Is retina display on the ipad really worth it? No :(

D

Dale_tem

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,839
Name
Dale
Edit My Images
Yes
The reason being??? The browsers are limited to 1024 x 768, so if you design a website for the newer widescreeen laptops, it will be too wide for the iPad retina display.

So if you only really use your ipad for browsing the net, there will be on difference between ipad 2, 3 and 4 visually. Only when you use a native app

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3810529?start=0&tstart=0

:(

Just found this out and rather ****ed off with the limiting of the product :(
 
Also, iPad 3 is slower than iPad 2, as I've found out. Because it needs to load higher resolution texture for apps, it takes longer to load. iPad 3 is not really worth the price, thankfully it's no longer being sold.

For websites, the text display will be at retina display resolution. Only the images will be at website's lower resolution.

But I'm not complaining as I had iPad 2, and 3 was a present. :D
 
wuyanxu said:
Also, iPad 3 is slower than iPad 2, as I've found out. Because it needs to load higher resolution texture for apps, it takes longer to load. iPad 3 is not really worth the price, thankfully it's no longer being sold.

For websites, the text display will be at retina display resolution. Only the images will be at website's lower resolution.

But I'm not complaining as I had iPad 2, and 3 was a present. :D
Click to expand...

But the ipad will only load the site at 1024 wide, so if the site is wider you have scrolling or if you have a full width site, instead of being spaced out at 1280 or 1366, it is cramped in at 1024 wide.
 
My experience couldn't be more different to yours. Apart from a few pointless ads everything is nice crisp and with the right colours. Take ipad 2 and you have poor colour pixelated blurry cross hatched mess :gag:
That should be blindingly obvious to anyone with half decent vision
 
Dale_tem said:
But the ipad will only load the site at 1024 wide, so if the site is wider you have scrolling or if you have a full width site, instead of being spaced out at 1280 or 1366, it is cramped in at 1024 wide.
Click to expand...
Then the website you are visiting isn't well designed.

Pretty much all websites are designed to be enjoyable on 1024 width, I have a 2560 width monitor and I always browse with 1000-ish wide window.

The retina display shows crystal clear text in all apps, that's the important part.
 
wuyanxu said:
Then the website you are visiting isn't well designed.

Pretty much all websites are designed to be enjoyable on 1024 width, I have a 2560 width monitor and I always browse with 1000-ish wide window.

The retina display shows crystal clear text in all apps, that's the important part.
Click to expand...

In your opinion

It depends on the use of the website. We use cloud based software a lot which generally have a lot going on and on small screens it gets cramped, things close together.

As more software moves to the cloud and as the software gets more complicated and impossible to fit in 1024 x 768

I do all browsing at 1920 on my main laptop and work machines and drop down to 1366 on my ultrabook.

All I want is the choice to get more on the screen. With remote desktop on Windows 8 I have smart sizing (at last!!!!), so I can run the remote session at 1920 x 1080, but make the window smaller so I can just monitor what is going on or when what I need to do isn't complicated/fiddly.

Why can't I have the same with the ipad???? It has the resolution, so why not allow me to choose how it performs.
 
I can see your point with non-text based functional websites. But surely higher resolution / less cramped means smaller buttons, harder to operate with fingers?
 
But you have the option to zoom in when you need to, then the buttons are further apart than they would be at 1024 and so easier to operate. Often with sites I zoom in to change something due to fiddly buttons and then zoom out again to read/use.
 
daugirdas said:
My experience couldn't be more different to yours. Apart from a few pointless ads everything is nice crisp and with the right colours. Take ipad 2 and you have poor colour pixelated blurry cross hatched mess :gag:
That should be blindingly obvious to anyone with half decent vision
Click to expand...

I would agree, another obvious difference is viewing magazines and other PDFs, on my iPad 2 is was always necessary to zoom in to read, and the full page view was blurry. On the iPad 4 it's possible to read the pages without zooming at all, if you wish.
 
Such is the disadvantage of moving to DPI rather than pixel mapped to work out the display rendering....
 
I have an ipad 2 and 3 here and tbh, I much prefer the retina screen for everything.
 
yeah , i thought the screen was the only good thing about it.
 
The screen is better, but if you just use it for browsing the web, you won't notice the difference as they both display 1024 x 768
 
Dale_tem said:
The screen is better, but if you just use it for browsing the web, you won't notice the difference as they both display 1024 x 768
Click to expand...

As an owner of both an iPad 2 and an iPad 4, that is totally wrong.

The difference is easily discerned, a web page can be read without zooming on the 4, it's a blurry indistinct page until zooming in on the 2.
 
Ahh ok, it is not totally wrong. The browser limits the the page to 1024 wide and also the graphics, but the text is rendered at full res.
 
Dale_tem said:
Ahh ok, it is not totally wrong. The browser limits the the page to 1024 wide and also the graphics, but the text is rendered at full res.
Click to expand...

It seems so, the text is a lot clearer and more distinct, on the 2 there are fuzzy edges until zooming in, it makes it quite indistinct and pretty hard to read.

The 4 is much sharper, there is almost no pixelation at all, while the text is small at full page, it is still easily readable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top