What "fact" are you talking about?
The fact that no Mac ships with a magic trackpad by default. The laptops ship with a trackpad, but not the Magic Trackpad.
What "fact" are you talking about?
burgundyyears said:I am pretty skeptical of this, but then again, if you had told me a few years ago that I would today have an iPod with a 960x640 screen resolution, I likely wouldn't have believed that either. 2048x1536 would open up a lot of development frontiers with the sheer amount of information that can be shown on a single screen, and would instantly obsolete pretty much every other tablet released or near release.
I think this is Jimmy's point. If the memory bus is the bottleneck like you pointed out, adding more cores does not solve the issue. You're just saturating the bus that much faster with more cores making your bottleneck even worse.
I did catch that too in your post, it didn't make sense. He is right that your initial post was all over the place and lacked focus and logic.
There's nothing wrong with Apple calling it a Retina display. However, people are confusing what Apple really meant even though it was explained clearly by Steve. 300 dpi is a hard requirement. 300 dpi at 12" distance was. At 18" distance, it's lower dpi. The Math is out there, someone bothered to measure it and write up on it.
2048x1536 ... would instantly obsolete pretty much every other tablet released or near release.
Xtremehkr said:It just makes sense to do this. The screen is one of the single most important things about Tablets.
I love the display on my iPhone, it makes reading a pleasure.
Just wait until Apple can hold up an iPad display against any other tablet on the market.
Every other tablet, screen to screen, will look generations out of date in comparison.
All Macs ship with either a Magic Mouse, or a trackpad equivalent to Magic Trackpad. What "fact" are you talking about?
It'll be 1920 by 1440. Count on it.
lewis82 said:There's nothing wrong with Apple calling it a Retina display. However, people are confusing what Apple really meant even though it was explained clearly by Steve. 300 dpi is a hard requirement. 300 dpi at 12" distance was. At 18" distance, it's lower dpi. The Math is out there, someone bothered to measure it and write up on it.
I totally agree with the dpi stuff. You could make a 1920*1080 display 30 feet wide, and if standing far enough, the pixels would be invisible.
I'm also okay with Apple using the word "Retina". It's their brand name for a high-res display. However, people refer to it as if it was a standard (and I'm not talking of the 300 DPI rule), when in fact they could say "high-resolution".
Thats not entirely true. The PS3 is perfectly capable of "full" 1080p hd. However the majority of games only support 720p. Not because of the tv set, but because the performance suffered when rendering the game that high. Are we supposed to expect the iPad 2 will render games even higher than 1080p? And do it all while disconnected from a power source, without lag, running on mobile chips? Seems impossible, but I really do hope I'm wrong and they found a way to pull it off.
This is crazy. Lots of processing power there. Can't believe it matches the resolution of my 27' iMac.
A great move by apple.
URFloorMatt said:I don't see what's so "unbelievable" about this. The word yesterday is that the new A5 can run 1080p video like butter. That is 1920x1080 resolution. But if you polled everyone who visits this forum, as little as five days ago a majority probably would've told you that there was "no chance" Verizon would get the iPhone this year.
The tablet market is hugely competitive. There's no room to leave any effort in the locker room. And let's be honest, the iPad, though revolutionary, had sub-standard resolution when it was released. Apple took high margins on the iPad 1 because they could afford to. They can no longer do that. Right now, to maintain their dominance, they need to lap the field. That's the same approach they took with the iPhone 4.
To reduce some of their costs, I would expect they will introduce fewer models with less differentiation. All iPads will be 3G, and there will be only two storage capacities: 32 GB and 64 GB (plus whatever you want via SD card). From six models to two. And they'll keep the first gen iPad, probably wifi only (because of Verizon) and 16 GB, at a lower price. I'm guessing $349.
True it may be, but the main reason for many incoherences in otherwise logical looking posts are due to my English not being 1st language. He knows that, yet I don't know why it wasn't much simpler to just say "Hey, do you mean this or this?"
I was actually unaware that English isn't your first language.I don't really keep track of most members on this forum, so if you've pointed that out to me before I apologize.
aurichie said:This is one of the most ridiculous rumours I've seen develop in recent times. No chance.
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)
If this happens, Apple has a right to call this thing magical... Yes?
All of which suck or aren't necessary, IMO.No. The usual suspects will explain what a piece of crap it is because it has one fewer core, or runs a hundred megahertz slower, or has no USB, or doesn't support USB3, or doesn't run Flash, or doesn't use S-AMOLED, or...