and it's hard for me to see a 15" pro which won't really be any more than 1440 x 900 - and therefore not 1080p capable like many 15" Win machines
The 15" range really needs to go to 1080 as the base res, with all the 13" range going to 900. There is no technical or economic excuse for not doing it (far as I know).
The 15" range really needs to go to 1080 as the base res, with all the 13" range going to 900. There is no technical or economic excuse for not doing it (far as I know).
You're right, I'd call it human factors. Because using the current interface at such a tight dot pitch makes it harder to use. The current UI is very raster-heavy, resolution independence wasn't available to prevent text from being too small. Because points are rendered as pixels, text is generally rendered at half the size it should be, making it harder to read. It sounds like Apple might be finally releasing resolution independence, so we can get nice, crisp display without making things harder to read and use.
You're right, I'd call it human factors. Because using the current interface at such a tight dot pitch makes it harder to use. The current UI is very raster-heavy, resolution independence wasn't available to prevent text from being too small. Because points are rendered as pixels, text is generally rendered at half the size it should be, making it harder to read. It sounds like Apple might be finally releasing resolution independence, so we can get nice, crisp display without making things harder to read and use.
A few questions I think many of us don't quite understand:
1. Does what you're saying about rez independence apply only to programs running ON the computer - or to all content elements of web sites (which seems unlikely to me, but I'm only a nerd, not a real techie) - anyway, so might you not have tiny website text even if the native OS is resolution independent? (When I scale browser windows up and down now - all elements scale simultaneously).
(1a. And if programs themselves, will they all have to be re-optimized to take advantage of RI, or will this be a service provided by Mountain Lion to all native Mac apps?)
2. Does the browser's technology itself play a role in this?
3. What about the tools used to create the sites themselves?
4. And finally, might there be an awkward transition period in which some stuff is new age (rendered in proportion to visual elements at a good perceptual size) and a declining percentage is old? And if so, can Apple drive the transition?
It sounds like Apple might be finally releasing resolution independence, so we can get nice, crisp display without making things harder to read and use.
A few questions I think many of us don't quite understand:
1. Does what you're saying about rez independence apply only to programs running ON the computer - or to all content elements of web sites (which seems unlikely to me, but I'm only a nerd, not a real techie) - anyway, so might you not have tiny website text even if the native OS is resolution independent? (When I scale browser windows up and down now - all elements scale simultaneously).
(1a. And if programs themselves, will they all have to be re-optimized to take advantage of RI, or will this be a service provided by Mountain Lion to all native Mac apps?)
2. Does the browser's technology itself play a role in this?
3. What about the tools used to create the sites themselves?
4. And finally, might there be an awkward transition period in which some stuff is new age (rendered in proportion to visual elements at a good perceptual size) and a declining percentage is old? And if so, can Apple drive the transition?
The way I understand it, with HiDPI mode the need for resolution independence becomes seriously diminished, to the point of probably being moot. Turn HiDPI on and you get beautiful Retina graphics, turn it off and you can now select much larger screen real estates if that suits your fancy. So, let's assume the new 15" will have a native screen resolution of 2880x1800, qualifying it as Retina. Well, if you turn off HiDPI mode you could run the screen at 1900x1200 and every resolution smaller than that if you want, increasing/decreasing proportionally the size of everything displayed on your screen. On a 15" in screen you probably won't want to go higher than 1900x1200, and anything below 1440x900 should run with HiDPI mode on to take advantage of Retina graphics for the Apps and Websites that have been coded to make use of that feature (unless you need to take it easy on your GPU).
As far as transitions, it'll be like with the iPhone and iPad, all non-retina apps/websites/etc. will look like crap relative to the new stuff, but they will look exactly like they do now.
