Double resolution mean 4 times as many pixels so it would need 4 times the power to be as smooth. Also resizing window sizes with those resolutions is very cpu intensive even on new cpus. It becomes choppy.
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.
Apple to Launch 2880x1800 Resolution 'Retina Display' MacBook Pro in Q2 2012?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Double resolution mean 4 times as many pixels so it would need 4 times the power to be as smooth. Also resizing window sizes with those resolutions is very cpu intensive even on new cpus. It becomes choppy.
The example is on the first post of this thread; compare the Apple to the text.
If you don't think that looks bad, then you won't have any use for a higher density screen.
I never stated Apple was the only company on the bandwagon. IMO, everyone should be. And yes, I agree that developers will start creating HiDPI graphics en masse; that's what my last post said.
I dont believe you ever ran any good quality game downscaled to say such a load of crap.
First of all why enable antialiasing or anisotropic filtering if the motion blur as you say is blending them 100% of the time... ho wait why I am even trying to discuss with you.
1680x1050 should be default...i would rather want 1920x1200 instead of HiDPI in my 15 mbp
What's got me recently is that the the 13" Air has a better screen than the 13" Pro... and the prob has been updated during the new air's lifetime.
1280x800 - 13" MBP
1440x900 - 13" MBA
1280x800 - 13" MBP
1440x900 - 13" MBA
Hum, you're assuming current GPUs are running at full power to do this stuff. Hint : they aren't. They aren't even being stressed. 4x times the power ? They've been capable of this for years.
Resizing windows is not even cpu intensive... not by a long shot. I was resizing windows back in the 80s...
But the elements won't be that size - they'll be half the length and width in that screenshot. So the Apple will be half the size, and look exactly like it does now.
Sure, it could be sharper with a HiDPI icon, but it is by no means unbearable.
This is the same image at normal size:
Attachments
Boring.
Boring. The existing displays are already at the limit of what I see for pixels. Quadrupling the pixels (2Xx2X) does not give me any benefit and it will cost processing power and maybe battery life.
I would much rather see:
1) Battery life improvements - Days to weeks of power on a charge
2) Durability - I want to be able to use my machine in more environments
3) Longevity - It is a waste of my time changing machines**
4) Support for older software (PPC, Classic, etc) - This is a biggy*
5) Graphic processor improvements - I want better X-Plane rendering
6) Main Processor speed improvements - I want better X-Plane running
For me the existing 15" screen size is good for the laptop. Being able to connect it to a larger screen is nice for movies but the pixel count doesn't have to change, it's just a bigger screen so more people can enjoy the movie at the same time from a greater distance.
*#4 is why I have not been upgrading my hardware or software both personally, within the family and in our businesses. I have legacy software that I still need to run. Apple has abandoned Classic/OS9 and is now abandoning PPC. If the new processors are so freakin' powerful let them emulate the old stuff. Apple's got the money to continue support. There is a tremendous amount of old software, especially in the educational field and for small businesses, that was never reproduced for MacOSX. It is a shame that Apple is letting all that die. When Apple offers a machine and OS that continues to support at least back to OS9/Classic I'll buy a lot of new computers. Until then I buy used PowerBook5,8's (G4 1.67GHz) which get the job done. Apple suffers as they're not making new sales.
**Apple could make machines with much longer supported lives and still make profits. Just charge for the new OS each year and other services. They've proven the model with both the OS and iTunes.
Boring. The existing displays are already at the limit of what I see for pixels. Quadrupling the pixels (2Xx2X) does not give me any benefit and it will cost processing power and maybe battery life.
I would much rather see:
1) Battery life improvements - Days to weeks of power on a charge
2) Durability - I want to be able to use my machine in more environments
3) Longevity - It is a waste of my time changing machines**
4) Support for older software (PPC, Classic, etc) - This is a biggy*
5) Graphic processor improvements - I want better X-Plane rendering
6) Main Processor speed improvements - I want better X-Plane running
For me the existing 15" screen size is good for the laptop. Being able to connect it to a larger screen is nice for movies but the pixel count doesn't have to change, it's just a bigger screen so more people can enjoy the movie at the same time from a greater distance.
*#4 is why I have not been upgrading my hardware or software both personally, within the family and in our businesses. I have legacy software that I still need to run. Apple has abandoned Classic/OS9 and is now abandoning PPC. If the new processors are so freakin' powerful let them emulate the old stuff. Apple's got the money to continue support. There is a tremendous amount of old software, especially in the educational field and for small businesses, that was never reproduced for MacOSX. It is a shame that Apple is letting all that die. When Apple offers a machine and OS that continues to support at least back to OS9/Classic I'll buy a lot of new computers. Until then I buy used PowerBook5,8's (G4 1.67GHz) which get the job done. Apple suffers as they're not making new sales.
**Apple could make machines with much longer supported lives and still make profits. Just charge for the new OS each year and other services. They've proven the model with both the OS and iTunes.
Good post, demonstrate the point very well. HiDPI makes things sharper, but it leaves other elements looking just like they do now. If they don't look pixelated or blurry or whatever today, they won't on a HiDPI display.
The fastest mobility GPU Apple ships already can't handle the latest native-res games, and those games are already stepped down from what developers "really" wanted to ship. These screens would be released with the next-gen GPUs, but those aren't going to provide anywhere close to a 400% improvement over current.
