While DT isn't to be trusted this rumour is plausible. If they can manufacturer 15" Retina Displays they can surely manufacturer 13" models. The only issue I see is with the GPU to run 4x as many pixels. The 13" MBP currently only has an iGPU. However, remove the ODD and HDD, like in the RMBP, and you likely have room for it. I say likely because keeping the battery duration in the same window as the current 13" MBP likely requires a larger battery for the IPS display with 4x as many pixels to push.
Actually I'm extremely hopeful of the product.
It's just that Digitimes has been wrong so many times in the past that, right now, they could tell me that the sky was blue and grass was green and I'd still call bullshit.
When given the choice between even considering anything they say, or waiting for the actual announcement in a few days time, then I'm quite happy to wait and see what unfolds.
These Apple announcements are like having multiple Christmas's each year! (>_<)
It will be hard for me to justify buying any Apple product at this point that does not have the retina display. If the iPhone has it, so should the iPod touch, the rumored iPad mini, and most definitely the new iMac's.
Personally, an 11" MacBook Air with retina display would hit the sweet spot for me. If the iPad's have them, no reason for an 11" not to either, IMO.
I was initially expecting such a thing one or two cycles later. Apple historically debuts things on their more expensive models, then moves them down later. It's not like that with everything, but it is a common behavior trend. The reasoning for picking Ivy seemed like it was due to the lack of anything truly interesting about it beyond usb3 and possibly Kepler for those who use CUDA. Putting a redesigned machine in such a generation makes it a lot more interesting. It would also make more sense with Haswell given that Intel is projecting another sizable improvement in gpu performance there. Other brands have placed discrete gpus into 13" notebooks. The main reasons I don't think we'll see one are the extra cost and power consumption.
Surely the change in power usage with Ivy Bridge played a factor in the availability of retina in a notebook, but you're right: the question still remains is there enough "umph" at a cost effective point for a 13in enclosure.
I like others have been waiting for a 13' Retina since the 15' launch. All I want from it is dedicated graphics and a 7 hour-ish battery life. Personally don't think that the speculated price of a base model being $1199 are true think a base might come in at $1399 and higher end $1599.
Surely the change in power usage with Ivy Bridge played a factor in the availability of retina in a notebook, but you're right: the question still remains is there enough "umph" at a cost effective point for a 13in enclosure.
Actually the big factor isn't Ivy Bridge, It is rather the power point of GPUs that make retina machines possible. If Apple wasn't able to drive all of those pixels we wouldn't have retina machines.
If a 13" retina machine is coming it will be very interesting to see how Apple solves the "umps" problem. Dropping the optical does give them the space to balance battery and GPU space. The other option might be a special order Intel processor with an enhanced GPU, maybe with an updated GPU clock. The reality is Apple won't have as many pixels to deal with as they do on the 15" machine, so maybe an Intel GPU running at a higher clock rate might do the job. Well that along with an enhanced memory interface.
I like others have been waiting for a 13' Retina since the 15' launch. All I want from it is dedicated graphics and a 7 hour-ish battery life. Personally don't think that the speculated price of a base model being $1199 are true think a base might come in at $1399 and higher end $1599.
Pricing will be very interesting and likely depends upon the supplier. If they go Sharp they may get a very good price. If Sharp has finally gotten the production bugs worked out their new screens, it could allow Apple to allocate a lot more power to the GPU/CPU. Laptops are really no different than iPads when it comes to energy used by the screen backlight, the proportions might be different but screens use a lot of power. Getting that power under control means more wattage can be used by the GPU for a given battery size.
Hopefully we will see new hardware "real soon now".
Surely the change in power usage with Ivy Bridge played a factor in the availability of retina in a notebook, but you're right: the question still remains is there enough "umph" at a cost effective point for a 13in enclosure.
Ivy Bridge supposedly gained more aggressive power management. This isn't a bad thing at all, but the actual tdp of their chips remains the same. It's a reasonable assumption that in the longer term, their mainstream lines may rely increasingly on chips with lower maximum power consumption than what we have today. Right now they're really trying to push integrated gpu performance while making incremental gains on X86 cores. It's likely that this didn't align well with a desire for lower peak power consumption.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Pricing will be very interesting and likely depends upon the supplier. If they go Sharp they may get a very good price. If Sharp has finally gotten the production bugs worked out their new screens, it could allow Apple to allocate a lot more power to the GPU/CPU. Laptops are really no different than iPads when it comes to energy used by the screen backlight, the proportions might be different but screens use a lot of power. Getting that power under control means more wattage can be used by the GPU for a given battery size.
