Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
That will just be marketing hype if they do. "Retina" is a display where the human eye can't resolve the individual pixels - at normal viewing distance, hence why the ppi value that is "retina" varies depending on the device - so once you reach that there is nothing to be gained, any increase in image quality will be undetectable to the human eye.
Agree, that's why I don't get the point in higher PPI for laptops, look at how sharp something like high-res screens already look on the MBP or HP Envy even with their lower PPI vs the phones. Big difference on the phones going to over 300 ppi on that those smaller screens but I don't see that translating to the latops in the sameway with the size of the screens and normal viewing distance.

F' it, long as they offer anti-glare option still I don't care lol.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure I want this....

So Apple is proposing to give me a 2500x1900 15" screen that I have to run at a simulated 1440x900 res (or something much less than 2500x)?

My GPU will have run all the time at 2500, burning more battery?

Full screen games basically will not work until updated to support down-scaling, but will still burn up the GPU?

How many regular apps will I need to upgrade to work with this?

Oh well, maybe I can keep my Macbook Pro going another 6 years.
 
Agree, that's why I don't get the point in higher PPI for laptops, look at how sharp something like high-res screens already look on the MBP or HP Envy etc, do we really need something better that we won't really notice, if at all, anyway?

I've never actually used one of the 1680x1050 15" MBPs but I can definitely make out individual pixels - and the "jaggies" in text - on my 1440x900 15" MBP

I doubt they actually need to go double to achieve "retina" status - maybe 1680x1050 is enough on a 15" screen?

Maybe 1920x1200 on the 15" and 2560x1600 on the 17"?
 
I've never actually used one of the 1680x1050 15" MBPs but I can definitely make out individual pixels - and the "jaggies" in text - on my 1440x900 15" MBP

I doubt they actually need to go double to achieve "retina" status - maybe 1680x1050 is enough on a 15" screen?

Maybe 1920x1200 on the 15" and 2560x1600 on the 17"?
I have high res antiglare on the 15", and it's a big difference vs my 13" Pro (nevermind not having annoying reflections lol) but colors are more vibrant and text/pics etc all much sharper.

Yeh it'll be interesting to see what the difference will be like.
 
I've never actually used one of the 1680x1050 15" MBPs but I can definitely make out individual pixels - and the "jaggies" in text - on my 1440x900 15" MBP

I doubt they actually need to go double to achieve "retina" status - maybe 1680x1050 is enough on a 15" screen?

Maybe 1920x1200 on the 15" and 2560x1600 on the 17"?

If they go with less than double, there will be no easy solution for scaling the interface. And having everything tiny and unreadable is even worse than dealing with outdated resolution and will result in many complaints. People are even whining about both current hi-res 15 and 17"!!
 
Full disclosure. I've owned dozens of IBM T221/VP2290b displays (3840x2400) resolution, dozens of 15.0 QXGA displays (2048x1536) for IBM series laptops (best mod is a T61p Santa Rosa configuration) and I'm currently typing this on a 2009 iMac 27" computer (which has been buggy from day one).

The iMac is my first Mac and it's not been a good experience, but I think there's something wrong with my Mac so I am interested in buying other Mac products to see if the problems I have is unique to my particular model.

With that said, high resolution products are rare largely because the operating systems aren't designed to work well with high resolution. Steve Jobs et. al. have argued for years that 100 dpi/ppi is ideal. Well, IMO it's only ideal if your operating system is designed for 100 dpi/ppi. 300+ ppi certainly works well on the iphone/ipad.

A high resolution screen costing a mere $100 bucks is remarkable and my hope is that this becomes mainstream. I can only dream of a Mac that provides resolutions that I'm familiar with on IBM laptops and IBM monitors. These screens were WAY ahead of their time and well frankly it's been sad to see how they've been put in the idea bin. It's beyond time for the masses to experience an operating system that works well with high resolution screens.

What's odd is Apple has been revolutionary in offering products historically that allow for dual-link DVI thus allowing us crazy high resolution people to run our high resolution systems, yet when they come out with displays they're always at 100ppi. Times are changing folks and if Apple is ahead of this curve then I can only see amazing things for their future. They're one step ahead of everyone else and for this I'll be purchasing more Mac products (I just hope they don't freeze up like my 27" iMac everytime flash programs and sleep sessions occur).

