Toshiba to ship notebook with 4k screen

I wouldn't be opposed to a 4k display even though it's kind of pointless on a 15" screen.
I wouldn't own another toshiba machine again though. The two I've owned we're built terribly.

 

had no issues with mine at all, if it wasn't for X-Code, a toshiba would be my re-order, cheaper price & better hardware wise.

 

My guess is that the 4K notebook Apple will release is the 17" rMBP. It's the only way I see it happening. Anything higher than 2880x1800 on the 15" would be pointless. The 17" would be next logical step, as 1920x1200 in retina would give 4K.

Also, this is clearly a stunt to be first out with 4K laptop. Judging by the chassis shape and size, Toshiba spent no development on making it thinner or lighter. I can at least give Dell(XPS 15) credit for making such a comparable laptop with identical thickness to a rMBP. This looks they took a classic Toshiba chassis and slapped a 4K display on it.

 

Thin and light are non-issues to the vast majority of consumers and business users. Most people don't want to pay extra for that. A 4k-laptop that's bolted on to a video editing rack would probably not be chosen on the merits of its external dimensions but its technical specs.

 

I'd love a 17" rMBP. For the 15" I found 1680x1050 (Hi Res on the old models) to be the sweet spot for me personally, but I see how some might prefer a 4k (1080p equivalent) widescreendisplay for watching movie etc.

But I am wondering about the performance. According to Arstechnica quadcore and dedicated GPU are optional, so the base model is probably going for a dualcore chip like the one in the 13" model. The HD5100 (Intel Iris) is a capable GPU at pushing those pixels, but I don't see it do anything else than just basic writing and surfing stuff.

 

Apple comes out with a 17" rMBP, and I'd sell mine in a heartbeat to get my hands on one!

 

When I bought my last macbook in 2010, and I thought 15" was the perfect size. When I traveled a lot (watching movies in the train) and writing at the university, I thought I should have gone for the 13" (which in 2010 with it's Core 2 Duo processors was out of the question).
But after buying an iPad which is ideal for the train and some notes in pdfs I thin I'd go for a 17" rMBP as it's the probably the best desktop replacement you could buy!

 

I completely agree, but the fact is is that every manufacturer is releasing thin laptops. This laptop would to have very high end specs and be under $1300 to justify.

My main point though is that they are lagging behind if they clearly haven't spent any development on form factor.

While I myself don't mind a thicker laptop, it is pretty disappointing to see this as their flagship when so many other manufacturers have released hi-resolution, high performing ultra thin laptops.

Again, hopefully this thickness is from putting in a more beefy GPU to power that display.

 

In my opinion, Apple should standardised screen resolutions across models. 13" (Air and Pro) should be 1440*900 (2880*1800 in retina), 15" should be 1680*1050 (3360*2100 in retina) and the 17" (if there ever is one again), should be 1920*1080 (4k in retina).

My only complaints against the present rMBPs is the low effective resolution. My mid-2010 15" MBP with the Hi-Res display is just perfect. My father's 13" rMBP is almost intolerable at 1280*800 scaled resolution. Heck, my father's 9 year old Dell had the same resolution. Scaling to 1440*900 is an option (the only way I use it), but the performance takes a hit and it's definitely not ideal.

Maybe in the next generation...

As for the 17", there is a very small market for such a pro laptop; it's Google Reader all over again (or rather the other way round, since the 17" MBP went first). However, following the Mac Pro's new non-expandable ideology, I'm quite sure that the lack of internal expansion and customisation is not the reason the laptop won't work.

Raptor

 

I'm sure this display has many problems. Besides that, it is a 1st generation product.

 

A 17" requires probably a Broadwell iGPU, if you want 3840x2400@60fps (60 fps is the standard OS X GUI refresh rate). In my tests 30 fps were enough for 2D GUI elements (web pages, Word documents, Photoshop images, ...).

 

doesn't the 15" rMBP perform good at a scaled 1920x1200 resolution, where the GPU effectively renders everything at 3840x2400 before downsampling to 2880x1800?
But more GPU (iGPU for the UI) power is always welcome!

 

Performance is not the only issue:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1678976