No I don't know what you mean because you aren't being clear with your language. What is your issue exactly? Font size? Screen "real estate"? Until you specify what the problem is, you are complaining about nothing, essentially.
2560 x 1600 is the rumored RESOLUTION of the screen. You can throw out any numbers you like and attempt to debate whether the human eye can find any discernible difference whatsoever between them, but the fact remains that the RESOLUTION is rumored to be 2560 x 1600. Full stop.
Being concerned about 2560 x 1600 vs. 2880 x 1800 is nonsensical.
I want to word this carefully as to not start a flame war. Other people seem to undersand what I am saying but I'll start at the begining for you.
The native resolution of the current line up is as follows (this info can be found on the tech specs of apple's site):
11 Air - 1366 x 768
13 Air - 1440x900
13 pro - 1280x800
15 pro - 1440 by 900 (upgradable to 1680x1050)
The retina display is a little different. Like the ipad, it has double the pixel density to make thing look better. Typical displays use about 100 pixels per inch. The retina doubles that to make things look much better. So here is what you need to remember - higher pixel density = better display quality.
Compare that to the screen resolution, which you are referring to screen real estate. The higher the resolution that more stuff fits within your display. So if you are looking at a spread sheet, on a higher resolution you would see more rows and columns even if the screen size is the same.
Now, while Apple states that the 15 retina laptop is "2880-by-1800 resolution at 220 pixels per inch", the truth is you can use this laptop in several different modes.
you can read about on Anandtech
the essence of what they state, is the higher you want the resolution the lower the pixel density. it is only the middle of 5 settings that gets you the true retina experience.
-------------
So my point is this. The 13 pro has a native resolution of 1280x800 which is HALF of what the rumored resolution is for the retinia display. That means that if this is true, that while they increased the pixel density of the they didn't increase the native resolution.
My complaint, is that the Air would have a higher resolution then the retina (if you are using the 13 retina in retina mode). If that is true, it is a disappointment.
I use my computer for things where resolution matters. And higher pixel density is great, but not at the expense of the resolution.
----------
Okay guys, for the zillionth time in the zillionth thread:
(1) This thing is going to use the Intel HD 4000 ONLY! Space gained by removing the optical and hard drives is negated by making it thinner.
(2) For Ivy Bridge, you won't see a quad-core; the 15" retina machine shares the exact same CPUs as its non-retina counter-part; expect the same here.
(3) The Intel HD 4000 is plenty sufficient to drive both a 13" retina display as well as a 15" retina display. The problem does not lie with the video chipset but with the software. Case in point, a non-retina 2012 13" MacBook Pro can run its own internal 1280x800 display as well as 2 27" (2560x1400) displays. Do the math and that's way more pixels being outputed by the Intel HD 4000 than is done on a lone 15" rMBP; GPUs don't care about pixel density, but drivers and the operating system sure do! Therefore, it's all software and has nothing to do with the hardware capability of the Intel HD 4000.
(4) The non-retina Unibody MacBook Pros are gone after this rev. It is obvious that they are being given this extra one-year stay of execution for those that need them for whatever reason and then by next year, the retina MacBook Pros will be the only MacBook Pros. It's only natural. Come 2013's refresh, there will be retina MBPs and there will be MBAs. Nothing else. Apple is all but saying so outright on both their MacBook Pro webpages and in the WWDC 2012 keynote.
Hummm.... yes and no on part of that. The video card can't push the display higher then it's capabilities.
If I plug in a 27inch I can get 2560x1440 (non-retina) that is the native resolution.
If I plug in a non-apple 17inch display, the maximum resolution I could get is what ever that display's native resolution is.
But yes, you are also correct that the video card would also have to support that resolution as well.
For these retina laptops, Apple is also using display that supports a higher resolution. If I understand it correctly, then they half the resolution which yields 2x the pixel density. I am sure that is is a little more complicated, but that is the simple version.
