"Retina" in Apple terminology refers to resolution in pixels per inch. A display which has so many more pixels than normal, that most people can't distinguish individual pixels from normal viewing distance, is a "Retina" display. Frequently Apple uses panels that double the pixel count (of non-Retina predecessor machines) in each direction. So 1440x900 pixels becomes 2880x1800 pixels. In "best" resolution mode, the extra pixels are used for extra detail, not extra work area.
Yes, I'm curious how good the latest super high resolution displays like in the XPS15 (and other recent laptops and tablets) are, given the very high price for external monitors with similar resolution (and the system requirements, my current PC system doesn't even support such high resolutions from HDMI output). I haven't seen any in-depth reviews of these new 'Retina grade' PC laptop screens, but there are several options available before end of the year.
Many would not say that is a downside...
Right, with Macbook you don't get a touchscreen. Although if you ask me Windows is far more of a PITA than Mac OS X.
In that case, do you really need a laptop? I am looking for the same, just a display machine but with high resolution and reliable color. My first thought would be a tablet like the Nexus 7 (2013), because it has a high quality IPS display (apparently with pretty accurate color) for very little money; if only it had an SD slot. I doubt any afforable laptop (including the 'Retina' types) has more accurate color (and screen uniformity etc. etc.) than the Nexus 7 2013, they all have some issues compared to standalone displays.
Let's double-check those price and screen claims.
This is aprox 50% price of a RMBP, has i7, 2gb graphics, dual HD, 32GB ssd, blu ray, 90%+ SRGB uncalibrated and a 17inch FHD matt screen with pretty good viewing angles, ie you dont need it perfectly aligned to your eye-position, you should get decent consistency for normal seating positions. But its bigger and heavier than a MBP but the mac doesnt have a 17inch screen?
But does the MBP really have 2560x1600, @13inch you would not be able to read anything? I think you'll find its actually a lot less than that and all the rest is pixel scaling and doubling? A full HD display on a 15inch machine is actually quite small to read and much better suited to a 17inch. The retina really provides better dpi, a bit like a printer head squeezing more pixels into a given area? At some stage its doesnt matter and honestly its probably better judging images and photos on a good 17inch laptop with a good coverage of srgb in Full HD? I have never seen a comparison but a FHD matt screen on a quality laptop PC vs a MBP would be interesting to see what extra the MBP delivers?
We already have FullHD on 8 inch tablet screens (and probably even on 5 inch smartphones?) and most users really appreciate the extra resolution for displaying images. A laptop screen with 3200x1800 pixel resolution sounds great to me as well, being a photographer.
I find 7-8" tablets potentially interesting for image display, because they are much smaller/lighter and cheaper (not such a big deal if it is lost as with laptop or big highend tablet) compared to the 10"ones. Guess it depends on the type of photography, but if you show images to friends/family or sell images for applications like postcards, images in books etc. the small size is no problem at all (assuming a high quality display, not a crappy ipad mini screen).