The way I understand it, with HiDPI mode the need for resolution independence becomes seriously diminished, to the point of probably being moot. Turn HiDPI on and you get beautiful Retina graphics, turn it off and you can now select much larger screen real estates if that suits your fancy. So, let's assume the new 15" will have a native screen resolution of 2880x1800, qualifying it as Retina. Well, if you turn off HiDPI mode you could run the screen at 1900x1200 and every resolution smaller than that if you want, increasing/decreasing proportionally the size of everything displayed on your screen. On a 15" in screen you probably won't want to go higher than 1900x1200, and anything below 1440x900 should run with HiDPI mode on to take advantage of Retina graphics for the Apps and Websites that have been coded to make use of that feature (unless you need to take it easy on your GPU).
As far as transitions, it'll be like with the iPhone and iPad, all non-retina apps/websites/etc. will look like crap relative to the new stuff, but they will look exactly like they do now.
I like the sound of that pretty much. And a long way from worst case if you're right on the particulars. There's been a dearth of clear explanation of this new age of rez on the "normal Apple geeks" sites. Even a quick search of Anandtech and Ars Technica didn't turn up anything that helpful.
I believe that there will be a consolidation of the lines. It makes much more sense to elinate line like current MacBooks or macbook pro to Macbook air with varying sizes of screen. 11, 13 15 and maybe 17 inch screens. No optical drive, USB 3, thunderbolt and maybe an sd or mini sd port.
I personally don't see this happening like that. But *IF* they create a lineup with these prices, they can practically kill the "classic" MBP instantly. I mean: Who's gonna pay the same amount of money for a thicker machine with a much worse screen - only because of the SuperDrive?? How could Apple say "Pro" means "+SuperDrive -Screen" in their right mind? It makes absolutely no sense at all. I understand that some people might still want an internal SuperDrive, but the "Pro" moniker people would, imho, prefer to have it all. They want the better graphics card with the better display plus the SuperDrive and longer battery life. They'll also gladly _pay_ a little more for having what they want. With that many models, I sure hope that customers can mix things up and have the lighter version with the cheaper screen as well as the thicker model with the good display. If this simply means that a good screen isn't possible with the SuperDrive, then simply kill the SuperDrive, Apple. They've done it with the Mac mini and the MacBook Air already, it's f*!?ing time to kill the classic MBP. Sorry for the anger, I needed an outlet.
I personally don't see this happening like that. But *IF* they create a lineup with these prices, they can practically kill the "classic" MBP instantly. I mean: Who's gonna pay the same amount of money for a thicker machine with a much worse screen - only because of the SuperDrive?? How could Apple say "Pro" means "+SuperDrive -Screen" in their right mind? It makes absolutely no sense at all.
I agree with you on calling a thicker machine with obsolete tech and less modern tech overall a Pro machine and the latest advancements simply a MacBook, but I think the prices are inline with what Apple should do.
Remember that one of Apple's great methods for turning a profit is economics of scale. With the old style machines Apple will sell considerably less of them. They will have the latest CPUs, USB 3.0 as it comes with the chipset, and probably a few other advancements but they will probably just continue these for a couple cycles until the interest wanes so much that even this isn't worth keeping around*. On top of that, Apple doesn't want you to buy the old machines. They want to push their new ones.
Besides pushing down costs as they sell more of these there aren't too many vendors that compete with Apple on any HW and manufacturing costs. Google did a "First" with the new 3D mapping, two years ago MS and HP did a "Frist" with the Slate and those were just rumours. We have actual evidence in OS X and evidence in the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad that Apple will be pushing 2x resolution and yet I've seen no vendor able to beat Apple to the punch.
I hope Apple has a new Mac campaign on the ready because looking at their HW, their OS, the confusing version of Windows MS is bringing to the table I think they have a chance to sell a lot more Macs than they did when Vista and 64-bit Windows were pulling people to Macs several years ago.
* This is based on the current rumours being true and what I'd do, not any statement of fact.
