Microsoft Also Preparing for Desktop/Laptop Retina Displays

[divinox]

Nary a mention, except some really obvious photoshopping of Apple's iconic advertising:

And Apple's original image:

Edit, here's another Intel photochop:

First: Do you see that logo, saying INTEL? (i.e. Not Microsoft). Second: Was that image even shown at BUILD?

----------

I bet Microsoft _will_ call it Retina Display and then claim that it's a generic term, just like they are trying to do with AppStore.

Jobs himself applied app store in a generic way. Retina Display as such is trademarkable, without much fuzz. One is unlikely to be able to prevent anyone from stating that their display outperforms your retina (or similar), though (at least if stating a scientific fact).

----------

Thats great for Microsoft users - now the Blue screen will be in super HD!

Not nearly as good as throwing CD's and disks in the trashcan though

----------

When are these going to be commercially viable though and rolled out on every laptop as standard? 5 years maybe? I mean it's pretty cool but i don't see that's absolutely necessary yet, guess it's good for security though

Something like that, but early adopters will not, and even still - MSFT products have like decade long life cycles, as such they need to plan for ze future. (And also, as stated in the keynote - you can have it double as an accessability feature).

----------

Is that a joke? "It's Penises Per square Inch, not Dicks Per square Inch."

dots != pixels

----------

Another one of those Microsoft-istic "That's a great idea, Apple...we'll copy your idea and sell it in our OS so it can be used on all PC hardware and we will make hundreds of billions of dollars off this great idea. Thanks for the retina-fantasic heads-up, Apple. You are such a cool company!"

Yeah, cause Apple is the only one that noticed the effects of increased resolution on a fixed interface.

p.s. Windows have been planning along for hi-res for quite a few years now; i.e. before Apple invented the retina (i do mean the actual retina!).

----------

Matte screen please. Can someone explain what could take advantage of 3840x2160?

Ill drink to that. Glossy trend needs to die!

 

[KnightWRX]

Nope, it would have more resolution but everything should have more footprint too, what used to be a 100x100 icon would be 200x200 icon and so forth, just like the iPhone and it's retina display, you have more resolution but everything takes the same space in the screen as before.

I'd rather have a 200 PPI+ display with 100x100 icons myself. Give me more screen real-estate to real pack in the windows and applications, don't just give me sharper text (really, at the distance I'm sitting at, I can't even see the pixels on 130+ PPI screens as it is).

 

[silentnite]

Sounds good but the price is going to be shocking $$$

 

[the8thark]

Apple first needs to give its customer REAL choice in video cards. Their current offerings are crap. A mobile graphics card in the iMac? Are you kidding me?

If you say this then you just so so do not get it.
The current iMac/MBP dedicated GPU's are fantastic. They are quiet, small in size, give a very decent output, and have a low power consumption. If you want better you'll need a bigger gpu that is the size of a brick, noisy, large, and very power hungry.

The 2011 iMac and dedicated GPU's in the MBP's are very good for 95% of the computer using community. And if you are in the last 5% then an iMac or MBP is not for you. Go make your own PC with the GPU you want.

I still use my Mac because of it's low power consumption. Power bills are not cheap. And any savings are very nice indeed.

Personally I love the iMac/MBP GPUs. But are not the most powerful ever but they are pretty good. And they win on:
Size
power usage
noise
etc etc.

I think you get my point. the little loss in end output is I think a worthy trade off for the other great benefits.

Go build a windows box and put the GPU you want in it. And let us all be happy with the good Mac ones. And you get a deserved neg rep from me cause you didn't think before you typed what you said.

 

[gorgeousninja]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)

So how long will we have to wait before one of the remaining ms fanboys (im guessing there are still a few left) tries to tell everyone that a 'retina' display is in fact a generic term...

Hahaha, just looking at the latest posts and someones already done it! ... so predictable and oh so sad...

 

[Oletros]

So how long will we have to wait before one of the remaining ms fanboys (im guessing there are still a few left) tries to tell everyone that a 'retina' display is in fact a generic term...

And the relation between being generic App Store and Retina is ...

Hahaha, just looking at the latest posts and someones already done it! ... so predictable and oh so sad...