Looking forward to running my IBM T221-DG5 monitors with the next generation Mac Mini's. Sporting a high resolution 7.85" ipad and hopefully Apple comes out with a 1280x720 iphone 5, not the odd 1135x640 that I saw as rumored, if that's the case then I'm switching from the iphone to an Android. I certainly would buy a 17" 3800x2400 and the 15" 2800x1800 sounds remarkable too, but honestly this is a too good to be true rumor. Apple has never been revolutionary when it comes to high resolution, they've always followed the pack. And if anything has taught Apple not to be a leader in retina displays, it's the ipad 3. People just can't get their heads around what high resolution can bring to technology, but I applaud Apple's first quest in the high pixels per square inch market. I certainly am checking weekly on recent product updates at Apple in hopes that these rumors hold some truth to them. If so, I could divest in dozens of high resolution displays in replacement for Apple products. In the meantime, I'll steer clear of status quo.
 
Last edited:
$100 more for a Retina-display!!!

$100 is a steep increase... But still for a Retina display people might accept it.
I do hope Apple will reconsider the price and will balance it somehow so that consumers dont feel the pinch.:rolleyes:
 
$100 is a steep increase... But still for a Retina display people might accept it.
I do hope Apple will reconsider the price and will balance it somehow so that consumers dont feel the pinch.:rolleyes:

The Macbook pro's aren't even released. We don't know if they will have a retina display and we don't know the price of such device. Wait and see. Apple might not even add retina capabilities to the MBP.
 
If I were to build the computer, I would get rid of the SuperDrive, in its place I would put a 7200 RPM 1 TB drive for your home folders, and a 128 GB SD as the boot up and application drive, since you can have two hard drives with the optical remove, and I still think they gain some space for battery.

Im torn on the whole retina display. I have always wanted a little more resolution on the notebooks, but nothing crazy like retina.
 
I'm all for a matte option, but I'm confused as to why we used to support glass CRTs heavily over LCD monitors in the professional world if the reflection level was SO AWFUL as many would have you believe.

Because those screens had anti-glare coating on them. I made the awful mistake of cleaning my LaCie with the wrong cleaner once.. Away went the anti-glare coating, except in little bubbles around the edges. Ugh.

I for one freelance in photography and design quite successfully with a glossy iMac. Now if I had a MBP that I used outside, I'd look for some kind of glare-reducing option... but that's kind of an extreme situation.

I'll take double DPI over matte any day for my personal workflow.

Agreed.
 
How likely is it that the new MacBook will arrive 11th June?
My spacebar did not like to be cleaned today. And I don't like the teenager who spilled something sticky onto my 5 year old MBP.
 
How likely is it that the new MacBook will arrive 11th June?
My spacebar did not like to be cleaned today. And I don't like the teenager who spilled something sticky onto my 5 year old MBP.

I hope it will be announced. I am ready to upgrade. While I love my MBA, I virtualize Windows and I need a little more power. The fan kicks in very easily when I have windows running. Looking forward to the Retina display and even USB 3.0, this will make my decision easier when I buy a new external HD. I doubt apple will increase the price. I see this as an overall long term goal on setting industry first as always. This happen with iTouch and iPhone. I will definitely upgrade my HD to an SSD. Going to do it myself just like I did with my previous MBP and iMac.
 
I'm all for a matte option, but I'm confused as to why we used to support glass CRTs heavily over LCD monitors in the professional world if the reflection level was SO AWFUL as many would have you believe.

The better ones had treated glass, less banding, and better shadow detail than lcd displays of that era. You also used them in very low light to minimize reflections (much like some people do with lcd displays today). If it won't reflect in low light, it's probably suitable. If it can cause mirror like reflections just from the bounce back of its own backlight, that is an issue.
 
The better ones had treated glass, less banding, and better shadow detail than lcd displays of that era. You also used them in very low light to minimize reflections (much like some people do with lcd displays today). If it won't reflect in low light, it's probably suitable. If it can cause mirror like reflections just from the bounce back of its own backlight, that is an issue.