To be honest I don't know why are you so obsessed with proving that I'm wrong. What I said is that I can't imagine Apple making a mac with retina display and intel integrated GPU because i don't think it's powerful enough. It works ok with 1M pixels but probably not with 4,6M when the user want to do more than basic web browsing, word processing, spreadsheets...
The way I understand it, with HiDPI mode the need for resolution independence becomes seriously diminished, to the point of probably being moot. Turn HiDPI on and you get beautiful Retina graphics, turn it off and you can now select much larger screen real estates if that suits your fancy. So, let's assume the new 15" will have a native screen resolution of 2880x1800, qualifying it as Retina. Well, if you turn off HiDPI mode you could run the screen at 1900x1200 and every resolution smaller than that if you want, increasing/decreasing proportionally the size of everything displayed on your screen. On a 15" in screen you probably won't want to go higher than 1900x1200, and anything below 1440x900 should run with HiDPI mode on to take advantage of Retina graphics for the Apps and Websites that have been coded to make use of that feature (unless you need to take it easy on your GPU).
That is not correct. The screen will always be sharpest at its native resolution. When you go to a different resolution, you will lose some sharpness. Probably less than you would with current screens, but noticeable nonetheless.
But that doesn't answer the question that you were responding to. bigpics asked "1. Does what you're saying about rez independence apply only to programs running ON the computer - or to all content elements of web sites (which seems unlikely to me, but I'm only a nerd, not a real techie) - anyway, so might you not have tiny website text even if the native OS is resolution independent? (When I scale browser windows up and down now - all elements scale simultaneously). "
The answer is that the web page is normally controlled by the web developer. You can set the size of the image, but the image elements would not change. If the developer has an image thats 200 pixels by 100 pixels, it would be tiny if you double the screen resolution (it would still be 200 pixels by 100 pixels, but the pixels would be 1/4 the size, so the entire image would be 1/4 the size). To get around this, you would either have to manually change the size of the image on your screen or have the browser automatically display things at 4 times their original size.
A few questions I think many of us don't quite understand:
1. Does what you're saying about rez independence apply only to programs running ON the computer - or to all content elements of web sites (which seems unlikely to me, but I'm only a nerd, not a real techie) - anyway, so might you not have tiny website text even if the native OS is resolution independent? (When I scale browser windows up and down now - all elements scale simultaneously).
(1a. And if programs themselves, will they all have to be re-optimized to take advantage of RI, or will this be a service provided by Mountain Lion to all native Mac apps?)
2. Does the browser's technology itself play a role in this?
3. What about the tools used to create the sites themselves?
4. And finally, might there be an awkward transition period in which some stuff is new age (rendered in proportion to visual elements at a good perceptual size) and a declining percentage is old? And if so, can Apple drive the transition?
There is a HiDPI offered for web sites. The information on how to do it is out there. I expect the browser will detect that it's not a HiDPI site and scale them up accordingly. As for the rest, it's a wide open world, I don't know the specifics.
Slimmer is a dumb move. These are laptops and not bread knives. I'd rather than them a bit thicker, with the extra space taken up by a larger battery. Having used the new iPad since it came out, I'm not interested in replacing my aging MacBook until there are models with 10+ hour batteries. I like being able to go several days without recharging.
Slimmer is a dumb move. These are laptops and not bread knives. I'd rather than them a bit thicker, with the extra space taken up by a larger battery. Having used the new iPad since it came out, I'm not interested in replacing my aging MacBook until there are models with 10+ hour batteries. I like being able to go several days without recharging.
Sure, but just there is too thin (for me that is the MBA because the battery life isn't long enough) there is also too thick, too light (again, for me the MBA) and too heavy, etc. Once we get 24 hours on one charge i'll be wanting a week. After we get I'll be wanting a month.
This is one area I've come to trust Apple. They do balance out the performance, usability and portability well.
OK, now tell us how many MacBook Pro users play World of Warcraft. Darn few, I'd venture.
You don't seem to understand - people who buy Macs are generally not looking for the latest, greatest gaming experience.
