Yes, I would really like a desktop Retina display! I certainly don't have a need for a 27" monitor but if they made a 20" monitor I would be fine with that. The only problem with having it on a separate monitor is that Apple still doesn't have a decent monitor less computer to go with it. The dated MacPro and underpowered Mini are not all that enticing to me.
Will it be some 300+ dpi level upgrade. Probably not since Apple is focusing their definition on the effect, not the dpi. With these screens something like 250 dpi might fit their math.
For the 27" display 168 PPI is more than enough to be considered Retina.
I don't get your "focusing" comment. The only way the definition has ever worked is when you consider both PPI and the distance. You can't define it by a single metric.
edit: The equation is: 3438 * (1/n) = where n can be the PPI which will figure out the minimum distance it was to be from your eyes to be Retina or n can be inches which will tell you the minimum PPI that will be needed. Equation based on 20/20 (6/6) vision.
For the 27" iMac that represents elements at 84 PPI (1920x1200) but is actually 168 PPI (3840x2400) one would have to sit closer than (3438 * 1/168 20.5" for it to not be Retina quality. If a viewing distance of 28" is typical for a 27" display then that is well within the range.
No one has announced they are or announced components for such a thing
But Apple being Apple, it is not impossible for them to have bought up all the pieces for such an item for the next five years under a contract of total secrecy, any leaks resulting in massive fines etc.
And who knows how they will roll this out. Perhaps this year the retina display will only be in the top of the line custom ordered models. So basically an option for the 27 inch highest model, the 15 inch and 17 inch high end models. Then the cinema displays (which will incle inputs to use with your Apple TV box), then roll down into the rest of the lineup over the next year or two.
I'm as dubious about the GPU capabilities required to drive this as much as I am the screen. Apple don't have a track record of putting the latest and greatest GPU's in any of it's hardware, and supporting resolutions that high would need them to.
The graphics probably can't handle it on either the desktops or laptops… and the laptops will destroy their battery life!
We're JUST getting rid of the optical drive right now to make room for a bigger battery. Do we REALLY want super high-res displays to get rid of the benefits of that new battery?!
HASWELL. I just remembered. Haswell's supposed to give us 24 hours of battery life. What if instead we get 12 hours of battery life and HiDPI displays with Haswell?!
I'm liking that. It gives display manufacturers the time to actually MAKE these displays and it gives Apple time to get situated with their ODD-free computers with bigger batteries.
Given that I haven't used mine in ages, I have no issue with that.
Now if Apple would overhaul the quality in the iTunes store a bit and get those Extras working on the Apple TV, that's what I want to see more than keeping ODDs in the hardware
The article didn't state the resolution would be exactly double to what it is now, and I don't think it will. In fact there was an article linked to from Macrumors earlier about the possibility of a retina display iMac and suggested:
Apple could build a 3840 by 2400 pixel 27-inch screen that presented itself as a pixel doubled 1920 by 1200 pixel display. That’s effectively an 84ppi screen @1X and 168ppi screen @2X.
Makes a lot of sense to me!
you loosing workspace - basically going back to a 24 inch screen.
compared to what. Previous iPads or computers. the 3rd Gen iPad has way better graphics than the previous two. Smoother etc, particularly when the developers actually take the time to do a good job coding their apps.
compared to a computer, of course the iPad sucks. It's not a computer. It doesn't have close to a computers RAM, processor, GPU etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
For the 27" display 168 PPI is more than enough to be considered Retina.
I don't get your "focusing" comment. The only way the definition has ever worked is when you consider both PPI and the distance. You can't define it by a single metric.
Allow me to restate my comment which I thought was pretty clear. The blogs etc got a hard on with the notion that Retina Display = 300+ DPI as THE definition. Apple on the other hand seems to be focusing on defining Retina Display by the visual result, i.e. the clear text, crisper images, better color and not some arbitrary number. If they can achieve that effect with a 100 dpi screen then it is Retina in their book. Apple's focus is the effect, not the specs. Same as with pretty much everything they do
Makes sense to me too, there are 3840 x 2400 panels already in existence. I would run it in 1920x1200@2X because my eyesight is not very good, but some people I know would run it in 3840 x 2400 and be very happy.
I'm plus 50 years old with eyesight to match and I suspect I would run at the higher resolutions. This based on my transition from an iPad 1 to an iPad 3. The better, crisper, text rendition just makes the iPad 3 easier to read.
This is actually a big surprise to me. For one it wasn't like I could see the pixels on an iPad 1. I'm just convinced there is more to perception than the ability to resolve dots. IPad 3's screen is just an all around joy to use.
Now I fully realize that this doesn't mean the effects would be the same on the desktop. However even with my old eyes it is easy to see the pixels and struggle with funky looking text on large monitors. So I really see such screens as very important to iMacs future. I fully expect that even I will appreciate the screen.
The display and required graphic power will drain the battery in half the time. So instead of getting 7 hrs of battery in a MBP, it'll be more like 3.5 hrs.
