Retina Display vs High Res Macbook Pro

[RoyalHockey]

I'm currently using a late 2008 15" MBP, which obviously has a quality display all on its own. Not having one in to compare to, does anyone have one of the new i5/i7's with the optional high-resolution display, along with an iPhone 4, that could share their experience in comparison between the two displays?

I may be spoiling myself, but I'm tempted to upgrade....

 

[robbieduncan]

I have both. It's not really a fair/sensible comparison. The high-res screen on the 15" MBP is no where near the DPI of an iPhone 4. Text on the retinal display is simply in a different league.

 

[Julien]

I'm currently using a late 2008 15" MBP, which obviously has a quality display all on its own. Not having one in to compare to, does anyone have one of the new i5/i7's with the optional high-resolution display, along with an iPhone 4, that could share their experience in comparison between the two displays?

I may be spoiling myself, but I'm tempted to upgrade....

Computers can't have higher resolution (more DPI) displays because open OSs are "stuck" with WYSIWYG.

 

[uga2014]

its a hard comparison because the OS is different on each device, so you're hardly ever really looking at the same thing. However both are fantastic in and of themselves.

 

[DustyLBottoms]

its a hard comparison because the OS is different on each device, so you're hardly ever really looking at the same thing. However both are fantastic in and of themselves.

How about a screen shot of your mac - showing a pixel for pixel screen shot from your iPhone?

 

[robbieduncan]

How about a screen shot of your mac - showing a pixel for pixel screen shot from your iPhone?

Interesting idea. Here is a small section of my (hi-res) 15" screen showing part of the iPhone 4 simulator. Now think how small the iPhone 4 screen is...

Given the border on the iPhone 4 simulator Window it is actually slightly taller than a hi-res screen! On the standard 15" screen you would not be able to see the entire simulated Retinal Display at 1-1 pixels (height, width would be more than OK).

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

Computers can't have higher resolution (more DPI) displays because open OSs are "stuck" with WYSIWYG.

I don't understand this. If they can make iOS 4 compatible with the retina display, why can't they do the same with Mac OS X?

If you mean some programs like Office won't take advantage of it, how's that any different from apps that haven't updated to high-res icons?

 

[Jason S.]

The thing is, the Mac operating system is not resolution independent, so even though the display is higher resolution, that just means that the graphics, text, etc. are just smaller. The only benefit is you get extra screen real estate. It's not like the iPhone where the operating system's graphics and text are larger for the new display, so things look sharper.

 

[DustyLBottoms]

Interesting idea. Here is a small section of my (hi-res) 15" screen showing part of the iPhone 4 simulator. Now think how small the iPhone 4 screen is...

Given the border on the iPhone 4 simulator Window it is actually slightly taller than a hi-res screen! On the standard 15" screen you would not be able to see the entire simulated Retinal Display at 1-1 pixels (height, width would be more than OK).

Very cool. Thanks!

 

[Beau10]

I don't understand this. If they can make iOS 4 compatible with the retina display, why can't they do the same with Mac OS X?

If you mean some programs like Office won't take advantage of it, how's that any different from apps that haven't updated to high-res icons?

I'm not certain if iOS is truly resolution independent, but at least for the retina display it scales up OS elements properly. For instance, if you take an app that has not been converted yet, all the fonts, menus, etc, will be at the higher res, just the graphics will suffer (with the exception of vector drawn stuff).

The lack of resolution independence in OSX precludes this and just causes everything to to be smaller as you go up the resolution chain - ie. fit more on the screen, vs. fit the same amount of content on the screen at finer detail.

Resolution independence has been a rumored feature since before 10.5 came out. Hopefully now Apple is touting the idea of higher res panels we'll see it in 10.7.

 

[wirelessmacuser]

I have a new 2010 15" MacBook Pro Core i7 with Hi-Res display.

My 2009 MacBook Pro CD2 has the standard display.

Then there is my iPhone 4.

Here is the precise ppi (pixels per inch) for each of these.

Std 15.4" MacBook Pro - 1440 x 900 resolution = 110 ppi

Hi-Res 15.4" MacBook Pro - 1680 x 1050 resolution = 128 ppi

Hi-Res 3.5" iPhone 4 - 960 x 640 resolution = 326 ppi

So as you can see there is simply no comparison, yet that said, I'm really impressed with the high quality display of my new MBP. It's brighter than my 2009 MBP, and the color balance is right on. The contrast is superior, as is the overall experience.

Apple rarely innovates, they copy. The ThinkPads I use for work, have had true hi-res displays for years.

Not only that, but by comparison the "hi-res" as Apple calls it on my new MacBook Pro is _not_ a true hi-res display. It's Apple hype that says so. In reality it's a medium resolution display. A true high res display is 1920 x 1200

For those of you fanboys that are looking for a reason to bash my post, or thinking "where's the proof?" Just look at the specs for a 17" MBP, that model is actually equipped with a _True Hi-Res_ display.

The bottom line is pixel density is what makes things look clear. You can see the amount of pixels present on the 3.5" iPhone screen greatly exceed what the laptops have.

 

[WardC]

This is quite interesting, I just saw this on wikipedia, it lists all of the PPIs for every Apple product on the market. I made a JPEG, here: