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

thesheep said:

Whilst they don't target a specific overall screen size, the various UI components (buttons, menus, lists, etc) are usually created at a specific size. This would give developers a way to increase the resolution (quality) of these graphics, keeping the size the same.

Click to expand...

If i'm understanding this correctly, this would mean that Apple will fix the size of these UI graphics to be the same (usually extremely large) on EVERY machine providing users zero choice on GUI size and putting more strain on the GPU?

I'm using a 17" MBP with a 1920x1200 resolution display because it provides the perfect size (for me) UI components. At the moment the only comfort I have is the ability to choose the highest resolution display possible on a smaller sized display to significantly reduce Apple's insanely LARGE UI components. I've also a 24" Cinema display which is 1920x1200 and that is unbearable to use, fonts, menus, buttons etc are absolutely HUGE.

I'd been long awaiting Resolution Independence to allow me to use any Mac/Display combo which provided me the adjustment to make the UI smaller and more suited to my needs. Seems the future is 'one size fits all' anything else is bad luck.

drayon said:

If i'm understanding this correctly, this would mean that Apple will fix the size of these UI graphics to be the same (usually extremely large) on EVERY machine providing users zero choice on GUI size and putting more strain on the GPU?

I'm using a 17" MBP with a 1920x1200 resolution display because it provides the perfect size (for me) UI components. At the moment the only comfort I have is the ability to choose the highest resolution display possible on a smaller sized display to significantly reduce Apple's insanely LARGE UI components. I've also a 24" Cinema display which is 1920x1200 and that is unbearable to use, fonts, menus, buttons etc are absolutely HUGE.

I'd been long awaiting Resolution Independence to allow me to use any Mac/Display combo which provided me the adjustment to make the UI smaller and more suited to my needs. Seems the future is 'one size fits all' anything else is bad luck.

Click to expand...

Nope.

In short, everything will look exactly as it does now but much better. Let's say on a 27 inch iMac you can choose from three resolutions,1280x720, 1920x1080, and 2560x1440, as a "retina" display you would now have the option for 2560x1440, 3840x2160, and 5120x2880 instead. Each would have the same amount of work space as its respective smaller resolution, but allow for much crisper content. Any images will look the same as they would on a normal 1440p panel, but will have the ability to look much better if the developer chooses to update with better graphics.

Phenomenal for gaming.

Ok, but...

I still would greatly prefer real resolution independence on OS X. The tools have been there for years now. UI elements like buttons, fills and boxes could be rather easily updated to use vector graphics instead of bitmaps and then would scale seamlessly to arbitrary resolution. This in turn would make it easier for users with vision problems to scale their UI to a comfortable, larger size without also greatly restricting the useful screen real estate for images or rendering giant ugly jagged type.

With all the pushing of developers Apple has historically done, I am puzzled by their lackluster pursuit of a clearly desirable goal. Windows is actually ahead of OS X in this respect.

imikem said:

I still would greatly prefer real resolution independence on OS X. The tools have been there for years now. UI elements like buttons, fills and boxes could be rather easily updated to use vector graphics instead of bitmaps and then would scale seamlessly to arbitrary resolution. This in turn would make it easier for users with vision problems to scale their UI to a comfortable, larger size without also greatly restricting the useful screen real estate for images or rendering giant ugly jagged type.

With all the pushing of developers Apple has historically done, I am puzzled by their lackluster pursuit of a clearly desirable goal. Windows is actually ahead of OS X in this respect.

Click to expand...

The problem with vector graphics, is that they have to be rasterized in order to be used.

NMF said:

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

Click to expand...

Which I can only assume means a four thousand dollar TB display? For TB, sounds about right.

avkills said:

Where are da new Towers?

-mark

Click to expand...

Waiting for next gen intel chips, probably late winter.

shompa said:

You do know that there is no content for that resolution?

All programs needs to be rewritten.

Click to expand...

Content? I'm running Logic and it's perfectly capable of using all that screen real estate, it's just more tracks onscreen.

marcusj0015 said:

The problem with vector graphics, is that they have to be rasterized in order to be used.

Click to expand...

Indeed. But so does anything else such as text. It has been a very long time since text was represented by bitmaps. Compared to the overhead of scaling type, the load represented by scaling UI elements must be small. NextStep did this with Display PostScript in the early 90s.

Pretty cool!

Why is every thread about this topic such a train wreck of misunderstanding?

If Apple is for real with this, they need to add some sort of font scaling functionality to OSX, otherwise you won't be able to read anything.

