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.
Intel Looking Toward Retina Display PCs by 2013
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I bet you they'll do it this year. Imho, they're always 1-2 years ahead of Intel's plan for PC's.
- Thunderbolt
- 'Ultrabook'
Who cares what Intel envisions with iOS. Apple isn't going to use Intel in their iOS Ecosystem.
I know you received like 20 down votes for that post but I agree with you. My 13" macbook air is already too small. I bought computer glasses just for the air. Oh well, I probably needed them anyway.
All those people who downvoted you will agree with you in about 15 years. =D Can't wait for resolution independence. The system report on my mac air looks like a size 2 font (with my computer glasses on).
Until Intel becomes the best choice for iOS products just as it had become the best choice for the Mac in early 2000s. Their chips just keep getting better and better. Smaller and faster. Faster and less power hungry.
That's not even 4K. Can we at least have 4K as the minimum supported resolution on the high end?
Yes I know commodity displays will be 3048p. Commodity is not everything.
Rocketman
Yes I know commodity displays will be 3048p. Commodity is not everything.
Rocketman
You need glasses because of apples piss poor implementation of user customizabilty in font sizes and no resolution independence in scaling up the os. If the airs do go Hhdpi then you might lose screen real estate but the uk elements and font will be larger than what they are now. That why I m holding out from buying a Mac until they do, btw I was using a 13" air recently and I couldn't believe how small the menu bar and pretty much every non adjustable font looked on everything. How can they ship such usability nightmares is beyond me, although I like and admire the air in so many respects it's simply beyond me how they not added some configurable options for this even if they can't do ri now...
Maybe some folks here can help me understand...I'm very technical but not a graphics guru.
1)Retina seems to only make certain items of the screen (some fonts and icons, at least to my eyes) crisper. Nice 14MP sweet-looking pix I took with my DSLR look the same on the iPad 1 as on the latest iPad. No bull. And I've had numerous people review these pix and we've confirmed they've not been watered down by the iPad(s). So if Retina quality is not going to make the average picture/video any crisper, why bother?
2)Retina, if I'm not mistaken, seems to only work/run at very high resolutions. I would still gather that a vast majority of consumers in the USA still run at 1024x768 or at best 1280x1024. The reason is that going up higher makes the screen "smaller" (the icons and stuff) yet does make the screen "larger" in that more things can be shoved on the same physical display. I've been running at 1600x1200 for almost a decade and every single person that has ever seen my work or home machines states their eyes would bleed if they ran at my resolution. So if Retina runs at 2048x1536, I would think running that on a 19" or larger display would freak these people out even more.
3)Retina is really about DPI rather than resolution. DPI is simply how many dots per inch...that would make things crisper on the display such as fonts. So wouldn't it be more likely, especially given point 2 above, that we would see Retina monitors running at 1600x1200 rather than these nutty 2000+/2000+ resolutions?
Technology will always get better and I think over the past 25 years monitors have really excelled. And again, I've been running at high resolutions and high bit depths which really show a great pic on my 20-24" CRT and LCD monitors over the years. So I'm not knocking Retina or the strive to get even better monitors. Bring it on...but I'm not sure anyone who currently runs at my resolutions and large monitors will really benefit from the super super duper upcoming resolutions for personal computing....maybe some video footage, but Apple won't even embrace Bluray and AppleTV only just got 1080p while the 1080p technology has been out for well over 10 years on cable systems and $800 tvs.
As I type here on my 20" monitor at 1600x1200, I really love the look of everything on my screen...fonts are great, colors are very nice, etc. This page alone has all sorts of fonts, font sizes, styles, advertisements, icons, color shades, etc. I really can't fathom how much better it can possibly be for everyday computing...and as I said with my ipad 1 vs. 3 in the beginning, it's almost impossible to tell which ipad is which while displaying the same photo...looking at the iPad homepage with the icons is somewhat noticeable if you were told there was a difference (and the icons have changed since the 2 iPads so that is really what makes your brain "notice a change")
Opinions?
1)Retina seems to only make certain items of the screen (some fonts and icons, at least to my eyes) crisper. Nice 14MP sweet-looking pix I took with my DSLR look the same on the iPad 1 as on the latest iPad. No bull. And I've had numerous people review these pix and we've confirmed they've not been watered down by the iPad(s). So if Retina quality is not going to make the average picture/video any crisper, why bother?
2)Retina, if I'm not mistaken, seems to only work/run at very high resolutions. I would still gather that a vast majority of consumers in the USA still run at 1024x768 or at best 1280x1024. The reason is that going up higher makes the screen "smaller" (the icons and stuff) yet does make the screen "larger" in that more things can be shoved on the same physical display. I've been running at 1600x1200 for almost a decade and every single person that has ever seen my work or home machines states their eyes would bleed if they ran at my resolution. So if Retina runs at 2048x1536, I would think running that on a 19" or larger display would freak these people out even more.