Hopefully we will see new hardware "real soon now".
Sharp doesn't seem to have a lot of past experience in this specific type of panel implementation. What I mean is that while Samsung and LG panels appear in millions of desktop and notebook displays, I don't see Sharp really used. It will be very cool if they're able to get in there, and I do hope the quality of their technology is up to par, especially in terms of color profile. That isn't an area where Apple is always on top. It seems like a priority for them, but I think power consumption comes out ahead the vast majority of their users either don't understand it or don't care to any real degree, even though it's reasonably helpful for a wide range of users.
Ivy Bridge supposedly gained more aggressive power management. This isn't a bad thing at all, but the actual tdp of their chips remains the same. It's a reasonable assumption that in the longer term, their mainstream lines may rely increasingly on chips with lower maximum power consumption than what we have today. Right now they're really trying to push integrated gpu performance while making incremental gains on X86 cores. It's likely that this didn't align well with a desire for lower peak power consumption.
Ivy Bridge and Intels new process, can be seen as a huge leap in performance per watt. The problem is all gains have gone to increased capabilities. In this go around most of that increased capability went into the GPU, so in the end the chip still ships in the same old power classes. Since most users really need the GPU performance this is a big deal.
In otherwords Intels remarkably lower power usage has lead to a lot more capability being put on the chip.
Sharp doesn't seem to have a lot of past experience in this specific type of panel implementation.
True it is completely new technology.
What I mean is that while Samsung and LG panels appear in millions of desktop and notebook displays, I don't see Sharp really used. It will be very cool if they're able to get in there, and I do hope the quality of their technology is up to par, especially in terms of color profile.
Well the limited press I've seen is very positive. We will have to wait and see, but the potential is there to clear away some of the issues with the current IPS screens in use.
That isn't an area where Apple is always on top. It seems like a priority for them, but I think power consumption comes out ahead the vast majority of their users either don't understand it or don't care to any real degree, even though it's reasonably helpful for a wide range of users.
This is hard to judge, but I suspect that in things like the iPad and iPhone the gains in power usage and lowered weight are very big concerns for customers. This is likely to carry over to the 13" MBP. Now I don't expect most Apple customers to know the specifics of how Apple gives them long battery life's they are just happy that their machines run well for a long time.
Ivy Bridge and Intels new process, can be seen as a huge leap in performance per watt. The problem is all gains have gone to increased capabilities. In this go around most of that increased capability went into the GPU, so in the end the chip still ships in the same old power classes. Since most users really need the GPU performance this is a big deal.
In otherwords Intels remarkably lower power usage has lead to a lot more capability being put on the chip.
I don't see this as a total problem. They are reaching a better balance overall. Intel has also further split some of its Xeon lines in a different direction from the mainstream cpus, as they don't assign a portion of their transistor allocation to an integrated gpu, thus the ever increasing core counts often leveraged at the cost of clock speeds. I'm not sure how long it will be viable to continue pushing in this direction over the short term n-threaded code is practically non existent, and there are only so many background functions that will be run. Ivy bridge will move the total up to a 20 core potential, although I don't expect that to be seen on a Mac. Gpu leveraging via OpenCL is still an interesting topic. CUDA remains a bit ahead in some areas, but even NVidia is on board with OpenCL. Looking at CUDA in things like After Effects, the potential is there. Where it's usable, it's significantly faster at a much lower cost.
Quote:
True it is completely new technology.
That makes it interesting. Apple caters to a very mass market crowd, and they tend to like cool things. My point earlier was that their priorities usually place things like power consumption near the top. If you look at displays made for professional use, including many made for medical use, many are still using ccfl. A lot of the major issues with LED are becoming much smaller issues now. For Apple I think it was mainly motivated by power savings at equivalent brightness levels and better long term brightness stability. We're seeing improved color (basically sRGB) with the IPS version in the rMBP, but I do not think it was their top priority. I think between that and battery life in their portables, battery life would win. It's neither here nor there. Every company has their priorities. I wish the notebooks would go more aggressive with airflow, but Apple dislikes any visually obvious ventilation.
Quote:
Well the limited press I've seen is very positive. We will have to wait and see, but the potential is there to clear away some of the issues with the current IPS screens in use.
