Apple's Messages beta hints at high-res Macs with Retina Displays
The newly released beta of Messages for OS X contains support for double-pixel resolutions, offering more evidence that Apple is working on high-resolution Retina Displays for future Mac hardware.
Digging through some of the resources from the Messages beta, MacRumors discovered that a number of graphics included with the software are available in two resolutions: regular, and double. The images are contained in multi-part TIFF files, and are labeled with the "@2x" distinction.
The "@2x" modifier first appeared in iOS, when Apple introduced its Retina Display branding on the iPhone 4. To simplify the transition to a higher resolution screen, Apple simply doubled the resolution of the iPhone display from 320 by 480 pixels to 640 by 960.
The Messages beta was released on Thursday and is meant to serve as a hint of what Apple will offer later this summer, when it launches its next major operating system update, OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion. But the inclusion of double-resolution images suggests that the software also offers a hint at Apple's plans for the Mac lineup in 2012.
AppleInsider detailed last week how Apple plans to radically redesign its MacBook Pro lineup in 2012, with new models that will be more like the company's hot selling MacBook Air. It's possible that those models could also feature high-resolution Retina Displays.
Rumors of MacBook Pros sporting Retina Displays are not new, with one report in December claiming that Apple was working on a new notebook model with a 2,880-by-1,800-pixel display to launch in 2012. And earlier this month, upgraded high-DPI user interface elements were discovered in the current build of Lion, OS X 10.7.3.
Apple is also expected to bring the Retina Display branding to its third-generation iPad, which is expected to launch next month. The company is rumored to be planning a media event for March 7 to unveil its next touchscreen tablet.
[ View article on AppleInsider ]
Comments
We may yet see new 32-inch, 37-inch or even 42-inch monitors doubling up as TVs (or vice versa) -- just don't know how displaying a 1920 x 1080 video would look on such a monitor.
Come on, guys.
2880 x 1800 makes it a 16:10 display -- 16:9 (HDTV) would be 2880 x 1620.
And given that they're 16:10 now, that's not out of the question at all, and I'm quite happy about it.
If this is the case, the 2x resolutions will be there for the expected retina display iPad 3, even if there is no planed retina display Mac.
Remember that under the hood, iOS and OS-X are the same flavor of Unix. The real difference is the bundled software, packages and drivers.
Why would it be 2880x1800 when the Desktop images are 3200x2000?
Come on, guys.
And given that they're 16:10 now, that's not out of the question at all, and I'm quite happy about it.
Well..it depends. If they're marketing this as a great way to watch movies, it should be at least the aspect radio of an HDTV, 16:9 (1.78:1). If they want to make it better than most HDTVs, they should go even wider, maybe 2:1 so that 2.35/2.39:1 films don't have such big letterbox bars.
I used to criticize people who wanted 2.39 displays because I thought the majority of films were actually 1.85. But that hasn't actually been the case for many years: the vast majority of the films that do the most business are 2.39:1.
A wider display would also be better for displaying two pages/images of content on the screen at a time while still leaving room for toolbars. (Of course, that's for people who still use their computers to do real work and not just as a media consumption and tweeting device.)
Well..it depends. If they're marketing this as a great way to watch movies, it should be at least the aspect radio of an HDTV, 16:9 (1.78:1). If they want to make it better than most HDTVs, they should go even wider, maybe 2:1 so that 2.35/2.39:1 films don't have such big letterbox bars.
We're talking about computers, not a mythical television.
the vast majority of the films that do the most business are 2.39:1.
Which is why established television companies should start making televisions in that ratio, I agree. For Apple, a non-television company, all this amounts to is supporting said resolution in OS X.
Why would it be 2880x1800 when the Desktop images are 3200x2000?
Come on, guys.
3200x2000 is just a base wallpaper size that should cover the largest display. Most displays from Apple will be smaller than 3200x2000 even with double resolution and a couple will even exceed 3200x2000 if Apple makes them double resolution.
Doesn't the Mac ALREADY have a Retina display? Meaning the user cannot distinguish individual pixels at a normal viewing distance?
Since "the Mac" is seven different screens and a standalone display, I wouldn't say so?
I can see the pixels individually on my 27" Cinema Display, and I sit a proper distance from it. They're not like looking at a windowscreen, but they're there.
"Retina" is quite ambiguous.
2880 x 1800 makes it a 16:10 display -- 16:9 (HDTV) would be 2880 x 1620.
You mean that Apple sticks with it's 16:10 because it realizes that everyone likes it more unless all they do is watch movies...