ABernardoJr said:

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.

Click to expand...

You make a good point. I can see the iTunes icon pixels from where i sit. But it wasn't noticeable until you pointed it out, nor do I care. I mean I can't see the safari one, and the ichat is barely noticeable. Why would they pour money into these computers for such a silly update.

----------

Where this would come in handy is in all large monitors. The 1680x1050 resolution is plenty on my 15" screen but I could use the double resolution on a 27" or even 24" monitor where I can see every pixel.

Alas, one would be naive to expect anything close to 329 PPI for large displays yet

If "Retina" stands for 329 PPI or more, it, predictably (and lamentably) won't be "Retina". Also, I've given up my hope for an IPS display in non-handheld Macs (i.e., laptops & desktops). I'm sure, in 20 years the by then long obsolete technology will probably find an inmplementation in most or all of Apple's devices, but not in the coming year or two, as Apple loves to underspec and overprice their products.

skier777 said:

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?

Click to expand...

I think, it's because your brain tricks you into failing to notice the pixels. However, had you a proper high-res (300 PPI or more) display next to your current one, your eyes would pick the difference at once.

I do see the pixels from 60 cm. quite clearly, especially edge pixels in letters.

Yvan256 said:

I wish people would stop saying "provide developers with an easy way to scale existing artwork" when it's about computers, that's just nonsense.

That might be true for devices with known, fixed resolutions that are upgraded (ex: iPhone's 320x480 upgraded to the iPhone 4's 640x960), but it's completely pointless for computers which have various resolutions to begin with.

Nobody out there makes software that targets exactly 1440x900. Computer users use anything between 640x480 up to 2560x2048. Even the aspect ratio isn't fixed.

Click to expand...

The article is fully correct --it's you that are confused.

It doesn't matter if developers target 1440x900 exactly with their software, or any other display size. It's NOT about the display size, it's about the DENSITY.

Or, more precisely, it's all about the *artwork* assets --as the article says.

For example, if the "Create Email" icon in Mail.app is now 32x32 pixels, Apple can provide a 64x64 version for retina-Macs, and it will be shown the same physical size as they would show the 32 version, but with more more detail and crispness.

Developers (especially good Mac shops, like Panic etc), will start providing additional 2x sized assets, and retina-capable Macs will use those. Same as it happens with the iPhone --there is a special convention in order for the app to use the double-sized asset automatically in a retina iPhone.

And of course, all rendered vector graphics and all fonts get more detail and crispness automatically, without any new assets needed.

So, in a retina-mac:

1) every icon/toolbar icon/etc gets better as soon as the developer also provides a 2x sized asset,

2) and all fonts and rendered vector graphics get better for free.

----------

NMF said:

If Apple is for real with this, they need to add some sort of font scaling functionality to OSX, otherwise you won't be able to read anything.

Click to expand...

The fonts will be the same PHYSICAL size as they are now, only crisper.

The retina-display is not about using the resolution to make UI elements (including fonts) half the size, it's about using it to make them have double the detail.

----------

LeoNobilis said:

If "Retina" stands for 329 PPI or more, it, predictably (and lamentably) won't be "Retina".

Click to expand...

For one, "Retina" is just a name to mean "ridiculously high pixel density". And that, it will be. Double what it is now, actually.

Second, the 329 PPI etc for a real "retina" is not absolute, it depends on the distance from eyes to screen. From 1 KM away, even a 10 PPI screen is a retina display.

You use a MBP much further than you do an iPhone, and doing the calculations the *relative* PPI in the expected MBP is just about right (a little south of the iPhone).

jglavin said:

Why is every thread about this topic such a train wreck of misunderstanding?

Click to expand...

Because lots of people think wikipedia is a reliable source. Or Blogs.

why all the thoughts on whether it's 1440x900 or 1680x1050 that will be doubled? Just because the UI elements will be doubled doesn't mean the screens will be. Apple uses the screens the manufacturer's can do and that changes all the time - at the time of the Powerbook it was 1100 something and 900 vertical for example. So it could just as well be an inbetween-resolution of 1600x1000 doubled to 3200x2000 in HiDPI, which is the size of the Lion wallpapers, so that would make sense unless they release a 30-32" standalone display. But then what says it's a 15" machine? Could just as well be 14" or 16". Maybe they will discontinue the 17" and just have a 13" and 15" model of 2880x1800 and 3200x2000 HiDPI pixels respectively.