That's something positive. IPS has been around since the 1990s. Hitachi developed it, and it was really impressive for its time. This is one of those things where I think early hiccups are normal. The competing technologies (IPS and TN) are extremely mature.
Quote:
This is hard to judge, but I suspect that in things like the iPad and iPhone the gains in power usage and lowered weight are very big concerns for customers. This is likely to carry over to the 13" MBP. Now I don't expect most Apple customers to know the specifics of how Apple gives them long battery life's they are just happy that their machines run well for a long time.
I was referring more to the Macs. The current ipad has impressive color reproduction assuming a good unit. It's fairly remarkable, and I regard that as a big win for commercial use of the device. Apple heavily prioritizes battery life heavily in the notebooks as well.
If they do the same thing as the laptops (13", 15", rMBP), the high-end model would be the Retina model, which makes sense as it's the only one with a GPU powerful enough and with enough video memory to run it. It won't be double resolution but 50% or so higher. It's understandable they'd have yield issues with that. i don't think it can run over Thunderbolt though so I'd say no until we get the next TB controller.
I wouldn't expect them to leave the lower models the same unlike the MBPs but remove the opticals and laminate the glass in all the models.
I didn't want to see them continue with the 21.5" model but it means they can get the prices down. I wonder if they can get the entry-level down as low as $999. Those 21.5" panels must be dirt cheap by now.
Assuming the report is accurate, if they are shipping, they wouldn't launch in October or even late September. They will surely be available on Wednesday. They'd hardly have them sitting in storage for 4 weeks.
Mac Minis should be updated too but won't be mentioned as the update will be minor and they ship in far lower volumes.
I expect the 13" rMBP will be the big Mac hit due to students buying for college.
If they do all these updates at once - iMac, Mini, MBP, iPod lines, iPhone - that would probably be the biggest update they've ever done.
It happens but as you can see at the following site, they didn't even make the Magic 8-ball rating:
I don't see this as a total problem. They are reaching a better balance overall. Intel has also further split some of its Xeon lines in a different direction from the mainstream cpus, as they don't assign a portion of their transistor allocation to an integrated gpu, thus the ever increasing core counts often leveraged at the cost of clock speeds. I'm not sure how long it will be viable to continue pushing in this direction over the short term n-threaded code is practically non existent, and there are only so many background functions that will be run. Ivy bridge will move the total up to a 20 core potential, although I don't expect that to be seen on a Mac. Gpu leveraging via OpenCL is still an interesting topic. CUDA remains a bit ahead in some areas, but even NVidia is on board with OpenCL. Looking at CUDA in things like After Effects, the potential is there. Where it's usable, it's significantly faster at a much lower cost.
It isn't a problem in fact it is an advantage. I was more or less responding to the idea that some express that Ivy Bridge doesn't save much power wise. While Ivy Bridge comes I'm many of the same power classes as the previous tech it is offering a lot more for those watts. For one a GPU that isn't bad though it isn't really great either. Ivy Bridge should be seen as a huge improvement by most users.
That makes it interesting. Apple caters to a very mass market crowd, and they tend to like cool things. My point earlier was that their priorities usually place things like power consumption near the top. If you look at displays made for professional use, including many made for medical use, many are still using ccfl. A lot of the major issues with LED are becoming much smaller issues now. For Apple I think it was mainly motivated by power savings at equivalent brightness levels and better long term brightness stability. We're seeing improved color (basically sRGB) with the IPS version in the rMBP, but I do not think it was their top priority. I think between that and battery life in their portables, battery life would win. It's neither here nor there. Every company has their priorities. I wish the notebooks would go more aggressive with airflow, but Apple dislikes any visually obvious ventilation.
I would hope that battery life is a top priority for a laptop. However Apple shouldn't ignore the market for performance too.
That's something positive. IPS has been around since the 1990s. Hitachi developed it, and it was really impressive for its time. This is one of those things where I think early hiccups are normal. The competing technologies (IPS and TN) are extremely mature.
It takes time to perfect things. That is why a lot of people avoid rev one devices. iPhone is a perfect example, my 3G was an impressive demonstrator of the potential of the technology but it really took moving to iPhone 4 to realize the potential.
I was referring more to the Macs. The current ipad has impressive color reproduction assuming a good unit. It's fairly remarkable, and I regard that as a big win for commercial use of the device. Apple heavily prioritizes battery life heavily in the notebooks as well.
