1. There was supposedly not enough capacity to produce retina displays for iPad 2, so where will all these millions of big panels be coming from? Who will make them? Surely Apple will use as much capacity as they can muster to supply the iPad3 first.
2. I don't believe current graphic cards can handle that much resolution efficiently (maybe I'm wrong). Ones that could would surely be expensive and drain lots of power, along with the power drain the extra pixels would draw.
3. The rumor sites are having a hard time coming up with rumors, so they're really clutching for straws.
Maybe I'm wrong about all that. I hope so, since I too would love to own such as beast.
While I'd appreciate a higher resolution on my current 13" MBP (1280x800 leaves a lot to be desired), I don't understand the logic in a retina display on such a monitor. With the iphone and ipad, we are likely much closer in viewing distance. 2560x1600 is the res of my 30" monitor at home. At a proper seated/working distance the pitch is fine and it's plenty clear. If you were to pack all of that into a 13" display, I'd go bonkers trying to utilize it and I doubt it would yield an increase in clarity I would appreciate.
a 17" MacBook Pro with 3840x2400 (or even better 4096x2400) display
dual Thunderbolt
quad-core Ivy Bridge with Intel's HD 4000 + a nice top-of-the-line nVidia discrete GPU
512GB SSD, 16GB RAM
No optical drive (in lieu of bigger battery)...give me a real 8 hours
3 USB 2.0 ports
4 pounds
$2999
I will pre-order that today, and I'll take an updated 11" Air with Ivy Bridge, 8MB RAM and a 512GB SSD on the side to replace my current Air for travel time.
It's nice to have a camera with 8MP (and some have 23MP or higher). It's even nicer to be able to edit those high-res pictures or even (gasp!) RED video on a laptop with no scaling.
I think you're overly optimistic on several items - particularly the weight and price. That display probably wouldn't be cheap - and I don't expect SSD to drop all that much in price before next summer.
And wouldn't you like a little more RAM in your MacBook Air?
3. The rumor sites are having a hard time coming up with rumors, so they're really clutching for straws.
Yeah, the HDTV nonsense has run its course, so they're on to the next big thing.
Why aren't they just going back to their old standbys, I wonder? Those iPhone nano rumors aren't going to disseminate themselves! That's only because they're also crap, but you have to start somewhere.
Not that I don't believe this will happen, of course. This has been half a decade coming. The timeframe now just doesn't seem right, particularly with no indications from the panel manufacturers themselves that they're even trying to make higher-resolution displays.
Impossible to use even higher res on a 17" screen! Maybe time to do something with a vector based – resolution independent –interface? (PLEASE!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilM
After flirting with the implementation of resolution independence several years ago, Apple allowed this ability to decouple the size of displayed items from the underlying pixel density to languish mostly unused in OS X. But as pointed out above by Srice, iOS takes this in its stride (at least for predefined display density multiples).
If Apple is to introduce very high density displays then it will have to get real with Mac resolution independence support. Frankly that would be welcome even for those of us not using high density displays.
You guys must have forgotten HiDPI in Lion , Apple is no longer going resolution independence but rather 2x modes just like the iOS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bullhead
i can't help but to think battery life is going to suffer big time from an upgrade like this. I hope i am wrong....
How did the battery life go from iPad 1 to iPad 2? You can use that as guideline I guess. EDIT: I meant iPhone 3GS to iPhone 4, but yes, the bigger the screen the more likely it's going to impact battery life.
I have been waiting for decades now for screens to catch up to printed text quality. iPhone screen is such a tantalizing and taunting experience. Once you use it, you want all your screens to be this good.
They're going to have to, if they want the MBP's to remain relevant as iPads and other iOS devices go retina.
You're assuming the retina display iPad will be a commodity item priced like the current models and not higher end product/true laptop replacement/overpriced status symbol.
They're going to have to, if they want the MBP's to remain relevant as iPads and other iOS devices go retina.
Who says that the iPad is ever going to go Retina.
