Next to get a retina display

[skaertus]

Now that the 15" MacBook got a retina display, which will be, in your opinion, the next computer/gadget to have one? By retina display I mean incredibly high resolutions that are actually capable of quadrupling the number of pixels of a standard display (so a 1920x1080 resolution on a 11" display would not be considered a retina display).

You may choose more than one option if you feel they will be released simultaneously.

 

[gentlefury]

Now that the 15" MacBook got a retina display, which will be, in your opinion, the next computer/gadget to have one? By retina display I mean incredibly high resolutions that are actually capable of quadrupling the number of pixels of a standard display (so a 1920x1080 resolution on a 11" display would not be considered a retina display).

You may choose more than one option if you feel they will be released simultaneously.

I think the next refresh will phase out the thick low res monsters all together and we will be left with an 11" retina MBA, a 13" retina MBA, and a 15" MBP. That will be the MacBook line. Finally consolidating it like apple has wanted to do for a while now!

We might see the return of the 17" again, but not until after the iMac and the cinema display get a high res refresh.

 

[skaertus]

I think the next refresh will phase out the thick low res monsters all together and we will be left with an 11" retina MBA, a 13" retina MBA, and a 15" MBP. That will be the MacBook line. Finally consolidating it like apple has wanted to do for a while now!

It is a possibility. Perhaps Apple redesigns the MacBook Air once again (it was last revised in October 2010, so it is not unlikely it gets a new refresh in 2013 to accomodate a retina display).

 

[dank414]

It's definitely gonna be one of their 13" models. It's the most popular selling size. Or 14" in China.

 

[JD92]

I suspect Apple will have to wait until Sharp perfects its IGZO technology before the MBA gets a retina display. The MacBook Pro was able to get a retina display using more conventional IPS technology because the HDD and DVD drives were removed and the logic board was slimmed down, giving a lot more room for the battery required to power a display like that. It's not entirely clear where the space for extra battery would come from in the MBA.

 

[skaertus]

I suspect Apple will have to wait until Sharp perfects its IGZO technology before the MBA gets a retina display. The MacBook Pro was able to get a retina display using more conventional IPS technology because the HDD and DVD drives were removed and the logic board was slimmed down, giving a lot more room for the battery required to power a display like that. It's not entirely clear where the space for extra battery would come from in the MBA.

It is possible. I don't know how much more battery a retina display would require, nor if Apple can enhance the battery of the current MacBook Airs or make the design even more efficient in order to hold more battery. Perhaps the Haswell processor, to be released in 2013, is power-efficient enough to let the retina display suck all the battery it needs.

I can see that Asus has managed to put a 1920x1080 display and a dedicated graphics card inside its Zenbook laptop. And I see that Sony put a standard-voltage mobile Core i7 (which sucks more battery than a low-voltage model such as the ones used in a MacBook Air) and a 1920x1080 display inside its 13" Vaio Z, and it managed to be even lighter than a 11" MacBook Air. Apple might be able to put a retina display (perhaps one with a 2560x1600 resolution) in its MacBook Air, if not now, perhaps next year...

 

[yanksrock100]

I think the next will be the MBP 13, possibly even this year. There will be 2 MBPr, 2 MBPc, and 2 MBA's. Then next year they will discontinue the MBP classic, and have 2 lines of laptops. The Pros (with retina) and the Airs (for consumers).

 

[noteple]

As much as I would like an true Air with Retina.

Current design just doesn't have enough battery power or graphics umph to push a retina display.

It would have to be a 13" size version of the 15" retina Mac Book Pro

 

[skaertus]

I think the next will be the MBP 13, possibly even this year. There will be 2 MBPr, 2 MBPc, and 2 MBA's. Then next year they will discontinue the MBP classic, and have 2 lines of laptops. The Pros (with retina) and the Airs (for consumers).

I don't think Apple will release another laptop this year. But, well, you never know...

 

[skaertus]

It seems like the first non-Apple retina displays are beginning to appear in laptops:

http://www.slashgear.com/samsung-series-9-wqhd-hands-on-with-sammys-retina-retort-01245571/

http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/31/samsung-Series 9-WQHD-Ultrabook-matte-display/

 

[ixodes]

I'd like to see Apple accelerate the implementation of retina on all products with a display. I'm so sick of the hype "Retina This, Retina That" just get it over already.