We can only hope that Sharp has the ability to actually produce a better panel in production quantities. That is I'd like to see Apple try something other than IPS in the Macs as soon as possible. It is good that Apple has pushed IPS technology as far as it has but I think the rMBP is demonstrating its limitations.
Now I must have missed this post, but I haven't been following the site much lately. The new iphone is out. It doesn't really interest me that much. There isn't a lot of other Apple news at the moment that I find terribly interesting, so I spend a bit less time reading the board.
Quote:
It isn't a problem in fact it is an advantage. I was more or less responding to the idea that some express that Ivy Bridge doesn't save much power wise. While Ivy Bridge comes I'm many of the same power classes as the previous tech it is offering a lot more for those watts. For one a GPU that isn't bad though it isn't really great either. Ivy Bridge should be seen as a huge improvement by most users.
I get you now. People (sometimes including myself) often forget that gpus can be incredibly power hungry. In the notebooks they still did add in some power management features even if the peak power consumption didn't really drop off. Overall might still be lower.
Quote:
I would hope that battery life is a top priority for a laptop. However Apple shouldn't ignore the market for performance too.
Apple's priorities are a bit extreme at times. They position themselves as a mass market brand. There are a lot of very specific choices in design. An example would be that at high loads, the charger cannot supply enough power. Macbook pros can lean on the battery even while plugged in. It could have been partly a cost thing, but I would imagine that a portion of this is the desire to use a reasonably compact charger. There are power bricks that can charge such a computer even while transcoding, but they're typically quite bulky. On displays I would imagine power consumption would take priority over color reproduction. The rMBP was actually a nice step up in color reproduction, but I think they would compromise in that area if another technology offered better battery life. Ideally they'd also prioritize viewing angles. Most people do not view notebook displays dead on, so this is a significant thing. I've always found the Airs a bit irritating in this regard, but I'm not sure how many people notice it.
Quote:
It takes time to perfect things. That is why a lot of people avoid rev one devices. iPhone is a perfect example, my 3G was an impressive demonstrator of the potential of the technology but it really took moving to iPhone 4 to realize the potential.
I always avoid first generation products. I prefer things show up and work. To break away from that rule, the advantage needs to be extremely significant to a point where I feel like I'm putting myself at a disadvantage by not updating at that time.
Quote:
We can only hope that Sharp has the ability to actually produce a better panel in production quantities. That is I'd like to see Apple try something other than IPS in the Macs as soon as possible. It is good that Apple has pushed IPS technology as far as it has but I think the rMBP is demonstrating its limitations.
IPS has been around for a while, and it's become a heavily commoditized technology at this point. Hitachi developed it to deal with viewing angles and other issues present in TN panels in the 1990s, but some of the higher end brands that came up with IPS panel designs dropped out of doing so a few years ago. I'm wondering what limitations you're referring to here though. If you mean the image persistence issues, I'm scratching my head on that one. It used to be a common issue, but I haven't seen it in other recent model displays. There are white papers on it that go back more than a decade. It's just an issue that is resurfacing. On older ones that tended to exhibit such issues, they wouldn't show up until the device had potentially a few thousand hours on it.
Comments
Actually I'm extremely hopeful of the product.
It's just that Digitimes has been wrong so many times in the past that, right now, they could tell me that the sky was blue and grass was green and I'd still call bullshit.
When given the choice between even considering anything they say, or waiting for the actual announcement in a few days time, then I'm quite happy to wait and see what unfolds.
These Apple announcements are like having multiple Christmas's each year! (>_<)
Personally, an 11" MacBook Air with retina display would hit the sweet spot for me. If the iPad's have them, no reason for an 11" not to either, IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
I was initially expecting such a thing one or two cycles later. Apple historically debuts things on their more expensive models, then moves them down later. It's not like that with everything, but it is a common behavior trend. The reasoning for picking Ivy seemed like it was due to the lack of anything truly interesting about it beyond usb3 and possibly Kepler for those who use CUDA. Putting a redesigned machine in such a generation makes it a lot more interesting. It would also make more sense with Haswell given that Intel is projecting another sizable improvement in gpu performance there. Other brands have placed discrete gpus into 13" notebooks. The main reasons I don't think we'll see one are the extra cost and power consumption.