It will be interesting to see what happens. Many transformations have a buried assumption that display res is crap - perhaps it will be time to update the processing approaches.
It will be interesting to see what happens. Many transformations have a buried assumption that display res is crap - perhaps it will be time to update the processing approaches.
Well first of all, the images do look blurry today, but that's besides the point. It's like saying a 4x4 square on the iPhone 3GS looks the same as a 16x16 square on the iPhone 4. They're the same size, yes, but they don't look identical. The reason is that the space between pixels is larger on the 3G, but the screendoor effect is much more pronounced. The images are close (the resolution is the same), but they are not identical.
Last edited:
I understand the concept completely fine.
All you have to do is look at the Apple on your current desktop monitor. If you don't think it can be sharper, then you have nothing to worry about. It looks pixelated to me, however. I have been waiting for higher ppi on displays for years... and thank god Apple is taking the bull by the horns and making it happen.
Most people don't game. We're not going to hold back display resolution in laptops because a few gamers don't like it. They can just make their games use lower resolution.
I do too, and the 3GS looks vastly inferior to the 4. I don't know what else to tell you... maybe your tolerance is much lower.
I understand the concept completely fine.
All you have to do is look at the Apple on your current desktop monitor. If you don't think it can be sharper, then you have nothing to worry about. It looks pixelated to me, however. I have been waiting for higher ppi on displays for years... and thank god Apple is taking the bull by the horns and making it happen.
But they could also concentrate on giving us both higher PPI and more screen real-estate without this HiDPI bullcrap. They could just you know, give us things that Dell, IBM and others have been doing for years : proper resolutions...
Starting with banning anything under 130 PPI for laptop screens. No really, 1440x900 on a 15", awful.
----------
No, it does look inferior. But not when displaying the same image. God, I had this conversation with Kilamite for 2 pages...
Same 480x320 image displayed on both looks exactly the same. Are we going to have to go through this again ?
2880x1800
Count me in, if I can afford it. Who has the capability of making these for a reasonable cost? There was excitement about hi-res displays in the previous decade, but, at that time no one could figure out how to get the cost down.
Count me in, if I can afford it. Who has the capability of making these for a reasonable cost? There was excitement about hi-res displays in the previous decade, but, at that time no one could figure out how to get the cost down.
Wow, the GPU will have to be pretty powerful to run this, along with a solid battery life . .
my visa is going to take a killing
my visa is going to take a killing
As many others have pointed out, that really would depend on whether you were running in HiDPI mode or not. *You* could use it in HiDPI mode and you'd be right, but I'd be quite happy to actually run at 2880x1800 assuming Apple gave me decent font scaling so I could read my screen
...and I *really* want to replace this MBP, I've done nearly all the upgrades it can handle, the 1920x1200 display is sitting on my desk to swap in (which will make the 2nd display upgrade I've made ot this laptop), and then I've maxed out its customizibility and the damn things over 5 years old!
Don't bother, I've been trying to drill it into a few people for quite a few pages now.
However, the bit about HD movies is wrong. Technically, you could display 1080p natively on these screens. In fact, you could even upscale it to 1800p. Depends on how much the OS actually hides the details of screen. On iOS, you can actually now that you have 960x640 pixels available on the iPhone 4 by detecting if the screen supports scale factors and by playing with them.
I understand the concept completely fine.
All you have to do is look at the Apple on your current desktop monitor. If you don't think it can be sharper, then you have nothing to worry about. It looks pixelated to me, however. I have been waiting for higher ppi on displays for years... and thank god Apple is taking the bull by the horns and making it happen.
Of course it could be sharper. Everything could be sharper. I don't understand why you are saying, "you have nothing to worry about" - what were you even going on about before? I forget.. you just keep telling me not to worry. I'm not, trust me.
Yes you could. You know, 2880x1800 is higher than 1080p right? Even though every element will be doubled in size, your 1080p videos will look far better because the display can show every pixel, unlike the current 1440x900 resolution.
Sure, because you don't seem to understand the technology. It's okay, I'll help you learn.
We're not talking about resolution here; we both agree that a 100x100 image on a 1440x900 15" display will be the same size as the same 100x100 image scaled to 200x200 on a 2880x1800 15" display. The difference is that the 1440x900 display has greater space between the pixels.
Let's say this first image represents four pixels on the lower resolution display. Now by your train of thought, we would just put four more pixels in the space of one to achieve the double resolution of the higher display. That would look like the second image. That's not how it works, though; there is an equal space between all pixels in a display. Thus the higher res display actually looks like the last image. So even though there are exactly four times the pixels on the higher display, simply scaling a lower res image to the same size does not look the same. Physically it takes up the same amount of space, yes, but you reduce the space between pixels making the image sharper. Obviously some people will have a higher tolerance for being able to see the differences than others. Higher resolution is always better.
Attachments
Look, I quite understand that all of that is a non-issue. It's not apparent at all, even if I jam my face against both the iPhone 4 and the iPhone 3GS.
Just admit you were wrong and move along.
----------
Depends how HiDPI mode works as I've stated. If the app thinks it's displaying on a 1440x900 screen, it will downscale your 1080p video to 900 lines. The system will then "pixel double" the result, so you'll still only have 900 lines of actual "pixels".
However, if the app is made aware of the scaling factor and can bypass it, providing an upscaled 1800p version of the video, then yes, you will get the entire quality.