OS X 10.7.3 Beta Reveals Active Work on 'Retina' Display Support for Mac

Do want. 1440x900 is badly outdated, I shouldn't be able to see individual pixels on any device I use.

My realistic wishlist for 2012 MBP is higher resolution, USB3, and removal of the optical drive in favor of a bigger battery. Come on Apple, take my money.

Where are da new Towers?

-mark

Much wanted feature...it was only a matter of time before this happened.

No seriously, what resolution would be doubled? 1440 x 900 isn't the only resolution available. I'm hoping they upgrade to 1920 x 1080 and double that.

cmChimera said:

No seriously, what resolution would be doubled? 1440 x 900 isn't the only resolution available. I'm hoping they upgrade to 1920 x 1080 and double that.

Click to expand...

The 15 inch model would probably be 2880x1800 (2x 1440x900) and offer 3360x2100 (2x 1680x1050) as an upgrade as it does now with the lower resolution. The 17 inch model will probably be 3840x2400 (2x 1920x1200).

That would mean the 13 inch would be 2560x1440 (2x 1280x720) but I'd rather see Apple up the 13 inch resolution to 1440x900 like the 13 inch MacBook Air and then have 1680x1050 for the 15 inch, and 1920x1080 for the 17 inch, all doubled.

iMac too please

MythicFrost said:

The 15 inch model would probably be 2880x1800 (2x 1440x900) and offer 3360x2100 (2x 1680x1050) as an upgrade as it does now with the lower resolution. The 17 inch model will probably be 3840x2400 (2x 1920x1200).

That would mean the 13 inch would be 2560x1440 (2x 1280x720) but I'd rather see Apple up the 13 inch resolution to 1440x900 like the 13 inch MacBook Air and then have 1680x1050 for the 15 inch, and 1920x1080 for the 17 inch, all doubled.

iMac too please

Click to expand...

If the price is kept the same as today that would be very cool.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

Can't wait for my new 30" iMac @5120x2880.

hayesk said:

Remember, the pixels will be twice as small, so it will look pretty much the same. Doubling an image is not a problem. It's when you don't have integer scaling factors that it becomes a problem. And if put in the effort you make 144 dpi web graphics, they'll just look much better.

Unless you are a terrible web developer, you won't have to create two versions of every web site. Non-HiDPI images will look the same, Hi-DPI images will look better. As long as you pay attention to the scaling factor that is already accessible and supported in web browsers today, you'll be fine.

Click to expand...

Maybe I'm not understanding this concept correctly, but allow me to use the iPhone as a basis of comparison. I had an iPhone 3G, which has a resolution of 320 x 480 pixels. I then switched to the iPhone 4, with it's retina display and resolution of 640 x 960. Custom backgrounds I had created at a size of 320 x 480 pixels had a very noticeable drop in quality upon upgrading to the iPhone 4, due to it's higher resolution and the scaling of the images. How would this same concept not apply to web graphics which have been created at a certain size? Why would they not have to scale, thus reducing their quality?

joepunk said:

If the price is kept the same as today that would be very cool.

Click to expand...

Indeed. We can hope!

Interesting development - won't websites and most legacy apps look terrible?

I've noticed some iPhone apps don't look like the developer upscaled their resolutions.

johnnyturbouk said:

a 'retina' display on a MBA and touch screen interface is the way apple is heading Imo

soon iOS will consume osx -

Click to expand...

What does the retina display have to do with iOS "consuming" OS X? Increasing screen resolution isn't something that is iOS exclusive, nor is it a bad thing as you seem to think it is

I have the MBP with the hires display, 1680x1050 i think. It works great, but sometimes I would like to have a few more pixels, maybe 1920x1200 or whatever. I could never see anything on a screen if it had a 3360x2100 display, stuff would be way too small, so I would have to scale everything to almost double, so now I simply have 4 pixels displaying what used to take one, and I'm not sure if I really see a point in the whole thing. Im only interested if it will be easier on my eyes, or let me fit about 10-20% more content on my screen.

skier777 said:

I have the MBP with the hires display, 1680x1050 i think. It works great, but sometimes I would like to have a few more pixels, maybe 1920x1200 or whatever. I could never see anything on a screen if it had a 3360x2100 display, stuff would be way too small, so I would have to scale everything to almost double, so now I simply have 4 pixels displaying what used to take one, and I'm not sure if I really see a point in the whole thing. Im only interested if it will be easier on my eyes, or let me fit about 10-20% more content on my screen.

Click to expand...

I don't think this retina upgrade is intended to fit more onto the screen like the 1440x900 to 1680x1050 increase does, it's more along the lines of doubling both dimensions, probably keeping the same screen estate, and just sort of making the pixels smaller which would make the images more clear/sharp. It's not supposed to make things smaller.

