PDA

View Full Version : Should all Apple laptops come with Retina Display now?




seasurfer
Mar 9, 2012, 07:06 PM
Considering the new iPad is having higher resolution than all the current Apple products, except iMac 27, I wonder if Apple need to upgrade all their current product screen to Retina Display quality?



iAppl3Fan
Mar 9, 2012, 07:08 PM
Considering the new iPad is having higher resolution than all the current Apple products, except iMac 27, I wonder if Apple need to upgrade all their current product screen to Retina Display quality?

There is more pixel than the iMac 27 as well. I have wishful thinking that Apple would upgrade the screens this year.

DeusInvictus7
Mar 9, 2012, 07:51 PM
There is more pixel than the iMac 27 as well

No there isn't. 2560x1440 vs 2048x1536.

I would love to see Retina Display Macs, but since the displays are much larger, it would cost quite a pretty penny to manufacture said displays.

Shrink
Mar 9, 2012, 08:01 PM
Yes, I want a Retina display on my MBP 15".:D

I do not, however, want to pay the tab on what would be prohibitively expensive.:(

ixodes
Mar 9, 2012, 08:20 PM
I'd simply like to see Apple offer a true hi-res display on the 15" MBP.

My 2010 hi-res is actually a medium resolution if compared to other pro laptops like ThinkPads that have offered all three for years. The base, medium & hi-res sizes. Not only that, IPS displays were standard in workstation class ThinkPads. Every laptop in our engineering group has been configured this way.

If not called a MacBook Pro, I wouldn't expect Apple to keep up with the competition. For reasons unknown it took Apple many years, until 2010 before even offering something besides basic. Perhaps it's because they're targeted at consumers.

Even though true hi-res is not available I still find my medium res 15" MBP a vastly better laptop compared to all the PowerBooks & MBP's I owned before it.

There's nothing like a good Mac.

polee
Mar 9, 2012, 11:50 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9B179 Safari/7534.48.3)

If they come with retina displays, the size of the programs which utilize these displays will also increase in size and this would mean that more hard disk storage space would be required.

thejadedmonkey
Mar 10, 2012, 12:05 AM
I'd like them to implement resolution independence first.

miles01110
Mar 10, 2012, 12:07 AM
I'd like them to implement resolution independence first.

Seriously. Remember when that was a Leopard rumor? :rolleyes:

thekev
Mar 10, 2012, 12:31 AM
I'd like them to implement resolution independence first.

Apple is a bit weird about this. They like to go the double or nothing route with it, which kind of disallows large displays for a few years. If it shows up anywhere, it's likely to be in the macbook air given the limited display sizes. I can't find any newer panels appropriate to something like the imac in increased resolution. Most of the changes are things like wide gamut versions which are really annoying on a mac for a whole list of reasons. If they had appropriate displayport drivers, it would be less of an issue.

Skoopman
Mar 10, 2012, 07:12 AM
I think many people forget that the integrated graphics simply can't push 4x the pixels. Even if the Intel HD4000 will be released with Ivy Bridge, it will be impossible. They had to put a quad core GPU in the iPad and increase the battery. That will not be possible in the MBA if Apple does not get some alien technology from somewhere. So let's just say it won't happen anytime soon.

urkel
Mar 10, 2012, 07:19 AM
I think many people forget that the integrated graphics simply can't push 4x the pixels. Even if the Intel HD4000 will be released with Ivy Bridge, it will be impossible. They had to put a quad core GPU in the iPad and increase the battery. That will not be possible in the MBA if Apple does not get some alien technology from somewhere. So let's just say it won't happen anytime soon.
With the new iPad then they say the battery is twice the capacity yet it still only gets 10hrs battery life. Its fantastic that battery life didn't take a hit between generations but imagine that new battery in the old iPad and getting 20hrs battery.

So I'm wondering if Retina has become such a buzzword and people just say "throw it in" without considering how it affects things. If we were given a choice between double battery or higher resolution then many might prefer more battery life since the Air's primary purpose is for mobility.

