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

iPad 2 Screen Likely to Have 2048x1536 resolution

notjustjay said:
I have found that Mac enthusiasts and religious fanatics (of whatever persuasion you choose -- atheists, Christians, Muslims, etc.) have an awful lot in common :p
Click to expand...

Atheists are not religious.
Religion: noun. 1 a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
 
notjustjay said:
I have found that Mac enthusiasts and religious fanatics (of whatever persuasion you choose -- atheists, Christians, Muslims, etc.) have an awful lot in common :p
Click to expand...

You've got it the wrong way around... The majority PC users are Windoz users @ 90% matching the volume of Christians in the US... as opposed to the 10% non-religious...

But who says Mac users are supposed to be fanatics... Macs are plainly just better build and OS quality than Windoz, and that's the most significant argument.
 
Xero910 said:
Anyone know how the SGX543 compared to the GPUs in the PS3/Xbox 360? I suppose they could always run games at 1024x768. They don't HAVE to run at the native res. I hope its true, but I don't really care.

As a developer pixel doubling is convenient. As a designer, having to make an app at that insane resolution will be hell. Even the high resolution artwork I've already done would need to be doubled again. App sizes would be massive for all the images required for both resolutions. If they picked some other size like 1600x1200. Redesigning wouldn't be too bad, although app development would be a little tricker.

I think we can agree the next iPad will have a "retina" display. What resolution that actually is debatable. I'd be perfectly happy with a screen with 160 ppi or something along those lines. 260 is overkill.
Click to expand...
Pixel doubling allows old apps to easily run on the new hardware. Changing to 1600x1200 would be a nightmare for the end user, as there would no easy way to use old apps on the whole screen of the new hardware.
 
Apple... said:
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

You never know. It's Apple. ;)
Click to expand...

Very true. The master manipulator doing his finest work. Controlling what "leaks out" and other tasty bits of rumor mongering, it's testimony to the power of the worlds best marketing.

It sets the Apple faithfuls hearts a flutter, it gives the media stories to write, and creates great fantasies for the worshippers. It fuels the imaginations of the uninitiated and draws more attention to Apple than ever.

It's a great and entertaing read for those who live a life of confidence, balance, and can see through the smokescreen. Those with a sense of humor and think for themselves. The level of entertainment all this speculation and fawning brings is terrific.
 
Thex1138 said:
You've got it the wrong way around... The majority PC users are Windoz users @ 90% matching the volume of Christians in the US... as opposed to the 10% non-religious...

But who says Mac users are supposed to be fanatics... Macs are plainly just better build and OS quality than Windoz, and that's the most significant argument.
Click to expand...

Condescending misspelling of the word Windows gives away the blind one sided view & perpetuation of old myths. Jealousy reigns supreme.

Macs are great, I own a few, yet so are the PCs I have. As a long time advocate of the Mac, I still have no need to bash Windows.

Any open minded, experienced cross platform user knows that Windows 7 is an outstanding experience.
 
Though a bit sceptical, I really hope this rumor turns out to be true. A bright, ultra high resolution screen would be perfect for displaying eBooks, Manuals, movies, reading online news, etc. IMHO, the iPad with its software and OS is "mostly" a Media consuming device (which is probably true for most tablets in its present or planned form in near future), so it would make sense to push its strengths even further to stay ahead of competition and try to win customers over from the eBook reader market. I will get one in a heart beat :D
 
Burger Thing said:
Though a bit sceptical, I really hope this rumor turns out to be true. A bright, ultra high resolution screen would be perfect for displaying eBooks, Manuals, movies, reading online news, etc. IMHO, the iPad with its software and OS is "mostly" a Media consuming device (which is probably true for most tablets in its present or planned form in near future), so it would make sense to push its strengths even further to stay ahead of competition and try to win customers over from the eBook reader market. I will get one in a heart beat :D
Click to expand...
Aitz chaim he, Dude. As the ex used to say.
 
