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.
Why do you want a retina display?
- Thread starter 92jlee
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You are misunderstanding me.
I fully agree with you, I was explaining how I show friends the benefits of the higher pixel density.
"Text didn't get smaller on the iPad 3 or the iPhone 4, so why would you think it will get smaller on the Macbook Pro?"
I'm probably the only Mac user on this forum who has NEVER owned an iPod, iPhone, or iPad. I'm "Mac and Mac only" (but have been using Macs since 1987 and Apple //'s before that).
If the text becomes sharper without becoming smaller, that may be useful to me.
But I've found that in the past few years, Mac resolution has grown "higher" with text displayed in "regular" font sizes becoming smaller "on-screen". I find text harder to see on my 24" iMac (which has a pixel size of .270") than on my PowerMac g4, which uses a Dell 19" display with pixels that are .294". On the 27" iMacs, I believe the pixel pitch is even smaller. Again, this makes text much more difficult to see -- and in response to a previous poster, yes, I do wear my glasses.
In fact, when I replace my old g4 (8 years old, going on 9) with a 2012 Mini later this year, I may get a 27" display to go with it. But I will -not- be buying anything like the Apple 27", or even a Dell 27", again, because the pixels are too small. Instead, I will purposely buy one of the "medium-resolution" 27" displays that have a 1920x1080 resolution, with larger pixels @ .303".
Younger people will respond, "that's horrible, it's too grainy, who would want to look at that?"
To which my response is, "how nice to be able to actually SEE what's on the screen without struggling to do so."
I'm probably the only Mac user on this forum who has NEVER owned an iPod, iPhone, or iPad. I'm "Mac and Mac only" (but have been using Macs since 1987 and Apple //'s before that).
If the text becomes sharper without becoming smaller, that may be useful to me.
But I've found that in the past few years, Mac resolution has grown "higher" with text displayed in "regular" font sizes becoming smaller "on-screen". I find text harder to see on my 24" iMac (which has a pixel size of .270") than on my PowerMac g4, which uses a Dell 19" display with pixels that are .294". On the 27" iMacs, I believe the pixel pitch is even smaller. Again, this makes text much more difficult to see -- and in response to a previous poster, yes, I do wear my glasses.
In fact, when I replace my old g4 (8 years old, going on 9) with a 2012 Mini later this year, I may get a 27" display to go with it. But I will -not- be buying anything like the Apple 27", or even a Dell 27", again, because the pixels are too small. Instead, I will purposely buy one of the "medium-resolution" 27" displays that have a 1920x1080 resolution, with larger pixels @ .303".
Younger people will respond, "that's horrible, it's too grainy, who would want to look at that?"
To which my response is, "how nice to be able to actually SEE what's on the screen without struggling to do so."
Depends on meaning of Retina or HiDPI
On my 30cm-diagonal 16:9 screen with 1366px × 768px WXGA display, i.e. a MacBook Air 11.6", text often is too small when the laptop sits well on top of my lap, but images and video are just as sharp as they should be. Its over 60cm, almost 70cm away from my eyes then to qualify as Retina, i.e. have a pixel size of 1' (minute of arc) or less, eyes and screen need to be just 65cm apart already!
Otherwise the device has the perfect size and sometimes I use it at closer distances. So I would like Apple to slightly increase the resolution again then increase (e.g. double) the size of everything that is what they call HiDPI modes. (I wouldnt mind if the bezel shrunk a bit, too, making the display have a 31cm or 32cm diagonal, maybe at 16:10 again instead of current 16:9.)
For this specific type of device, at a minimum normal viewing distance of 55cm, all of the following native resolutions would be fine,
See this Google spreadsheet for several existing and possible resolutions analyzed whether they qualify as Retina.
On my 30cm-diagonal 16:9 screen with 1366px × 768px WXGA display, i.e. a MacBook Air 11.6", text often is too small when the laptop sits well on top of my lap, but images and video are just as sharp as they should be. Its over 60cm, almost 70cm away from my eyes then to qualify as Retina, i.e. have a pixel size of 1' (minute of arc) or less, eyes and screen need to be just 65cm apart already!
Otherwise the device has the perfect size and sometimes I use it at closer distances. So I would like Apple to slightly increase the resolution again then increase (e.g. double) the size of everything that is what they call HiDPI modes. (I wouldnt mind if the bezel shrunk a bit, too, making the display have a 31cm or 32cm diagonal, maybe at 16:10 again instead of current 16:9.)