3)Retina is really about DPI rather than resolution. DPI is simply how many dots per inch...that would make things crisper on the display such as fonts. So wouldn't it be more likely, especially given point 2 above, that we would see Retina monitors running at 1600x1200 rather than these nutty 2000+/2000+ resolutions?
Technology will always get better and I think over the past 25 years monitors have really excelled. And again, I've been running at high resolutions and high bit depths which really show a great pic on my 20-24" CRT and LCD monitors over the years. So I'm not knocking Retina or the strive to get even better monitors. Bring it on...but I'm not sure anyone who currently runs at my resolutions and large monitors will really benefit from the super super duper upcoming resolutions for personal computing....maybe some video footage, but Apple won't even embrace Bluray and AppleTV only just got 1080p while the 1080p technology has been out for well over 10 years on cable systems and $800 tvs.
As I type here on my 20" monitor at 1600x1200, I really love the look of everything on my screen...fonts are great, colors are very nice, etc. This page alone has all sorts of fonts, font sizes, styles, advertisements, icons, color shades, etc. I really can't fathom how much better it can possibly be for everyday computing...and as I said with my ipad 1 vs. 3 in the beginning, it's almost impossible to tell which ipad is which while displaying the same photo...looking at the iPad homepage with the icons is somewhat noticeable if you were told there was a difference (and the icons have changed since the 2 iPads so that is really what makes your brain "notice a change")
Opinions?
I think only Leopard and a couple cards have supported it under OSX. I know with Windows much of the time it requires a workstation card as many standard drivers do not support 10 bit output. I'd like to see it available on OSX for better shadow detail, given that shadows are a horrendous problem with displays. Some are significantly better than others, but overall it's annoying when you approach the darkest values.
You're misinformed just like everyone who voted up your post. This technology has been under development for years. Apple's contribution was assigning it a marketable name. Their interest in such things may have also hastened development on the supplier end. Samsung, LG, and others have been testing higher panel resolutions for some time. Previous estimates were that you'd start to see this in desktop displays around 2015 or so. Given that this is just a rumor, I still wouldn't expect it much sooner than that (I'm not hopeful for this year or next). You may have noted Samsung had some of their own display technology for phones too. They wouldn't have been able to just reverse engineer such a concept overnight. I really have no idea why Apple is given their own share of the credit as well as that due to others.
dude I gave you a plus only because how will the gray tool bar be visible to the naked eye.
I ended up using 1920 with my 27 inch imac as I found the print to be too small on the tool bar.
I've got 1920x1200 on a 15" MBP (hacked in after I busted my original).
Personally I think it's great (you get used to the shrinkage, and it isn't that large of a difference from 1680x1050), but the big issue isn't the DPI, it's the battery suckage. Went from ~2.5 hours down to ~1 hour. And boy does my graphic chipset fan howl.
This is all well and good, but on MBP's they are going to need pretty decent graphics power to drive the display (read: discrete graphics). Consider that the extra power on the new iPad over the iPad 2 is used to primarily drive the retina display... and MBP's have larger screens than iPad's...
----------
Personally, I rather have a 27" flanked by two smaller screens, than to have one massive monitor. There are a lot of advantages to utilizing several monitors.
----------
Personally, I rather have a 27" flanked by two smaller screens, than to have one massive monitor. There are a lot of advantages to utilizing several monitors.
Apple is usually a year or two ahead of the competition....so don't be surprised if they come out soon...maybe even in a month.
He worded this carefully....Skaugen mentioned that Intel's third-generation Core i-Series processors (also known as Ivy Bridge) will support Retina displays if manufacturers choose to offer them.
He's putting that on the manufacturers.
Ha .. haa ... haa .. just like USB 3.0, no?
I agree, also I like 5120x2880 for the 27" iMac
I agree. It does mean less desktop space (than 1680x1050 or 1920x1200), but a 2880x1800 15" "Retina" display at HiDPI would translate to a beautiful display with objects/elements the size they are now at 1440x900.
1920x1200 (or 3840x2400 for Retina) on a 15" display has pretty small elements.
1920x1200 (3840x2400 Retina) on 17" is acceptable.
I can also live with a 3360x2100 HiDPI (1680x1050 equivalent) on a 15" display for more area to work with, I can always increase most of the text. (A friend has a 1680x1050 15" MacBook Pro, and I do think it's a little hard to read, but I suppose I could get used to it.)
I would however be very happy with my current 27" iMac at 2560x1440 going HiDPI with 5120x2880!