Thares
Mar 10, 2012, 07:22 AM
For what do I exactly need a higher resolution? I don't know about your eyes, but mine are human. Not eagle-ish. Make the bezel smaller, put a 14" display into that 13" body and I'm fine.

kwijbo
Mar 10, 2012, 09:30 AM
I think many people forget that the integrated graphics simply can't push 4x the pixels. Even if the Intel HD4000 will be released with Ivy Bridge, it will be impossible. They had to put a quad core GPU in the iPad and increase the battery. That will not be possible in the MBA if Apple does not get some alien technology from somewhere. So let's just say it won't happen anytime soon.

Of course integrated graphics can push 4x the pixels, moreso when the HD4000 comes out. And its not impossible.

Current MBA 11" screen - 1366x768 - 1,049,088 pixels
Monitor I use every day with my 11" MBA - 2560x1600 - 4,096,000 pixels

Sure looks like 4x to me. Sure, they did put a quad core GPU in the new iPad but its also using 2 watts of power whereas an Intel ULV processor is 17W. I think Anandtech estimated it was about 10w for the CPU based on the Core2 Duo's TDP and 7w for the GPU. So we're talking 3x the power envelope.

Obviously their engineers are dealing with way more constraints than just IGP capability so there could be plenty of reasons why/why not a higher resolution display would be included.

Skoopman
Mar 10, 2012, 09:43 AM
Of course integrated graphics can push 4x the pixels, moreso when the HD4000 comes out. And its not impossible.

Current MBA 11" screen - 1366x768 - 1,049,088 pixels
Monitor I use every day with my 11" MBA - 2560x1600 - 4,096,000 pixels

Sure looks like 4x to me. Sure, they did put a quad core GPU in the new iPad but its also using 2 watts of power whereas an Intel ULV processor is 17W. I think Anandtech estimated it was about 10w for the CPU based on the Core2 Duo's TDP and 7w for the GPU. So we're talking 3x the power envelope.

Obviously their engineers are dealing with way more constraints than just IGP capability so there could be plenty of reasons why/why not a higher resolution display would be included.

Please start a game and play it at 2560x1600 resolution. Of course your MBA can push the resolution at simple and basic tasks, but that's not the point. The iPad has no problem to display GAMES at that resolution. Even my Mac Mini can't play most games at 1080p, how could the MBA play them at a higher resolution? If Apple puts a retina display in the MBA, I expect it to do ANY task at high resolution, not some of them.

onthecouchagain
Mar 10, 2012, 09:50 AM
Wouldn't battery life take a big hit too?

kwijbo
Mar 10, 2012, 10:02 AM
Please start a game and play it at 2560x1600 resolution. Of course your MBA can push the resolution at simple and basic tasks, but that's not the point. The iPad has no problem to display GAMES at that resolution. Even my Mac Mini can't play most games at 1080p, how could the MBA play them at a higher resolution? If Apple puts a retina display in the MBA, I expect it to do ANY task at high resolution, not some of them.

Valid point - I don't game much so I hadn't taken that into consideration. I'd assume the % of gameplay on the iPad vs. the MBA is much higher but its still a consideration.

That said, iOS pauses everything else so the whole CPU/GPU is devoted to that game while OSX runs a full desktop so its certainly possible that the iPad can devote more resources to gameplay than the MBA.

The other limiting factor would be RAM, and the 4GB max on the MBA is holding it back alot. The 384MB that the IGP gets to use just isn't enough for gaming. Even at 8GB of system RAM the IGP would get 512MB...it would be nice if Apple could provision 1GB.

scottness
Mar 10, 2012, 10:04 AM
I don't know… I never hold my MBA as close to my face as my iPhone. Not sure I'd be able to tell the difference.

