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.
Mac OS X Lion Building in Support for Super High Resolution 'Retina' Monitors
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Did someone say Apple branded Retnia TV with built in AppleTV?
Really... the prospects of this level of screen being supported with other devices would be amazing.
The laptops we have now would look like junk. Sort of like when I went from a Powerbook Wallstreet to my first Macbook Pro... I didn't know what I was missing. Wallstreet = 72ppi.... MBP = 130ppi
Really... the prospects of this level of screen being supported with other devices would be amazing.
The laptops we have now would look like junk. Sort of like when I went from a Powerbook Wallstreet to my first Macbook Pro... I didn't know what I was missing. Wallstreet = 72ppi.... MBP = 130ppi
1920 x 1200 is nice, but as far as watching HD content on it your going to get black bars or a stretched picture 1920 x 1200 is fine for normal computing/gaming..
Err.. what's wrong with black bars ? 1920x1200 is better than 1920x1080 by 120 vertical pixels. More stuff on screen.
Again, let's not make monitors 16:9 because of "black bars". Who gives a crap about black bars. Most video content isn't 16:9 anyhow and has black bars even on 16:9 screens.
But this will eventually be only for UI elements, content, like an image or a text, will use all the pixels available without doubling. Sound good to me.
Until yesterday you weren't imagining a 10Gb/s peripherals port would be standard on a $1500 notebook either.
great.....now we're going to have the retina display discussion for macs as well
I was getting ready to buy a MacBook Air, but now I am not going to buy a Mac until it has a retina display (and some high unrealistic specs at a lower cost).
(I am not being serious, still buying the MBA)
This doesn't change my point. I buy higher pixel count monitors to get more content and less UI elements on screen.
To me the 16:9 is a bit more immersive compared to 16:10... but I'm right on the cusp, my monitor is 24" If and when I do decide to get a bigger monitor I would look into 1920 x 1200..
Such big resolution would mean no gaming at all. When you are not playing in the native-res, it often looks quite awful. The actual resolution of the 27' iMac is already very high. I know that not everybody play games, but I can't see Apple deprive themselve from this community.
It so happens in this case that I'm not surprised about high speed serial, the tech has been well-established for years and moves forward at a rapid pace. This is a nice new extension of the technology, but nothing that stretches my imagination to be honest.
I'm much less familiar with the tech of LCD manufacturing, but it seems like historically, panel resolution advances at a fairly slow and deliberate pace. Witness the fact that no one (including Apple) yet has a retina display on a tablet.
Apple could of course start with the smaller Macbook Pros; a 13" retina display is plausible. But I don't see them limiting such a premium feature to their lowest end model (without discrete graphics). So when might we see a 15" or 17" retina display? I'm not holding my breath, but I'll be pleasantly surprised to be proved wrong. Clearly Apple has something in mind here...
Wearing glasses has little if anything to do with it. I've worn glasses for about 40 years, but it means nothing in this context. Look up "Presbyopia". In middle age your eye lenses become inelastic and you lose your ability to change focus. So in the future you're going to either get used to switching to reading glasses or bifocals or displays with bigger fonts. Bigger fonts is the only option that isn't a PITA.
Or you have bionic eyes?
I dont see a thing when my 27" is at its native resolution. 22 years old, and I used to wear glasses back then but my eyes are fixed now.
But what if future full screen application, including the finder, will have not UI elements (unless you call them on screen)?
Am I the only one who read about the 15" MBP with a 2880x1800 display and thought I would LOVE to leave the display at a 1:1 resolution (no "retina" bs) and just have more screen real estate?
Well, buttons would be super tiny along with fonts.
I'd rather them just build resolution independence and allow you to choose what scale you want everything at.
Since I already have the high-res screen then having the space of a 1440x900 monitor would be a downgrade for me.
And besides, I don't really see the point of retina on a laptop or desktop, I can't even see the pixels on my current screen unless I am less than 12" away.
Am I the only one who read about the 15" MBP with a 2880x1800 display and thought I would LOVE to leave the display at a 1:1 resolution (no "retina" bs) and just have more screen real estate?
So, a 30-inch notebook display?!
OK, maybe that's not how it scales, but...BIG?!
I currently have an older 30" super-cinema-display behemoth. If it could be on a 20" monitor, I'd be very happy. That's probably where it is going sooner or later. Then we'll have 30" displays with 6000+ res.
I'm used to wearing glasses and I do know about aging and "presbyopia". I keep that in mind all the time don't worry. I still wish for more stuff on screen, not sharper things on screen when I upgrade the pixel count.
I hate Macrumors' bias. Seriously, right now, in Windows, you can use "resolution independence" to drive a "retina" display, without ANY extra work on the programming side. The OS scales everything itself!
I'm a massive fan of the retina display on my iPhone 4 and am holding out until Apple release a retina display iPad.
However, I have to agree that on a desktop I would prefer more screen real estate before they start making things sharper. Desktop monitors aren't like handheld devices that you hold near to your eyes. I sit across the desk from my iMac.
On a laptop however, retina would be awesome
However, I have to agree that on a desktop I would prefer more screen real estate before they start making things sharper. Desktop monitors aren't like handheld devices that you hold near to your eyes. I sit across the desk from my iMac.
On a laptop however, retina would be awesome
This is a beautiful day of news/updates.
But a 15" MBP with that kind of resolution? I wouldn't want to play a game at that res, the FPS would drop like a rock. Still awesome though.
But a 15" MBP with that kind of resolution? I wouldn't want to play a game at that res, the FPS would drop like a rock. Still awesome though.
great.....now we're going to have the retina display discussion for macs as well
Let me save everybody some time from posting:
"If it doesn't have 3D Retina and 9,660 x 4,812 and doesn't come in white and isn't FREE and I can't get it without an unlimited data plan for accounting reasons and if it is not tethered by Verizon, I won't buy it!
Shame on you Apple! Money grabbing slipping company.
Apple just wants us all to get bad eyesight (isight) so we will have to buy their next "one more thing" revolutionary magical product
the IcanSeeClearlyNow iglasses. We are very excited about this!
My current Dell XP1280 x 904 is much faster on the refresh and last week the picture was so real, I gained 5 pounds watching a TGI Friday's commercial.
Clearly Apple is falling behind.
That should do it for a while......one can only hope
Forgot: I call this technology FAKE! This is not from an Asian supplier or analyst.
You read it here first. Check out my blog : www.Idon'tKnow$$H@t, but I post.com
Last edited:
Does it scale bitmap graphics? does it do so perfectly? OS X does scaling for many things, it is mathematically impossible to add detail when scaling an image. By using images and vectors designed for the native resolution, you will get far better results than you would with interpolation.