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.
Let's say that there is a shortage of high resolution displays (which there almost certainly will be at first). Would it make more sense for Apple to use the limited screens to produce $2-3,000 laptops or $499 iPads?
And if there's a shortage, it's going to be easier to produce 6 M laptops than 40 M iPads.
Plus, of course, there's the fact that the laptop has greater graphics capability and better batteries.
Everything suggests that this type of screen would first be used in the MacBook Pro and the iPad later (unless there's a major problem with the screen like color accuracy).
Quote:
Originally Posted by LovejoyOne
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.
Not a problem. By then, Ivy Bridge will be able to handle it even with onboard graphics. As long as you're not playing the latest action games, graphics won't be a problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LovejoyOne
3. The rumor sites are having a hard time coming up with rumors, so they're really clutching for straws.
That's certainly true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoolook
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.
First, you could always do pixel doubling. Let's say the resolution is 4,000 x 2400. If you double the pixels, you'd have a screen which would effectively be 2,000 x 1200. Or triple and get 1333 x 800. You wouldn't get the distortions that you normally see when running at reduced resolution.
First, you could always do pixel doubling. Let's say the resolution is 4,000 x 2400. If you double the pixels, you'd have a screen which would effectively be 2,000 x 1200. Or triple and get 1333 x 800. You wouldn't get the distortions that you normally see when running at reduced resolution.
Agreed, but those resolutions are often not available as choices in the game.
My 1680*1050 would be 840*525... I have never seen that offered in a Mac version of a game and I don't even know if that resolution is supported by the drivers nVidia/ATI supplies.
So even with a relatively powerful MacBook Pro, I have to run things like Dragon Age at 800*600, which looks awful, or suffer a stutter-fest at native resolution. Newer games suffer even more. With Mafia II, the drop to 1440*900 improves things immensely frame rate wise from native (it's only 75% of the pixels) but it looks pretty bad visually.
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.
I only smoke the highest quality weed, and I consider myself to be a true connoisseur of cannabis.
Of course when somebody goes to buy a new machine, they're going to want to get the most power that they can for the amount of money that they're spending, but that's not exactly what I meant.
For example, I'm currently typing on a 2007 MacBook (not even a pro), and it still performs just fine for everyday tasks like surfing the web, checking emails, watching netflix etc. I have more powerful desktop machines, but a new MacBookPro would have to be pretty damn enticing, if I were to consider getting a new one, as the one I have now is more than powerful enough for me, so a better CPU is not a good enough incentive. If for example, it were to come with some new feature, like a super Hi-Res display, then that would certainly get me excited and would make me want to get out my credit card.
Ludicrous is exactly the word I would use for a high-end laptop with a screen with a 5º acceptable viewing angle. Oh yes, the optical drive it shipped with wouldn't read multi-layer discs - that at least was fixed under warranty - but it still has the problem of the breathe on it and it ejects earphone socket with noisy output. Neither of those are fixable under warranty because they were basic design flaws.
Oh yes, there was the lack of a firewire socket fixed in the next model refresh
My previous Powerbook Ti had a much superior - dead silent headphone socket which wouldn't spit the plug out whenever it felt like it.
I really wish I had returned it as not-fit-for-purpose but the Powerbook GPU had decided to separate itself from the MB so I had little choice at the time other than to go Wintel.
Ludicrous is exactly the word I would use for a high-end laptop with a screen with a 5º acceptable viewing angle. Oh yes, the optical drive it shipped with wouldn't read multi-layer discs - that at least was fixed under warranty - but it still has the problem of the breathe on it and it ejects earphone socket with noisy output. Neither of those are fixable under warranty because they were basic design flaws.
Oh yes, there was the lack of a firewire socket fixed in the next model refresh
My previous Powerbook Ti had a much superior - dead silent headphone socket which wouldn't spit the plug out whenever it felt like it.
I really wish I had returned it as not-fit-for-purpose but the Powerbook GPU had decided to separate itself from the MB so I had little choice at the time other than to go Wintel.
Ludicrous is exactly the word I would use for a high-end laptop with a screen with a 5º acceptable viewing angle. Oh yes, the optical drive it shipped with wouldn't read multi-layer discs - that at least was fixed under warranty - but it still has the problem of the breathe on it and it ejects earphone socket with noisy output. Neither of those are fixable under warranty because they were basic design flaws.
Oh yes, there was the lack of a firewire socket fixed in the next model refresh
My previous Powerbook Ti had a much superior - dead silent headphone socket which wouldn't spit the plug out whenever it felt like it.
I really wish I had returned it as not-fit-for-purpose but the Powerbook GPU had decided to separate itself from the MB so I had little choice at the time other than to go Wintel.
I'm still of the belief that this is all an elaborate joke.
Because I can't even fathom how inhumanly? [SOMETHING]? you'd have to be to actually believe that what you're saying is the truth.
