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
Apple actually had some of those awhile back, not sure if that's still the case, but they were absolutely legit part numbers.
Yes, very atrocious indeed. But I think we need to re-evaluate the word huge in this case. I just tested size 1 font cranking down my resolution to 1280x1024, and while not as tiny as on a modern resolution monitor I would hardly says its large.
I hardily suggest not exaggerating the size of things to others. It can only lead to their imminent disappointment.
This is exactly right. That's why the new icons are designed at four times the resolution - so they display on the higher ppi screen at the same size, just with significantly more clarity.
----------
His comment was regarding increased resolution with the same screen real estate. That is always better in any situation. Whether your eyes are good enough to see the advantages varies from person to person. But there's nothing "yuck" about it.
Even if they were left the same though, they'd still only "lose clarity" relative to the new resolution. But I suppose that's obvious.
----------
Well... I sure as heck wasn't making a case for it being yuck... all I was saying was commenting on the first writer by saying that I thought his intention in "yuck" wasn't yuck for the sake of yuck, but compared to having another, say 50% real-estate, he would get clarity, of which he's prefer the prior.
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!".
WPF on windows is built using mostly vector graphics as well.
You would think so... some people just don't get it.Even if they were left the same though, they'd still only "lose clarity" relative to the new resolution. But I suppose that's obvious.
This has been disputed several times in this thread. No problem for even todays mobile gpu ships.
And if you talk about iMac, the current iMac can drive 3 of those displays, so yeah, you dont need to wait for the next iMac...
It's not resolution independence. It's a necessary step along the way though. Initial attempts at resolution independence were done way back when a typical monitor was 72-75ppi, and it didn't work well.
The real trick with resolution independence is that you've got to know the physical pixel-count of the display *and* as well as it's ppi. (Both things people commonly refer to as "resolution".) Just because a display is 1024x768 doesn't tell you how big you have to make a screen element in order to be readable. And knowing that the display is #ppi doesn't tell you how much 'screen real-estate' you have to play with. Then you've got to deal with the fact that different people like their on-screen text different sizes, which will effect the minimum sizes for a large class of controls on screen.
Getting the screen resolution to the point that it can be considered 'retina' by Apple's definition is a first step in allowing UI designers to stop sizing elements in pixels while keeping consistently pleasing results across different size/ppi displays.
Dunno....
The idea of adding pixels but keeping the same font size appeals to quite a few people.... I don't know how often I set up a desktop PC for somebody at work, and wind up getting complaints that "everything's so small, I can barely read it!". I wind up taking a 22" monitor with a native resolution of 1680x1200 or whatever, and dropping it down to 1024x768 just to please them.
Not everyone has perfect vision ... but even if your vision is fine, sometimes it's just not a big deal to people to cram as much as possible on a single laptop display. It is to me, but that's why I bought a 17" Macbook Pro in the first place. Forget trying to crunch all of it onto a 13" or 15" wide screen.
The idea of adding pixels but keeping the same font size appeals to quite a few people.... I don't know how often I set up a desktop PC for somebody at work, and wind up getting complaints that "everything's so small, I can barely read it!". I wind up taking a 22" monitor with a native resolution of 1680x1200 or whatever, and dropping it down to 1024x768 just to please them.
Not everyone has perfect vision ... but even if your vision is fine, sometimes it's just not a big deal to people to cram as much as possible on a single laptop display. It is to me, but that's why I bought a 17" Macbook Pro in the first place. Forget trying to crunch all of it onto a 13" or 15" wide screen.
To handle the same graphic fidelity (max settings, max res) the GPU will have to push 3x more pixels than before. What I'm hoping is Apple stick in an incredible graphics chip, what I'm dreading is Apple don't and games will be played at half (or 4x, whichever way you work things out) lower resolution.
Gaming, high resolution video editing, graphics work (or anything that's GPU intensive) at 5120x2880 wouldn't be a fun thing on existing iMac GPUs.
That's what I thought at first, but i think we aren't getting it.
Unless you want teeny-tiny little itty-bitty everythings (menu bar, buttons, icons, other standard GUI elements), you gotta scale them up by some standard uniform proportion at some point, no? I mean, I don't have a 30" Cinema Display, but whenever I play on one at MicroCenter or wherever, I always think, "dang, the GUI elements are too small".
Movies have nothing to do with Desktops. Why you are trying to equate both is beyond me.
1440x900 on a 15" laptop is too low. 1440x900 is atrocious real-estate. It's "good enough" when I'm on the road, but for work, I'd much rather have much more usable pixels.
This rumor is not about usable pixels.
----------
HiDPI has nothing to do with resolution independence at all frankly. It's just making things sharper.
----------
And for 2D desktops, it can already push that 3x more pixels. GPUs have been capable of this for quite a while.
All of you worried about "performance" are doing so from a perspective of 3D gaming, not simple 2D desktops with a bit of compositing.
Actually games are some of the few pieces of software out there that often already implement decent rez independence already, so it'll look fine
There is so much dumb in this thread that it makes my head hurt. Starting with the initial story.
There is no logical reason for Apple to double the resolution of a desktop display. The current "standard" 15 inch mbp resolution clocks in at 110 dpi. The high-res option is 128 dpi, which is the same as the 13 inch mba.
LCDs are sourced from larger panels, which are "printed" at specific pixel densities, so it would be easier in every case to take an existing DPI and make a larger/smaller screen from the same "source" screen, provided that the final screen is smaller than the total dimensions of the raw panels.
The iPad shares pixel densities with the 17" mbp (132). A 15.6 inch panel @ full HD resolution is 141 dpi, which is about has high as anyone is going to go without resolution independence.
There is a considerable concern for "pushing pixels" with a modern OS, because there are 3D graphics effects and pixel shaders being used all over the place. Apple has been utilizing the graphics card for several OSes, now. The integrated graphics in the i5/i7 chips already limits you on how many pixels you can output on an external display. The frame buffer is not high enough any anything less than the discrete card on the upgraded current-generation 15" to handle something like a 2.8k screen.
There is no logical reason for Apple to double the resolution of a desktop display. The current "standard" 15 inch mbp resolution clocks in at 110 dpi. The high-res option is 128 dpi, which is the same as the 13 inch mba.
LCDs are sourced from larger panels, which are "printed" at specific pixel densities, so it would be easier in every case to take an existing DPI and make a larger/smaller screen from the same "source" screen, provided that the final screen is smaller than the total dimensions of the raw panels.
The iPad shares pixel densities with the 17" mbp (132). A 15.6 inch panel @ full HD resolution is 141 dpi, which is about has high as anyone is going to go without resolution independence.
There is a considerable concern for "pushing pixels" with a modern OS, because there are 3D graphics effects and pixel shaders being used all over the place. Apple has been utilizing the graphics card for several OSes, now. The integrated graphics in the i5/i7 chips already limits you on how many pixels you can output on an external display. The frame buffer is not high enough any anything less than the discrete card on the upgraded current-generation 15" to handle something like a 2.8k screen.
