Another poster said "I bet you're not over 40 years old" and your response was "I wear glasses", which makes no sense as a response. While I mostly agree with your desires in a display, reality will hit when you actually experience presbyopia. Tiny tiny fonts only works for the young.
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
Am I the only one that noticed the difference in size of window details in this screenshot? Compare the Safari and iCal windows - the controls - everything looks smaller and less detailed in the Safari window, whereas the iCal window is much more clear. Could this be an indicator? Or even an additional feature (sizing down windows and content, rather than just the window)?
Scalable UI?
Thoughts?
Full screen applications also defeat the purpose of having more stuff on screen. I want more windows, not one bigger one.
When it snows, I'll start shoveling. Until then, bring on smaller fonts! Hey, I'm all for this "resolution independance" crap you guys want, as long as it lets me scale down the UI elements and contents to a 1:1 pixel to unit count so I can get it my way as much as it lets you blind people scale it up to 1024x1024 monospaced fonts.
I am over 40. (Painful to write that.) I work in native resoulution. I put on reading glasses if I plan to work on the computer for more than four or five hours. Sometimes I set up a screen at a lower resolution so I can move things over to when I need to look at extreme detail. I may be getting old, I will not let it make me lazy.
Come on!
This is getting SOOOO old! Pure wild speculation and conjecture. "Hey apple is ditching their elegant vector resolution independence in support of a simple pixel doubling (circa 1995) hence that means a 9.7in monitor with 3MP is coming soon"
Really????? You get all that from the ditching of multi res support?
Give me the names of companies producing screens in 10in or 20in sizes with 350+dpi resolutions? Yes we know the small iphone screens exist, but the cost factor and failure rate on larger screens make them prohibitively expensive.
Very few of us pay $1000 for a 27" display with 2560 resolution, how many would pay $1000 or more for a 17 in laptop screen with the same resolution?
Don't forget about a GPU capable of pushing all those pixels quickly and w/o using much power as well! That will cost a premium.
And lastly - how long has it taken us to go from 640x480 to 2560x1440? 20 years! From 1280x1024 to 2560x1440 is about 15 years. Going from 2560x1440 to 5120x2880 may well take another 10 or at the very least 5.
I'm not saying it will NEVER happen, just that it will not happen in 2011. Cost has to become much lower before larger screens with double resolution
This is getting SOOOO old! Pure wild speculation and conjecture. "Hey apple is ditching their elegant vector resolution independence in support of a simple pixel doubling (circa 1995) hence that means a 9.7in monitor with 3MP is coming soon"
Really????? You get all that from the ditching of multi res support?
Give me the names of companies producing screens in 10in or 20in sizes with 350+dpi resolutions? Yes we know the small iphone screens exist, but the cost factor and failure rate on larger screens make them prohibitively expensive.
Very few of us pay $1000 for a 27" display with 2560 resolution, how many would pay $1000 or more for a 17 in laptop screen with the same resolution?
Don't forget about a GPU capable of pushing all those pixels quickly and w/o using much power as well! That will cost a premium.
And lastly - how long has it taken us to go from 640x480 to 2560x1440? 20 years! From 1280x1024 to 2560x1440 is about 15 years. Going from 2560x1440 to 5120x2880 may well take another 10 or at the very least 5.
I'm not saying it will NEVER happen, just that it will not happen in 2011. Cost has to become much lower before larger screens with double resolution
Great so we'll have one "retina" display based off whatever the current iMac's panel is with cords too short for desktops. Yeah.
There's always 3D… but wait, there's always…
4D
OS X will let us see into the Fourth Dimension, Carl Sagan would be so proud!
Carl Sagan's flat-land thought experiment, and the tesseract
There's always 3D… but wait, there's always…
4D
OS X will let us see into the Fourth Dimension, Carl Sagan would be so proud!
Carl Sagan's flat-land thought experiment, and the tesseract
Last edited by a moderator:
This will eventually be one of the "breakout" features of Macs that differentiates them from the more budget priced competitors. But it is probably a couple years out for the display manufacturers to catch up with affordable production at larger screen sizes. Having screens with 4 million versus 1 million pixels, and still acceptable failed pixels is alkin to making Waterford Crystal.
In defense of the "retina" monitors:
I stare at dual LCD panels all day at work, and at an iPad a lot off-hours. If it matters, they're usually oriented "portrait". Note that if you squint hard you can see "scan lines" (pixels are black-separated).
A curious consequence is frequent perception of "scan lines" imposed on vision when not looking at a monitor.
Would be nice having a display which does not induce this annoying effect.
(Or maybe I'm just living in the Matrix.)
I stare at dual LCD panels all day at work, and at an iPad a lot off-hours. If it matters, they're usually oriented "portrait". Note that if you squint hard you can see "scan lines" (pixels are black-separated).
A curious consequence is frequent perception of "scan lines" imposed on vision when not looking at a monitor.
Would be nice having a display which does not induce this annoying effect.
(Or maybe I'm just living in the Matrix.)
I just pretend I am Robocop.
Note: I would think the normal eye moves around enough that the raster burn would even out. Natures own screen saver.
If your eyesight means you need a bigger screen, buy a 32" 1080p television and use that with your Mac Mini. I'm not even being facetious - I'm considering doing something similar myself and running my iMac 24" into one.
Hooray. I was wondering if anybody was going to make this observation. If you double the horizontal resolution, and double the vertical resolution, the resolution increases by 4x.
Cute, but, well, yeah we have.What? You haven't heard about Thunderbolt 2?
That is, the actual optical fiber implementation down the road that's going to scale from 10 GBS to 100 and support many more protocols. (Tho more protocol support will likely be coming to the current TB in dribs and drabs. Including, I read somewhere, USB 3)
(and one reason why the current copper port isn't called "lite-anything)
Last edited:
Well, it depends on whether you're talking total pixels or DPI. It's twice the DPI and 4x the total pixels. Unfortunately, both terms are relevant to discussions of these "HiDPI" displays, so it's ambiguous at times.
Am I the only one that noticed the difference in size of window details in this screenshot? Compare the Safari and iCal windows - the controls - everything looks smaller and less detailed in the Safari window, whereas the iCal window is much more clear. Could this be an indicator? Or even an additional feature (sizing down windows and content, rather than just the window)?
Scalable UI?
Thoughts?
It's likely that the iCal font is designed to lay squarely on the pixels so it's very readable and sharp, but uglier then a beaded moccasin. The fonts on the Safari page are designed for attractive appearance, not sharpness.
By doubling pixel density attractive fonts will look sharper and fonts designed for readability could still be sharp at half the height & width as currently.
The idea behind Apple's "retina display" initiative is to make the jaggies or soft edges that you can see, indiscernible by people with average eyesight. Some people, who have eagle-sharp vision, will be able to see what the rest of us cannot make out.
This would be outstanding...if we could watch a Blu-Ray on these wonderful, hi-deff displays.
http://xkcd.com/732/
damn... another reason to be wary of buying these new MBPs with lame low-resolution monitors. 1280x800 13.3" and 1440x900 15.4" displays are so outdated. Now we have more confirmation that the next update is going to include much better screens. Lame lame lame.
Hardly. You have three choices: 1x, 1.25x, or 1.50x. And both 1.25x and 1.50x look horribly broken because apps (including even freaking Windows Explorer!) are not designed to work with them.
This is exactly the sort of thing that has caused Apple to disable resolution independence in every OS release since Tiger.