Microsoft Also Preparing for Desktop/Laptop Retina Displays

[DrDomVonDoom]

Its nice, but this won't become a standard for anyone anytime soon. Thats why I like my Mac, theres a standard set for the screen. Have you used a Mac Mini on anything less than a iMac screen? It looks horrible, the iMac screens are some of the smoothest and richest colors I have seen in a screen. Looking at my friends high end home built PC running on a crap LCD really hurts my brain, because I could imagine how good it would look running through my Mac's moniter. even he, admitted himself when we visited a Apple Store, how beautiful it was. This comming from a hardcore Windoze fan.

 

[wikus]

Its nice, but this won't become a standard for anyone anytime soon. Thats why I like my Mac, theres a standard set for the screen. Have you used a Mac Mini on anything less than a iMac screen? It looks horrible, the iMac screens are some of the smoothest and richest colors I have seen in a screen. Looking at my friends high end home built PC running on a crap LCD really hurts my brain, because I could imagine how good it would look running through my Mac's moniter. even he, admitted himself when we visited a Apple Store, how beautiful it was. This comming from a hardcore Windoze fan.

My IPS panel beats the pants off any apple display.

 

[divinox]

Its nice, but this won't become a standard for anyone anytime soon. Thats why I like my Mac, theres a standard set for the screen. Have you used a Mac Mini on anything less than a iMac screen? It looks horrible, the iMac screens are some of the smoothest and richest colors I have seen in a screen. Looking at my friends high end home built PC running on a crap LCD really hurts my brain, because I could imagine how good it would look running through my Mac's moniter. even he, admitted himself when we visited a Apple Store, how beautiful it was. This comming from a hardcore Windoze fan.

You do know that the monitor hes using has nothing to do with windows, right? Its his, and his fault alone, that he shorted out on the monitor, instead of buying something good.

----------

My IPS panel beats the pants off any apple display.

You do know that Apple uses ips-panels every now and then, right? Like, everytime when it comes to their only monitor, the cinema/thunderbolt display. Based on the yellow-tinting issues that some has experienced, i'd say that the iMac has it as default now too.

 

[BuzzMega]

Retinal rule of thumb

When they talk about 250+ "dots" per inch in most displays, the dots in question are individual red, green or blue pixels, often laid out in such a way that an RGB trio occupies a square single-pixel space. This makes the full-color pixels a third of the dot number. Meaning that about 85 pixels per inch is the result on the face of the display.

In newspaper half-tone printing, 85-dot reproduction is coarse, but those are not full-color, complete picture elements.

Still, it takes about 100 pixels across one degree of field of view to maximize the display to the limits of 20/20 vision. You have to stand back around 16 inches from the surface of the display to experience that maximum ergonomic resolution. Approximately normal reading distance.

Rule of thumb.

While it will eventually be practical to double the density of a display, beyond the "250-dot" figure, the only reason to do that would be for 3D, not for greater perceived sharpness.

 

[MacSince1990]

High DPI? I been using 2048x1536 on a 19" CRT for years

Apple first needs to give its customer REAL choice in video cards.

You're clearly new to the Mac world. Apple's offerings are better than they've ever been, actually.

And please note that it isn't up to Apple, but up to nVidia and ATI; they license to Apple, and they develop the drivers and tweak the hardware to work on Macs.

Their current offerings are crap.

How so? And in terms of their laptop line, I'd say they're really *quite* good.

A mobile graphics card in the iMac? Are you kidding me?

...I'm sorry, are you suggesting they put a 130W part in an enclosure that's basically the size of a large laptop?

These high res screens will put a dent in performance, thats for sure.

Um. No, they wouldn't... GUI isn't really a big deal, and in terms of games... you can always turn the resolution... DOWN.

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Matte screen please.

Agree 100%

Can someone explain what could take advantage of 3840x2160?

Anyone doing video editing, anyone doing photo editing, anyone who likes a lot of screen real estate. I would settle for Quad HD, but, would prefer 3840x2400 4K is what you need to actually reproduce the quality of the best big screen movies and best 35mm still photographs.

The problem is not what apps would take advantage of the resolution -- there are plenty. The problem is that current 4K-ish Quad-HD-ish monitors are fantastically expensive. The first company to make such a monitor affordable is going to town with it.

 

[Oletros]

And please note that it isn't up to Apple, but up to nVidia and ATI; they license to Apple, and they develop the drivers and tweak the hardware to work on Macs.

Ah, the problem that iMac or mac Pro's doesn't have better graphic cards or drivers is nVidia and AMD and not Apple?

 

[wikus]

Ah, the problem that iMac or mac Pro's doesn't have better graphic cards or drivers is nVidia and AMD and not Apple?

yeah, that must be it, amd and nvidia don't want apples business, and its not apples say who can make graphics cards bto for mac.

/sarcasm

 

[bycrikey]

Are you kidding me?

talk about a road to nowhere...
think 20" monitor... think 10x the price. And for what?
18M pixels... the human eye is incapable of making out 250 dpi at 2-3 feet.
And what content will you see at this unappreciable density?
Are we looking at dedicated Quad-core Video to pointlessly upscale HD content, and then to display at density nobody would have noticed even if it were native?

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

talk about a road to nowhere...
think 20" monitor... think 10x the price. And for what?
18M pixels... the human eye is incapable of making out 250 dpi at 2-3 feet.
And what content will you see at this unappreciable density?
Are we looking at dedicated Quad-core Video to pointlessly upscale HD content, and then to display at density nobody would have noticed even if it were native?

Actually, it is quite easy to demonstrate the visibility of 4K resolution, but, you are correct that you would only appreciate it in a 20" monitor up close, while in an 80" monster you could see it from the comfort of the couch. I usually sit fairly close to the monitor myself, so, I think about 32" would be about right.

 

[toke lahti]

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).

I think OS X developer team was aiming at resolution independent GUI before they were re-assigned to sell more iToys.
Now if m$ really does this, these iToy developers can cry that it's copied from apple...