The point of the whole RD thing on the iPhone was to have super sharp visuals to offset the tiny screen that would cause folks to zoom in to text etc. THe iPad doesn't have that issue and neither do the computers.
Oh and I'm fairly sure that that graphic is a bit off and isn't showing what the caption claims at all.
Not to mention that there's not wide scale 1080p video out on the market, Apple isn't rumored to be adding Blu-ray to their machines and there's pretty much no 4000p video to support. So this rumor is total nonsensical.
While I'd appreciate a higher resolution on my current 13" MBP (1280x800 leaves a lot to be desired), I don't understand the logic in a retina display on such a monitor. With the iphone and ipad, we are likely much closer in viewing distance. 2560x1600 is the res of my 30" monitor at home. At a proper seated/working distance the pitch is fine and it's plenty clear. If you were to pack all of that into a 13" display, I'd go bonkers trying to utilize it and I doubt it would yield an increase in clarity I would appreciate.
Whether it's next year or not, it's going to happen. Apple has tried to offer true vector display resolution since at least Tiger or Leopard ? they even listed it as a feature of the upcoming OS early on before removing it ? but that didn't pan out. Now they are going with resolution doubling so they can represent each pixel by 4 like on the iPhone 3GS to iPhone 4.
That much I'm sure we all know? but did you know that Lion has HiDPI display modes included in the OS so it shouldn't be completely unexpected that Apple is planning on upgrading the Mac display HW within Lion's lifetime. OF course, this still could be in the early stages within the OS or there could be HW issues like production yields, cost, graphic performance, power usage, et al. that could continue to push it back. Personally I'm betting on this rumour being true.
Who says that the iPad is ever going to go Retina.
The point of the whole RD thing on the iPhone was to have super sharp visuals to offset the tiny screen that would cause folks to zoom in to text etc. THe iPad doesn't have that issue and neither do the computers.
Sure it does. The iPad doesn't have nearly the text crispness as the iPhone 4/4S. This display will get double the resolution so it will be 264ppi and be Retina Display quality from a standard usable position.
We shall see. Times are a changing. Back in the old days, people would buy new laptops because CPU's were generally weak and people were always looking for more power, so a new model that was a little more powerful was a good enough incentive for people to ditch their two year old Powerbook and get a new one, because people were desperately needing more power. I know that I was back then.
Today, for the average person, processor power has reached a point were it's not really necessary to keep upgrading as often, as the power is already adequate for most tasks. For most people, the power of the lowest Macbook AIr is good enough for them, for people just looking to do everyday tasks.
CPU power is not a selling point for me anymore. I need some new exciting feature that is going to make me lust after a new Macbook Pro.
Maybe time to do something with a vector based – resolution independent –interface? (PLEASE!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilM
After flirting with the implementation of resolution independence several years ago, Apple allowed this ability to decouple the size of displayed items from the underlying pixel density to languish mostly unused in OS X. But as pointed out above by Srice, iOS takes this in its stride (at least for predefined display density multiples).
For how many years has Apple said "Resolution Independence is coming"? They had rudimentary support for this all the way back in Tiger, if I remember correctly. What's happened since then? We've gone backwards. Leopard was close, but Snow Leopard actually regressed. Scroll down to the Resolution Independence section and you'll see what I mean.
Arbitrary scalability is gone in Lion (HiDPi only supports 2x and 4x resolutions), but the mechanism to change this is still buried in the Developer Tools. This probably means it's not finished, but compared to some of the other technical issues they've solved, this one is EASY.
One big downside of this will be games running at 2fps... or having to run them at a non-native resolution which will mean blurry graphics. With these uber-high resolution displays, the trick is to be able to run at a high resolution for desktop work, but drop down to a much lower resolution for gaming without losing image quality compared to a native display at that resolution.
Even on 1680*1050, the laptop GPUs struggle with older games.
I wish they would sort out some more serious issues before introducing new ones. The viewing angle on my Macbook Pro is atrocious for a supposedly hi-end laptop. With the horribly reflective screen, tilting it to where the reflections are not blinding, means the screen still looks awful because of the now less than optimum angle.
