Except the new iPad does not have a 'denser' battery, it has a much larger and heavier battery, along with a graphic card that consumes mega power and generates lots of heat.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Retina Displays Also Coming to Next-Generation iMac?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Except the new iPad does not have a 'denser' battery, it has a much larger and heavier battery, along with a graphic card that consumes mega power and generates lots of heat.
I can't remember the last time there were only two iDevice stories on the front page, and three times as many Mac-related stories.
What developers will need is a way to specify in their pipeline that the main view should be rendered at 'normal' resolutions, with the font-rendering happening at 'Hi-DPI' resolutions.
I heard the same thing when HD came out. How silly do those people feel now?
But this is exactly why I think it will be an option and not the standard display. Those that don't get it, need it, or want it; don't have to have it. But those of us who do use it and want the screen real-estate can have it as an option. I think your concept of the workspace gained from this kind of screen is a bit skewed. The words won't get smaller. It's like looking at the computers in the store. View a pic at full res on the 13", 15", 17", 21" and 27". Same rule applies to the working area of an app like Photoshop, Lightroom, Aperture or Final Cut.
The fact you're spending so much more on a gaming rig when you could get it for so much less?
I use Macs because I love OS X. If I liked [insert something Windows here] then I'd buy a Windows PC and save the money.
But maybe that's just me. Apparently 99% of people here are rich "professionals" who "need" $3000 laptops...
Good gaming performance is one of the MANY reason I love my macs. My macbook pro is a 'go anywhere/do anything' work and entertainment device... all in one package with the ability to run both mac and windows os'es.
So no, I didn't buy it ONLY for gaming, but the fact that it can, and can do it well, is a factor in my purchase.
P.S. I didn't spend $3000 anyway. I got a 17" for $1700 from the Mac refurb store.
I'm right there with ya bud. Its coming up on a year that I've been waiting for this refresh, I took the gamble and guessed that this update would be epic. I gatta say, this is shaping up quite nicely. Hold on for June man! It's comin!
----------
A retina display is defined by the screen size and number of pixels per inch in relation to what is considered the normal viewing distance for that device's intended purpose.
The iPad has fewer pixels per inch when compared to the iPhone because it is a larger screen, thus typical viewing distance is further away that the iPhone. They both have "Retina" displays, but the pixel count per inch is significantly varied - as will the pixels per inch on the projected MacBooks and iMacs.
Holding an iPhone at desktop computer distance cannot be used to make an accurate assumption of screen sharpness/clarity.
Think before you troll....
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1357442/
Why would retina display macs use current hardware? Ivy bridge chips will be capable of powering retina displays on inbuilt GPUS... and I'm sure whatever discreet gpu's apple will use would be at least as capable, if not more so.
I'm not trolling, want me to?
Umm, Ivy Bridge can support 4K, AMD and NVIDIA don't yet AFAIK.
LOL, what is that even supposed to mean? AMD's 8000 cards are being launched with the new macbook and provide 4K? lmfao
Fail....
So we are now going to sit 12"-18" from the screen to enjoy those extra pixels? I'm sure some on here will justify the use, but Apple should keep the density to something that impacts the user enough to justify the cost and energy usage.
So we are now going to sit 12"-18" from the screen to enjoy those extra pixels? I'm sure some on here will justify the use, but Apple should keep the density to something that impacts the user enough to justify the cost and energy usage.
I realize that graphics cards and processing power are major concerns for the retina displays, but I think everyone might be considering a desktop retina in terms of pixels per inch in current mobile devices.
Keep in mind, a desktop computer is much further away than the iPhone or iPad so to be classified as a "retina" the required specs to achieve this shouldn't be nearly as much as the mobile devices.
People are saying numerous times in this thread that they can barely discern the pixels in their current desktop computers anyway, so it is reasonable to assume the necessary bump in pixels will not be as massive as everyone thinks.
Remember, its all about the definition of the word "Retina" that creates this performance standard. It varies across the board and until Apple officially releases its own definition of normal viewing distance, nobody will be able to say how many pixels per inch are needed and at what hardware performance is required - (you would still be able to figure this out since, after all, it is based on science lol, but it is still up to Apple to define its normal viewing distance)
Calm yourselves gents
Keep in mind, a desktop computer is much further away than the iPhone or iPad so to be classified as a "retina" the required specs to achieve this shouldn't be nearly as much as the mobile devices.
People are saying numerous times in this thread that they can barely discern the pixels in their current desktop computers anyway, so it is reasonable to assume the necessary bump in pixels will not be as massive as everyone thinks.
Remember, its all about the definition of the word "Retina" that creates this performance standard. It varies across the board and until Apple officially releases its own definition of normal viewing distance, nobody will be able to say how many pixels per inch are needed and at what hardware performance is required - (you would still be able to figure this out since, after all, it is based on science lol, but it is still up to Apple to define its normal viewing distance)
Calm yourselves gents
Yes, Katewes, make sure you are at the normal viewing distance before attempting the word Retina™.
Speak for yourself, I want those pixels so I can read a word document in full page mode. Or view a large swath of a spreadsheet. Or multiple spreadsheets. Or multiple applications. I'm sure there's thousands upon thousands of other applications and combinations of applications that could use those pixels.
It's not all games and movies you know.
pixel density and clickable icons
In the main article, there is a notion that the increase of pixels might mean that icons etc are getting to small to comfortably click. What ever happened to the research of Apple into 'resolution independence'? That way, the 'physical size' of an icon can remain the same, no matter what the pixel density...
An undocumented feature of Mountain Lion perhaps?
In the main article, there is a notion that the increase of pixels might mean that icons etc are getting to small to comfortably click. What ever happened to the research of Apple into 'resolution independence'? That way, the 'physical size' of an icon can remain the same, no matter what the pixel density...
An undocumented feature of Mountain Lion perhaps?
I guess like Thunderbolt, Retina will hit every product long before the content is available.
Yes its nice to have text automatically rendered crisp and sharp, but it sucks having every image on every web page and every (non updated) app look terrible.
Yes its nice to have text automatically rendered crisp and sharp, but it sucks having every image on every web page and every (non updated) app look terrible.