Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

CIOs Beware: New Macbook Pro Will Be a Bandwidth Hog

blogs.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 26 posts

Re: CIOs Beware: New Macbook Pro Will Be a Bandwidth Hog

#12

Post by fluidcruft »

jnorthrop wrote: post #2

I kept the title honest but I submitted it specifically because the article says, "But it may also wreak havoc on CIOs’ networks and connectivity budgets — better quality displays require more network bandwidth, which allows users to increase data consumption." How can the WSJ report such nonsense? Bigger displays do not increase bandwidth usage as far as I know.

The best I can come up with is adaptive streaming video. But I doubt anything streams higher than for output to 1080p and you certainly don't need a retina display matrix on a laptop to display 1080p.

Re: CIOs Beware: New Macbook Pro Will Be a Bandwidth Hog

#13

Post by abruzzi »

A few websites like Apple's are 'retina optimized' and the way Apple implements it, it is a bit inefficient--the web browser downloads the standard size image, then some js replaces those images with high-res variants. But sites like that are rare, and still don't account for a large amount of bandwidth used, so I vote: FUD.

Re: CIOs Beware: New Macbook Pro Will Be a Bandwidth Hog

#15

Post by bwh2 »

The article is poorly worded. The point is that retina 2x graphics do require more bandwidth. As retina displays grow in popularity, bandwidth may become an issue. It's certainly something developers should consider when thinking about site performance.

http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#documentation/2DDraw...

Re: CIOs Beware: New Macbook Pro Will Be a Bandwidth Hog

#17

Post by smackfu »

fleitz wrote: post #11

As far as I know youtube videos at 1080p use the same bandwidth regardless of whether you're displaying on 720p or a retina display. This is silly, is the reporter confused about HDMI/DisplayPort vs. network bandwidth?

You really think YouTube is downsizing them in the front-end, rather than rendering out multiple versions on the server? That doesn't really make sense, plus it would make it odd that changing the size of the video restart the playback.
Post reply on HN