Of course, they are getting rid of the ODD, which eats up 15-25% of the interior space depending on the model. Add into the mix the lower power usage of the new processors, some of that battery tech Apple has gotten patents on recently (I seem to recall articles about that within the last 2 months) and I think if we see any drop in battery life, it would be to 6 hours at worst. Then again, I also don't think they are going to have to alter the interior volume too drastically to change it to a more wedge shape like the Air. Note like the Air, not exactly the same.
Future MBP:
All the Ivy Bridge quad cores are variable TDP, but most quad cores are 45W, w/one 35W and 1 55W item as well.
NVIDIA Kepler ranges from 32-50W
AMD Radeon HD 7000M ranges from 25-45W, plus one 65W
Really this looks like power requirements for the processors and GPUs will either be a wash or less power. Driving more pixels will use more power, but my previously mentioned points about the battery tech and more room available due to the lack of ODD should help with that.
you loosing workspace - basically going back to a 24 inch screen.
High res screens have never been about workspace. No body I know of is looking for half sized GUI elements or 50% WYSIWYG. These screens are all about making things crisper and easier on the eyes.
Really this looks like power requirements for the processors and GPUs will either be a wash or less power. Driving more pixels will use more power, but my previously mentioned points about the battery tech and more room available due to the lack of ODD should help with that.
With no ODD and SSD instead of HD, that's two motors gone. I wonder if, on a model with integrated graphics only, they could make a fanless design?
The HD Graphics 4000 can push up to 2560x1600 I believe, enough for Retina on a small screen.
No one on Earth makes 27" 5120x2880 display. The iMacs cannot get retina displays this upgrade time. It's just not possible.
I am guessing that for the desktop, Apple will target 4K displays for resolution. Then the marketing department will just spin the definition of "retina" display to something that includes viewing distance and perceived resolution.
They do seem to be heading to a resolution independent OS
I am guessing that for the desktop, Apple will target 4K displays for resolution. Then the marketing department will just spin the definition of "retina" display to something that includes viewing distance and perceived resolution.
Except your retina is in your eye, so with a brand name like that, it's not really spin (or any kind of late addition) to include viewing distance.
I am guessing that for the desktop, Apple will target 4K displays for resolution. Then the marketing department will just spin the definition of "retina" display to something that includes viewing distance and perceived resolution.
They do seem to be heading to a resolution independent OS
Comments
Yes, I would really like a desktop Retina display! I certainly don't have a need for a 27" monitor but if they made a 20" monitor I would be fine with that. The only problem with having it on a separate monitor is that Apple still doesn't have a decent monitor less computer to go with it. The dated MacPro and underpowered Mini are not all that enticing to me.
For the 27" display 168 PPI is more than enough to be considered Retina.
I don't get your "focusing" comment. The only way the definition has ever worked is when you consider both PPI and the distance. You can't define it by a single metric.
edit: The equation is: 3438 * (1/n) = where n can be the PPI which will figure out the minimum distance it was to be from your eyes to be Retina or n can be inches which will tell you the minimum PPI that will be needed. Equation based on 20/20 (6/6) vision.
For the 27" iMac that represents elements at 84 PPI (1920x1200) but is actually 168 PPI (3840x2400) one would have to sit closer than (3438 * 1/168
No one has announced they are or announced components for such a thing
But Apple being Apple, it is not impossible for them to have bought up all the pieces for such an item for the next five years under a contract of total secrecy, any leaks resulting in massive fines etc.
And who knows how they will roll this out. Perhaps this year the retina display will only be in the top of the line custom ordered models. So basically an option for the 27 inch highest model, the 15 inch and 17 inch high end models. Then the cinema displays (which will incle inputs to use with your Apple TV box), then roll down into the rest of the lineup over the next year or two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson
I'm as dubious about the GPU capabilities required to drive this as much as I am the screen. Apple don't have a track record of putting the latest and greatest GPU's in any of it's hardware, and supporting resolutions that high would need them to.
The graphics probably can't handle it on either the desktops or laptops… and the laptops will destroy their battery life!
We're JUST getting rid of the optical drive right now to make room for a bigger battery. Do we REALLY want super high-res displays to get rid of the benefits of that new battery?!
HASWELL. I just remembered. Haswell's supposed to give us 24 hours of battery life. What if instead we get 12 hours of battery life and HiDPI displays with Haswell?!
I'm liking that. It gives display manufacturers the time to actually MAKE these displays and it gives Apple time to get situated with their ODD-free computers with bigger batteries.
Given that I haven't used mine in ages, I have no issue with that.
Now if Apple would overhaul the quality in the iTunes store a bit and get those Extras working on the Apple TV, that's what I want to see more than keeping ODDs in the hardware
Quote:
Originally Posted by kfury77
The article didn't state the resolution would be exactly double to what it is now, and I don't think it will. In fact there was an article linked to from Macrumors earlier about the possibility of a retina display iMac and suggested:
Apple could build a 3840 by 2400 pixel 27-inch screen that presented itself as a pixel doubled 1920 by 1200 pixel display. That’s effectively an 84ppi screen @1X and 168ppi screen @2X.