Surely the change in power usage with Ivy Bridge played a factor in the availability of retina in a notebook, but you're right: the question still remains is there enough "umph" at a cost effective point for a 13in enclosure.
Actually the big factor isn't Ivy Bridge, It is rather the power point of GPUs that make retina machines possible. If Apple wasn't able to drive all of those pixels we wouldn't have retina machines.
If a 13" retina machine is coming it will be very interesting to see how Apple solves the "umps" problem. Dropping the optical does give them the space to balance battery and GPU space. The other option might be a special order Intel processor with an enhanced GPU, maybe with an updated GPU clock. The reality is Apple won't have as many pixels to deal with as they do on the 15" machine, so maybe an Intel GPU running at a higher clock rate might do the job. Well that along with an enhanced memory interface.
Pricing will be very interesting and likely depends upon the supplier. If they go Sharp they may get a very good price. If Sharp has finally gotten the production bugs worked out their new screens, it could allow Apple to allocate a lot more power to the GPU/CPU. Laptops are really no different than iPads when it comes to energy used by the screen backlight, the proportions might be different but screens use a lot of power. Getting that power under control means more wattage can be used by the GPU for a given battery size.
Hopefully we will see new hardware "real soon now".
Quote:
Originally Posted by pinkunicorn
Surely the change in power usage with Ivy Bridge played a factor in the availability of retina in a notebook, but you're right: the question still remains is there enough "umph" at a cost effective point for a 13in enclosure.
Ivy Bridge supposedly gained more aggressive power management. This isn't a bad thing at all, but the actual tdp of their chips remains the same. It's a reasonable assumption that in the longer term, their mainstream lines may rely increasingly on chips with lower maximum power consumption than what we have today. Right now they're really trying to push integrated gpu performance while making incremental gains on X86 cores. It's likely that this didn't align well with a desire for lower peak power consumption.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Pricing will be very interesting and likely depends upon the supplier. If they go Sharp they may get a very good price. If Sharp has finally gotten the production bugs worked out their new screens, it could allow Apple to allocate a lot more power to the GPU/CPU. Laptops are really no different than iPads when it comes to energy used by the screen backlight, the proportions might be different but screens use a lot of power. Getting that power under control means more wattage can be used by the GPU for a given battery size.
Hopefully we will see new hardware "real soon now".
Sharp doesn't seem to have a lot of past experience in this specific type of panel implementation. What I mean is that while Samsung and LG panels appear in millions of desktop and notebook displays, I don't see Sharp really used. It will be very cool if they're able to get in there, and I do hope the quality of their technology is up to par, especially in terms of color profile. That isn't an area where Apple is always on top. It seems like a priority for them, but I think power consumption comes out ahead the vast majority of their users either don't understand it or don't care to any real degree, even though it's reasonably helpful for a wide range of users.
In otherwords Intels remarkably lower power usage has lead to a lot more capability being put on the chip. True it is completely new technology. Well the limited press I've seen is very positive. We will have to wait and see, but the potential is there to clear away some of the issues with the current IPS screens in use.
This is hard to judge, but I suspect that in things like the iPad and iPhone the gains in power usage and lowered weight are very big concerns for customers. This is likely to carry over to the 13" MBP. Now I don't expect most Apple customers to know the specifics of how Apple gives them long battery life's they are just happy that their machines run well for a long time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Ivy Bridge and Intels new process, can be seen as a huge leap in performance per watt. The problem is all gains have gone to increased capabilities. In this go around most of that increased capability went into the GPU, so in the end the chip still ships in the same old power classes. Since most users really need the GPU performance this is a big deal.
In otherwords Intels remarkably lower power usage has lead to a lot more capability being put on the chip.
I don't see this as a total problem. They are reaching a better balance overall. Intel has also further split some of its Xeon lines in a different direction from the mainstream cpus, as they don't assign a portion of their transistor allocation to an integrated gpu, thus the ever increasing core counts often leveraged at the cost of clock speeds. I'm not sure how long it will be viable to continue pushing in this direction over the short term n-threaded code is practically non existent, and there are only so many background functions that will be run. Ivy bridge will move the total up to a 20 core potential, although I don't expect that to be seen on a Mac. Gpu leveraging via OpenCL is still an interesting topic. CUDA remains a bit ahead in some areas, but even NVidia is on board with OpenCL. Looking at CUDA in things like After Effects, the potential is there. Where it's usable, it's significantly faster at a much lower cost.