AQUADock
Mar 10, 2012, 10:22 AM
Please start a game and play it at 2560x1600 resolution. Of course your MBA can push the resolution at simple and basic tasks, but that's not the point. The iPad has no problem to display GAMES at that resolution. Even my Mac Mini can't play most games at 1080p, how could the MBA play them at a higher resolution? If Apple puts a retina display in the MBA, I expect it to do ANY task at high resolution, not some of them.

That's because the games you play on a pc are about x10 more graphically complex than those on an iPad.

KohPhiPhi
Mar 10, 2012, 11:11 AM
For what do I exactly need a higher resolution? I don't know about your eyes, but mine are human. Not eagle-ish. Make the bezel smaller, put a 14" display into that 13" body and I'm fine.

I dont know why this guy is getting negative votes, because he actually has a point: 1) thin out the bazel, 2) squeeze a 14" screen into the MBA 13" and 3) bump resolution to 1600x1050. Voila!

At the distance you use a laptop, you will not notice the retina display. Retina is awesome in an iphone/ipad, but in a laptop is not so important.

Thares
Mar 10, 2012, 11:55 AM
I dont know why this guy is getting negative votes, because he actually has a point: 1) thin out the bazel, 2) squeeze a 14" screen into the MBA 13" and 3) bump resolution to 1600x1050. Voila!

At the distance you use a laptop, you will not notice the retina display. Retina is awesome in an iphone/ipad, but in a laptop is not so important.

Thank you really much for noticing.

As I am already saving money for a MacBook Air, I am of course eager to see some rumors regarding the points you (and I) mentioned. I think a 1600x1050 resolution is fine. Just make the screen a little bit bigger and the aluminium frame smaller.
But I already said that. Cough.

Have a nice day.

throAU
Mar 10, 2012, 11:58 AM
My hires 15" MBP is near enough to retina that I can't really see individual pixels from normal working distance.

kwijbo
Mar 10, 2012, 12:25 PM
At the distance you use a laptop, you will not notice the retina display. Retina is awesome in an iphone/ipad, but in a laptop is not so important.

Part of the problem with saying "Retina Display" is that it's used somewhat ambiguously. What would "retina" be on an 11" screen? 15" How about a desktop vs laptop?

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_4#Display) quotes Apple as using "57 arcseconds per pixel" as the maximum amount of detail the human eye can perceive. So we can use this number as our baseline for what should be considered "Retina".

Note that decreasing arcseconds signify a higher amount of detail.

Now for some calculations. Below we have display, inches away from the eye while in use, PPI and arcseconds in bold:

"Retina" 12" 300ppi 57.26 = (206.265/305)*84.67

4S 12" 326ppi 52.69 = (206.265/305)*77.91

New iPad 15" 264ppi 52.09 = (206.265/381)*96.21

So the 4S and iPad are actually above retina level based on their definition. So taking that same value of 52 and assuming that the MBA will be used at a distance of 20" we can solve for a PPI number, and then we can see what standard resolutions match up.


Retina MBA 20" 198ppi 52.09 = (206.265/508)*128.28

So we get a PPI of 198. Cross checking that with the most likely resolutions we have in laptops, it would appear that 1920x1080 and 1920x1200 are the candidates. Considering the trend of switching to 16:9 aspect ratio, especially since the 11" already uses that aspect ratio, let's plug that into the equation.

1920x1080 in an 11.6" screen gives us 189.91ppi, which is close to the 198 we're looking for.


Retina MBA 20" 190ppi 54.28 = (206.265/508)*133.68

We end up with 54 arcseconds and at least numerically, a likely candidate for a resolution ignoring all other factors.

So with that in mind, are there any 11.6" 1080p panels in existence?:)

gentlefury
Mar 10, 2012, 01:02 PM
No there isn't. 2560x1440 vs 2048x1536.

I would love to see Retina Display Macs, but since the displays are much larger, it would cost quite a pretty penny to manufacture said displays.

Ummm, New iPad is about 264 ppi

The 27" iMac is about 109 ppi

The iPad blows it away!!!