Gamers for whom video power matters generally aren't Mac users, whether or not the game is a decent experience on Apple hardware or not. OTOH, the 15" MBP is THE most popular computer for pro photographers who use Macs, in my personal experience. Since Aperture completely runs off the GPU (except for exporting, where it uses it not at all), for a lot of these and potential MBP buyers the graphics performance does matter, though unlike in gaming in Aperture/LightRoom it's a question of waiting two seconds instead of six for an image to update the preview. Someone who has been sometimes waiting 10-15 seconds for updates (like on 2008 MBPs) might be someone who'd be thrilled to have it cut to 5 in a new laptop, but there is a huge community of users in the graphics world who are counting on at least competitive professional graphics power to what else is out there as it applies to their time spent waiting. There are some blazingly fast non-Apple laptops in use for graphics (obviously not Aperture but LR and PS) which beat the currently available fairly handily.
I have no idea exactly how the new cards will stack up in real world use for Photoshop and Aperture, but the relative graphics power does matter to a lot of people and it will affect their decision even if they don't play any games.
There is a HiDPI offered for web sites. The information on how to do it is out there. I expect the browser will detect that it's not a HiDPI site and scale them up accordingly. As for the rest, it's a wide open world, I don't know the specifics.
Yes, HiDPI is OFFERED for web sites, but not all web sites use it. In fact, I would venture that the majority do not use it - since there are not that many devices that will use it.
So, the argument that web sites will automatically be viewed in all their HiRes glory is not true for most sites.
Yes, HiDPI is OFFERED for web sites, but not all web sites use it. In fact, I would venture that the majority do not use it - since there are not that many devices that will use it.
So, the argument that web sites will automatically be viewed in all their HiRes glory is not true for most sites.
The point is that it will be once Apple adopts it.
Intel 3770K CPU with HD 4000 GPU can hardly handle World of Warcraft on 1920x1200 resolution screen with 25fps on lowest settings at a place what deserted and made 5 years ago. We talk about a desktop CPU what is more powerful than mobile versions. And to be honest we know WOW isn't that demanding game. Just imagine what fps can we get if we use it on 2560x1800.
I don't claim to know much about the inner workings of resolution independence or video game display technology but I don't think what you're outlining is how a HiDPI machine would work with a game. Something like WOW probably has no 2560 x 1600 setting (someone who has it can comment, I'm sure). I envision the game running at 1280 x 800 but each specific pixel in the game is displayed by four pixels on the screen to fill the screen up. It can't take 4x the horsepower to do such a thing.
It doesn't make sense to me that Apple is going to come out with a display technology and associated hardware that together equals a massive fail. These guys didn't fall off a turnip truck yesterday and decide to build an OS and computer.
I don't claim to know much about the inner workings of resolution independence or video game display technology but I don't think what you're outlining is how a HiDPI machine would work with a game. Something like WOW probably has no 2560 x 1600 setting (someone who has it can comment, I'm sure). I envision the game running at 1280 x 800 but each specific pixel in the game is displayed by four pixels on the screen to fill the screen up. It can't take 4x the horsepower to do such a thing.
It doesn't make sense to me that Apple is going to come out with a display technology and associated hardware that together equals a massive fail. These guys didn't fall off a turnip truck yesterday and decide to build an OS and computer.
Ok but that way you play the game on 1280x800 resolution on a much higher res screen. It would just look like it does on current 13" Macbook pro. You can play with anything on 800x600 too but whats the point?
The point is that it will be once Apple adopts it.
Oh, sure. Every web site and app in the world uses Apple technologies. No one would ever use anything like Flash, for example, because it isn't supported by Apple.
Where have you been living for the past 3 decades?
Comments
Quote:
and it's hard for me to see a 15" pro which won't really be any more than 1440 x 900 - and therefore not 1080p capable like many 15" Win machines
The 15" range really needs to go to 1080 as the base res, with all the 13" range going to 900. There is no technical or economic excuse for not doing it (far as I know).