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.
Apple ][ had specified "for most people" and he's right. Most people are just doing email, browsing the web, writing an occasional paper, watching youtube or Netflix, etc. A computer from 5 years ago can handle all of that. From a processing power perspective, current systems would let them have more things open at once, do the multimedia things more smoothly etc. A new processor and gpu alone won't add too much more.
This does not take into account gamers or professional users or even pro-sumers. They will always want more and faster. The bar just keeps raising. The $800 Mac Mini runs World of Warcraft w/everything on High (one step below Ultra) on a 1680x1050 screen. That level of performance is rather easily achieved and for even cheaper in mid-tower PCs. So like Apple ][ was saying, if what you need to do is already acceptably good, what does the new model really bring to them?
If they want something more graphically or computationally intense to speed up their work, that new better display, higher RAM capacity, Thunderbolt ports etc, the update will be worth their while. If they are just looking to browse the web and play some Facebook games, they likely already have what they need in their current system.
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.
Amoled has far better contrast, response time, colour gamut, lower power consumption and vastly superior viewing angle than the POS Apple put in my 13" unibody/Pro. The pixel density of my Samsung phone with AMOLED screen is 283 ppi and I can view it from any angle within 180º The ppi of the 'top quality' screen in my unibody - 113
Please don't spout the anti-pentile nonsense, because perceptually, at normal viewing distances, they deliver the results.
If you are going to put a reflective screen in a laptop, at least give it a usable viewing angle.
There was a trinitron in my Mac Se was there? Now put away the ra-ra chants and the pom-poms and save them for the brainwashed.
Would you like me to take and post some comparative photos showing how rank the viewing angle of my glorious Apple screen is?
If Samsung introduce a laptop with good build quality and a super AMOLED screen, I think I will go Hackintosh...
Are you kidding? Super AMOLED? Talk about ugly! Man (woman), you've got absolutely no taste or sensibility. Super AMOLED has got to be about the worst picture quality since TFT. And even that's arguable.
Super AMOLED = awful color accuracy, blown out color, higher power consumption than LCD at high brightness levels (used for reading, typical web browsing, etc.), and reduced visibility in sunlight. Yes, there's also the pentile (non Plus) displays, which can look terrible.
Likely we will see Retina Display iMacs and displays not long after the MBPs are updated. Talk about obsoleting the past !
5120x2880 on a 27" TB display would be 217.57 PPI. That might be enough for a standard distance desktop monitor to be Retina. Not sure of that formula.
Hope this is true. I wonder if they will increase the capacity and bandwidth of the video memory as well to match the higher resolutions.
You'd have to run games at interlaced resolutions of course, but for everything else this would be awesome, assuming the graphics hardware (especially the integrated ones) could make it smooth.
Re: people worrying about tiny elements and lack of resolution independence, that's the point of going exactly 4x, the scaling is much simpler.
I'm still of the belief that this is all an elaborate joke.
Because I can't even fathom how inhumanly? [SOMETHING]? you'd have to be to actually believe that what you're saying is the truth.
No joke. Which of the faults I have mentioned do you believe I am making up or mis-representing? They are all well documented. Or is your lack of belief based in a misapprehension that Apple couldn't possibly ever sell lemons. Perhaps you think that my expectations shouldn't be so high for a device costing so much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro
Are you kidding? Super AMOLED? Talk about ugly! Man (woman), you've got absolutely no taste or sensibility. Super AMOLED has got to be about the worst picture quality since TFT. And even that's arguable.
Super AMOLED = awful color accuracy, blown out color, higher power consumption than LCD at high brightness levels (used for reading, typical web browsing, etc.), and reduced visibility in sunlight. Yes, there's also the pentile (non Plus) displays, which can look terrible.
Al right, I'll admit it, I do tend to shoot Velvia Pro.
The bit about poorer visibility in sunlight is wrong, as shown by multiple comparative videos on youtube and comparative review articles. The lack of colour accuracy is pertinent for phone implementations, but given a laptop screen where, contrast, colour balance and saturation would be controllable, it wouldn't hold. The colour gamut of AMOLED is far superior to the TN LCD in my Macbook Pro, the clour accuracy of which is poor.
I think the poster indicating that AMOLED is amazing is absolutely correct. AMOLED is a vastly superior technology.:roll eyes: After all, when the display if life-critical AMOLED is considered the standard. Oh, wait. For diagnostic purposes in medical imaging we use > $10,000 USD 4 MP+ TFT AM Color LCD Dual Domain IPS-Pro monitors.
Comments
Just some thoughts.
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.
Let's say that there is a shortage of high resolution displays (which there almost certainly will be at first). Would it make more sense for Apple to use the limited screens to produce $2-3,000 laptops or $499 iPads?