(Almost 14.8 MegaPixel, just under half Super Hi-Vision UHDTV resolution at 33 MP, 16x Full HDTV).
I have said this before, but Super Hi-Vision (7680x4320) on a 27" display coincidently would give exactly 326 PPI like the iPhone 4/4S!
The 27" iMac is a very good size and very readable, and will only be easier to read with much smoother text and elements.
I see that evident on my 3rd generation iPad. I don't need reading glasses anymore just because the text is so much smoother on my iPad.
This iMac display at 5120x2880 would be great for viewing and editing 4K video, it would take up about the same size as Full HD video does on the current 27" iMac; plenty of space around the video. 4K is just a little wider than Quad Full HD at 4096x2160 vs 3840x2160. (It would also work great for 16:9 4K video at 4096x2304 resolution)
I've looked at HiDPI on my 27" iMac by making it equivalent to a 1280x720 desktop space, since it is exactly 4 times that resolution, and looking at it from 3 feet away shows how smooth the elements can be at HiDPI. Of course I can't deal with an equivalent 1280x720 display (especially on a 27" display). But it was a real good way to see the beauty of HiDPI now! (besides the smaller new iPad, though it is not Mac OS X).
I agree. It does mean less desktop space (than 1680x1050 or 1920x1200), but a 2880x1800 15" "Retina" display at HiDPI would translate to a beautiful display with objects/elements the size they are now at 1440x900.
1920x1200 (or 3840x2400 for Retina) on a 15" display has pretty small elements.
1920x1200 (3840x2400 Retina) on 17" is acceptable.
I can also live with a 3360x2100 HiDPI (1680x1050 equivalent) on a 15" display for more area to work with, I can always increase most of the text. (A friend has a 1680x1050 15" MacBook Pro, and I do think it's a little hard to read, but I suppose I could get used to it.)
I would however be very happy with my current 27" iMac at 2560x1440 going HiDPI with 5120x2880!
(Almost 14.8 MegaPixel, just under half Super Hi-Vision UHDTV resolution at 33 MP, 16x Full HDTV).
I have said this before, but Super Hi-Vision (7680x4320) on a 27" display coincidently would give exactly 326 PPI like the iPhone 4/4S!
The 27" iMac is a very good size and very readable, and will only be easier to read with much smoother text and elements.
I see that evident on my 3rd generation iPad. I don't need reading glasses anymore just because the text is so much smoother on my iPad.
This iMac display at 5120x2880 would be great for viewing and editing 4K video, it would take up about the same size as Full HD video does on the current 27" iMac; plenty of space around the video. 4K is just a little wider than Quad Full HD at 4096x2160 vs 3840x2160. (It would also work great for 16:9 4K video at 4096x2304 resolution)
I've looked at HiDPI on my 27" iMac by making it equivalent to a 1280x720 desktop space, since it is exactly 4 times that resolution, and looking at it from 3 feet away shows how smooth the elements can be at HiDPI. Of course I can't deal with an equivalent 1280x720 display (especially on a 27" display). But it was a real good way to see the beauty of HiDPI now! (besides the smaller new iPad, though it is not Mac OS X).
Ha .. haa ... haa .. just like USB 3.0, no?
Didn't Apple choose not to use USB 3.0 because of ThunderBolt? It's twice as fast, and peer to peer (I believe; like FireWire), instead of Master/Slave like USB. (Peer to Peer seems to work better in my experience, though USB has improved somewhat). It appears that Apple will adopt USB 3.0 anyway just to use in place of the existing USB 2.0 because Apple won't abandon USB altogether just yet. (Intel is including the USB 3.0 chipset standard anyway, as well as ThunderBolt)
Apple does seem to be ahead of the competition with many things, or even setting a new high bar. But adopting USB 3.0 would't be much of a high bar especially when the far more scalable ThunderBolt was available shortly after.
----------
Kill performance? The discrete graphics seems very capable of quadrupling the resolution anyway. And if using the integrated graphics in the IvyBridge CPU (which supports 4096x4096) will slow down the performance, I suppose the (games) can always go back to 2560x1440 or 1920x1080 resolution fullscreen anyway.
Anything else with generally static displays wouldn't take ANY performance hit, CPUs would still do just the same as they always have (not worry about the graphics).
You still can, 30" is a nice upgrade from 27" but screens of every size have been getting bigger and bigger. I just see 30" as the natural progression of iMac screens as they get generational updates.
I don't think they did, they still seem to be working towards RI.
It seemed to be a major reason they renovated springs and struts into Autolayout.
what I wan to see is a 12 inch, retina display iPad that I can write on but, but with no perceived lag time.