Before you wet yourself with anger, let System Preferences be your friend, especially "universal Access." Apple has had this as part of their system your whole young life.
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
Before you wet yourself with anger, let System Preferences be your friend, especially "universal Access." Apple has had this as part of their system your whole young life.
That is not how it works. What happens is web developers jam more inapproprate things into their webpage so that you still have to full screen your windows.
It gets worse...many cheap knock-off iPads have resistive touch screens which are not nearly as accurate or sensitive to touch as the capacitive kind in the Apple iPad. Even an Etch-a-Sketch is better than the brand X crapola.
I need to do more research on this, but I am sure 150ppi is the max you would want for a notebook/desktop.
Just my 2 cents...
I want exactly double that. Then I can see what my Photoshop and InDesign documents look like without printing them.
Grayscale text is already higher DPI due to subpixel rendering.
Good point. That would be possible, but not for at least another few years I'd say. To see a 3840x2400 display on a laptop is kind of pushing it with todays technology. Not only do you need to find a resolution of that kind to fit a 17/15" screen but then you need a decent GPU to handle that resolution. Remember, that is still 2x as many pixels as a 2560x1600 30" display. And a 7680x4800 display! WOW! That would be insane!
Good point though. Print quality would be awesome! I'd just like to see resolution independency first.
I'll bet it bothers you all to pieces that the letters of OCD are not in alphabetical order too.
They aren't! OH NO I HAVE TO KILL MYSELF OR ILL GO INSANE!!! AAAH!
thanks for the reply though, I didn't know it was such a sin to want a computer with an ultra high resolution display with resolution independency.
Oh no! I just realized I forgot to capitalize the first letter of my previous sentence. The world will end for me! OCD OCD OCD AAAAH!!!!
But you have to admit, wouldn't that kind of display be nice? (I assume you read my whole comment, yes?)
That's only 44% more pixels than the 17" Mac Book Pro currently pushes with an external 30" connected, and I'd bet that the GPU could easily handle two 30" monitors.
This is something designers have been salivating over for years. Not surprising that Apple is putting their full weight behind the infrastructure needed to make this happen.
The downside of this is that there will now be incessant yammering about retina displays every time a iMac or Monitor refresh comes around. We're a long ways off still from being able to mass-manufacture large retina-class displays at affordable price points.
When this change finally comes around it will be very, very interesting to see the impact it has on designers and web developers. Already the advent of the retina-display has some rethinking ages-old design terminology. Soon, the idea of the pixel as a unit of design measurement will be nearly obsolete.
It will be insane editing print documents with a near print-quality preview and using photoshop with documents at true 1:1 ratio.
The downside of this is that there will now be incessant yammering about retina displays every time a iMac or Monitor refresh comes around. We're a long ways off still from being able to mass-manufacture large retina-class displays at affordable price points.
When this change finally comes around it will be very, very interesting to see the impact it has on designers and web developers. Already the advent of the retina-display has some rethinking ages-old design terminology. Soon, the idea of the pixel as a unit of design measurement will be nearly obsolete.
It will be insane editing print documents with a near print-quality preview and using photoshop with documents at true 1:1 ratio.
What I find funny is in a previous thread, the day before this one came out when I mentioned the Sony Vaio Z laptop, which has a 13 inch screen and is running at 1920x1080. EVERYONE said its a horrible idea.
These Super-Hi-Res Apple Monitors get announced and everyones saying what a brilliant idea it is and they want to buy 12.
These Super-Hi-Res Apple Monitors get announced and everyones saying what a brilliant idea it is and they want to buy 12.
Because obviously all there is to computers is the Web amiright ?
Try using Xcode with multiple windows open and you'll understand where I'm coming from.
More resolution = more code on screen. I don't want "sharper looking fonts for my code", I want to see more of it at the same time at a glance without having to expose/scroll/move windows around.
Sorry, don't lump everyone together. I thought the people who flamed you were obviously blind and needed to just get better glasses also. The Vaio Z is drool worthy on that point. Too bad it is so expensive and its hardware isn't more Linux friendly.
Last edited:
I have the new 27" and that is as small as I can go. So I'd be happy with this new technology.