ABernardoJr said:

I don't think this retina upgrade is intended to fit more onto the screen like the 1440x900 to 1680x1050 increase does, it's more along the lines of doubling both dimensions, probably keeping the same screen estate, and just sort of making the pixels smaller which would make the images more clear/sharp. It's not supposed to make things smaller.

Click to expand...

If I can't see individual pixels now, and I have pretty much perfect eyesight, would I even be able to tell the difference? I mean without putting my face up to the screen?

Maybe not, but even if you can't see the pixels now, upgrading the clarity/sharpness probably will be noticeable in some ways. Personally when I look at the iTunes icon (or basically any round icon in the dock) I can see the pixels there, I'm not nitpicking at all actually, it's just an observation. I don't casually notice any pixels with things like text, regular images in browsers really, etc., just noticeable there. I'm also not saying that this upgrade is necessary because the screen looks great as is, but I do notice some pixels (without looking an inch away haha) and do think it's possible to notice the difference if they upgraded to a "retina" display.

NMF said:

That's great, but what I really want is a 4K Thunderbolt Display!

(and matching iMac)

Click to expand...

Could you explain how you would connect it to your mac/PC?

Dual Link DVI max resolution is 1920x1080 120 Hz / 2560x1600 60 Hz. That uses about 8 gigabit bandwidth.

Thunderbolt have 10 gigabit bandwidth = max 2880x1800 in 60 Hz.

MythicFrost said:

The 15 inch model would probably be 2880x1800 (2x 1440x900) and offer 3360x2100 (2x 1680x1050) as an upgrade as it does now with the lower resolution. The 17 inch model will probably be 3840x2400 (2x 1920x1200).

That would mean the 13 inch would be 2560x1440 (2x 1280x720) but I'd rather see Apple up the 13 inch resolution to 1440x900 like the 13 inch MacBook Air and then have 1680x1050 for the 15 inch, and 1920x1080 for the 17 inch, all doubled.

iMac too please

Click to expand...

I really hope this shows up in the next update. It would be incredible.

Uabcar said:

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

Can't wait for my new 30" iMac @5120x2880.

Click to expand...

The obsession with these extreme resolutions are strange.
You do know that there is no content for that resolution?

All programs needs to be rewritten. They will take much more space. Forget gaming, at least on mac + under 3K rig.

I love high resolution displays. Bought an Apple 30 inches in january 2005. But it was not great. All icons/content where to small. It took almost 2 years before a dual link graphic card was available on PC so that you could game on the screen. The games where upscaled.

shompa said:

The obsession with these extreme resolutions are strange.
You do know that there is no content for that resolution?

All programs needs to be rewritten. They will take much more space. Forget gaming, at least on mac + under 3K rig.

I love high resolution displays. Bought an Apple 30 inches in january 2005. But it was not great. All icons/content where to small. It took almost 2 years before a dual link graphic card was available on PC so that you could game on the screen. The games where upscaled.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't you still be able to choose a lower resolution if you wanted as you can now?

Brian: I'm not the Messiah! Will you please listen? I am not the Messiah, do you understand? Honestly!
Girl: Only the true Messiah denies His divinity.
Brian: What? Well, what sort of chance does that give me? All right! I am the Messiah!
Followers: He is! He is the Messiah!

WildCowboy said:

…
By going with a doubling of pixels in each dimension, it becomes easy for the system to display a pixel-doubled version of a small element at the appropriate real-life size if the developers have not provided those elements at sufficient resolution within the application.

Click to expand...

Why wouldn't developers have multi-res icons/buttons and screen art already?It's just as easy to make a multi-res .icns file as it is to down-sample the art-work down to a single pixel dimension. Don't tell me they're working with artwork at 1:1 that doesn't scale or isn't already overscaled when it's being drawn/rendered in PS or whatever.

cmChimera said:

No seriously, what resolution would be doubled? 1440 x 900 isn't the only resolution available. I'm hoping they upgrade to 1920 x 1080 and double that.

Click to expand...

This

cmChimera said:

I really hope this shows up in the next update. It would be incredible.

Click to expand...

Oh yeaah, it would be fabulousity!

MythicFrost said:

Oh yeaah, it would be fabulousity!

Click to expand...

Totally stealing that word.

skier777 said:

I have the MBP with the hires display, 1680x1050 i think. It works great, but sometimes I would like to have a few more pixels, maybe 1920x1200 or whatever. I could never see anything on a screen if it had a 3360x2100 display, stuff would be way too small, so I would have to scale everything to almost double, so now I simply have 4 pixels displaying what used to take one, and I'm not sure if I really see a point in the whole thing. Im only interested if it will be easier on my eyes, or let me fit about 10-20% more content on my screen.

Click to expand...

i was thinking the same...i am too far away from my mbp 15 high res to see any pixels. i would rather have more screen real estate AND a better display panel. don't care so much about 'retina'!