Quote:
True it is completely new technology.
That makes it interesting. Apple caters to a very mass market crowd, and they tend to like cool things. My point earlier was that their priorities usually place things like power consumption near the top. If you look at displays made for professional use, including many made for medical use, many are still using ccfl. A lot of the major issues with LED are becoming much smaller issues now. For Apple I think it was mainly motivated by power savings at equivalent brightness levels and better long term brightness stability. We're seeing improved color (basically sRGB) with the IPS version in the rMBP, but I do not think it was their top priority. I think between that and battery life in their portables, battery life would win. It's neither here nor there. Every company has their priorities. I wish the notebooks would go more aggressive with airflow, but Apple dislikes any visually obvious ventilation.
Quote:
Well the limited press I've seen is very positive. We will have to wait and see, but the potential is there to clear away some of the issues with the current IPS screens in use.
That's something positive. IPS has been around since the 1990s. Hitachi developed it, and it was really impressive for its time. This is one of those things where I think early hiccups are normal. The competing technologies (IPS and TN) are extremely mature.
Quote:
This is hard to judge, but I suspect that in things like the iPad and iPhone the gains in power usage and lowered weight are very big concerns for customers. This is likely to carry over to the 13" MBP. Now I don't expect most Apple customers to know the specifics of how Apple gives them long battery life's they are just happy that their machines run well for a long time.
I was referring more to the Macs. The current ipad has impressive color reproduction assuming a good unit. It's fairly remarkable, and I regard that as a big win for commercial use of the device. Apple heavily prioritizes battery life heavily in the notebooks as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
If they do the same thing as the laptops (13", 15", rMBP), the high-end model would be the Retina model, which makes sense as it's the only one with a GPU powerful enough and with enough video memory to run it. It won't be double resolution but 50% or so higher. It's understandable they'd have yield issues with that. i don't think it can run over Thunderbolt though so I'd say no until we get the next TB controller.
I wouldn't expect them to leave the lower models the same unlike the MBPs but remove the opticals and laminate the glass in all the models.
I didn't want to see them continue with the 21.5" model but it means they can get the prices down. I wonder if they can get the entry-level down as low as $999. Those 21.5" panels must be dirt cheap by now.
Assuming the report is accurate, if they are shipping, they wouldn't launch in October or even late September. They will surely be available on Wednesday. They'd hardly have them sitting in storage for 4 weeks.
Mac Minis should be updated too but won't be mentioned as the update will be minor and they ship in far lower volumes.
I expect the 13" rMBP will be the big Mac hit due to students buying for college.
If they do all these updates at once - iMac, Mini, MBP, iPod lines, iPhone - that would probably be the biggest update they've ever done.
It happens but as you can see at the following site, they didn't even make the Magic 8-ball rating:
http://www.the-digital-reader.com/2012/05/24/how-accurate-is-digitimes/#.UE3qHWiVuMw
Apple normally builds up a sufficient inventory to satisfy initial release demand. It sometimes does take several weeks to do so.
Edit to change notification.
Must have missed this post!
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
I don't see this as a total problem. They are reaching a better balance overall. Intel has also further split some of its Xeon lines in a different direction from the mainstream cpus, as they don't assign a portion of their transistor allocation to an integrated gpu, thus the ever increasing core counts often leveraged at the cost of clock speeds. I'm not sure how long it will be viable to continue pushing in this direction over the short term n-threaded code is practically non existent, and there are only so many background functions that will be run. Ivy bridge will move the total up to a 20 core potential, although I don't expect that to be seen on a Mac. Gpu leveraging via OpenCL is still an interesting topic. CUDA remains a bit ahead in some areas, but even NVidia is on board with OpenCL. Looking at CUDA in things like After Effects, the potential is there. Where it's usable, it's significantly faster at a much lower cost.
It isn't a problem in fact it is an advantage. I was more or less responding to the idea that some express that Ivy Bridge doesn't save much power wise. While Ivy Bridge comes I'm many of the same power classes as the previous tech it is offering a lot more for those watts. For one a GPU that isn't bad though it isn't really great either. Ivy Bridge should be seen as a huge improvement by most users.
