[wonderzombie]

Like someone else says downthread (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4253475):

(1920 * 1080) / (2880 * 1800) = 0.4 Your 1080p 15" display contains just 40% of the pixels of a single Retina 15" display. They even showed this in the demo. They edited a 1080p video in Final Cut at full resolution and there was plenty of room left for UI elements.

---

Retina stuff isn't supposed to be remarkable just because the resolution is higher. It's remarkable because there are drastically more pixels in the same size screen.

The reason why folks are talking about this as if it's different is because cramming that many more pixels in the same amount of space requires some technology for it not to get all screwed up. It's not a modest jump from, say, 1024 to 1280, the progression you're describe. It's from 1920 to 2880. That's big. You might not like it because it came from Apple and Apple people like it but it does matter.

[SwellJoe]

The first display I browsed the web on was 640x400 (an Amiga) at 14" (but it was a 5:4 display, so it was bigger in surface area than a 14" 16:9 or 1.85:1 widescreen display, closer to 15" or 16" today). I'm currently browsing the web on a 15" 1080P display.

(640 * 400) / (1920 * 1080) = 0.123

As I mentioned, we have "gone retina" a few times since the beginning of the web.

And, it's not that I don't like it. Of course I like it. I just explained that I went out of my way to obtain a 1080P laptop. I once went to great lengths (custom cable, huge and complicated custom X configuration file) to hook up a massive 75 lb workstation monitor to my PC because I wanted a really high resolution display. It's just that I think it is ridiculous to freak out about something that follows the natural progression of technology that we've been following for decades.