[sillysaurus2]

Watch out for problems with the monitor. New ultra-high-def monitors often have problems such as lag or poor color accuracy.

Before buying this, you need to wait until a professional with a colorimeter and a lagmeter evaluates this monitor if you remotely care about color accuracy or gaming. Resolution isn't the only consideration when buying a new monitor.

[ajasmin]

> if you remotely care about color accuracy or gaming

Lots of hackers only care about having enough pixels to legibly represent characters in their tiny coding font.

[MaulingMonkey]

Finally, a resolution that will let me fit enough text on the screen when combined with http://mrl.nyu.edu/~perlin/homepage2006/tinyfont/ !

[AYBABTME]

Would appreciate if someone can post a screenshot, or an equivalent that doesn't require enabling Java.

[MaulingMonkey]

Certainly: http://a.fsdn.com/sd/firehose/017/546/952-1.png

[machinshin_]

is that font downloadable somewhere?

[praxeologist]

A possible alternative is Miniscule: http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/256tm/minuscule/

http://ge.tt/7v8w1R61/v/0

[hyperbovine]

> Resolution isn't the only consideration when buying a new monitor.

Sure it is! Reading on a monitor is pure torture ever since I bought a Retina MBP. If this is anywhere close to being affordable (realistically: no) I'd buy it for that reason alone.

[JoshTriplett]

>> Resolution isn't the only consideration when buying a new monitor.

> Sure it is!

So you'd be fine with a 3840x2160 monitor that has a 5Hz refresh rate? Or one with a 500ms lag time? Or one that only displayed in grayscale, or in 8-bit color?

Resolution is perhaps the most important consideration, but by no means the only one.

[derefr]

Yes. Actually, I'd be excited about a UHD e-ink display (which is basically what you're describing.) It'd be perfect as a second monitor to throw documents up on to read at my desk, while I kept the primary for more interactive stuff.

[crististm]

So it needs to be UHD _and_ e_ink. There goes the "UHD is everything I need" argument

[mxfh]

This would be a valid concern if it still would be 1999. FYI the T220 (3840×2400!) already had 41hz back in 2001. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_monitors

[chx]

I have a T221 (not too expensive if you buy it on Yahoo Japan auctions via a suitable proxy). I was only able to get it up to 25Hz due to having only two DVI ports on my laptop docking station. I tried every thing known to mankind to get four DVI or two dual DVI and convert those to the special ports of the T221. No dice.

As it runs at 1920x2400@25 Hz you can't really watch a movie on the screen because in the middle of the screen where the two halves meet you have a weird effect of any movie due to, I guess, low frame rate and not completely sync'd outputs. I guess you could confine it to one half of the monitor but gosh, are you going to watch your movies in 11" ?

If the monitor will allow for 3840x2400@30Hz on DisplayPort 1.1 (which most people have -- 1.2 is rare, Intel got it in Haswell, and I think nVidia got to 1.2 maybe late 2011) that may be enough for coding and watching movies. Forget games. Time will tell. I will try when the monitor has a three figures price tag.

Also, 4K displays achieving 60Hz over DisplayPort 1.2 are http://www.hardwareluxx.com/index.php/reviews/hardware/vgaca... using the same tiling dual display (at least currently), with each tile being 1920x2160@60Hz and producing weird effects as thearticle shows.

Also, it will be fun and games when, unlike with DVI where figuring out whether you had SL or DL was relatively easy you will now need to figure out whether you have DisplayLink 1.1 or 2.0 with zero difference on the connector.

[cpks]

I can safely say I won't tolerate less than 20Hz, 50ms. Anything below that, even if the color 8-bit and a little wonky, and the viewing angle poor, and it is a bit dim, I'm taking it. I guess the other considerations are price and compatibility.

[Achshar]

I think you are underestimating the weight of the word "torture" here. I mean sure it can be better but torture? Really?

[coldtea]

I'm sure you're overestimating the use of casual language here.

[cclogg]

I love my new Retina MBP, however the most annoying thing I found was dealing with so many non-retina things that look hideously blurry lol. I don't have a problem with the screen though, but weirdly enough in the last year or so I've had real problems with iPads. Like if I read or use it for even a short while, I get that nauseous headache feeling. Apparently it might have to do with LED screens.

[mortenjorck]

Dealing with other lower-DPI screens is what I thought my problem would be, but the biggest issue I've found with moving to a Retina MacBook Pro are the drawbacks of the technology being so new.

Compared with my old CCFL-backlit desktop LCD, the Retina Display's backlight is far less uniform, and whites have a more readily perceptible color shift across the screen. It's not enough to qualify for a replacement (trust me, I tried), but it's nonetheless distracting enough to make me want to do most of my design work on my standard-DPI monitor.

[eropple]

The rMBPs I've run (including my own) across have had very uniform brightness and white color. I'm curious which manufacturer made the LCD in yours because--going from the usual problems with Apple LCDs.

If you aren't aware, you can tease out the LCD manufacturer via the model string and this command:

   ioreg -lw0 | grep "EDID" | sed "/[^<]*</s///" | xxd -p -r

If it begins with LSN, it's a Samsung (which tend to be the good ones); if it's LP, it's an LG (which, unsurprisingly, tend to be the poor ones).

[mortenjorck]

It's an LG. No perceptible image retention, actually (the problem I was worried about), but I think I'd almost prefer it to these issues.

[rfnslyr]

How do you even notice these things?

and whites have a more readily perceptible color shift across the screen

Is yours dysfunctional? Retina screen has honestly been a godsend.

[mortenjorck]

It's a blessing and a curse. I'm sure at least 50% of people wouldn't even notice, and 90% wouldn't find it distracting. Alas, I do.

[simoncion]

You could also have an issue with your neck or upper back. Try reading a somewhat heavy book in much the same position as you read an iPad.

[csmuk]

To be honest I rather prefer a non-retina screen. I've got a chance to play with an rMBP and my wife has a Retina iPad mini.

The line details on UIs are too thin so contrast disappears and the text verticals are too thin so it hinders readability for me. iOS 7 admittedly doesn't help that but it's not for me.

Oh and according to my optician I have better than average sight.

[crististm]

How long would you stand a retina display that has only has 10% of the contrast of your current monitor?

[veidr]

True, but resolution so massively outweighs every other consideration (for me) that it might as well be the only.

In this new high-res world, virtually all desktop monitors are just broken. Ugh, I am typing these very words right now on a 30" Dell 3008FWP, and I want to gouge out my eyes...

[kbar13]

Until the monitor supports at least 60hz I would say it's unusable for gaming.