Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Including Ultra High Resolution Artwork in Lion for Possible Retina Displays?

Piggie said:
Apple's problem is that they put "Looks" before performance.

They crippled their chances of ever becoming a serious competitor to the PC for games due to deciding to use giant laptops on a stand which meant they could not cool any decent graphics cards, handing the gaming crown to the PC for years on a plate.

As for the future who knows.
Click to expand...

And today they are the Gold Standard for consumer tech.

OS X runs very well on Apple hardware. OS X apps run very well on Apple hardware. Not sure what the problem with performance is.

Those "laptops on a stand" are selling in record numbers while the rest of the computer industry is in a sharp downturn.

They've got the future of gaming all locked up nice and tight on iOS, not on PCs as we know them but on mobile devices which keep getting more powerful and which as we know, are the future of computing.

Your anecdotal opinion is cool and all, but perspective please!

Apple has been completely and unequivocally unaffected by conceding the gaming market to someone else. Instead, they've revisited it and have created a new standard. if that's what "losing" means then I'm damned impressed.
 
pdpardue said:
anyone remember when screens were 1024x768? who would have imagined that now icons are 1024x1024... that icon is bigger than the total resolution of my first computer's display
Click to expand...

What do you mean? 13 Inch MacBook/MBP screen resolution is still s 1280 x 800, which only ~20% more pixels than the resolution you mentioned.
 
tmarks11 said:
Uhmm, how about 640x480? Or less, with the vic 20.

I remember my pos compaq 386sx2 that came defaulted to 800x600... In 1994.

Back ot, why is apple dealing wih 3200x3200? Are they abandoning the tradition 4:3, 16x9 or 16:9 aspect ratio?
Click to expand...

iPad wallpapers are also square, so they can be rotated evenly
 
Piggie said:
Apple's problem is that they put "Looks" before performance.

They crippled their chances of ever becoming a serious competitor to the PC for games due to deciding to use giant laptops on a stand which meant they could not cool any decent graphics cards, handing the gaming crown to the PC for years on a plate.

As for the future who knows.
Click to expand...

The don't have a problem.

Did you read the last quarter results?

They didn't cripple their chances. They decided not to be in that field in the beginning.

When they decide to get into gaming for real (not dabbling like now), they will do a good job(s)!

As the previous poster wrote: Mobile game is where it's at!

Apple will do well in that with the ipad!
 
This just sold me on the high-res screen for the MacBook Pro I'm looking at.

The $250 for the 2.3 i7 probably isn't worth it, but the $100 for the screen upgrade apparently will be...
 
a retina display on the 13" MBP would be the one thing that would get me to upgrade almost immediately.
 
ivladster said:
Wish Apple did something towards resolution independence and not make images bigger and bigger. :confused:
Click to expand...

Resolution independence will not stop images from getting bigger. Unless you are dealing with vector art, scaling an image up will decrease quality. Resolution independence will be a function of taking the biggest image that might be used and scaling it down.

Even with vector art, you lose some image quality with scaling. You can't create new detail.
 
Instead of pixel based images that are just bigger, why not simply ship vector based icons/wallpapers ?

KDE supported SVG as a format for wallpapers and icons something like 10 years ago... That way, it doesn't matter what the display resolution is, the icon always looks sharp and non-pixelated.

I'd rather Apple work on making SVG the standard graphics format for graphics ressources than just bumping up the pixel count (and the file size!).

Heck, if they don't like SVG (which is just a bunch of XML), they could go with one of the other vector based image formats or come up with one of their own.
 
I don't see how this will happen anytime soon with screen prices, but it would be sweet. Already in love with my 1440x900 13in screen, couldn't imagine the clarity with it being doubled.
 
I could take this or leave it at this stage.

Would rather have upgradeable hard drive and even upgradeable gpu instead of twice resolution.

Would rather have anti-glare option too.

But if this means some sort of resolution independence then I'm all for it now.
 
I will be honest and truthful and say for a mobile device on batteries, I'm very impressed as what the iPhone and iPad can do gaming wise.

However I will also state, and I think we all should be honest, that at the moment, Apple are bringing the games DOWN to what their hardware can do, as opposed to making Hardware so great that gaming is being pushed UP to take advantage of Apples industry leading performance.

When Apple release GTX580 beating desktops, and/or Xbox360 / PS3 beating gaming devices, I will happily bow down to them being the greatest in graphics.

But right now, they are trailing by miles due to years of neglect as they just did not have products that could compete, and their one semi attempt at a console got nowhere.

Note: I would LOVE LOVE LOVE Apple to turn this around.

They need to ditch the "Laptops on a Stand" design of the iMac for starters, but I feel they never will as they have decided they won't compete and they cannot compete in this sector of the market.

Console wise, I'm not sure they could compete against a 360 or a PS3. Let's say Apple against a PS4 or a Xbox720
Nope, can't see that happening either.

The low power/trimmed down, casual gamers games, seems to be the only area they are going for.

But Again, I would LOVE Apple to turn this around and take high end graphics seriously in their future products.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_6 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E200 Safari/6533.18.5)

MacYale said:
wordoflife said:
Wow, that App Store icon devoured my whole screen (MBP 13)
Click to expand...

Yeah. Barely fits on my screen and i have a 24" inch imac.

it would be sick to have a 30" retina ACD. /dream
Click to expand...

Yeah a 1024 x 1024 icon is amazing considering I would bet a significant amount of 1024 x 768 monitors are still being used. Imagine not being able to view an icon in its entirety on a five-year-old monitor!
 
I will assume the role of the buzzkiller here and assume that this is in prevision of the fact that Lion's Spaces lets you have a different section of the same wallpaper for each space.
 
For the win!

Westacular said:
The basic fact is vector graphics aren't always appropriate. A lot of things really can only be done, or can be done much better, with pixels. For any image with a lot of detail, it's easier -- both for the artists making them, and for the computers rendering them -- to store an extremely high resolution bitmapped image, and then downscale it as necessary, than it is to make and render a vectorized version that is "truly" resolution independent.

And now Apple's realized that by targeting "Retina Display" resolution levels, this is the last increase in image sizes they'll ever reasonably need: there's no point in making images bigger beyond this point (or displays with higher-than-retina-level DPI one would need to render them) because your eyes really won't be able to tell the difference.
Click to expand...

See above for the win!

It will be the last big change for mouse driven interfaces. Even if retina size monitors become massive (e.g. 50 inch) the physical size of an icon on the screen will remain the same as today. Increasing resolution beyond "retina" is pointless, it would only play to pixel-peeping freaks with magnifying glasses - hardly a profitable segment of society.

Same reason print resolution has not increased in a long long time. Once printing resolution matured there were other things to focus on (colour, contrast, etc). Same will play out for computer monitors.
 
hobo.hopkins said:
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_6 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E200 Safari/6533.18.5)



Yeah a 1024 x 1024 icon is amazing considering I would bet a significant amount of 1024 x 768 monitors are still being used. Imagine not being able to view an icon in its entirety on a five-year-old monitor!
Click to expand...

Indeed they are, and still being sold today.
They are called iPad's ;)
 
Doesn't OS X already support displays up to 2560x1600? Afaik that was the resolution of Apple's own (now discontinued) 30" display and the resolution of most, if not all, 30" displays available at the moment. 3200x2000 is nothing but the next rung on the ladder. This is just Apple future-proofing their OS a bit. If they release anything in the short term it will most likely be a big-ass iMac or a bigger Apple Display, NOT a laptop running that resolution. Just saying...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back