Yes? Who?

 

[Piggie]

You must have forgotten that the iMac had a mobile processor in it until the 27" iMacs. The lcd screened iMac has always been a laptop without a battery.

I may be wrong here, and please do correct me if I am.

But I thought I heard that even in the 27" iMac's, the Intel i7 CPU was not a real full power 2600 or 2600K chip, but some low power variant of the 2600 series designed for thing like high end laptops etc.

Can anyone please clarify this?

Thanks.

 

[MythicFrost]

Im scared to even think what games will look like in 10 years time. It will be mind blowing.

Yeah, it'll be awesome to say the least!

 

[philips]

Retina displays? Huh.

Apple should first introduce "Large Font" option in the Mac OS X. 10.6 doesn't have one and as I heard it is again missing in the 10.7 (that option might have convinced me to upgrade).

Because even on my 17" MPB (early '09 model with full HD resolution display) it is damm hard to read the UI of most applications.

Without possibility to make the onscreen fonts readable, to me personally, introduction of higher pixel density monitors doesn't make much sense.

 

[foodog]

So would I, but Apple would rather put in a mobile GPU if it meant a thinner profile. They have different priorities than us, unfortunately.

The iMac is not a performance machine. The Mac Pro is

----------

If you say this then you just so so do not get it.
The current iMac/MBP dedicated GPU's are fantastic. They are quiet, small in size, give a very decent output, and have a low power consumption. If you want better you'll need a bigger gpu that is the size of a brick, noisy, large, and very power hungry.

The 2011 iMac and dedicated GPU's in the MBP's are very good for 95% of the computer using community. And if you are in the last 5% then an iMac or MBP is not for you. Go make your own PC with the GPU you want.

I still use my Mac because of it's low power consumption. Power bills are not cheap. And any savings are very nice indeed.

Personally I love the iMac/MBP GPUs. But are not the most powerful ever but they are pretty good. And they win on:
Size
power usage
noise
etc etc.

I think you get my point. the little loss in end output is I think a worthy trade off for the other great benefits.

Go build a windows box and put the GPU you want in it. And let us all be happy with the good Mac ones. And you get a deserved neg rep from me cause you didn't think before you typed what you said.

- or buy a Mac Pro

 

[JHankwitz]

How about seeing text, etc. on your display at 200+ PPI instead of 100-110ish we have now? Your display would look more like a printed page instead of pixelated or heavily anti-alliased.

If "retina" resolutions are achieved you wouldn't be able to resolve pixels at normal viewing distances even without anti-aliasing being used.

Image

http://developer.apple.com/library/...s.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40003409-CH3-SW4

Shawnce gave us an excellent example of how some confuse resolution. There's screen resolution and image resolution. Screen resolution tells us how many lines (or dots) there are on the screens surface, or how much can be resolved. Image resolution tells us how many lines (or dots) are projected onto the screen. This wasn't a problem on the original Macs because the resolution was 72 dpi in both cases. News paper photos use 50 to 85 dpi, and magazines use 150 to 200 dpi. Text is not printed as dots, but continuous ink, providing very clear letters.

Computers print text as dots, making it less clear than ink printed text as illustrated in the Shawnce example. The higher the screen and image resolution, the better it will look, at least until the image exceeds the resolution of your eye's retina.

 

[guzhogi]

I could see higher resolutions on the laptops & 21.5" iMac, but what about the 27" iMac & Thunderbolt display? While I know the displays themselves can handle higher resolutions, but what about the graphics cards? Highest supported resolution I've seen on current graphics cards is 2560 x 1600. The 27" iMac & Thunderbolt display already support 2560 x 1440, right? Can't get much higher without graphics support.

I'll admit, I could totally have my facts wrong; if that's the case, just let me know.

 

[wikus]

If you say this then you just so so do not get it.

Excuse me?

The current iMac/MBP dedicated GPU's are fantastic. They are quiet, small in size, give a very decent output, and have a low power consumption. If you want better you'll need a bigger gpu that is the size of a brick, noisy, large, and very power hungry.

I didn't know better graphics cards required them to be bigger.... news to me.

