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

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.

As I stated earlier - obsolete. :)
 
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.

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?"
 
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".
 
2048x1536 ... would instantly obsolete pretty much every other tablet released or near release.

It would be incredible, I agree. Depends on the software shifting over to the device, as well. Once a fair amount of Adobe text-prep stuff runs on an iPad, my desktop is almost dust.

I wonder how that iMac-mini rumor is developing, because a hi-res. iPad makes a lot of Apple's computer sales (stand alones) go poof.
 
Last edited:
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)

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.

This. ^ April, come faster please!
 
All Macs ship with either a Magic Mouse, or a trackpad equivalent to Magic Trackpad. What "fact" are you talking about?

The fact where i earlier stated, and above reiterated, that no Macs ship with a Magic trackpad.

Please read the thread before you make comments that link back to earlier comments ..

It's not true what you say, the Mac Mini doesn't ship with a Magic Mouse or Trackpad. Besides .. i was making the point concerning only the Magic Trackpad, if you go and read the thread you'll see why.
 
too good to be true

that's a rumour and a half

Sounds awesome though. I could almost forgive them for getting in bed with Rupert Murdoch. Almost.
 
If its true then great, but I think as far as gaming and movies go they probably won't run at the native resolution.. otherwise I don't think its possible..
 
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)

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".

It's quite amazing what Apple's marketing team does. ;)
 
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. So clearly most of the people who visit this site aren't very good at reading the tea leaves.

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.

There's another issue to consider. Apple is also a competitor in the e-reader market. Insane resolutions on the iPad help to combat concerns that LCD can't compete with the clarity of tech like e-Ink.
 
Last edited:
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.

And you do realize that the graphics engines rendering these games on consoles are a million times more sophisticated than engines for mobile games. But there's also MUCH more that you don't really take into consideration. Most console developers have to make an engine that can perform smoothly on two different consoles that have two COMPLETELY different architectures. People don't realize how challenging that is, hence why multiconsole releases usually aren't as stunning as a console exclusive title.

If you look at most PS3 exclusives, they are able to run at 1080p just fine with stunning graphics. Gran Turismo 5 is able to render at 1080p while still running at 60 frames per second, also rendering in 3D (2x the image). These systems are 5 years old now. The GPU in the PS3 is essentially an Nvidia 7800 GT, which is far outdated from todays class of GPUs. I mean we have a handheld console coming in a month, capable of rendering graphics that look similar to console games in 3D without the need for glasses (Nintendo 3DS). And even the tech in that is pretty conservative for todays standards. The PSP2 is rumored to have graphics capabilities almost on par with the PS3. Mobile tech has come a loooong way in 5 years.

I would say that it may be challenging to do, but its certainly possible for Apple to do. The new GPU that was leaked to be in new iOS devices is a powerful little GPU, you'd be surprised what it will be able to do with a little optimizing. I imagine that a lot of work will be going into the A5 chip, making it extremely power efficient. It would certainly be mindblowing, but not entirely impossible.
 
This is crazy. Lots of processing power there. Can't believe it matches the resolution of my 27' iMac.

A great move by apple.

this guy missed the rumor end of things here I think.

This is very cool if possible, but im skeptical like near-everyone.
 
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)

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.

While I agree with most of your post, I honestly think there will still be a Wi-Fi only version. Just my $0.02.
 
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. :eek: I don't really keep track of most members on this forum, so if you've pointed that out to me before I apologize.
 
I was actually unaware that English isn't your first language. :eek: I don't really keep track of most members on this forum, so if you've pointed that out to me before I apologize.

Don't worry I don't take such events personally. But I do take it as such when questioned about my GPU knowledge, specially after having the Macross built. (See sig)

Nonetheless, I don't like drama, so I will also apologize. There is no need to harbor hatred, as hatred only breeds more hatred, not what we seek.
 
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)

aurichie said:
This is one of the most ridiculous rumours I've seen develop in recent times. No chance.

Never say never. ;)
 
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?
 
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?

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...
 
Amazing if it is true

This is going to set the standard for many years. We'll enjoy reading on iPad much much more.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.