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.
Should all Apple laptops come with Retina Display now?
- Thread starter seasurfer
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There is more pixel than the iMac 27 as well. I have wishful thinking that Apple would upgrade the screens this year.
No there isn't. 2560x1440 vs 2048x1536.
I would love to see Retina Display Macs, but since the displays are much larger, it would cost quite a pretty penny to manufacture said displays.
Yes, I want a Retina display on my MBP 15".
I do not, however, want to pay the tab on what would be prohibitively expensive.
I do not, however, want to pay the tab on what would be prohibitively expensive.
I'd simply like to see Apple offer a true hi-res display on the 15" MBP.
My 2010 hi-res is actually a medium resolution if compared to other pro laptops like ThinkPads that have offered all three for years. The base, medium & hi-res sizes. Not only that, IPS displays were standard in workstation class ThinkPads. Every laptop in our engineering group has been configured this way.
If not called a MacBook Pro, I wouldn't expect Apple to keep up with the competition. For reasons unknown it took Apple many years, until 2010 before even offering something besides basic. Perhaps it's because they're targeted at consumers.
Even though true hi-res is not available I still find my medium res 15" MBP a vastly better laptop compared to all the PowerBooks & MBP's I owned before it.
There's nothing like a good Mac.
My 2010 hi-res is actually a medium resolution if compared to other pro laptops like ThinkPads that have offered all three for years. The base, medium & hi-res sizes. Not only that, IPS displays were standard in workstation class ThinkPads. Every laptop in our engineering group has been configured this way.
If not called a MacBook Pro, I wouldn't expect Apple to keep up with the competition. For reasons unknown it took Apple many years, until 2010 before even offering something besides basic. Perhaps it's because they're targeted at consumers.
Even though true hi-res is not available I still find my medium res 15" MBP a vastly better laptop compared to all the PowerBooks & MBP's I owned before it.
There's nothing like a good Mac.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9B179 Safari/7534.48.3)
If they come with retina displays, the size of the programs which utilize these displays will also increase in size and this would mean that more hard disk storage space would be required.
If they come with retina displays, the size of the programs which utilize these displays will also increase in size and this would mean that more hard disk storage space would be required.
Apple is a bit weird about this. They like to go the double or nothing route with it, which kind of disallows large displays for a few years. If it shows up anywhere, it's likely to be in the macbook air given the limited display sizes. I can't find any newer panels appropriate to something like the imac in increased resolution. Most of the changes are things like wide gamut versions which are really annoying on a mac for a whole list of reasons. If they had appropriate displayport drivers, it would be less of an issue.
I think many people forget that the integrated graphics simply can't push 4x the pixels. Even if the Intel HD4000 will be released with Ivy Bridge, it will be impossible. They had to put a quad core GPU in the iPad and increase the battery. That will not be possible in the MBA if Apple does not get some alien technology from somewhere. So let's just say it won't happen anytime soon.
With the new iPad then they say the battery is twice the capacity yet it still only gets 10hrs battery life. Its fantastic that battery life didn't take a hit between generations but imagine that new battery in the old iPad and getting 20hrs battery.
So I'm wondering if Retina has become such a buzzword and people just say "throw it in" without considering how it affects things. If we were given a choice between double battery or higher resolution then many might prefer more battery life since the Air's primary purpose is for mobility.
Last edited:
Of course integrated graphics can push 4x the pixels, moreso when the HD4000 comes out. And its not impossible.
Current MBA 11" screen - 1366x768 - 1,049,088 pixels
Monitor I use every day with my 11" MBA - 2560x1600 - 4,096,000 pixels
Sure looks like 4x to me. Sure, they did put a quad core GPU in the new iPad but its also using 2 watts of power whereas an Intel ULV processor is 17W. I think Anandtech estimated it was about 10w for the CPU based on the Core2 Duo's TDP and 7w for the GPU. So we're talking 3x the power envelope.
Obviously their engineers are dealing with way more constraints than just IGP capability so there could be plenty of reasons why/why not a higher resolution display would be included.
Please start a game and play it at 2560x1600 resolution. Of course your MBA can push the resolution at simple and basic tasks, but that's not the point. The iPad has no problem to display GAMES at that resolution. Even my Mac Mini can't play most games at 1080p, how could the MBA play them at a higher resolution? If Apple puts a retina display in the MBA, I expect it to do ANY task at high resolution, not some of them.