I wonder when will Apple finally put displays of similar quality into all of their notebooks?

Its not only resolution, its viewing angle as well. iPad has IPS panels while so called MacBook "pro" computers still have cheap TN panels.

Christian
 
Aatos.1 said:
Condescending misspelling of the word Windows gives away the blind one sided view & perpetuation of old myths. Jealousy reigns supreme.

Macs are great, I own a few, yet so are the PCs I have. As a long time advocate of the Mac, I still have no need to bash Windows.

Any open minded, experienced cross platform user knows that Windows 7 is an outstanding experience.
Click to expand...

Yes... When I started out with a pc and dos 4.2 and built pc's for it way back then... Yeah... And I also had my first Apple II. It was a clearly defined direction for Apple, and a better one for the pc...

And since that early beginning in my experience... It was always the same that whenever the Mac took the initiative MS caught the tail end... Pc's just sold more boxes, but it never meant quality.
Forever tinkering with system and stack values, twiddling with .bat, .com, .sys files... To get max headroom on the Dos OS.

You also don't get it... I have windows 7 at home on my pc and laptop... And in office on my three desktops...

Windows 7 finally gives what I've been experiencing for many years... A 64/32 solid operating foundation with a level of security I have already had or many years with my macs.
 
With all the fan frickentastic rumour updates and possible confirmations of ipad 2 specs, i'm now on tender hooks for the next one. The rumour mill has peaked too early... That detail on the ipad screen doubling resolution, that shouldn't have shown up til a week or two before release.

This is no good, my head is gonna explode if i have to wait til April for it's release....




Oh what the heck, more rumours please :rolleyes:
 
I am amused by the amateur hour engineering costings going on in this thread.

Just cos some random website is offering said panel for ~$200 doesn't in anyway infer what price Apple will get it for.

Also, those teardown prices that everyone's treating like gospel. 'Guesswork'.

No one knows how much the panel will cost, because the terms of Apples agreement with the supplier(s) will be secret and will remain secret. The only thing we can be sure of, is that they're ordering a lot more of them this time around, and volume = discounts. :D
 
Well this is fishy....My 21.5 iMac doesn't even have a res that high, and it's twice the size of an iPad. If Apple could pull of a > full HD display on a device with a 10" screen and make it usable day to day, they will have the world in their hands.
 
TuffLuffJimmy said:
You do realize that basically all GPUs are multicore. They have hundreds of little processing cores. That's what separates them from CPUs.
.
Click to expand...

well not apple computers but yes, most others, a mobile GTX460 has 192 cuda cores, a GTX470 desktop card has 448

the apple crippled 9400 has 16 (lol what a joke) and the 320m gpu has 72
 
Amnesia87 said:
To anyone saying gaming is impossible on this screen. Running games at lower resolutions is pretty standard fare... Especially if apple were to put in a hardware scaler kinda like the 360 has.

Ever heard of Halo 3? That game ran at 1152×640 and then was scaled to 720p, still looked amazing on my tv...

Halo Reach runs at 1152 x 720, that looks great too...

Modern Warfare 2 runs at 1024x600...

Black Ops runs at 1040x608...

All it takes is a combination of multi sampling, anti-aliasing and upscaling.

With the right hardware games will still look great... and running iOS at that resolution wouldn't be that hard.
Click to expand...

im sorry but all xbox games look like garbage, try playing MW2 on a REAL computer running at

1920x1080x32
MAX settings
MAX AA
MAX AF
60FPS Solid

thats what the game should really look like,
 
lilcosco08 said:
When have they introduced a product and then drastically changed it the next refresh?
Thought so.
Click to expand...

Hmm, let's see.

The switch from 680x0 chips to PPC.

The switch from OS 9 to OS X.

The switch from PPC to Intel.

The switch from the white plastic iMac to the aluminum iMac.

The switch from the white/black plastic MacBook to the aluminum MacBook.

The switch from the old style to the new style Mac Mini.