If Samsung introduce a laptop with good build quality and a super AMOLED screen, I think I will go Hackintosh as I am not happy with the low quality/high price Apple delivers.
Hilarious!
You start off writing as if you want us to believe you know something about screen quality then you recommend an AMOLED screen instead? Very funny.
Apple usually has the best quality screens in the business and always has had over almost the entire life of the company. Even back in CRT days, Apple was using Trinitrons when everyone else was using 1024x768 "whatever" monitors.
There are a few times when you can get a better one here or there for less money and most of the time you can get a better screen by spending a heck of a lot *more* money, but overall (and over time), Apple usually has the brightest, sharpest screens with the best colour reproduction and the fewest defects.
To argue otherwise is to be ignorant of the entire history of Apple and what their main priorities are.
Who says that the iPad is ever going to go Retina.
A bunch of rumors so far, like always with Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
Not to mention that there's not wide scale 1080p video out on the market, Apple isn't rumored to be adding Blu-ray to their machines and there's pretty much no 4000p video to support. So this rumor is total nonsensical.
Except in the land of the Pro video customer. Would really be something for the professional video market, cuz who has a laptop even close to supporting 4k resolution? Using the resolutions from the article, the 17" MBP is very close to the 4k resolutions listed below in nearly all versions.
Full Aperture 4K \t4096 × 3112 \t1.32:1 \t12,746,752
Academy 4K \t 3656 × 2664 \t1.37:1 \t9,739,584
Digital cinema 4K \t4096 × 1714 \t2.39:1 \t7,020,544
Digital cinema 4K \t3996 × 2160 \t1.85:1 \t8,631,360
Post-production digital working resolutions
Standard \tResolution \tDAR \tPAR \tPixels
Full Aperture 4K \t4096 × 3112 \t4:3 \t1:1 \t12,746,752
Academy 4K \t3656 × 2664 \t1.37:1 \t1:1 \t9,739,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
This display will get double the resolution so it will be 264ppi and be Retina Display quality from a standard usable position.
I'll quote my earlier post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel
Just to show the math here, the highest density will be on the 17" screen w/the proposed resolutions. This is assuming the screen sizes remain exactly as they are currently.
13.3" 2560x1600 226.98
15.4" 2880x1800 220.53
17" 3840x2400 266.37
EDIT: If they cut off the fractional inches and go with 13 and 15" screens, here is the difference in PPI:
I think you're overly optimistic on several items - particularly the weight and price. That display probably wouldn't be cheap - and I don't expect SSD to drop all that much in price before next summer.
And wouldn't you like a little more RAM in your MacBook Air?
Yeah, I guess 8MB would be a little be tight for running VMWare...
It's definitely an optimistic configuration. Honestly, I'd even go to $3999 or $4499 for such a machine.
I'm finding that, with the exception of being memory constrained, my 11" 1.8GHz Core i7 Air (which turbos to 2.9GHz) with a 256GB SSD is actually faster than my mid-2010 15" MacBook Pro with a 2.53GHz Core i5. Both have 2 cores and 4 threads. If Apple offered a MacBook Pro with 4 cores and 8 threads, plus a Retina display, plus SSD, I would have a smile from ear to ear while placing my order. For video editing and software development, you never have enough display space, power or portability.
We shall see. Times are a changing. Back in the old days, people would buy new laptops because CPU's were generally weak and people were always looking for more power, so a new model that was a little more powerful was a good enough incentive for people to ditch their two year old Powerbook and get a new one, because people were desperately needing more power. I know that I was back then.
Today, for the average person, processor power has reached a point were it's not really necessary to keep upgrading as often, as the power is already adequate for most tasks. For most people, the power of the lowest Macbook AIr is good enough for them, for people just looking to do everyday tasks.
CPU power is not a selling point for me anymore. I need some new exciting feature that is going to make me lust after a new Macbook Pro.
What you smokin'?