Thares
Mar 10, 2012, 02:29 PM
Ummm, New iPad is about 264 ppi

The 27" iMac is about 109 ppi

The iPad blows it away!!!

Theoretically, yes. But does someone actually notice the difference under normal circumstances? I guess not.

Moonjumper
Mar 10, 2012, 03:39 PM
I have a 24" iMac. I notice the lack of clarity compared to my retina iPhone 4, both at normal usage distances.

There would be a benefit from an increase in resolution, but interface elements need to stay the same size. That means resolution independence or pixel doubling. Pixel doubling may be overkill in terms of how much of a resolution increase is really needed, but I can see it happening because it would be so much easier for developers, both those within Apple to develop the OS, and for those external who make Apple software.

I just want a monitor that has enough resolution to display a new iPad screen pixel-for-pixel in portrait because I develop iOS games.

SRLMJ23
Mar 10, 2012, 04:42 PM
I wouldn't mind a Retina Display on my MBA.

gentlefury
Mar 10, 2012, 05:59 PM
Theoretically, yes. But does someone actually notice the difference under normal circumstances? I guess not.

Absolutely! I can tell a vast difference between the iPhone 3GS and the iPhone 4.

prvt.donut
Mar 10, 2012, 07:04 PM
Considering the new iPad is having higher resolution than all the current Apple products, except iMac 27, I wonder if Apple need to upgrade all their current product screen to Retina Display quality?

No.

I would not like it with current tech. GPU load would be greatly increased, meaning shorter battery life and higher temps.

Give it a year or two though, and the situation will be different.

Also, the iPhone 4 has been out for nearly 2 years and that didn't force the industry to update all PC's to those high pixel resolutions.

Also it is limited by what is available and cost, Apple doesn't manufacture screens, so they are limited by what is being made.

DeusInvictus7
Mar 10, 2012, 07:54 PM
Ummm, New iPad is about 264 ppi

The 27" iMac is about 109 ppi

The iPad blows it away!!!

I don't understand your point. All I said was the iPad does NOT have the same amount of pixels on the screen as the 27" iMac. That's all. I mentioned nothing about density.

Thares
Mar 11, 2012, 03:12 AM
Absolutely! I can tell a vast difference between the iPhone 3GS and the iPhone 4.

Yes, between these two device. I'm with you in this. But if you think about a big screen... I don't know. I have to move really, really close to my 27" iMac in order to notice a single pixel.

amt2002
Mar 11, 2012, 04:59 AM
Yes, between these two device. I'm with you in this. But if you think about a big screen... I don't know. I have to move really, really close to my 27" iMac in order to notice a single pixel.

Surely there would be a massive difference in perceived quality. Take the iPad 2 vs iPad 3 - the difference they say in screen quality is unbelievable? I'd love that sort of quality screen on my macs!

LeoNobilis
Mar 11, 2012, 10:31 AM
I dont know why this guy is getting negative votes, because he actually has a point: 1) thin out the bazel, 2) squeeze a 14" screen into the MBA 13" and 3) bump resolution to 1600x1050. Voila!

At the distance you use a laptop, you will not notice the retina display. Retina is awesome in an iphone/ipad, but in a laptop is not so important.

Why, one rarely positions a laptop 3 metres from his eyes. Nor does one generally peep at an iPhone screen from a distance of a few centimetres.

You think, a retina display for a desktop (laptop) is too much to ask before you see one. I bet, you'd change your mind once you do.

I would say, the issue with retina displays right now is accounted for the limitations of the storage (and, to a lesser degree, the read/write speeds of HDDs). Even without a retina display, our computer use is grossly compromised by the severe limitations of the available storage.

I also see counter-progressive tendencies in technology since AT&T's resort to cap data use and to fetch up the prices. The rest of the worldwide telecom cartel obviously followed suit.

gentlefury
Mar 11, 2012, 02:30 PM
I don't understand your point. All I said was the iPad does NOT have the same amount of pixels on the screen as the 27" iMac. That's all. I mentioned nothing about density.