And if there's a shortage, it's going to be easier to produce 6 M laptops than 40 M iPads.
Plus, of course, there's the fact that the laptop has greater graphics capability and better batteries.
Everything suggests that this type of screen would first be used in the MacBook Pro and the iPad later (unless there's a major problem with the screen like color accuracy).
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.
Not a problem. By then, Ivy Bridge will be able to handle it even with onboard graphics. As long as you're not playing the latest action games, graphics won't be a problem.
3. The rumor sites are having a hard time coming up with rumors, so they're really clutching for straws.
That's certainly true.
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.
First, you could always do pixel doubling. Let's say the resolution is 4,000 x 2400. If you double the pixels, you'd have a screen which would effectively be 2,000 x 1200. Or triple and get 1333 x 800. You wouldn't get the distortions that you normally see when running at reduced resolution.
I'll quote my earlier post:
I was noting the iPad in my post. 2048x1536 4:3 9.7" display is 264ppi.
First, you could always do pixel doubling. Let's say the resolution is 4,000 x 2400. If you double the pixels, you'd have a screen which would effectively be 2,000 x 1200. Or triple and get 1333 x 800. You wouldn't get the distortions that you normally see when running at reduced resolution.
Agreed, but those resolutions are often not available as choices in the game.
My 1680*1050 would be 840*525... I have never seen that offered in a Mac version of a game and I don't even know if that resolution is supported by the drivers nVidia/ATI supplies.
So even with a relatively powerful MacBook Pro, I have to run things like Dragon Age at 800*600, which looks awful, or suffer a stutter-fest at native resolution. Newer games suffer even more. With Mafia II, the drop to 1440*900 improves things immensely frame rate wise from native (it's only 75% of the pixels) but it looks pretty bad visually.
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.
I only smoke the highest quality weed, and I consider myself to be a true connoisseur of cannabis.
Of course when somebody goes to buy a new machine, they're going to want to get the most power that they can for the amount of money that they're spending, but that's not exactly what I meant.
For example, I'm currently typing on a 2007 MacBook (not even a pro), and it still performs just fine for everyday tasks like surfing the web, checking emails, watching netflix etc. I have more powerful desktop machines, but a new MacBookPro would have to be pretty damn enticing, if I were to consider getting a new one, as the one I have now is more than powerful enough for me, so a better CPU is not a good enough incentive. If for example, it were to come with some new feature, like a super Hi-Res display, then that would certainly get me excited and would make me want to get out my credit card.
Ludicrous.
Ludicrous is exactly the word I would use for a high-end laptop with a screen with a 5º acceptable viewing angle. Oh yes, the optical drive it shipped with wouldn't read multi-layer discs - that at least was fixed under warranty - but it still has the problem of the breathe on it and it ejects earphone socket with noisy output. Neither of those are fixable under warranty because they were basic design flaws.
Oh yes, there was the lack of a firewire socket fixed in the next model refresh
My previous Powerbook Ti had a much superior - dead silent headphone socket which wouldn't spit the plug out whenever it felt like it.
I really wish I had returned it as not-fit-for-purpose but the Powerbook GPU had decided to separate itself from the MB so I had little choice at the time other than to go Wintel.
I was noting the iPad in my post. 2048x1536 4:3 9.7" display is 264ppi.
One of those mornings, ignore me
Ludicrous is exactly the word I would use for a high-end laptop with a screen with a 5º acceptable viewing angle. Oh yes, the optical drive it shipped with wouldn't read multi-layer discs - that at least was fixed under warranty - but it still has the problem of the breathe on it and it ejects earphone socket with noisy output. Neither of those are fixable under warranty because they were basic design flaws.
Oh yes, there was the lack of a firewire socket fixed in the next model refresh
My previous Powerbook Ti had a much superior - dead silent headphone socket which wouldn't spit the plug out whenever it felt like it.
I really wish I had returned it as not-fit-for-purpose but the Powerbook GPU had decided to separate itself from the MB so I had little choice at the time other than to go Wintel.
You're moved from ludicrous to asinine.
Why doesn't Apple bring a 19 or 20" MacBook Pro? That would the ultimate desktop replacement.
I just use an Apple LCD Cinema Display along with my MBP i7 when at my desk, no sacrifice portability when you have it all with the second screen.
Ludicrous is exactly the word I would use for a high-end laptop with a screen with a 5º acceptable viewing angle. Oh yes, the optical drive it shipped with wouldn't read multi-layer discs - that at least was fixed under warranty - but it still has the problem of the breathe on it and it ejects earphone socket with noisy output. Neither of those are fixable under warranty because they were basic design flaws.
Oh yes, there was the lack of a firewire socket fixed in the next model refresh
My previous Powerbook Ti had a much superior - dead silent headphone socket which wouldn't spit the plug out whenever it felt like it.