The switch from the iPhone 3GS to the iPhone 4.

...
 
cwwilson said:
Well this is fishy....My 21.5 iMac doesn't even have a res that high, and it's twice the size of an iPad. If Apple could pull of a > full HD display on a device with a 10" screen and make it usable day to day, they will have the world in their hands.
Click to expand...

iPad display is resolution indepedent, so all the interface elements will keep the same size as on the lower res. This isn't true for desktop OS. Imagine a 21" with a horizontal resolution of 5000 pixels (this is aprox 300 dpi). The interface would be so small that it would be unusable.

So in iOS: higher dpi makes your display look better, it doesn't display more information.
desktop OS: higher dpi means more information on screen, but smaller.

So I really don't get what all the buzz is about. This crazy high, expensive resolution will make your screen look somewhat better. It won't add any extra functionality to the ipad. Although 1024*768 is somewhat low to today's standards, I think this 'retina'-display is overkill, 1440*1080, as proposed by another poster, would make the iPad display look a lot more crisp, would leave some more headroom for the GPU, and of greater importance: drop the price by a significant amount.
 
vixducis said:
So I really don't get what all the buzz is about. This crazy high, expensive resolution will make your screen look somewhat better. It won't add any extra functionality to the ipad. Although 1024*768 is somewhat low to today's standards, I think this 'retina'-display is overkill, 1440*1080, as proposed by another poster, would make the iPad display look a lot more crisp, would leave some more headroom for the GPU, and of greater importance: drop the price by a significant amount.
Click to expand...

As I said in a previous post, this is the approach they take in the desktop software. Again, check out the icon resources for all your apps. Icons are drawn at a very high resolution and then almost always scaled down to whatever size you actually want (32x32, 40x40). It would seem reasonable, given the need to work with multiple screen resolutions on iOS devices, to build your app to support the highest possible resolution and then let the device scale it down.
 
notjustjay said:
Hmm, let's see.

The switch from 680x0 chips to PPC.

The switch from OS 9 to OS X.

The switch from PPC to Intel.

The switch from the white plastic iMac to the aluminum iMac.

The switch from the white/black plastic MacBook to the aluminum MacBook.

The switch from the old style to the new style Mac Mini.

The switch from the iPhone 3GS to the iPhone 4.

...
Click to expand...

read his message again, he is talking about a NEW product, immediately followed by a very different refresh.

none of your examples meet that criteria.
 
rstansby said:
Pixel doubling allows old apps to easily run on the new hardware. Changing to 1600x1200 would be a nightmare for the end user, as there would no easy way to use old apps on the whole screen of the new hardware.
Click to expand...

not completely true, obviously doubling, or tripling pixels works best, but there are plenty applications that can increase the size of an image to any other size, while still looking good.

photoshop is one example, and another one is the universal access zoom function, it looks reasonably good at any size.

i enclosed an example, where 1 pixel becomes 2.5 pixels.
 

Attachments

  • 2.5.png
    2.5.png
    74.1 KB · Views: 107
martijn.s said:
read his message again, he is talking about a NEW product, immediately followed by a very different refresh.

none of your examples meet that criteria.
Click to expand...

OK, how about the Apple TV then. Introduced, never really changed, version 2 is drastically different.

So how many refreshes would you say they have to wait before they're "allowed" to drastically change it? If not the very next one, how about the one after? Or maybe it's a time thing? Minimum 1 year? Two?
 
martijn.s said:
not completely true, obviously doubling, or tripling pixels works best, but there are plenty applications that can increase the size of an image to any other size, while still looking good.

photoshop is one example, and another one is the universal access zoom function, it looks reasonably good at any size.

i enclosed an example, where 1 pixel becomes 2.5 pixels.
Click to expand...

...

Look up interpolation artifacts...

While not as noticable in static images, anything that is moving looks substantially worse when scaling.

Scaling with interpolation also makes text look horrible.
 
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