Of course processor power is still an incentive to buy a new machine. Upgrading from a 2.0GHz i7 to a 2.2GHz is, of course, pointless as you so rightly stated. But saying it is not an incentive at all is just untrue. If I buy a new computer several years later, I'll want it to have a more powerful CPU and one that is of good value when compared to the competition.
Comments
1. There was supposedly not enough capacity to produce retina displays for iPad 2, so where will all these millions of big panels be coming from? Who will make them? Surely Apple will use as much capacity as they can muster to supply the iPad3 first.
2. I don't believe current graphic cards can handle that much resolution efficiently (maybe I'm wrong). Ones that could would surely be expensive and drain lots of power, along with the power drain the extra pixels would draw.
3. The rumor sites are having a hard time coming up with rumors, so they're really clutching for straws.
Maybe I'm wrong about all that. I hope so, since I too would love to own such as beast.
...actually sounds like July 4th, but...
a 17" MacBook Pro with 3840x2400 (or even better 4096x2400) display
dual Thunderbolt
quad-core Ivy Bridge with Intel's HD 4000 + a nice top-of-the-line nVidia discrete GPU
512GB SSD, 16GB RAM
No optical drive (in lieu of bigger battery)...give me a real 8 hours
3 USB 2.0 ports
4 pounds
$2999
I will pre-order that today, and I'll take an updated 11" Air with Ivy Bridge, 8MB RAM and a 512GB SSD on the side to replace my current Air for travel time.
It's nice to have a camera with 8MP (and some have 23MP or higher). It's even nicer to be able to edit those high-res pictures or even (gasp!) RED video on a laptop with no scaling.
I think you're overly optimistic on several items - particularly the weight and price. That display probably wouldn't be cheap - and I don't expect SSD to drop all that much in price before next summer.
And wouldn't you like a little more RAM in your MacBook Air?
3. The rumor sites are having a hard time coming up with rumors, so they're really clutching for straws.
Yeah, the HDTV nonsense has run its course, so they're on to the next big thing.
Why aren't they just going back to their old standbys, I wonder? Those iPhone nano rumors aren't going to disseminate themselves! That's only because they're also crap, but you have to start somewhere.
Not that I don't believe this will happen, of course. This has been half a decade coming. The timeframe now just doesn't seem right, particularly with no indications from the panel manufacturers themselves that they're even trying to make higher-resolution displays.
So true (for me at last!)
Impossible to use even higher res on a 17" screen! Maybe time to do something with a vector based – resolution independent –interface? (PLEASE!)
After flirting with the implementation of resolution independence several years ago, Apple allowed this ability to decouple the size of displayed items from the underlying pixel density to languish mostly unused in OS X. But as pointed out above by Srice, iOS takes this in its stride (at least for predefined display density multiples).
If Apple is to introduce very high density displays then it will have to get real with Mac resolution independence support. Frankly that would be welcome even for those of us not using high density displays.
You guys must have forgotten HiDPI in Lion
i can't help but to think battery life is going to suffer big time from an upgrade like this. I hope i am wrong....
How did the battery life go from iPad 1 to iPad 2? You can use that as guideline I guess. EDIT: I meant iPhone 3GS to iPhone 4, but yes, the bigger the screen the more likely it's going to impact battery life.
How did the battery life go from iPad 1 to iPad 2? You can use that as guideline I guess.
I disagree here. There was no 4X increase in pixels between the iPad 1 and iPad 2.
They're going to have to, if they want the MBP's to remain relevant as iPads and other iOS devices go retina.
You're assuming the retina display iPad will be a commodity item priced like the current models and not higher end product/true laptop replacement/overpriced status symbol.
They're going to have to, if they want the MBP's to remain relevant as iPads and other iOS devices go retina.
Who says that the iPad is ever going to go Retina.
The point of the whole RD thing on the iPhone was to have super sharp visuals to offset the tiny screen that would cause folks to zoom in to text etc. THe iPad doesn't have that issue and neither do the computers.
Oh and I'm fairly sure that that graphic is a bit off and isn't showing what the caption claims at all.