But that means that technically it has about 2x the pixels on screen by size. So blow that screen up to 27" and it would have an enormous resolution.

murrayE
Mar 11, 2012, 03:17 PM
Theoretically, yes. But does someone actually notice the difference under normal circumstances? I guess not.

I haven't seen the "new iPad" yet; have you? If not, we really cannot say. But I would certainly expect a 242% increase in pixel density to yield a considerable improvement in readability.

Moonjumper
Mar 11, 2012, 05:24 PM
Yes, between these two device. I'm with you in this. But if you think about a big screen... I don't know. I have to move really, really close to my 27" iMac in order to notice a single pixel.

It is not a matter of noticing a single pixel, it is that objects have to be anti-aliased to appears smooth, so hiding the individual pixels most of the time, but not the effects. But the lower the pixel density, the more blurred the edges become to accommodate that. This is not an issue at retina resolutions.

Text rendering is so much better at higher resolutions because of the hard edges. It gives a big improvement in avoiding eyestrain.

Fleet would mac
Mar 13, 2012, 10:25 AM
Considering the new iPad is having higher resolution than all the current Apple products, except iMac 27, I wonder if Apple need to upgrade all their current product screen to Retina Display quality?
Nice idea, but if high PPI displays really take off, then the other big OEMs are also going to want to get in on the bidding, thus driving up the prices significantly. Apple will have no doubt contractually secured enough supplies to cover the anticipated demand for the iPad. However, they will find it increasingly difficult to continue to play the same game in the future until production capacity has been increased to the point that it can once again meet global demand. I don't know how long this process will take, but guess that we're talking about several years here. :(

bogatyr
Mar 13, 2012, 12:54 PM
My 2010 hi-res is actually a medium resolution if compared to other pro laptops like ThinkPads that have offered all three for years. The base, medium & hi-res sizes. Not only that, IPS displays were standard in workstation class ThinkPads. Every laptop in our engineering group has been configured this way.

Just to point out, ThinkPads did away with IPS in their workstation laptops a while ago. Only the X220 offers IPS anymore.

KohPhiPhi
Mar 13, 2012, 02:41 PM
Ok, considering the upcoming 2012 MBA 13" will have the HD4000 GPU... which of the following options you'd go for:

Keep the current resolution (1440x900) and benefit from a 30% graphic performance boost over the current HD3000 (plus longer battery life)

Bump to a retina resolution (let's say 2560x1440) and stress the HD4000 (and the battery) and thus probably not benefiting from any performance boost.

Guys, let's not forget that more resolution equals to more stress on the GPU and the battery life. I mean, look at the iPad 3: it has a larger battery but it doesnt have any better battery life. Why do you think that is the case? :rolleyes:

So, pick your choice: better screen resolution vs. better graphic performance + battery life. Dont fool yourself: you cannot have both. So this begs the question: do we really need ultra-high resolution on a MBA-like laptop?

coldmack
Mar 13, 2012, 02:43 PM
What I am about to suggest is cringe worthy to think about, but here is usable example. Walk into a Sony Store, or any store that may carry it, and check out the 13.1in Vaio Z(shudders) with the 1080p display and see how usable that could be. It looks like a nice machine worth buying if it wasn't cursed with poor hardware and software.

kulimer
Mar 13, 2012, 11:49 PM
no, there is no point to that.

1. iPad has a touch screen your MBA doesn't.
2. you can already zoom so much with Preview, what are you trying to see?
Porn?
Seriously, even with porn, you don't need retina display, your MBA will do the job just fine.