I really wish I had returned it as not-fit-for-purpose but the Powerbook GPU had decided to separate itself from the MB so I had little choice at the time other than to go Wintel.
I'm still of the belief that this is all an elaborate joke.
Because I can't even fathom how inhumanly? [SOMETHING]? you'd have to be to actually believe that what you're saying is the truth.
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.
Apple ][ had specified "for most people" and he's right. Most people are just doing email, browsing the web, writing an occasional paper, watching youtube or Netflix, etc. A computer from 5 years ago can handle all of that. From a processing power perspective, current systems would let them have more things open at once, do the multimedia things more smoothly etc. A new processor and gpu alone won't add too much more.
This does not take into account gamers or professional users or even pro-sumers. They will always want more and faster. The bar just keeps raising. The $800 Mac Mini runs World of Warcraft w/everything on High (one step below Ultra) on a 1680x1050 screen. That level of performance is rather easily achieved and for even cheaper in mid-tower PCs. So like Apple ][ was saying, if what you need to do is already acceptably good, what does the new model really bring to them?
If they want something more graphically or computationally intense to speed up their work, that new better display, higher RAM capacity, Thunderbolt ports etc, the update will be worth their while. If they are just looking to browse the web and play some Facebook games, they likely already have what they need in their current system.
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.
Amoled has far better contrast, response time, colour gamut, lower power consumption and vastly superior viewing angle than the POS Apple put in my 13" unibody/Pro. The pixel density of my Samsung phone with AMOLED screen is 283 ppi and I can view it from any angle within 180º The ppi of the 'top quality' screen in my unibody - 113
Please don't spout the anti-pentile nonsense, because perceptually, at normal viewing distances, they deliver the results.
If you are going to put a reflective screen in a laptop, at least give it a usable viewing angle.
There was a trinitron in my Mac Se was there? Now put away the ra-ra chants and the pom-poms and save them for the brainwashed.
Would you like me to take and post some comparative photos showing how rank the viewing angle of my glorious Apple screen is?
You need to learn to note that you're being sarcastic or we'll think you really are that daft.
If Samsung introduce a laptop with good build quality and a super AMOLED screen, I think I will go Hackintosh...
Are you kidding? Super AMOLED? Talk about ugly! Man (woman), you've got absolutely no taste or sensibility. Super AMOLED has got to be about the worst picture quality since TFT. And even that's arguable.
Super AMOLED = awful color accuracy, blown out color, higher power consumption than LCD at high brightness levels (used for reading, typical web browsing, etc.), and reduced visibility in sunlight. Yes, there's also the pentile (non Plus) displays, which can look terrible.
Likely we will see Retina Display iMacs and displays not long after the MBPs are updated. Talk about obsoleting the past !
5120x2880 on a 27" TB display would be 217.57 PPI. That might be enough for a standard distance desktop monitor to be Retina. Not sure of that formula.
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!)
You need to understand that Apple makes both the software and the hardware, so they are optimized for each other.
Resolution independence sounds grand, but Apple knows every size of monitor it makes, and OSX is optimized for them.
Only if you want to jerry rig some sort of off-resolution POS to a Mac does resolution independence become important. That is a Windows thing.
Apple designs its software for Apple hardware. That is why it all just works. Perfectly. Every time.
You'd have to run games at interlaced resolutions of course, but for everything else this would be awesome, assuming the graphics hardware (especially the integrated ones) could make it smooth.
Re: people worrying about tiny elements and lack of resolution independence, that's the point of going exactly 4x, the scaling is much simpler.
I'm still of the belief that this is all an elaborate joke.
Because I can't even fathom how inhumanly? [SOMETHING]? you'd have to be to actually believe that what you're saying is the truth.
No joke. Which of the faults I have mentioned do you believe I am making up or mis-representing? They are all well documented. Or is your lack of belief based in a misapprehension that Apple couldn't possibly ever sell lemons. Perhaps you think that my expectations shouldn't be so high for a device costing so much.
Are you kidding? Super AMOLED? Talk about ugly! Man (woman), you've got absolutely no taste or sensibility. Super AMOLED has got to be about the worst picture quality since TFT. And even that's arguable.
Super AMOLED = awful color accuracy, blown out color, higher power consumption than LCD at high brightness levels (used for reading, typical web browsing, etc.), and reduced visibility in sunlight. Yes, there's also the pentile (non Plus) displays, which can look terrible.
Al right, I'll admit it, I do tend to shoot Velvia Pro.
The bit about poorer visibility in sunlight is wrong, as shown by multiple comparative videos on youtube and comparative review articles. The lack of colour accuracy is pertinent for phone implementations, but given a laptop screen where, contrast, colour balance and saturation would be controllable, it wouldn't hold. The colour gamut of AMOLED is far superior to the TN LCD in my Macbook Pro, the clour accuracy of which is poor.