You're right, I'd call it human factors. Because using the current interface at such a tight dot pitch makes it harder to use. The current UI is very raster-heavy, resolution independence wasn't available to prevent text from being too small. Because points are rendered as pixels, text is generally rendered at half the size it should be, making it harder to read. It sounds like Apple might be finally releasing resolution independence, so we can get nice, crisp display without making things harder to read and use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
You're right, I'd call it human factors. Because using the current interface at such a tight dot pitch makes it harder to use. The current UI is very raster-heavy, resolution independence wasn't available to prevent text from being too small. Because points are rendered as pixels, text is generally rendered at half the size it should be, making it harder to read. It sounds like Apple might be finally releasing resolution independence, so we can get nice, crisp display without making things harder to read and use.
A few questions I think many of us don't quite understand:
1. Does what you're saying about rez independence apply only to programs running ON the computer - or to all content elements of web sites (which seems unlikely to me, but I'm only a nerd, not a real techie) - anyway, so might you not have tiny website text even if the native OS is resolution independent? (When I scale browser windows up and down now - all elements scale simultaneously).
(1a. And if programs themselves, will they all have to be re-optimized to take advantage of RI, or will this be a service provided by Mountain Lion to all native Mac apps?)
2. Does the browser's technology itself play a role in this?
3. What about the tools used to create the sites themselves?
4. And finally, might there be an awkward transition period in which some stuff is new age (rendered in proportion to visual elements at a good perceptual size) and a declining percentage is old? And if so, can Apple drive the transition?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
It sounds like Apple might be finally releasing resolution independence, so we can get nice, crisp display without making things harder to read and use.
Yes please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigpics
A few questions I think many of us don't quite understand:
1. Does what you're saying about rez independence apply only to programs running ON the computer - or to all content elements of web sites (which seems unlikely to me, but I'm only a nerd, not a real techie) - anyway, so might you not have tiny website text even if the native OS is resolution independent? (When I scale browser windows up and down now - all elements scale simultaneously).
(1a. And if programs themselves, will they all have to be re-optimized to take advantage of RI, or will this be a service provided by Mountain Lion to all native Mac apps?)
2. Does the browser's technology itself play a role in this?
3. What about the tools used to create the sites themselves?
4. And finally, might there be an awkward transition period in which some stuff is new age (rendered in proportion to visual elements at a good perceptual size) and a declining percentage is old? And if so, can Apple drive the transition?
The way I understand it, with HiDPI mode the need for resolution independence becomes seriously diminished, to the point of probably being moot. Turn HiDPI on and you get beautiful Retina graphics, turn it off and you can now select much larger screen real estates if that suits your fancy. So, let's assume the new 15" will have a native screen resolution of 2880x1800, qualifying it as Retina. Well, if you turn off HiDPI mode you could run the screen at 1900x1200 and every resolution smaller than that if you want, increasing/decreasing proportionally the size of everything displayed on your screen. On a 15" in screen you probably won't want to go higher than 1900x1200, and anything below 1440x900 should run with HiDPI mode on to take advantage of Retina graphics for the Apps and Websites that have been coded to make use of that feature (unless you need to take it easy on your GPU).
As far as transitions, it'll be like with the iPhone and iPad, all non-retina apps/websites/etc. will look like crap relative to the new stuff, but they will look exactly like they do now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98
The way I understand it, with HiDPI mode the need for resolution independence becomes seriously diminished, to the point of probably being moot. Turn HiDPI on and you get beautiful Retina graphics, turn it off and you can now select much larger screen real estates if that suits your fancy. So, let's assume the new 15" will have a native screen resolution of 2880x1800, qualifying it as Retina. Well, if you turn off HiDPI mode you could run the screen at 1900x1200 and every resolution smaller than that if you want, increasing/decreasing proportionally the size of everything displayed on your screen. On a 15" in screen you probably won't want to go higher than 1900x1200, and anything below 1440x900 should run with HiDPI mode on to take advantage of Retina graphics for the Apps and Websites that have been coded to make use of that feature (unless you need to take it easy on your GPU).
