I carried mine on my back in a rucksack yesterday for 65 miles cycling across Dartmoor (with 6000' climb). Can't say I noticed the extra few ounces !

show off, I carried my ipad 2 up stairs last night, was knackered

so if you look really closely you can tell the difference

.... not groundbreaking then

Seriously the iPhone 'retina' display when it came out was groundbreaking and it took a long time for anyone to catch up. Its still amn impressive display - although these days much too small for many peoples taste.

To me the 'retina' display on the new iPad seems like a bit of a cop-out. Isnt it less that Jobs claimed was needed for Apple to term something a retina display (300 ppi?) ? are they now changing their rules as you 'hold a tablet further away' ?

Now i have a tablet and a phone and i often find myslef holding my phone just as far away as my tablet......

so ... the new retina isnt a real 'retina display' .... its just become a less impressive buzz-word.

And the new display isnt that far ahead of the competition - certainly not as far beyond as the iPhone was when it started using 'retina display'.

This feels much more of a leapfrog over the current competition rather than strides ahead. Whilst companies like samsung and Asus can afford to take babysteps - as they release many more 'new versions' each year - Apple limit themselves to a single release (historically). By this time next year Apple will be back to having to catch up with the competition.

Obviously I am basing this on HARDWARE only ...... I know many of you dont believe that hardware is improtant but it tends to grab headlines ....

Again - im not 'dissing' the new iPad. Im sure if you like Apple stuff its a great unit and you with thoroughly enjoy your toy.

But at the end of the day its an iPad 2 with a slightly better display (the GPU upgrade would have been a requriement to push the extra pixels and who really uses a tablet as a camera ???).

Also at what point does higher resolution become pointless ? if the 'new new iPad' next year quadrupled the resolution again would people still be saying its so much better if you look really closely ?

.... and that last part is a general issue with ALL manufacturers, not just aimed at Apple !

Funny that. I said the same thing a few posts back, and I get slated for it. The retina display has been described as a 'game changer' by some in this thread. Yet if you need to compare the ipad3 and ipad2 side by side to see the difference, then its hardly a 'game changer'. An improvement yes, a game changer not even close.

That is a bit of nonsensical comparison. If your holding one, whilst reading a book, thats when you will notice the difference. I know when I read on my galaxy tab, after a while I can notice the weight, and have to switch the tablet to my other hand. This becomes more of an issue when reading whilst laying in bed.

Then again I guess its a trade-off. A better screen then you will have to put up with the extra weight.

I wasn't really making a serious point, just showing off like the other post said

fair enough...just that without a , , , or it was difficult to detect that.

I have a Kindle an an iPad which I both use for reading. However, the extra bulk of the iPad I actually find a distinct advantage for reading in bed, as it can just be propped up and support it's own weight, all my hand is doing is stopping it falling over (apart from the fact that also the Kindle is absolutely lousy in poor light).

Sometimes I use a ! as a bit of a smiley

OK, I will try and remember that for all your subsequent posts.

No, really - the difference between a display that is slightly fuzzy, and a display that is absolutely sharp is an actual, tangible benefit, and really isn't down to buzzwords and hype.

Go and look at them both, and then come back and tell us that its just hype.

I don't think you necessarily need to hold them side by side to appreciate the difference. But obviously doing so is where it will be more apparent. I was looking at the iPad 2 before getting the new one, and once I saw the new one, it was pretty obvious to me the display was way better than the iPad 2.

If people can't see a difference, or don't think its that much of a deal, fair enough. But I think its more about individuals, and what they are used to, more than the idea that the new display not being leaps and bounds ahead of the old display.

It is just a trademark. Every screen in existence today is retina if you hold it the right distance.

I'm still left wondering if 1280 X 960 would have not made a more useful upgrade.

Haha , well obviously I meant the ipads in general when holding them to read. Its not a killer but you do notice it after a bit.

Sadly carrying it to work I don't notice the weight - would currently kill for some time off to cycle with it across Dartmoor! Jealous!

And I will try and remember to use smileys

no you have misunderstood me .... Jobs said retina was 300 ppi or upwards. the new iPad isnt anywhere near 300 ppi (only 264 ppi) therefore they have used 'retina' (their own invention) as a marketing buzzword - they have changed their own definition of a term they invented to help market the product. Nothing wrong with that but it just seems a little odd.

As for spotting the difference I was only stating (in jest) that the poster had said 'if you look really hard' therefore he was implying that it wasnt very pronounced.

I havent seen the new iPad but im guessing (based on the specs) that the difference WILL be visible - particularly when viewing text (you wont need to zoom as much). I noticed the difference myself when moving from the HTC desire (252 ppi) to the Nexus (316 ppi) so going from a paltry 132 ppi on the iPad 1/2 to a reasonable 264 ppi on the new iPad is bound to be noticeable. My final point though was when is it overkill ? will we go to 400 ppi ? 500 ppi ? will we still be saying 'oh yes you can spot the difference' ?


But all this talk about the new screen being 'stunning' and 'groundbreaking' is just silly. The resolution is significantly below many phones these days (including the iPhone 4 & 4s) .... its just the fact that the screen is bigger.

If Apple had announced it as being an iPad with a ppi about 4/5ths of the iPhone 4 it really wouldnt have sounded so impressive would it ?

I am only going by what people that have bought the ipad3 are saying.

I went into the Regent Street store during my lunch break, with a couple of work colleagues. To be fair, the ipad3 I saw today looked better than the one I saw over the weekend (yes I did see the ipad3 over the weekend). The screen on this one looked sharper. Most likely it was set up correctly, where as the one in the John Lewis store probably wasnt.

For me not worth upgrading from the ipad2, and certainly not worth all the constraints I would have to put up with if I were to move from android. An android tablet will be along in a while that will offer just as good a display. So if I really wanted a sharper display, then I just have to wait a while.

I can't remember what Jobs said originally, but I took it to be a bit more general about the point at which people can't distinguish individual pixels on a display. And that part of that takes into account the viewing distance.

With overkill - I think having reached the point where the human eye can't distinguish pixels, then anything over and above this point will have negligible benefit.

As for groundbreaking, well, about this time last year, there was a general consensus that it wasn't even possible to produce such displays, let along in these volumes, and at this cost.

Its a marketing trick. They bring out the iphone4/s and say it has a retina display. The screen on these phones is very good. People then associate retina with iphone4/s quality of screen. Apple then release a lower quality screen (in comparison), and call it retina. People then think that its the same quality as the iphone4/s screens.

Yet the apple fans (since I am repeatedly told they dont care about specs) will think the ipad3 and iphones4/s screen are the same....they must be they are both retina displays. I bet quite a few people bought the ipad3 because they fell for this marketing spiel.

Its not the exact spec / pixel count thats important - its the fact that individual pixels can't be distinguished at a normal viewing distance. Unless Apple's have made up those claims, then I don't agree there's any trickery involved.

http://www.displaymate.com/iPad_ShootOut_1.htm

Even ipad2 has enough pixels to look good from a normal distance, it's when you look at it from a closer distance, because your eyes are bad or you feel like that and you start recognising single pixels on ipad2 because they are bigger than on ipad3, when you see the difference. I am sure ipad3 will look shite to people from 5cm distance compared to ipad4 should they increase the resolution again.

I can't focus at 5cm, but at 10cm the 3rd gen ipad text is pin sharp, the ipad 2nd gen ipad is pixilated.

"Normal viewing distance"

You just can't make it up.

You really should understand the various threads you comment on.

http://www.displaymate.com/iPad_ShootOut_1.htm