A lot of crts are better than current lcds, a lot of pros would agree.

Could you explain a bit about the bounce back thing? Is this whats happening to the current imacs (which of course have untreated glass) because of the dual surfaces of lcd and glass?
 
A lot of crts are better than current lcds, a lot of pros would agree.

Could you explain a bit about the bounce back thing? Is this whats happening to the current imacs (which of course have untreated glass) because of the dual surfaces of lcd and glass?

I didn't want to get into the debate of the advantages/disadvantages when comparing current lcds to crts relative to needs. A big problem with crts is that you don't have much of a supply left especially in terms of quality hardware, and an old crt doesn't necessarily remain better than a new lcd assuming budget isn't a huge issue. The other problem is lack of continued support. In a couple areas such as broadcasting, there may be some measure of support left, but most of us had to move on long ago. An old Sony Artisan or Diamondtron does not last forever.

What I meant by bounce back was that if a surface is reflective enough to show significant reflection just from its own backlight reflecting off the person sitting in front of it or other nearby objects, that can be an issue. If lighting is already tightly controlled, you want to be able to get it to a point where any residual reflection is truly unimportant given the subtle effects they can have on the way we perceive things on screen. If they used better glass, this might be less of an issue. It may have also been an issue of durability.
 
I didn't want to get into the debate of the advantages/disadvantages when comparing current lcds to crts relative to needs. A big problem with crts is that you don't have much of a supply left especially in terms of quality hardware, and an old crt doesn't necessarily remain better than a new lcd assuming budget isn't a huge issue. The other problem is lack of continued support. In a couple areas such as broadcasting, there may be some measure of support left, but most of us had to move on long ago. An old Sony Artisan or Diamondtron does not last forever.

What I meant by bounce back was that if a surface is reflective enough to show significant reflection just from its own backlight reflecting off the person sitting in front of it or other nearby objects, that can be an issue. If lighting is already tightly controlled, you want to be able to get it to a point where any residual reflection is truly unimportant given the subtle effects they can have on the way we perceive things on screen. If they used better glass, this might be less of an issue. It may have also been an issue of durability.
Sure I see what you mean. There was a technology from sony, what was it, about 4-5 years ago or so, can't recall its name but it were essentially thin crts or thin crt like displays but it's a shame it they didn't bring it market. I started having problems reading on screen from my first lcd. Some samsung panels I can't handle at all, something about the backlight, and of course I am sensitive as well to the ag coating used. I would never go anywhere near a glass imac, and I think it was premature for apple to go with glass purely for an aesthetic purpose and mar usability for so many people (even some unaware of it) by using untreated glass. Eyesight is a sensitive thing and opting for a choice that maximizes glare is unacceptable from a health stand point.

They also have an issue with the imacs in that between the panel and the screen there's another refraction surface making things even worse for the user.
 
That sounds like the worse advice I've ever heard!

I'm not doubting that it worked for you... but damn... it's like you're telling people that diving out of a helicopter into the ocean is a great idea... you've got a good chance of living.

Um... I wasn't being even remotely serious. Thus the "wink" emoticon at the end of my post.
 
I could not care less about the display. The main thing for me is what is inside. Is it going to be a "pro" machine with faster processing and more RAM? Should have at least 16GB RAM, preferably 32GB. If "pro" just means a different design than "air", there is not much point.
 
I could not care less about the display. The main thing for me is what is inside. Is it going to be a "pro" machine with faster processing and more RAM? Should have at least 16GB RAM, preferably 32GB. If "pro" just means a different design than "air", there is not much point.

I doubt they will ship MBP with 16gb or 32gb of RAM standard.
 
I doubt they will ship MBP with 16gb or 32gb of RAM standard.
As they currently come with up to 8GB and OWC supplies 16GB for them, it is reasonable to think they will go up to 16GB as an option. HP EliteBook 8760w and 8560w support 32GB.
 
As they currently come with up to 8GB and OWC supplies 16GB for them, it is reasonable to think they will go up to 16GB as an option. HP EliteBook 8760w and 8560w support 32GB.

Current MBP do not come with 8gb of RAM Standard.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.