The 2011 iMac and dedicated GPU's in the MBP's are very good for 95% of the computer using community. And if you are in the last 5% then an iMac or MBP is not for you. Go make your own PC with the GPU you want.

Some of us play more than just chess. I suppose a subpar video card will suit YOU just fine, but for those of us who do play games, the options are miserable. And before you make another response to build a custom PC, you should ask yourself why Apple has been pushing gaming more recently whilst still having awful video cards.

I still use my Mac because of it's low power consumption. Power bills are not cheap. And any savings are very nice indeed.

Personally I love the iMac/MBP GPUs. But are not the most powerful ever but they are pretty good. And they win on:
Size
power usage
noise
etc etc.

I think you get my point. the little loss in end output is I think a worthy trade off for the other great benefits.

Yeah, I get your point; you want a slow underpowered video card because:
a) you cant afford a better one
b) you cant afford the energy bills
c) you find fan noise annoying during gaming (silent in idle mind you)
d) an extra half inch in a desktop is a huge space saver

Those are all moot points anyway. I have a better solution though, one that doesnt jive well with Steve Jobs because I don't think he's ever heard this word in his life and maybe neither have you:

CHOICE.

If you want your entry level GPU, fine. You can chose to have it in your desktop, I won't be bothered since those who don't game or use applications that take advantage of the GPU shouldnt be wasting money on things they wont use.

But is it so hard to just give the OPTION? Why is apple so notorious for giving its consumers overpriced last gen. GPU options? Would it kill them to simply give us the CHOICE? When I got my first Mac Edition 3870 I literally could have gotten the SAME card in PC form for half the price, or a year earlier at the SAME price. And thats being generous, their BTO options are not only as limited, their pricing is even worse.

bla bla bla.... let us all be happy with the good Mac ones.

I don't see how my experience with a mac today in limited form or tomorrow with my vision of choice, could ever affect your life.

And you get a deserved neg rep from me cause you didn't think before you typed what you said.

Don't worry, I negged you too. Deservingly.

 

[dusk007]

I may be wrong here, and please do correct me if I am.

But I thought I heard that even in the 27" iMac's, the Intel i7 CPU was not a real full power 2600 or 2600K chip, but some low power variant of the 2600 series designed for thing like high end laptops etc.

Can anyone please clarify this?

Thanks.

It is a 2600S. S means it is 65W which is basically a low power Desktop CPU. Usually it is 95W and highend is 130W. It is still a Desktop CPU, it runs on a Desktop CPU socket needs a motherboard with Desktop Chipsets. It is not designed for highend Notebooks that would be the 2920 and 2960 XM.
Differences to a normal 2600k i7 wich costs about the same or a little less actually.
2.8 vs 3.4 GHz default speed
Intel HD 2000 vs. Intel HD 3000
and max Turbo bins 1/5/9/10 vs 1/2/3/4
Which means in Single and Dual Core operation it can run as fast as the 95W CPU at least for a short time. 3 and 4 Core operation it is quite a bit slower. GPU is only half as fast but that doesn't really matter if you don't use it.

 

[zarusoba]

So funny that people still talk about computer displays having "DPI". It's PPI. Pixels, not dots. Completely different.

 

[KnightWRX]

So funny that people still talk about computer displays having "DPI". It's PPI. Pixels, not dots. Completely different.

Pixels aren't dots ?

 

[nylonsteel]

re original article

wondering when the lawsuits will start flying about thy name "retina display"

 

[Dbrown]

Sorry mate, but what a few edge case users want in their computers simply don’t correlate with the 80% of the population that simply doesn’t know or care. Apple sells to them. Hardcore gamers which lets face it are about the only people who actually care about graphics cards shouldn’t really be using a Mac for gaming anyway.

What the heck does a consumer buying an imac need a monitor thats higher than 1080p for?

 

[milo]

Microsoft aren't doing anything...

ATI + Nvidia will support the high res screens... (which they actually already do..)

MS is doing something, they're making their interface work at a reasonable size at these resolutions. Without OS support, you'd have tiny icons and tiny menu text.

But we aren't talking about more screen real estate here are we? Just more detailed images in the same real estate (unless you are just going to use extremely tiny text and UI elements).

