I'm confused. If supposedly we get retina displays, what is one who wants a higher resolution screen to do? 2880x1800 is nice and all but that's just more DPI, which frankly I don't care about. I'd take 1920x1200 over the hiDPI. So what are you supposed to do if they drop retinas into the new MBPs?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2012 Macbook Pro Redesign
- Thread starter Funkymonk
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I would imagine that it would be a BTO choice. I guess you could also try running the 2880x1800 screen in a normal DPI mode, but that might make things a bit too small.
If they allowed more resolution independence you could run 2160x1350 (3/4) but I won't hold my breath for that.
From the front page article:
"Under OS X 10.7.3, the TextEdit icon file included four different image sizes: 16x16, 32x32, 128x128, and 512x512. With the move to OS X 10.7.4, the icon now comes in ten different sizes: 16x16, 32x32 HiDPI, 32x32, 64x64 HiDPI, 128x128, 256x256 HiDPI, 256x256, 512x512 HiDPI, 512x512, and 1024x1024 HiDPI."
Notice how they added new resolutions that aren't HiDPI. That probably means they plan to keep non-HIDPI as an option if you want more screen estate.
I hope so. One thing I've been thinking is that with much sharper graphics it would be possible to reduce the size of text, icons, etc. and still be able to read them fine giving more screen area for working.
For example, reading an iBook on my iPhone 4S I can set the text size one or two sizes smaller (depending on the font) than on my wife's 3GS and still read the text comfortably at the same viewing distance - and the res. of the 4S is only 1.5x that of the 3GS, not double.
Hi,
Good, I like it ! Great minds think alike
No, I'm not, I'm being realistic. However, I think that the number of people requiring 500GFlops for supercomputing in a laptop is infinitesimally smaller than the number of people wanting that GPU for gaming. Also, for the few more standard applications that can use a GPU, the Intel 4000 in Ivy Bridge does really good video conversion with QuickSync and has a nice number of pipelines for other work, like batch photo processing. Programmable in OpenCL, too.
So it's not that I'm marginalising people using a GPU for other purposes, it's that those application are marginal in numbers by fact. Possibly important for some, but those are still an extremely small minority.
Peter.
Too late man, I already did.
Good, I like it ! Great minds think alike
No, I'm not, I'm being realistic. However, I think that the number of people requiring 500GFlops for supercomputing in a laptop is infinitesimally smaller than the number of people wanting that GPU for gaming. Also, for the few more standard applications that can use a GPU, the Intel 4000 in Ivy Bridge does really good video conversion with QuickSync and has a nice number of pipelines for other work, like batch photo processing. Programmable in OpenCL, too.
So it's not that I'm marginalising people using a GPU for other purposes, it's that those application are marginal in numbers by fact. Possibly important for some, but those are still an extremely small minority.
Peter.
As has been posted previously in this thread, MSI have exactly this due for release probably in the 2nd half of this year, so I don't know what you mean by "not for a while".
But if Apple is cutting out the optical drive and going down to an integrated GPU, I would welcome a first party external "dock" with an optical drive, a slot for a GPU and I don't know.. a couple USB ports etc.
Not likely but would work. If not, I'll go with MSI.
Yeah, a photographer using Aperture at a site sounds like a really marginal use case.
I'm not saying there isn't a large market that doesn't need a GPU, but I would contend that the MacBook Air is the right tool for them. For those that have non-trivial graphics performance needs, need a portable computer, and need to be just as effective at site/on travel, a built-in GPU is a must. And it's not a trivial number of users as much as you'd like to marginalize.
Just because you're being realistic for your particular situation doesn't mean you are for the entire MBP market.
It's 4x the resolution actually
Ah, just checked, the 3GS is only 480x320, I thought it was 640x480. I stand corrected, thanks for pointing it out
I see a lot of discussion about ditching the optical drive and using the space for a bigger battery to power new retina displays, but if they ship with the new engery efficient ivy bridge chips and IGZO displays would they need a bigger battery? Or could they keep the same size battery or maybe even a smaller battery and slim down the whole design? Do you think IGZO displays are in the cards?
I doubted the Retina display but with more HiDPI stuff being included in the Lion update makes me think they might actually be able to pull it off.
This is lining up to be a massive update really, but then again since we have no solid info it could just be a spec bump. Hopefully we will find out sooner rather than later.
http://www.popherald.com/os-x-hidpi-icon-tweak-17183/
Just a new rumour from Google. It does think that the Pro's will be released with Mountain Lion 'late summer' D: sigh.. I want my MBP now
Just a new rumour from Google. It does think that the Pro's will be released with Mountain Lion 'late summer' D: sigh.. I want my MBP now
Haswell won't be that far off then, I guess if you're always going to wait for the next big thing you'll never buy anything.
Hmm.. I just think it's best I wait for the 2012 model instead of buying the 2011 MBP now
HiDPI mode means that things will be the same size but just use four pixels instead of one, just like on iOS devices. So a website on a 2880x1600 retina display will be exactly the same size as on a 1440x800 display, just a lot sharper
It is always a good sign that the rumors start to increase, however no rumor states a possible launch date
That article makes no mention of a retina 1680x1050 BTO option (i.e. 3360x2100). Like many posters on this forum, I agree that it's time that the MBP upped the base resolution to something competitive. If they can't find a way to offer 3360x2100, then hopefully they at least maintain the 1680x1050 BTO option alongside the base retina screen.
When the 2012 is finally released, and 2880x1800 is the base res, I'm really hoping most of the reviews contain comparisons between a retina'd 2880x1800 vs. a hi-res 1680x1050. The retina gives you crisp and sharp graphics, and the same amount of space. The other gives you near-retina quality and more space.
When the 2012 is finally released, and 2880x1800 is the base res, I'm really hoping most of the reviews contain comparisons between a retina'd 2880x1800 vs. a hi-res 1680x1050. The retina gives you crisp and sharp graphics, and the same amount of space. The other gives you near-retina quality and more space.