It's obvious that the benefit to Apple is successfully moving everyone up market into more expensive products, so let's just get it over.

All the tired comments like "once you go retina everything else is crap" or "you can't go back" are nothing more than the typical stuff of followers.

Oh sure Retina is nice & I use it too, but there's such a thing as going overboard with all these gushing reports.

 

[plucky duck]

I'd like to see Apple accelerate the implementation of retina on all products with a display. I'm so sick of the hype "Retina This, Retina That" just get it over already.

It's obvious that the benefit to Apple is successfully moving everyone up market into more expensive products, so let's just get it over.

All the tired comments like "once you go retina everything else is crap" or "you can't go back" are nothing more than the typical stuff of followers.

Oh sure Retina is nice & I use it too, but there's such a thing as going overboard with all these gushing reports.

I find the retina display on the iPad 3 to be not only amazingly sharp, but the UI very smooth, thus the user experience is very pleasant. The iPad 2's lower resolution does bother me after having used the iPad 3. Having said that though, I enjoy using the 11" Air's 1366*768 display as much as I do the 27" iMac's higher resolution. I can definitely tell the quality difference on the smaller 11" Air, but somehow I am not bothered by it. Weird, I know, but somehow I am just not bothered by it. Perhaps its other things that make up the Air that brings up the whole user experience. OSX is such a pleasure to use, even on the Air, certain static UI elements can be hidden, giving more usable space and that's part of the reason why a smaller 11" display doesn't bother me at all.

Sorry for being all over the map and off topic with my train of thought.

 

[Stetrain]

I could perhaps see the Haswell Airs getting retina displays, possibly lower quality non-IPS panels like they did with the iPod touch.

 

[ixodes]

I find the retina display on the iPad 3 to be not only amazingly sharp, but the UI very smooth, thus the user experience is very pleasant. The iPad 2's lower resolution does bother me after having used the iPad 3. Having said that though, I enjoy using the 11" Air's 1366*768 display as much as I do the 27" iMac's higher resolution. I can definitely tell the quality difference on the smaller 11" Air, but somehow I am not bothered by it. Weird, I know, but somehow I am just not bothered by it. Perhaps its other things that make up the Air that brings up the whole user experience. OSX is such a pleasure to use, even on the Air, certain static UI elements can be hidden, giving more usable space and that's part of the reason why a smaller 11" display doesn't bother me at all.

Sorry for being all over the map and off topic with my train of thought.

Here's some additional thoughts.

Having both iPads 2 & 3, when I'm using iPad 2, the lower resolution doesn't bother me in the least. Yes, it's certainly not as clear & beautiful as the stunning retina of the iPad 3. But knowing that, and in turn _not_ expecting it to be, it's easy to appreciate just how nice it is.

When one knows there's a difference & why, it should not be a factor.

There's no perfect tablet, laptop, or smartphone. Only excellent ones. Most made by Apple, I choose to celebrate that.

 

[yanksrock100]

It seems like the first non-Apple retina displays are beginning to appear in laptops:

http://www.slashgear.com/samsung-series-9-wqhd-hands-on-with-sammys-retina-retort-01245571/

http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/31/samsung-Series 9-WQHD-Ultrabook-matte-display/

Hope Apple will match this soon!

 

[skaertus]

Hope Apple will match this soon!

Hope all laptops get a retina display soon!

 

[bill-p]

I think the 13" Pro is a safe bet for next in line. It is overdue for a redesign.

I think Apple is waiting patiently while they fix and pick out performance kinks in Mountain Lion. The 15" Retina Pro serves as their test bed as it has higher performance and does cope better when the OS falls short.

Once they get everything worked out, I don't doubt they will introduce the 13" Pro with Retina display to the general public.

 

[w00t951]

Some people really have no idea how many pixels can be driven with today's technology. A Cinema Display is already a pixel monster, but making that Retina would probably surpass 4K in resolution (too lazy to do the math).

 

[skaertus]

Some people really have no idea how many pixels can be driven with today's technology. A Cinema Display is already a pixel monster, but making that Retina would probably surpass 4K in resolution (too lazy to do the math).

The Cinema Display from Apple, with its 2560x1440 resolution, has 3,686,400 pixels. The retina version of it (or of a 27" iMac) would have a resolution of 5120x2880, which blows everything else away. It would mean an unprecedented 14,745,600 pixels and I don't think there are any video cards that can match this resolution. The current retina MacBook Pro has a resolution of 2880x1800 and 5,184,000 pixels.