Best case, we're talking about both. Some things we'd want to keep at the same size but higher resolution, other things we'd want to be able to make them smaller. As far as I'm concerned, best case is letting the user adjust the size of menus and icons (and ideally, even the interface of individual apps) independent of the screen resolution.

I know plenty of people who have high resolution screens but run them lower because at the maximum resolution the menus are too small to read.

The iMac is not a performance machine. The Mac Pro is

At this point the base mac pro also is not a performance machine - it gets worse performance than the top iMac and even the top laptops (the i7 mini might even beat it at this point). And no TB or sata III, which are both on most other models now.

What the heck does a consumer buying an imac need a monitor thats higher than 1080p for?

Already answered earlier in the thread.

 

[Dbrown]

Already answered earlier in the thread.

So you dont see pixels when your face is 2" from the screen? To open up 1000 instances of calculator?

People are going on about how a good video card isnt needed because 80-95% of the people who buy an imac dont need it or care. My point is if thats true even more people dont need a monitor that goes over 1080p.

Its more likely someone will buy a game that uses the video card rather than an app that actually makes use of high resolution.

 

[gorgeousninja]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)

So how long will we have to wait before one of the remaining ms fanboys (im guessing there are still a few left) tries to tell everyone that a 'retina' display is in fact a generic term...

And the relation between being generic App Store and Retina is ...

Hahaha, just looking at the latest posts and someones already done it! ... so predictable and oh so sad...

Yes? Who?

Dont panic! There is no relation Apple have never invented anything. Xerox were just about to sell home computers before Apple ruined it. Desktops with mice werent first available with Apple its a media lie. All pcs were brightly colored and well designed before the imac. Mp3 players were great eons before the ipod. Itunes was not the easiest way to buy music online. The iphone copied 1000's of android phones, and everyone used to go shopping in app stores. MS tablets were flying off the shelves before the ipad came out and still are.

Apple customer are just duped because of marketing. When there is an ad on TV quietly showing what an ipad does it tricks people into buying one cos they are fools for marketing, whereas an android tablet with loud metal music, lasers, and spaceships, isnt marketing at all... its the truth!

Go back to sleep America.

 

[Oletros]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)



Dont panic! There is no relation Apple have never invented anything. Xerox were just about to sell home computers before Apple ruined it. Desktops with mice werent first available with Apple its a media lie. All pcs were brightly colored and well designed before the imac. Mp3 players were great eons before the ipod. Itunes was not the easiest way to buy music online. The iphone copied 1000's of android phones, and everyone used to go shopping in app stores. MS tablets were flying off the shelves before the ipad came out and still are.

Apple customer are just duped because of marketing. When there is an ad on TV quietly showing what an ipad does it tricks people into buying one cos they are fools for marketing, whereas an android tablet with loud metal music, lasers, and spaceships, isnt marketing at all... its the truth!

Go back to sleep America.

 

[neko girl]

First: Do you see that logo, saying INTEL? (i.e. Not Microsoft). Second: Was that image even shown at BUILD?

You're right. I was responding to a comment about Intel's unveiling of Ultrabooks, and mention of Apple. The slides were shown at IDF, and prior Intel announcements of Ultrabooks.

 

[shawnce]

My point is if thats true even more people dont need a monitor that goes over 1080p.

My current 27" would look IMHO horribly pixelated if it was limited to HD 1080 (1920x1200) at my normal sitting/working distance.

The pixel count one "needs" depends on viewing distance and physical screen dimensions. The closer you sit the smaller you need to make the pixels and as you shrink the physical size of the pixels the more you have to pack onto the display surface to cover it (hence increasing the pixel count). The larger the display surface of course also requires more pixels to cover it if you want to keep the physical size of the pixels the same size. If you increase the pixel physical size then you run into the sitting distance issue I outline before... so YES you can easily need more then HD 1080 resolution at todays common display sizes (at least common with Macs) and working distance.

At my normal working distance a screen with a little over 200 PPI would just about make my eyes unable to resolve a given pixel. The pixel count needed to achieve 200 PPI of course depends on the physical size of the display (I prefer around the 27" currently).

 

[cr2]

Good one!

Sent from my Zune.

Good one.