Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Dec 21, 2011, 04:38 PM   #51
RKpro
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Do want. 1440x900 is badly outdated, I shouldn't be able to see individual pixels on any device I use.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.
__________________
15" mbp 2.4GHz | mac how to
RKpro is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2011, 05:00 PM   #52
avkills
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Where are da new Towers?

-mark
avkills is offline   -2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2011, 05:22 PM   #53
bgtrack
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: East Lansing
Much wanted feature...it was only a matter of time before this happened.
__________________
11" MBA, 32GB Black iPhone 4S
bgtrack is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2011, 05:46 PM   #54
cmChimera
macrumors 68000
 
cmChimera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
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 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2011, 06:42 PM   #55
MythicFrost
macrumors 68040
 
MythicFrost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmChimera View Post
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.
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 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2011, 06:51 PM   #56
joepunk
macrumors 68030
 
joepunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: a profane existence
Send a message via AIM to joepunk
Quote:
Originally Posted by MythicFrost View Post
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
If the price is kept the same as today that would be very cool.
__________________
2010 15" MBP 2.4 i5 4gb/320gb/GT330-256MB 10.9.2
2004 15" PBG4 1.5ghz/128vram DYING, Replacement: 2005 15" PBG4 1.5ghz/64vram
iMac G3 333mhz/128mbRam/6gbHD

Flickr
joepunk is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2011, 06:57 PM   #57
Uabcar
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
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.
Uabcar is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2011, 07:47 PM   #58
Phenotype
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by hayesk View Post
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.
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?
Phenotype is offline   -1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2011, 07:55 PM   #59
MythicFrost
macrumors 68040
 
MythicFrost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by joepunk View Post
If the price is kept the same as today that would be very cool.
Indeed. We can hope!
MythicFrost is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2011, 11:00 PM   #60
theLaika
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Vancouver, BC
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.
__________________
Twitter
Flickr
last.fm
theLaika is offline   -1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2011, 11:04 PM   #61
ABernardoJr
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyturbouk View Post
a 'retina' display on a MBA and touch screen interface is the way apple is heading Imo

soon iOS will consume osx -
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
ABernardoJr is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2011, 11:06 PM   #62
skier777
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
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 is offline   -2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2011, 11:10 PM   #63
ABernardoJr
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by skier777 View Post
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.
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 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2011, 11:26 PM   #64
skier777
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by ABernardoJr View Post
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.
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?
skier777 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2011, 11:32 PM   #65
ABernardoJr
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
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.
ABernardoJr is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2011, 11:52 PM   #66
shompa
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by NMF View Post
That's great, but what I really want is a 4K Thunderbolt Display!

(and matching iMac)
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.
shompa is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2011, 11:56 PM   #67
cmChimera
macrumors 68000
 
cmChimera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by MythicFrost View Post
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
I really hope this shows up in the next update. It would be incredible.
cmChimera is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2011, 11:58 PM   #68
shompa
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uabcar View Post
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.
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 is offline   -2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2011, 12:01 AM   #69
ABernardoJr
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by shompa View Post
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.
Wouldn't you still be able to choose a lower resolution if you wanted as you can now?
ABernardoJr is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2011, 12:42 AM   #70
ciociosan
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Lund, Sweden
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!
__________________
15" MacBook Pro i7, 64 GB White iPhone 4 S⃣ , 24" Aluminium iMac (2.4 GHz, 4 GB RAM, 1 TB HD) ; 32 GB Black iPhone 3G S⃣ , White MacBook (2.0 GHz, 2 GB RAM) ; 2nd gen. iPod Shuffle, iMac G3
ciociosan is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2011, 01:21 AM   #71
widEyed
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildCowboy View Post

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.
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.
widEyed is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2011, 01:23 AM   #72
marcusj0015
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmChimera View Post
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.
This
marcusj0015 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2011, 02:08 AM   #73
MythicFrost
macrumors 68040
 
MythicFrost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmChimera View Post
I really hope this shows up in the next update. It would be incredible.
Oh yeaah, it would be fabulousity!
MythicFrost is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2011, 03:04 AM   #74
marcusj0015
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MythicFrost View Post
Oh yeaah, it would be fabulousity!
Totally stealing that word.
marcusj0015 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2011, 03:19 AM   #75
illian
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Porsche-City, Germany
Quote:
Originally Posted by skier777 View Post
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.
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'!
illian is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Teardown of Retina iPad Mini Reveals A7 Chip, LG Display, Larger Battery MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 85 Dec 20, 2013 02:17 AM
Retina Display Support for Office Mac 2008 brianjralph Mac Applications and Mac App Store 1 Feb 18, 2013 08:41 PM
Office for Mac 2011 updated with Retina display support Stetrain MacBook Pro 9 Sep 19, 2012 02:55 PM
Apps truly support retina display for rMBP golf1410 Mac Applications and Mac App Store 1 Jul 7, 2012 07:21 PM
Teardown of New MacBook Pro's Retina Display Reveals 'Engineering Marvel' MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 168 Jun 29, 2012 01:42 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:48 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC