Apple to Launch 2880x1800 Resolution 'Retina Display' MacBook Pro in Q2 2012?

[arn]

You know this 2880x1800 screen will look like a 1440x990 with sharper text, right?

Unless you can choose it to run in HiDPi or regular mode, though

Hum... 2880x1800 is 1440x900, only "sharper". Quadrupling the pixels is nice. Keeping the same real-estate while doing so.... yuck.

Let's hope this is for the 13" model, not the 15". The 15" at the current 1440x900 is abysmal. The "optional" "hi-res" display (all in quotes yes) should be standard. There should even be a 1920x1200 option for the 15".

It looks likely you could run at full 2880x1800 rez with tiny elements

At least that's how the config looks like on today's computers (1440x900 screen). So if the same pattern follows, you would choose between:

2880x1800
vs
1440x900 (HiDPI)

 

[KnightWRX]

Why don't we all just move to vector graphics!

Something we should've done a long time ago. But something I get flamed for saying around these parts.

Forget that the KDE desktop had implemented a lot of support for SVG rendering in the UI in like 1999, people around here will tell you "it's impossible and too computationally intensive!".

 

[Steve121178]

You know this 2880x1800 screen will look like a 1440x990 with sharper text, right?

Yes, but who is going to complain at the possibility of better display panels?

 

[KnightWRX]

It looks likely you could run at full 2880x1800 rez with tiny elements

At least that's how the config looks like here (1440x900 screen). So if the same pattern follows, you would choose between:

2880x1800
vs
1440x900 (HiDPI)

But then, the PPI would be way too high to do anything useful. I'm sitting about 24" away from my MBA right now, I don't need 300 PPI+ to not see the pixels.

Apple should just concentrate on reaching a good 160+ PPI in their laptop screens instead of this HiDPI stuff that doesn't help with screen real-estate.

 

[Steve121178]

The world is better when everything is more detailed! Thankyou Apple!

Technically, it's the panel manufacturers that you should be crediting & thanking.

 

[Piggie]

absolutely find for office and internet type use.
Do Apple GPU's (a notorious weak point in all Apple computers as Apple just does not put much importance on the GPU, even fitting low power laptop chipsets into top end $2000+ iMac's) have the power it really takes to throw four times the amount of pixels around the screen as they do now?
Like running 4 monitors of a current machine and seeing how the frame rate drops.

I'd love love love higher screen resolutions, as long as they don't kill performance, and at the moment you are looking at a lot of GPU power to move that all around at high speeds.

 

[rogerwang]

How about doubling dpi for 27' iMac? That's 5120x2880. Which is 14.7MP. Way to view photos!

 

[alphaod]

The Thinkpad R51 featured a 2048x1536 S-IPS display back in 2004, so this is Apple "reinventing" things again.

 

[Aegelward]

I wonder how the GPU is going to cope, which is always my concern with these high density displays.

Running games at native just isn't going to happen.

 

[Henriok]

I can se Adobe crapping out about this if it turns out that Photoshop is unusable. And lamenting Apple for doing things they didn't know about even if Apple's been holding sessions at WWDC for the better part of the last decade about this very thing and including rudimentary support since 10.4 or so.

 

[314631]

I would be tempted to upgrade my ageing 17" Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro if they increased the screen resolutions. It's probably the only thing that would tempt me to buy a new MBP.

 

[tatonka]

This new high resolution MacBook Pro would presumably be a 15" model which currently carries a native resolution of 1440x900 pixels. By doubling the resolution in each dimension, Apple would achieve four times the number of pixels and provide developers an easy way to scale existing artwork.

This is not iOS .. quadrupling the pixels is absolutely not necessary, since Mac Programs (and graphics) are optimized for various screens/resolutions anyways.

That said .. a higher ppi display would be welcome.

T.

 

[roadbloc]

Apple can take my £ right now if that is true.

 

[manu chao]

Since this is a retina display, things should appear the same size as 1440x900, but a lot sharper. Thus this display would fit less things than a 1680x1050 display.

It depends on how you determine how much is fitting on your display. If you only count the non-user resizable things like all UI chrome (eg, the menubar, the toolbar, the window borders), then increasing the resolution retina-style will not fit more things. But all user-resizable content like graphical elements (eg, images, graphs) or text can be displayed physically smaller on a retina display while still being readable and discernable and thus allow you to fit more on your screen.

And one should not underestimate the 'sharper' aspect, it makes the computer much more comfortable to look at.

 

[Tea-Aholic]

There are several things to consider with these "hiDPI" displays. I'm no graphics designer, but I have these thoughts.

1. Is there any reason why OS interfaces don't use vector graphics instead of raster/bitmap images? If OS were to use vector graphics, the OS would be able to intelligently adjust the size of the graphics depending on what display is being used.

2. Most people buy higher resolution displays to view more content, not have higher resolution graphics in the OS. Say I use photoshop a lot, these "hiDPI" displays will still give a larger/display more canvas area to work on despite the graphical elements taking up the same space assuming at 2x?

3. Will it be economically beneficial to run such a high resolution display. It seems that the graphics card will be doing an awful lot of rendering and not to mention the battery on mobile devices.

Just some thoughts.

 

[808?]

Give it me.

 

[The Great Boony]

Good! 1440x900 is waaaay to low. Even 1680 x1050. Laptops with that price should have full HD standard.

I think you'll find that 1440x900 is above the standard for HD

 

[manu chao]

This is not iOS .. quadrupling the pixels is absolutely not necessary, since Mac Programs (and graphics) are optimized for various screens/resolutions anyways.

Really? Can you show me applications that scale their UI chrome to have the same physical size on screens with different resolutions?

 

[kyjaotkb]

Does this mean that even though the screen will have a native resolution of 2880x1880 visually it will be the same as current MacBook Pro 15" resolution of 1440x900 but with a higher DPI so it will just look sharper.

This actually won't give you more desktop space.

Also what happens to the 1680 x1050 hi-res option displays will they also get bumped up to 3360x2100?

I personally would prefer to just have 2880x1880 of desktop space at the current DPI.

I too think a 30" laptop would be quite a leap forward in the mobile computing industry.

 

[Westyfield2]

OMFG do want!

 

[The Great Boony]

I too think a 30" laptop would be quite a leap forward in the mobile computing industry.

That would be an awesome 'One More Thing' as 3 people carry it out onto the stage

 

[dr Dunkel]

I think you'll find that 1440x900 is above the standard for HD

The standard for full HD (like he said)? Not iTunes HD

 

[watchthisspace]

I wonder how the battery is going to cope with such a high res..

 

[swingerofbirch]

For some reason over the last few months I have noticed the pixels on my 13" MacBook Pro more. Maybe I am sitting closer to it. I would love a higher DPI even without extra screen real estate. Of course they could do both by doubling a slightly higher resolution than the MPBs already have.

 

[cogitodexter]

I think I'm going to need new spectacles.

I already sit in front of a 30" Cinema display and am regularly double tapping my magic mouse to zoom elements of the screen.

I'm cursing my ageing eyes - now I won't really be able to appreciate all the new HiDPI loveliness as much!