Not to mention that there's not wide scale 1080p video out on the market, Apple isn't rumored to be adding Blu-ray to their machines and there's pretty much no 4000p video to support. So this rumor is total nonsensical.
While I'd appreciate a higher resolution on my current 13" MBP (1280x800 leaves a lot to be desired), I don't understand the logic in a retina display on such a monitor. With the iphone and ipad, we are likely much closer in viewing distance. 2560x1600 is the res of my 30" monitor at home. At a proper seated/working distance the pitch is fine and it's plenty clear. If you were to pack all of that into a 13" display, I'd go bonkers trying to utilize it and I doubt it would yield an increase in clarity I would appreciate.
Whether it's next year or not, it's going to happen. Apple has tried to offer true vector display resolution since at least Tiger or Leopard ? they even listed it as a feature of the upcoming OS early on before removing it ? but that didn't pan out. Now they are going with resolution doubling so they can represent each pixel by 4 like on the iPhone 3GS to iPhone 4.
That much I'm sure we all know? but did you know that Lion has HiDPI display modes included in the OS so it shouldn't be completely unexpected that Apple is planning on upgrading the Mac display HW within Lion's lifetime. OF course, this still could be in the early stages within the OS or there could be HW issues like production yields, cost, graphic performance, power usage, et al. that could continue to push it back. Personally I'm betting on this rumour being true.
Who says that the iPad is ever going to go Retina.
The point of the whole RD thing on the iPhone was to have super sharp visuals to offset the tiny screen that would cause folks to zoom in to text etc. THe iPad doesn't have that issue and neither do the computers.
Sure it does. The iPad doesn't have nearly the text crispness as the iPhone 4/4S. This display will get double the resolution so it will be 264ppi and be Retina Display quality from a standard usable position.
Abject nonsense.
We shall see. Times are a changing. Back in the old days, people would buy new laptops because CPU's were generally weak and people were always looking for more power, so a new model that was a little more powerful was a good enough incentive for people to ditch their two year old Powerbook and get a new one, because people were desperately needing more power. I know that I was back then.
Today, for the average person, processor power has reached a point were it's not really necessary to keep upgrading as often, as the power is already adequate for most tasks. For most people, the power of the lowest Macbook AIr is good enough for them, for people just looking to do everyday tasks.
CPU power is not a selling point for me anymore. I need some new exciting feature that is going to make me lust after a new Macbook Pro.
Maybe time to do something with a vector based – resolution independent –interface? (PLEASE!)
After flirting with the implementation of resolution independence several years ago, Apple allowed this ability to decouple the size of displayed items from the underlying pixel density to languish mostly unused in OS X. But as pointed out above by Srice, iOS takes this in its stride (at least for predefined display density multiples).
For how many years has Apple said "Resolution Independence is coming"? They had rudimentary support for this all the way back in Tiger, if I remember correctly. What's happened since then? We've gone backwards. Leopard was close, but Snow Leopard actually regressed. Scroll down to the Resolution Independence section and you'll see what I mean.
Arbitrary scalability is gone in Lion (HiDPi only supports 2x and 4x resolutions), but the mechanism to change this is still buried in the Developer Tools. This probably means it's not finished, but compared to some of the other technical issues they've solved, this one is EASY.
It's just depressing...
Even on 1680*1050, the laptop GPUs struggle with older games.
I wish they would sort out some more serious issues before introducing new ones. The viewing angle on my Macbook Pro is atrocious for a supposedly hi-end laptop. With the horribly reflective screen, tilting it to where the reflections are not blinding, means the screen still looks awful because of the now less than optimum angle.
If Samsung introduce a laptop with good build quality and a super AMOLED screen, I think I will go Hackintosh as I am not happy with the low quality/high price Apple delivers.
Hilarious!
You start off writing as if you want us to believe you know something about screen quality then you recommend an AMOLED screen instead? Very funny.