That makes it interesting. Apple caters to a very mass market crowd, and they tend to like cool things. My point earlier was that their priorities usually place things like power consumption near the top. If you look at displays made for professional use, including many made for medical use, many are still using ccfl. A lot of the major issues with LED are becoming much smaller issues now. For Apple I think it was mainly motivated by power savings at equivalent brightness levels and better long term brightness stability. We're seeing improved color (basically sRGB) with the IPS version in the rMBP, but I do not think it was their top priority. I think between that and battery life in their portables, battery life would win. It's neither here nor there. Every company has their priorities. I wish the notebooks would go more aggressive with airflow, but Apple dislikes any visually obvious ventilation.
I would hope that battery life is a top priority for a laptop. However Apple shouldn't ignore the market for performance too.
That's something positive. IPS has been around since the 1990s. Hitachi developed it, and it was really impressive for its time. This is one of those things where I think early hiccups are normal. The competing technologies (IPS and TN) are extremely mature.
It takes time to perfect things. That is why a lot of people avoid rev one devices. iPhone is a perfect example, my 3G was an impressive demonstrator of the potential of the technology but it really took moving to iPhone 4 to realize the potential.
I was referring more to the Macs. The current ipad has impressive color reproduction assuming a good unit. It's fairly remarkable, and I regard that as a big win for commercial use of the device. Apple heavily prioritizes battery life heavily in the notebooks as well.
We can only hope that Sharp has the ability to actually produce a better panel in production quantities. That is I'd like to see Apple try something other than IPS in the Macs as soon as possible. It is good that Apple has pushed IPS technology as far as it has but I think the rMBP is demonstrating its limitations.Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Must have missed this post!
Now I must have missed this post, but I haven't been following the site much lately. The new iphone is out. It doesn't really interest me that much. There isn't a lot of other Apple news at the moment that I find terribly interesting, so I spend a bit less time reading the board.
Quote:
It isn't a problem in fact it is an advantage. I was more or less responding to the idea that some express that Ivy Bridge doesn't save much power wise. While Ivy Bridge comes I'm many of the same power classes as the previous tech it is offering a lot more for those watts. For one a GPU that isn't bad though it isn't really great either. Ivy Bridge should be seen as a huge improvement by most users.
I get you now. People (sometimes including myself) often forget that gpus can be incredibly power hungry. In the notebooks they still did add in some power management features even if the peak power consumption didn't really drop off. Overall might still be lower.
Quote:
I would hope that battery life is a top priority for a laptop. However Apple shouldn't ignore the market for performance too.
Apple's priorities are a bit extreme at times. They position themselves as a mass market brand. There are a lot of very specific choices in design. An example would be that at high loads, the charger cannot supply enough power. Macbook pros can lean on the battery even while plugged in. It could have been partly a cost thing, but I would imagine that a portion of this is the desire to use a reasonably compact charger. There are power bricks that can charge such a computer even while transcoding, but they're typically quite bulky. On displays I would imagine power consumption would take priority over color reproduction. The rMBP was actually a nice step up in color reproduction, but I think they would compromise in that area if another technology offered better battery life. Ideally they'd also prioritize viewing angles. Most people do not view notebook displays dead on, so this is a significant thing. I've always found the Airs a bit irritating in this regard, but I'm not sure how many people notice it.
Quote:
It takes time to perfect things. That is why a lot of people avoid rev one devices. iPhone is a perfect example, my 3G was an impressive demonstrator of the potential of the technology but it really took moving to iPhone 4 to realize the potential.
I always avoid first generation products. I prefer things show up and work. To break away from that rule, the advantage needs to be extremely significant to a point where I feel like I'm putting myself at a disadvantage by not updating at that time.
Quote:
We can only hope that Sharp has the ability to actually produce a better panel in production quantities. That is I'd like to see Apple try something other than IPS in the Macs as soon as possible. It is good that Apple has pushed IPS technology as far as it has but I think the rMBP is demonstrating its limitations.
IPS has been around for a while, and it's become a heavily commoditized technology at this point. Hitachi developed it to deal with viewing angles and other issues present in TN panels in the 1990s, but some of the higher end brands that came up with IPS panel designs dropped out of doing so a few years ago. I'm wondering what limitations you're referring to here though. If you mean the image persistence issues, I'm scratching my head on that one. It used to be a common issue, but I haven't seen it in other recent model displays. There are white papers on it that go back more than a decade. It's just an issue that is resurfacing. On older ones that tended to exhibit such issues, they wouldn't show up until the device had potentially a few thousand hours on it.