For this specific type of device, at a minimum normal viewing distance of 55cm, all of the following native resolutions would be fine,
- 1600 × 900 (HD+) 16:9
- 1680 × 1050 (WSXGA+) 16:10
- 1920 × 1080 (Full HD) 16:9
See this Google spreadsheet for several existing and possible resolutions analyzed whether they qualify as Retina.
The screenshot featured therein contains a lot of typos in the comments, e.g. 2650 instead of 2560 and 1140 instead of 1440.
As I understand it, images and movies won't look any better on a retina screen unless they too are at the same increased resolution as the retina display.
An image that is 800 x 600 on a standard display won't look any sharper on a retina.....it will just have four times the pixels (or thereabouts) but look identical. The retina display can't really enhance an image or make it sharper if the image or movie resolution is standard resolution. So people saying porn will look better are I believe, misinformed.
But text, and icons designed for the higher resolution will be sharper.
An image that is 800 x 600 on a standard display won't look any sharper on a retina.....it will just have four times the pixels (or thereabouts) but look identical. The retina display can't really enhance an image or make it sharper if the image or movie resolution is standard resolution. So people saying porn will look better are I believe, misinformed.
But text, and icons designed for the higher resolution will be sharper.
I do get it, completely. I am hoping that we will be able to lower the resolution of everything, make it smaller and have more screen estate in exchange for not displaying everything in super awesome sharp mode. I don't mind if not, super sharp stuff looks lovely, but for work I would sacrifice some of that for a bit more space and seeing as Apple is Apple, they should offer this option. I hope.
So let me get this straight, because you personally have a vision problem, you think Apple should put retina displays in consumer laptops only? You do realize there are people out there that aren't you right?
Because I'm a web designer and my websites will look gorgeous on that screen. 
Downside is, is that it's making our jobs more difficult because the lower resolution images we produced before look fuzzy on the iPhone 4S and the new iPads so we have to produce higher res ones that are ultimately bigger in file size and take longer to download.
Good and bad points to everything.
Downside is, is that it's making our jobs more difficult because the lower resolution images we produced before look fuzzy on the iPhone 4S and the new iPads so we have to produce higher res ones that are ultimately bigger in file size and take longer to download.
Good and bad points to everything.
...but photos taken on any half-decent modern camera already have way more megapixels than most current displays, and will look great in iPhoto on a retina display. (That's what I find most impressive about the iPad 3 - photos look terrific - ebooks look good, too but I'd still rather read text on an e-ink reader).
Your video editor will be able to show 1080p video at actual size in a window and still have plenty of space for all its palettes and controls.
Plus, you can always upscale images to a higher resolution: it can't add any detail that wasn't in the original image, but it can reduce visible pixellation. (e.g. DVDs can look pretty darned good on a 1080p telly with good upscaling).
"Why do you want a retina display (on your Mac)" is a good question, though. Its impressive on an iPad because you normally use it quite close up. It might also be effective on a laptop when you use it close up.
However, although I use laptops, 90% of the time I have the laptop tethered to a large monitor (24" at home, 27" cinema display at work) which acts as the primary display and a proper keyboard. That means I have the display 2-3 times further away than an iPad or when using a laptop alone. I'm not gasping for higher resolution on those displays - the 27" ACD and the 1920x1200 screen on the 17" MacBook Pro are halfway to being "retina" at that distance anyway. Not sure it will make a big difference to me.
(Of course, the "retina" criteria should really take the typical viewing distance into account and not just be about pixels...)
Poised....
Well, I for one hope that Apple allow us to choose how we use those extra pixels. I've an iPad (3) and an iPhone 4S, and whilst I really like the sharpness of these retina displays, there are many times on my laptop that I'd wished for a greater 'workspace', even if that means things get a little smaller.
A good example of this in practice is the remote desktop application Remoter VNC on the iPad. On my retina-equipped iPad I can remotely control another machine at a decently high resolution (e.g. 1920x1200) without having to scroll about. Sure, the text is tiny but at least the choice is there.