Good job Apple
as a note, 16:9 is one of the biggest rip-offs in laptops =.= you pay same for less pixels... woohoo!
http://www.apple.com/uk/imac/specs.html
21 inch: 1920 x 1080 (= 16:9)
27 inch: 2560 x 1440 (= 16:9)
Apple Cinema Display (http://store.apple.com/uk/product/MC...ode=MTY1NDA5OQ)
Technical Specifications
Screen size: 27 inches (diagonal viewable)
Screen type: TFT active-matrix LCD with in-plane switching (IPS)
Resolution: 2560 by 1440 pixels
Colours: 16.7 million
Aspect ratio: 16:9
Viewing angle: 178° horizontal; 178° vertical
Brightness: 375 cd/m2
Contrast ratio: 1000:1
Response time: 12 ms
Apple Cinema Display 23 inch 1920 x 1200 (= 16:10)
Apple Cinema Display 30 inch 2560 x 1600 (= 16:10)
Check out the quoted resolution for 21 & 27-inch iMacs:
http://www.apple.com/uk/imac/specs.html
21 inch: 1920 x 1080 (= 16:9)
27 inch: 2560 x 1440 (= 16:9)
Apple Cinema Display (http://store.apple.com/uk/product/MC...ode=MTY1NDA5OQ)
Technical Specifications
Screen size: 27 inches (diagonal viewable)
Screen type: TFT active-matrix LCD with in-plane switching (IPS)
Resolution: 2560 by 1440 pixels
Colours: 16.7 million
Aspect ratio: 16:9
Viewing angle: 178° horizontal; 178° vertical
Brightness: 375 cd/m2
Contrast ratio: 1000:1
Response time: 12 ms
Apple Cinema Display 23 inch 1920 x 1200 (= 16:10)
Apple Cinema Display 30 inch 2560 x 1600 (= 16:10)
I don't follow. What is your point, that the two very large display sizes are 16:9?
I don't follow. What is your point, that the two very large display sizes are 16:9?
I guess so. So is the 11" MacBook Air. But don't mention that, OK?
For the record, I dislike 16:9 for displays too, if you're trying to edit documents or do anything graphical.
Why would it be 2880x1800 when the Desktop images are 3200x2000?
Come on, guys.
And given that they're 16:10 now, that's not out of the question at all, and I'm quite happy about it.
Currently it is 16:9. Apple cheaped out on the resolution independence thing. They just went for normal and double
You mean that Apple sticks with it's 16:10 because it realizes that everyone likes it more unless all they do is watch movies...
Good job Apple
as a note, 16:9 is one of the biggest rip-offs in laptops =.= you pay same for less pixels... woohoo!
Display panel manufacturers wanted to make things sound bigger so they could charge more
Currently it is 16:9.
Not on the MacBook Pro. And not originally on any Mac.
I guess so. So is the 11" MacBook Air. But don't mention that, OK?
For the record, I dislike 16:9 for displays too, if you're trying to edit documents or do anything graphical.
On their 21" and up machines the 16:9 works out well because there is plenty of screen height at those sizes. I'd probably even say that the 17" MBP could do it, but the 11" to 15" need to be 16:10.
The 11" MBA was a shocker at 16:9 because the display height was already too low but there are no 16:10 11" screens as far as know. While Apple could have had a different aspect ratio made that is extra cost added to their new entry level notebook and it would mean the width is shorter which could affect their ability to use a full size notebook keyboard. With a cost and logistics issue at play I can see why they would choose it even though it's far from ideal.
Apple certainly isn't about jumping on the "coolest" aspect ratio otherwise the iPad would be 16:9. Remember when people use to complain about that and said that is why the iPad would fail?
2880 x 1800 makes it a 16:10 display -- 16:9 (HDTV) would be 2880 x 1620.
We may yet see new 32-inch, 37-inch or even 42-inch monitors doubling up as TVs (or vice versa) -- just don't know how displaying a 1920 x 1080 video would look on such a monitor.
Yep. I think that this is the "Apple TV" that folks are talking about. Not a "real" tv but a monitor that could be used as one.
As for whether it would be 'retina' in the sense of the 300dpi, something tells me no. Distance from the eye to the screen is a factor and with a monitor/tv you aren't holding it within inches of your face so that level of quality just may not be necessary. Including it could be a cost that has no value, and that's not Apple's style. they don't put in specs to impress if there's not an impressive value to them something that even the crudest of mere consumers would desire (like deeper colors, less ghosting etc).
Not on the MacBook Pro. And not originally on any Mac.
Ohhh I was thinking imac there.
But what I really want is to replace is my 20" iMac8,1. It still works great, even with Lion, but I'm drooling over the biggest bad boy BTO Apple comes out with. iMacs are due soon but since ML was just announced as a maybe for summer, the refresh probably won't be till at least then.
Come on Apple. I've got the bucks give them to me!