Now, your MBA has better purpose than that.

awesomebase
Mar 21, 2012, 01:05 PM
I'd certainly like to see the 11" MBA come out with a Retina display, why not? Sony already has a 13" display that is a full 1080p resolution. I don't see why Apple couldn't do a 2560x1440 resolution on the MBAs and 3200x2100 or 3840x2160 on the MBPs. Heck the Samsung Galaxy S3 is supposed to have a true 1080p display on a 4.8" screen. If a phone can do it, no reason why a laptop can't.
As for gaming; certainly I can understand that people want that capability on their machines, but I've just never understood why that is so critical. Honestly, I could care less whether any games ran on a Mac. I'd rather them attend to those working on their systems first and address gaming later; there are phones, consoles, tablets, etc. to provide for the gaming experience. It would be nice to see the MBAs and MBPs go with higher resolution devices first...

Moonjumper
Mar 21, 2012, 01:54 PM
If I got crisp text to match that now available on iOS, that would be enough of a benefit to warrant Retina Macs, but that wouldn't be the only benefit.

I would rather that is what Macs got from iOS, instead of the dubious features Lion got, and Mountain Lion will be getting.

Beanoir
Mar 21, 2012, 02:08 PM
ppi is only part of what you actually see..

The higher resolution on the iPhone and iPad is great because you tend to hold them much closer to your face to view them, so you notice the higher resolution.

A laptop and certainly desktops tend to be viewed at a further distance.

Its a well known fact that the human eye can not tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on an HD TV once sat a certain distance away from the screen (i.e. about 10-12 feet for a 42 inch screen). At that distance if the entire picture was white and just 1 pixel was black, most people wouldn't be able to see the single black pixel.

The same logic applies to any devices like iPads, laptops etc, hence why a retina display would be of less use on them.

You can't argue with science.

Try an experiment with this image and stand back 10 feet see if you notice the difference between the above mentioned resolutions. Enlarge the image below. Can you tell the difference between 720p and 1080p HD resolutions?

http://www.faqhdtv.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/HD-Resolutions.png

I know this doesn't cover smaller higher res devices but it explains the logic behind it.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f142/Beanoir/resolution_chart-1.jpg

jvmxtra
Mar 21, 2012, 10:21 PM
Let the new ipad be a lesson for all near future device.

Apple needs to diversify their product line a bit within same category.

Why not introduce 2 ipad..

ipad HD w/ current resolution w/ 10 hour battery life

AND

ipad 3 w/ same old resolution but w/ 20 hour battery life..

Why the hell NOT?

And I am so sorry, but if technology is getting better enough for macbook to keep same battery life but be able to drive that much high resolution like ipad, I rather get 14 hour battery life on new macbook than unnecessary resolution bump.

scottness
Mar 23, 2012, 10:49 AM
Eh, not that important to me. I never hold my computer as close to my face as my iPhone. It's always sitting on a desk much farther away from my face. Not sure I'd notice that much of a difference.

warfed
Mar 23, 2012, 12:17 PM
I hope they don't make a retina Air, at least not in the same way the iPad is doing it. I'd rather have a higher resolution that gives me more screen real estate instead of just doubling the vertical and horizontal pixel, showing everything clearer when I hold it an inch from my face.

In future sure... but not now. I don't want to sacrifice battery and GPU power plus internet bandwidth would double since pictures would have to be bigger to take advantage of "retina" render... come to think of it I doubt it will happen any time soon unless it will be done halfassed.

Beanoir
Mar 24, 2012, 02:43 PM
I hope they don't make a retina Air, at least not in the same way the iPad is doing it. I'd rather have a higher resolution that gives me more screen real estate instead of just doubling the vertical and horizontal pixel, showing everything clearer when I hold it an inch from my face.

In future sure... but not now. I don't want to sacrifice battery and GPU power plus internet bandwidth would double since pictures would have to be bigger to take advantage of "retina" render... come to think of it I doubt it will happen any time soon unless it will be done halfassed.

This is exactly why I don't think they will do it...because people don't need it

There are people that want it, because they chase the "stats" and think it gives them something, when in reality the truth is quite the opposite.