I do a fair bit of Windows ASP.NET development using Parallels 6 on both my 13" Macbook Pro and my iMac 27", and find that I am vastly more productive on the larger machine due purely to a combination of a higher-resolution screen and a second identical display (giving a spanning desktop of over 5000x1440, which enabled me to have a web browser, database gui and visual studio 2010 all visible with plenty of working space. On the MBP this is painful, and much time is lost moving things around or finding things which have had to be minimised. If Parallels supports native resolution (i.e. small text and lots of it as opposed to higher quality but same amount of text) then it would be great to be able to run Windows at a native resolution of (say) 1920x1200 in a window, or something similar.
I have a sale pending for my 2009 C2D MBP, so I am poised to leap into the world of retina'd MBPs
Well, I for one hope that Apple allow us to choose how we use those extra pixels. I've an iPad (3) and an iPhone 4S, and whilst I really like the sharpness of these retina displays, there are many times on my laptop that I'd wished for a greater 'workspace', even if that means things get a little smaller.
A good example of this in practice is the remote desktop application Remoter VNC on the iPad. On my retina-equipped iPad I can remotely control another machine at a decently high resolution (e.g. 1920x1200) without having to scroll about. Sure, the text is tiny but at least the choice is there.
I do a fair bit of Windows ASP.NET development using Parallels 6 on both my 13" Macbook Pro and my iMac 27", and find that I am vastly more productive on the larger machine due purely to a combination of a higher-resolution screen and a second identical display (giving a spanning desktop of over 5000x1440, which enabled me to have a web browser, database gui and visual studio 2010 all visible with plenty of working space. On the MBP this is painful, and much time is lost moving things around or finding things which have had to be minimised. If Parallels supports native resolution (i.e. small text and lots of it as opposed to higher quality but same amount of text) then it would be great to be able to run Windows at a native resolution of (say) 1920x1200 in a window, or something similar.
I have a sale pending for my 2009 C2D MBP, so I am poised to leap into the world of retina'd MBPs
This is exactly my stand too.
Having an ultra crispy screen is all nice and dandy... but my laptop is a working device for me so I'd prefer the screen real state.
*If* a retina 2800x1800 equals to a 1400x900 screen in terms of real state, then I'd honestly prefer a standard non-retina 1600x1050 resolution instead.
Why do people ask such innane questions? Why would you want an 1080p HD TV or a new pair of glasses or a Martin guitar or a New York steak at Ruth's Chris?
I think there are more but it is rather rare. I still got an iphone 3gs which was my first smartphone. I played around with iphone 4, Samsung Galaxy S 2 and a Windows phone. I do like my MBP and OSX but I am not fond of iOS. It does its job and until it dies (or battery life gets too weak) I will probably keep the 3GS but when Android launched I'd rather get that than iOS. Windows phone is starting to be mature enough now, in pure GUI and usability I think it is better than all the rest.
Retina screens are nice but I guess I also don't use my smartphone enough for pictures to care much. It still cannot beat an actual camera anyway.
You have been too long on OSX. My dad is like you. He generally wants to move the display further away from his eyes than I would and even our 19" 1440x900 in native res is a little too small for him. So raised the DPI in Windows 7 which works just fine for pretty much all the Apps we use on the Desktop PC. With Windows you since Vista there is an idiot proof way to raise the DPI and it was possible before. You get all the sharpness of native res and whatever text/button size you want.
OSX just sucks in that regard because only some apps allow you to set default text sizes individually or zoom the content (like browsers). The OS offers nothing. Even Lion doesn't seem to change that too much. Afaik there is a double or nothing option, which means it is all stuck again at only one level for everybody even if guys like me would rather like more real estate and smaller less obtrusive buttons and guys like you want the gui and text big.
I personally only want to just be able to read menus and gui stuff. I also don't waste space with a visible dock. I zoom the content the way I want which usually works. Yet GUI and surrounding stuff IMO ought to be on the edge of visibility and not take up more space than it absolutely has too.
I'd be less happy with a double res from 1400x900 to 2800x1800 on a double DPI setting, because that would be a step back for me from 1680x1050. I hope there will be more versatility.
I agree with this sentiment. I would rather have the screen real estate of the current 1650x1080 screen than the screen real estate of a 1440x900 retina quality screen.
It really depends on how Apple handles the HiDPI settings. Wouldn't it be possible for Apple to render content (i.e. webpages) at their original resolution, yet update all of their image assets (i.e. icons, toolbars, etc.) so that it is double the pixel count? Hopefully this is user customizable, so that we can adjust that to how we like.
I like that I'm not the only person who would use it for the extra screen space rather than the whole 'crispness'.
