the display.
If you don't believe me, try running Crysis (or some newer game) at maximum settings at maximum resolution. Now try running it at maximum settings at half that resolution. The frame rate will be a LOT faster at lower resolutions. Higher resolution generally equals slower performance for a given graphics chipset and that means choppier video at some point and slower response times. Just because running Apple Mail doesn't reach that point that doesn't mean you can't reach that point.
While the benefit of retina is often over-exaggerated, it absolutely does make a difference, and if you cannot see that, you probably do need to get your eyes checked (I mean that rather literally, but I'm (honestly) not trying to be rude).
I'm not saying I can't see a difference with a proper high resolution image, but I see little difference with just the default (double sized so the fonts and other GUI elements aren't too small to read) look, which I think most people are going to be seeing most of the time. How high a resolution does a word processor or email program need to be?
Now I'm not saying that there isn't value in Retina displays. I am saying that people like the person I responded to make a HUGE deal out of something that is a nicety (i.e. it won't make your Mac run faster; it'll actually do the opposite in terms of GPU drain) while I'd personally have higher priorities like more ports, faster GPUs or even a built-in BD drive since that computer would be docked to 28" or larger display when at home anyway not using the built-in display much of the time anyway (And large monitors is where truly high resolutions can be used to their maximum advantage instead of spending most of their time doubling graphics so it's not too small to look at).
But taken to an extreme (Japan is aiming for what now, 8k HD?) you end up with a marketing gimmick that has little value to the end customer. Most people watching 50" HDTVs don't need 1080p at their typical viewing distances and yet they will likely goad their poor neighbor for having a 720P display at the same viewing distance when in reality they're both seeing the same resolution to the eye acuity for that size/distance. Yes, you do sit very close to a 13" or 15" notebook so there's some value. I see even less value in going ape crazy in resolution for 5" iPod/iPhone displays. You can only hold the darn thing so close to your eyes, after all.
Basically, I took exception to his extreme reaction like Apple was garbage because they don't have 4k screens on all their notebooks and 8 on all their iMacs yet. Bigger numbers for ONE spec aren't all there is in life. A car that can go 200mph doesn't mean much to me commuting to work.
