Apple displays ... 133dpi?

>_>>_>
Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
If apple increased it's 20" display to 133dpi (like the new powerbooks), it would reach (and surpass) the 1080i minimum to be considered HD. It would also make the 23" display a lot less necessary, as the only reason they released it at all was because it had the pixel count to be considered HD.



Having HD across the line would make for a better marketing strategy, as well.



What do you guys think?



- Xidius
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 25
    >_>>_> Posts: 336member
    And that's BESIDE the point I would want an external display to have the same native DPI as the laptop I have it hooked up to. =P



    - Xidius
  • Reply 2 of 25
    I have asked this question many times in many different places (here including). What is it that laptop display densities are on the rise, but desktop ones remain roughly the same?
  • Reply 3 of 25
    >_>>_> Posts: 336member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by drumsticks

    I have asked this question many times in many different places (here including). What is it that laptop display densities are on the rise, but desktop ones remain roughly the same?



    My money is on 133DPI+ displays next year, along with the anouncement of a resolution-independant ui being a main feature of the upcoming 10.5.



    When 10.4 was coming out, they made reference to it, and said that as of 10.4 you would be able to specify the DPI your app was being built for, and would self-scale when the system for it was built. (The default res, iirc was 72dpi)



    So.. We have a ui that can already scale (roughly though.. bitmaps ftl), which is also gpu-excellerated (quartz extreme).. Does anyone else smell the possibility of the first practical 3d gui on the horizon?



    - Xidius
  • Reply 4 of 25
    Quote:

    Originally posted by drumsticks

    I have asked this question many times in many different places (here including). What is it that laptop display densities are on the rise, but desktop ones remain roughly the same?



    There's a few factors at work here. First, viewing distances tend to be larger on desktop displays. Unless you're using a separate keyboard and mouse, you'll often be very close to a laptop's screen.



    Second, if this is your only system, you'll want quite a bit of screen area to work from - especially if the system costs $2500. Having 1680x1050 gives you the equivalent space of Apple's 20" display, and that can mean using the laptop as your only system rather than needing a complementary box.



    Lastly, I suspect that LCD costs are more sensitive on the desktop side. After all, on a laptop people are willing to pay to get extra workspace. They're less likely to do that on the desktop side.
  • Reply 5 of 25
    In Europe 1280x720 (720p) is considered true HD. 1080i is still interlaced (in manys opinions inferior to fewer lines in progressive) 1080p is of course the optimal.



    http://www.hellas-sat.net/library/File30.pdf
  • Reply 6 of 25
    pbg4 dudepbg4 dude Posts: 1,611member
    .
  • Reply 7 of 25
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    I ordered a 23 incher for my quad G5 and I visited the Apple's web pages related to the Apple LCD screens.

    Apple claimed that 100 dpi was the optimum resolution for any screens.



    Laptops can reach 133, but you are looking them more closely than their big brothers counterparts.
  • Reply 8 of 25
    That's a good point: you tend to sit very close to your laptop screen. That isn't as true for desktop screens.
  • Reply 9 of 25
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Powerdoc

    I ordered a 23 incher for my quad G5 and I visited the Apple's web pages related to the Apple LCD screens.

    Apple claimed that 100 dpi was the optimum resolution for any screens.



    Laptops can reach 133, but you are looking them more closely than their big brothers counterparts.




    That's completely false! 100ppi is not optimal. Apple makes that claim only because their UI is not completely scalable at the moment. More is always better. Think printers...
  • Reply 10 of 25
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by drumsticks

    That's completely false! 100ppi is not optimal. Apple makes that claim only because their UI is not completely scalable at the moment. More is always better. Think printers...



    For printers may be, but for using software like Word, I doubt it is. Try to read a text with a police size 10 on a very high resolution ...



    What you say is true, for pics, but not true for text.
  • Reply 11 of 25
    pbpb Posts: 4,231member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Powerdoc

    What you say is true, for pics, but not true for text.



    It will be true for anything once Mac OS X becomes resolution independent.
  • Reply 12 of 25
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by PB

    It will be true for anything once Mac OS X becomes resolution independent.



    That's right, but it's not currently the case.
  • Reply 13 of 25
    pbpb Posts: 4,231member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Powerdoc

    That's right, but it's not currently the case.



    Again true.



    I am wondering however how long it will take before we see resolution-independence as a well established feature of OS X. If I am not mistaken, it is already there and disabled in Tiger, just to give developers a reason to work with it. I guess it will come with Leopard (isn't that 10.5?), since this one has to compete against Longhorn.
  • Reply 14 of 25
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by PB

    Again true.



    I am wondering however how long it will take before we see resolution-independence as a well established feature of OS X. If I am not mistaken, it is already there and disabled in Tiger, just to give developers a reason to work with it. I guess it will come with Leopard (isn't that 10.5?), since this one has to compete against Longhorn.




    It will be a nice feature indeed. It will allow people with poor eyes to type write directly in the right size font.
  • Reply 15 of 25
    webmailwebmail Posts: 639member
    I'm loving the new high resolution display on my 1440x900 15" powerbook, it's so sexy and all the elements look that much more real. I love it! Soooo Crisp!
  • Reply 16 of 25
    Sorry, I got this post goofed up.
  • Reply 17 of 25
    wmfwmf Posts: 1,164member
    Once OS X becomes resolution-independent, the number of lines of text on the screen will be a function of the physical size, not the resolution. Thus switching to a smaller screen (23" -> 20") allows you to fit less text on the screen (but the text is sharper). I'd prefer the 23".
  • Reply 18 of 25
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NordicMan

    So with 10.5 Leopard, there likely will be new Apple displays?



  • Reply 19 of 25
    tubgirltubgirl Posts: 177member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by wmf

    Once OS X becomes resolution-independent, the number of lines of text on the screen will be a function of the physical size, not the resolution. Thus switching to a smaller screen (23" -> 20") allows you to fit less text on the screen (but the text is sharper). I'd prefer the 23".



    once os x becomes resolution-independent, i hope to be able to set ui size to my preference...
  • Reply 20 of 25
    hobbithobbit Posts: 532member
    I have played around with the resolution scaling in OS 10.4 as I sorely miss more pixels on my 12" PowerBook. (I love the size of my 12" PB (the 15" is too big for me) but I dislike the 1024x768 resolution).



    To my disappointment the resolution scaling is very buggy. I had hoped it would be much further along the development process.

    Not even Apple's own applications work as of yet. The Finder goofs up badly with font sizes. Mail's buttons become useless. Safari kinda works, but tabs tend to be drawn on top of the address bar making entering a new web address difficult. And web pages with Java content completely screw up.

    Interestingly Image Ready CS2 kind of works, but Photoshop doesn't at all. Microsoft Office is also not usable.



    In a nutshell, we're miles away from that feature unfortunately. And as far as I am aware there is no way of using vector graphic icons either (ideally resolution independent PDFs). OS X is still stuck in multi-resolution raster images making all icons and buttons blurry when viewed in anything but the native resolution. On that department Longhorn seems much more advanced.



    From all this my guess is that this feature will only be half-supported even in OSX 10.5 as Apple and developers need to do a lot of work to get this to a useful state. I presume it will not truly happen until OSX 10.5.5 or 10.6.



    I'm not holding my breath.
Sign In or Register to comment.