 

[w00t951]

The Cinema Display from Apple, with its 2560x1440 resolution, has 3,686,400 pixels. The retina version of it (or of a 27" iMac) would have a resolution of 5120x2880, which blows everything else away. It would mean an unprecedented 14,745,600 pixels and I don't think there are any video cards that can match this resolution. The current retina MacBook Pro has a resolution of 2880x1800 and 5,184,000 pixels.

Which means that it's impossible. People just don't understand that Retina strains computer hardware, especially the caliber that Apple uses, to its limits.

 

[skaertus]

Which means that it's impossible. People just don't understand that Retina strains computer hardware, especially the caliber that Apple uses, to its limits.

Well, I'm not saying that's impossible. Retina displays should have come a long time ago. It's the first real development I see in displays in a long time.

As I already said in another post, I remember when I bought my first computer. It was 1993 and it was a PC desktop. It then run with a 386 DX processor at 33 MHz, 4 MB RAM, a 120 MB HD and a 1024x768 monitor.

Now, fast forward to the present, almost twenty years later. I can go to any store and buy a standard laptop with a dual-core, hyperthreaded, low-voltage CPU running at 2.5 GHz or even more, with 1.4 billion transistors (as opposed to the 275,000 transistors of the 386). The laptop will also have a standard 4 GB of RAM (1,000 more times than my 386). It may have a 500 GB HD, or maybe a 128 GB SSD; but it will have at least 1,000 more storage space than my old computer in any case. Yes, computers have evolved a lot in the last two decades. But this very same laptop will most likely have a 1366x768 screen, which is the widescreen (16:9) version of the 1024x768 screen resolution I had back in 1993, which is something that seems pretty unacceptable to me. I just can't accept that video cards have not evolved enough to support screen resolutions that are much higher than the screen resolutions of the 1990s. Perhaps those video cards need some tweaking, some new drivers or so, but the raw power to display those resolutions has to the there...

 

[w00t951]

Well, I'm not saying that's impossible. Retina displays should have come a long time ago. It's the first real development I see in displays in a long time.

As I already said in another post, I remember when I bought my first computer. It was 1993 and it was a PC desktop. It then run with a 386 DX processor at 33 MHz, 4 MB RAM, a 120 MB HD and a 1024x768 monitor.

Now, fast forward to the present, almost twenty years later. I can go to any store and buy a standard laptop with a dual-core, hyperthreaded, low-voltage CPU running at 2.5 GHz or even more, with 1.4 billion transistors (as opposed to the 275,000 transistors of the 386). The laptop will also have a standard 4 GB of RAM (1,000 more times than my 386). It may have a 500 GB HD, or maybe a 128 GB SSD; but it will have at least 1,000 more storage space than my old computer in any case. Yes, computers have evolved a lot in the last two decades. But this very same laptop will most likely have a 1366x768 screen, which is the widescreen (16:9) version of the 1024x768 screen resolution I had back in 1993, which is something that seems pretty unacceptable to me. I just can't accept that video cards have not evolved enough to support screen resolutions that are much higher than the screen resolutions of the 1990s. Perhaps those video cards need some tweaking, some new drivers or so, but the raw power to display those resolutions has to the there...

Realistically, it's impossible. Even the ridiculous NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 is incapable of driving so many pixels on one display. With Apple's weird aversion towards decent video hardware, supporting a Retina Cinema display is impossible, especially since the internal display can no longer be turned off completely.

 

[Dark Void]

Assuming more Retina model laptops/devices will arise, I suppose the 13'' MBP will be the next to see it.

 

[whoknows87]

I would bet on the 13 Pro , but wont be surprised if they go ahead with the Air

 

[skaertus]

Realistically, it's impossible. Even the ridiculous NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 is incapable of driving so many pixels on one display. With Apple's weird aversion towards decent video hardware, supporting a Retina Cinema display is impossible, especially since the internal display can no longer be turned off completely.

Not impossible. I couldn't find the maximum number of pixels supported by the GTX 680M. The GTX 650M already supports a resolution of 3840x2160, which would be the resolution of a retina 21" iMac. The 680M might support an even higher resolution, but I couldn't find its specifications.

Anyway, the next generation of NVIDIA cards will probably support this kind of resolution.