Makes a lot of sense to me!
you loosing workspace - basically going back to a 24 inch screen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jowie74
If the 3G iPad is anything to go by,
compared to what. Previous iPads or computers. the 3rd Gen iPad has way better graphics than the previous two. Smoother etc, particularly when the developers actually take the time to do a good job coding their apps.
compared to a computer, of course the iPad sucks. It's not a computer. It doesn't have close to a computers RAM, processor, GPU etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
For the 27" display 168 PPI is more than enough to be considered Retina.
I don't get your "focusing" comment. The only way the definition has ever worked is when you consider both PPI and the distance. You can't define it by a single metric.
Allow me to restate my comment which I thought was pretty clear. The blogs etc got a hard on with the notion that Retina Display = 300+ DPI as THE definition. Apple on the other hand seems to be focusing on defining Retina Display by the visual result, i.e. the clear text, crisper images, better color and not some arbitrary number. If they can achieve that effect with a 100 dpi screen then it is Retina in their book. Apple's focus is the effect, not the specs. Same as with pretty much everything they do
Quote:
Originally Posted by agramonte
you loosing workspace - basically going back to a 24 inch screen.
You don't have to run it in Retina mode.
I'm plus 50 years old with eyesight to match and I suspect I would run at the higher resolutions. This based on my transition from an iPad 1 to an iPad 3. The better, crisper, text rendition just makes the iPad 3 easier to read.
This is actually a big surprise to me. For one it wasn't like I could see the pixels on an iPad 1. I'm just convinced there is more to perception than the ability to resolve dots. IPad 3's screen is just an all around joy to use.
Now I fully realize that this doesn't mean the effects would be the same on the desktop. However even with my old eyes it is easy to see the pixels and struggle with funky looking text on large monitors. So I really see such screens as very important to iMacs future. I fully expect that even I will appreciate the screen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog
The display and required graphic power will drain the battery in half the time. So instead of getting 7 hrs of battery in a MBP, it'll be more like 3.5 hrs.
Of course, they are getting rid of the ODD, which eats up 15-25% of the interior space depending on the model. Add into the mix the lower power usage of the new processors, some of that battery tech Apple has gotten patents on recently (I seem to recall articles about that within the last 2 months) and I think if we see any drop in battery life, it would be to 6 hours at worst. Then again, I also don't think they are going to have to alter the interior volume too drastically to change it to a more wedge shape like the Air. Note like the Air, not exactly the same.
Future MBP:
All the Ivy Bridge quad cores are variable TDP, but most quad cores are 45W, w/one 35W and 1 55W item as well.
NVIDIA Kepler ranges from 32-50W
AMD Radeon HD 7000M ranges from 25-45W, plus one 65W
Current MBP:
6750M and 6770M listed as unknown TDP but they are likely under 40W compared to other cards on the table http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_AMD_graphics_processing_units#Radeon_HD_6xxxM_Series
2430M i5 35W
2640M i7 35W
2675QM i7 45W
2760QM i7 45W
2860QM i7 45W
Really this looks like power requirements for the processors and GPUs will either be a wash or less power. Driving more pixels will use more power, but my previously mentioned points about the battery tech and more room available due to the lack of ODD should help with that.
High res screens have never been about workspace. No body I know of is looking for half sized GUI elements or 50% WYSIWYG. These screens are all about making things crisper and easier on the eyes.
It would suffice to boost a 27" Thunderbolt Display from 2560×1440 to something around 2912×1638.
sorry to link to TUAW, but they define and explain "retina displays" incredibly well here:
http://www.tuaw.com/2012/03/01/retina-display-macs-ipads-and-hidpi-doing-the-math/
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel
Really this looks like power requirements for the processors and GPUs will either be a wash or less power. Driving more pixels will use more power, but my previously mentioned points about the battery tech and more room available due to the lack of ODD should help with that.
With no ODD and SSD instead of HD, that's two motors gone. I wonder if, on a model with integrated graphics only, they could make a fanless design?
The HD Graphics 4000 can push up to 2560x1600 I believe, enough for Retina on a small screen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
No one on Earth makes 27" 5120x2880 display. The iMacs cannot get retina displays this upgrade time. It's just not possible.
I am guessing that for the desktop, Apple will target 4K displays for resolution. Then the marketing department will just spin the definition of "retina" display to something that includes viewing distance and perceived resolution.
They do seem to be heading to a resolution independent OS
https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/UserExperience/Conceptual/HiDPIOverview/Introduction/Introduction.html
-kpluck
I doubt we are there with Ivy Bridge. Note that the MBA's still have fans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kpluck
I am guessing that for the desktop, Apple will target 4K displays for resolution. Then the marketing department will just spin the definition of "retina" display to something that includes viewing distance and perceived resolution.
Except your retina is in your eye, so with a brand name like that, it's not really spin (or any kind of late addition) to include viewing distance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I doubt we are there with Ivy Bridge. Note that the MBA's still have fans.
You're probably right, would be nice though.
So, these kinds of resolutions can perhaps be reached and afforded in the next life.
Dream on. Eizo recently announced a 4K display. The first in the world. It will cost around 36.000 $.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/21/eizo-industrial-monitor-does-4k-resolution-at-36-inches-start-s/