Valid point - I don't game much so I hadn't taken that into consideration. I'd assume the % of gameplay on the iPad vs. the MBA is much higher but its still a consideration.
That said, iOS pauses everything else so the whole CPU/GPU is devoted to that game while OSX runs a full desktop so its certainly possible that the iPad can devote more resources to gameplay than the MBA.
The other limiting factor would be RAM, and the 4GB max on the MBA is holding it back alot. The 384MB that the IGP gets to use just isn't enough for gaming. Even at 8GB of system RAM the IGP would get 512MB...it would be nice if Apple could provision 1GB.
That's because the games you play on a pc are about x10 more graphically complex than those on an iPad.
I dont know why this guy is getting negative votes, because he actually has a point: 1) thin out the bazel, 2) squeeze a 14" screen into the MBA 13" and 3) bump resolution to 1600x1050. Voila!
At the distance you use a laptop, you will not notice the retina display. Retina is awesome in an iphone/ipad, but in a laptop is not so important.
Thank you really much for noticing.
As I am already saving money for a MacBook Air, I am of course eager to see some rumors regarding the points you (and I) mentioned. I think a 1600x1050 resolution is fine. Just make the screen a little bit bigger and the aluminium frame smaller.
But I already said that. Cough.
Have a nice day.
My hires 15" MBP is near enough to retina that I can't really see individual pixels from normal working distance.
Part of the problem with saying "Retina Display" is that it's used somewhat ambiguously. What would "retina" be on an 11" screen? 15" How about a desktop vs laptop?
Wikipedia quotes Apple as using "57 arcseconds per pixel" as the maximum amount of detail the human eye can perceive. So we can use this number as our baseline for what should be considered "Retina".
Note that decreasing arcseconds signify a higher amount of detail.
Now for some calculations. Below we have display, inches away from the eye while in use, PPI and arcseconds in bold:
"Retina" 12" 300ppi 57.26 = (206.265/305)*84.67
4S 12" 326ppi 52.69 = (206.265/305)*77.91
New iPad 15" 264ppi 52.09 = (206.265/381)*96.21
So the 4S and iPad are actually above retina level based on their definition. So taking that same value of 52 and assuming that the MBA will be used at a distance of 20" we can solve for a PPI number, and then we can see what standard resolutions match up.
Retina MBA 20" 198ppi 52.09 = (206.265/508)*128.28
So we get a PPI of 198. Cross checking that with the most likely resolutions we have in laptops, it would appear that 1920x1080 and 1920x1200 are the candidates. Considering the trend of switching to 16:9 aspect ratio, especially since the 11" already uses that aspect ratio, let's plug that into the equation.
1920x1080 in an 11.6" screen gives us 189.91ppi, which is close to the 198 we're looking for.
Retina MBA 20" 190ppi 54.28 = (206.265/508)*133.68
We end up with 54 arcseconds and at least numerically, a likely candidate for a resolution ignoring all other factors.
So with that in mind, are there any 11.6" 1080p panels in existence?
Last edited:
Ummm, New iPad is about 264 ppi
The 27" iMac is about 109 ppi
The iPad blows it away!!!
Theoretically, yes. But does someone actually notice the difference under normal circumstances? I guess not.
I have a 24" iMac. I notice the lack of clarity compared to my retina iPhone 4, both at normal usage distances.
There would be a benefit from an increase in resolution, but interface elements need to stay the same size. That means resolution independence or pixel doubling. Pixel doubling may be overkill in terms of how much of a resolution increase is really needed, but I can see it happening because it would be so much easier for developers, both those within Apple to develop the OS, and for those external who make Apple software.
I just want a monitor that has enough resolution to display a new iPad screen pixel-for-pixel in portrait because I develop iOS games.
There would be a benefit from an increase in resolution, but interface elements need to stay the same size. That means resolution independence or pixel doubling. Pixel doubling may be overkill in terms of how much of a resolution increase is really needed, but I can see it happening because it would be so much easier for developers, both those within Apple to develop the OS, and for those external who make Apple software.
I just want a monitor that has enough resolution to display a new iPad screen pixel-for-pixel in portrait because I develop iOS games.