Apple usually has the best quality screens in the business and always has had over almost the entire life of the company. Even back in CRT days, Apple was using Trinitrons when everyone else was using 1024x768 "whatever" monitors.
There are a few times when you can get a better one here or there for less money and most of the time you can get a better screen by spending a heck of a lot *more* money, but overall (and over time), Apple usually has the brightest, sharpest screens with the best colour reproduction and the fewest defects.
To argue otherwise is to be ignorant of the entire history of Apple and what their main priorities are.
Who says that the iPad is ever going to go Retina.
A bunch of rumors so far, like always with Apple.
Not to mention that there's not wide scale 1080p video out on the market, Apple isn't rumored to be adding Blu-ray to their machines and there's pretty much no 4000p video to support. So this rumor is total nonsensical.
Except in the land of the Pro video customer. Would really be something for the professional video market, cuz who has a laptop even close to supporting 4k resolution? Using the resolutions from the article, the 17" MBP is very close to the 4k resolutions listed below in nearly all versions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution
Digital film standards[1]
Standard \tResolution \tDAR \tPAR \tPixels
Full Aperture 4K \t4096 × 3112 \t1.32:1 \t12,746,752
Academy 4K \t 3656 × 2664 \t1.37:1 \t9,739,584
Digital cinema 4K \t4096 × 1714 \t2.39:1 \t7,020,544
Digital cinema 4K \t3996 × 2160 \t1.85:1 \t8,631,360
Post-production digital working resolutions
Standard \tResolution \tDAR \tPAR \tPixels
Full Aperture 4K \t4096 × 3112 \t4:3 \t1:1 \t12,746,752
Academy 4K \t3656 × 2664 \t1.37:1 \t1:1 \t9,739,584
This display will get double the resolution so it will be 264ppi and be Retina Display quality from a standard usable position.
I'll quote my earlier post:
Just to show the math here, the highest density will be on the 17" screen w/the proposed resolutions. This is assuming the screen sizes remain exactly as they are currently.
13.3" 2560x1600 226.98
15.4" 2880x1800 220.53
17" 3840x2400 266.37
EDIT: If they cut off the fractional inches and go with 13 and 15" screens, here is the difference in PPI:
13" 2560x1600 232.22
15" 2880x1800 226.42
I think you're overly optimistic on several items - particularly the weight and price. That display probably wouldn't be cheap - and I don't expect SSD to drop all that much in price before next summer.
And wouldn't you like a little more RAM in your MacBook Air?
Yeah, I guess 8MB would be a little be tight for running VMWare...
It's definitely an optimistic configuration. Honestly, I'd even go to $3999 or $4499 for such a machine.
I'm finding that, with the exception of being memory constrained, my 11" 1.8GHz Core i7 Air (which turbos to 2.9GHz) with a 256GB SSD is actually faster than my mid-2010 15" MacBook Pro with a 2.53GHz Core i5. Both have 2 cores and 4 threads. If Apple offered a MacBook Pro with 4 cores and 8 threads, plus a Retina display, plus SSD, I would have a smile from ear to ear while placing my order. For video editing and software development, you never have enough display space, power or portability.
We shall see. Times are a changing. Back in the old days, people would buy new laptops because CPU's were generally weak and people were always looking for more power, so a new model that was a little more powerful was a good enough incentive for people to ditch their two year old Powerbook and get a new one, because people were desperately needing more power. I know that I was back then.
Today, for the average person, processor power has reached a point were it's not really necessary to keep upgrading as often, as the power is already adequate for most tasks. For most people, the power of the lowest Macbook AIr is good enough for them, for people just looking to do everyday tasks.
CPU power is not a selling point for me anymore. I need some new exciting feature that is going to make me lust after a new Macbook Pro.
What you smokin'?
Of course processor power is still an incentive to buy a new machine. Upgrading from a 2.0GHz i7 to a 2.2GHz is, of course, pointless as you so rightly stated. But saying it is not an incentive at all is just untrue. If I buy a new computer several years later, I'll want it to have a more powerful CPU and one that is of good value when compared to the competition.