I'll admit.. I haven't looked at the new iPad's screen so I cant say I have seen retina.. but as long as Apple allows us to scale resolution then I'm happy.. When my eyes start going (in 60 years or so...) then I won't have to strain at my 106240 x 198264 px monitor..
Another theme in this thread.. When will computers plateau.. moore's law may end soon. I know people said back 10 years ago that we wont need any more power than a P4 ect but look at today, I'm typing this on a 6 year old 8core beast.. eventually will people need to upgrade? Maybe this needs a new thread rather than piggybacking this one!
I'll admit.. I haven't looked at the new iPad's screen so I cant say I have seen retina.. but as long as Apple allows us to scale resolution then I'm happy.. When my eyes start going (in 60 years or so...) then I won't have to strain at my 106240 x 198264 px monitor..
Another theme in this thread.. When will computers plateau.. moore's law may end soon. I know people said back 10 years ago that we wont need any more power than a P4 ect but look at today, I'm typing this on a 6 year old 8core beast.. eventually will people need to upgrade? Maybe this needs a new thread rather than piggybacking this one!
Sure, I agree....I was just responding to the claims that pr0n would look better when I don't think it will. Likewise, surfing will be a mixed bag.....text will look great but typically, images on webpages won't really look any better since they're low res - catering to the lowest common denominator devices.
I like the retina display on the iPhone 4, and when it's time to upgrade from my iPad 2 to whatever is about then, I'll enjoy the better display. Same thing applies to my laptop & monitor but retina on it's own isn't enough of a reason for me to upgrade any of my current devices.
This is what worries me the most. Anything that requires the graphics card is going to be seriously bottlenecked from the GPU having to push the extra pixels.
Take a computer game for example. A bump up in resolutions decreases the FPS significantly. Now you want to 2880x??? on a mid range notebook GPU? That isn't going to give you good results. I don't play a ton of games, but spending $2000+ on a laptop, I would at least like it to be an option but with the screen res and the mGPU inside, most modern games will be choppy on the lowest settings if you run at native res. If you decrease the resolution then it will look worse, because the minute you upscale the picture quality degrades greatly (keep that in mind for all of you saying "porn will look so much better" because it will almost certainly not look as good if it has to be upscaled.)
Not only games, but professional programs that stress the graphics card will most likely be out of the question. Basically because of this bottleneck, I think there will be a good chance that they turn a "pro" machine into a great document reading/internet machine.
At the end of the day, I think the best example I can give to summarize what I'm saying is "Crysis." That game broke grounds in terms of graphics in games. I'm sure many people when that game came out were saying things along the lines of "What could be bad about amazing graphics?" in the same way a lot of you are saying "What can be bad about retina resolution?" Well, as I'm sure most of you know, Crysis wasn't really playable when it first came out (Definitely not on it's highest settings) even if you had a SLI setup with the best GPU's available.
Again, when they gave the retina display in the new iPad, they also put 4 GPU's in it to offer the same performance at the higher resolution. You can't do that with a laptop.
Just some things to think about after you get past "The text will look so clear" phase.
Oh, and honestly. Is 1920x1080 on a 17" screen not sharp enough? Much less on a 15" machine. I could have swore there were tons of people who complained that text is to small and hard to read at 1920x1080 on 15" laptops not too long ago.
Last edited:
The iPad can get away with it because, like you said, it's just a mobile device. It's not a quality product which professionals stare at all day.
Games can be upscaled on the Mac too, no one except hardcore gamers will notice. But programs like 3DS Max, Illustrator, Photoshop, and Final Cut can't compromise the quality. I'd rather look at a sharp low-resolution picture than a high-resolution picture of a blurry window, if I had to stare at one for 8 hours a day.
I'm fine with having a retina display and toning down the resolution when playing graphically intense games. However, I really don't want said games to look "fuzzy" or "blurry". Those who have iPhones and iPads with retina displays will understand that older apps not optimized for the increased resolution look relatively fuzzy. I'm sure you'll be able to look past it but still, a 2880x1800 display on a 15.6" notebook has yet to be done so I guess it's all speculation about what certain programs will look like. Also, for those boot camp users/gamers, what will Windows perform and look like with a retina display? I personally don't want to wait many months for Windows to become optimized for the increased resolution.
Still, a retina display would make everything in OS X look phenomenal.
Still, a retina display would make everything in OS X look phenomenal.