Uh ? The 27" iMac/ACD have 109 PPI which means huge fischer priced sized pixels.
Any Macbook, even the awful 15" MBP with 1440x900 have higher PPI than that.
So for this to be worth while, will we need a high res 1680x1050 display (Referring to 15" Macbook Pro) or a totally different screen altogether?
If it can mimic (2880x1800) the same resolution standard as say 1440x900 but with double the pixel density then does that mean we can use the same screen?
If it can mimic (2880x1800) the same resolution standard as say 1440x900 but with double the pixel density then does that mean we can use the same screen?
I think they should give a choice, for example:
1440 by 900 with retina (so 2880x1800, but displays as if it was 1440x900);
1280 by 800 with retina;
1024 by 768 with retina.
And:
2880x1800 without retina, but more real estate (1:1) (obviously, not very practical due to too small text);
2560x1800 without retina.
Therefore, you can either have:
- Lots of real estate - but blurry - good for design work: Photoshop, video editing etc;
- Sharp text / pictures - but less real estate - good for web browsing, Word / Pages, Powerpoint / Keynote, reading etc;
- "Less" real estate and blurry - to save battery life, or for games, as a mobile GPU powering a 2880x1800 (retina or not), really? Enough said.
Let me show you something:
How big do you need spotlight results?
We're not that blind, but I suppose, for the MBA's screen resolution and for touch screens (iMac Touch).
You could reduce the icon size in your Finder's view preferences in the meantime which will help with that spotlight view.
Pointless?
<i>For example, instead of a 1440x900 pixel 15" MacBook Pro, you could have a 2880x1800 pixel 15" MacBook </i>
But what is the point? I have a 1440x960 15" display already. I can't see the pixels. Adding more pixels just increases the cost, memory needs and processor usage. This is a waste. Its feature creep that just increases the cost of the product.
I would much rather have better durability, reliability and product life. Yeah, I realize that is not in Apple's best interest but I want Macs that last for 40 to 100 years instead of just 10 or 20 years.
<i>For example, instead of a 1440x900 pixel 15" MacBook Pro, you could have a 2880x1800 pixel 15" MacBook </i>
But what is the point? I have a 1440x960 15" display already. I can't see the pixels. Adding more pixels just increases the cost, memory needs and processor usage. This is a waste. Its feature creep that just increases the cost of the product.
I would much rather have better durability, reliability and product life. Yeah, I realize that is not in Apple's best interest but I want Macs that last for 40 to 100 years instead of just 10 or 20 years.
Thank you for saying something sensible!
All this talk of screen real-estate, yet images can be zoomed in or out, font size can be changed and windows can be resized. Just because a few fixed size UI buttons are a couple of mm larger than they could be, does not mean that you wouldn't gain a huge amount of real-estate from much higher resolutions.
KnightWRX will still be able to view lots and lots of code at a tiny font size.
A 100% Vector UI is Resolution Independence. All those vectors ultimately have to be rendered down to high ppi bitmaps because the Screen is not a collection of Vector Pixels. The Screen PPI is not infinitely scalable up or down.
You're not paying attention Ben.
Support for resolution independent graphics has been announced, not new Apple Monitors.
Why the headline 'Lion building in support for super high resolution Retina Monitors?
Not
Lion building in support for resolution independent graphics?
I just find that a little miss leading.
how can "doubling" be called "independent"
It would be misleading to call it "resolution independent", since it seems to mainly favor resolution "X" and resolution "2X" - not every possible resolution.
It would be misleading to call it "resolution independent", since it seems to mainly favor resolution "X" and resolution "2X" - not every possible resolution.
please tell me that I am not the only one who does not call this resolution independent for icons. All it is taking storing an icon of the max possible resolution our eye could really see.
Resolution independent means everything is vector based and things like icons are just stored as mathematical equations with some fixed point. (again mathematical based around a center)
Hell most icons today are originally created in a program that is vector based as it allows blowing up and shrinking an icon with out degrading it.
Resolution independent means everything is vector based and things like icons are just stored as mathematical equations with some fixed point. (again mathematical based around a center)
Hell most icons today are originally created in a program that is vector based as it allows blowing up and shrinking an icon with out degrading it.