As far as transitions, it'll be like with the iPhone and iPad, all non-retina apps/websites/etc. will look like crap relative to the new stuff, but they will look exactly like they do now.
I like the sound of that pretty much. And a long way from worst case if you're right on the particulars. There's been a dearth of clear explanation of this new age of rez on the "normal Apple geeks" sites. Even a quick search of Anandtech and Ars Technica didn't turn up anything that helpful.
I believe that there will be a consolidation of the lines. It makes much more sense to elinate line like current MacBooks or macbook pro to Macbook air with varying sizes of screen. 11, 13 15 and maybe 17 inch screens. No optical drive, USB 3, thunderbolt and maybe an sd or mini sd port.
I agree with you on calling a thicker machine with obsolete tech and less modern tech overall a Pro machine and the latest advancements simply a MacBook, but I think the prices are inline with what Apple should do.
Remember that one of Apple's great methods for turning a profit is economics of scale. With the old style machines Apple will sell considerably less of them. They will have the latest CPUs, USB 3.0 as it comes with the chipset, and probably a few other advancements but they will probably just continue these for a couple cycles until the interest wanes so much that even this isn't worth keeping around*. On top of that, Apple doesn't want you to buy the old machines. They want to push their new ones.
Besides pushing down costs as they sell more of these there aren't too many vendors that compete with Apple on any HW and manufacturing costs. Google did a "First" with the new 3D mapping, two years ago MS and HP did a "Frist" with the Slate and those were just rumours. We have actual evidence in OS X and evidence in the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad that Apple will be pushing 2x resolution and yet I've seen no vendor able to beat Apple to the punch.
I hope Apple has a new Mac campaign on the ready because looking at their HW, their OS, the confusing version of Windows MS is bringing to the table I think they have a chance to sell a lot more Macs than they did when Vista and 64-bit Windows were pulling people to Macs several years ago.
* This is based on the current rumours being true and what I'd do, not any statement of fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
OK, now tell us how many MacBook Pro users play World of Warcraft. Darn few, I'd venture.
You don't seem to understand - people who buy Macs are generally not looking for the latest, greatest gaming experience.
So, in the end, you don't really have anything to back up your claims.
IOW, you don't have any evidence to back up your claim.
Its not about hardcore gamers. They usually don't use notebooks at all.
I don't think playing on lowest settings and low resolution to be usable would be the user experience what Apple want to sell.
On Steam 50% of mac users play on MacBook Pro and 15% on MacBook. So 65% of mac users on steam play on a notebook.
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
To be honest I don't know why are you so obsessed with proving that I'm wrong. What I said is that I can't imagine Apple making a mac with retina display and intel integrated GPU because i don't think it's powerful enough. It works ok with 1M pixels but probably not with 4,6M when the user want to do more than basic web browsing, word processing, spreadsheets...
That is not correct. The screen will always be sharpest at its native resolution. When you go to a different resolution, you will lose some sharpness. Probably less than you would with current screens, but noticeable nonetheless.
But that doesn't answer the question that you were responding to. bigpics asked "1. Does what you're saying about rez independence apply only to programs running ON the computer - or to all content elements of web sites (which seems unlikely to me, but I'm only a nerd, not a real techie) - anyway, so might you not have tiny website text even if the native OS is resolution independent? (When I scale browser windows up and down now - all elements scale simultaneously). "
The answer is that the web page is normally controlled by the web developer. You can set the size of the image, but the image elements would not change. If the developer has an image thats 200 pixels by 100 pixels, it would be tiny if you double the screen resolution (it would still be 200 pixels by 100 pixels, but the pixels would be 1/4 the size, so the entire image would be 1/4 the size). To get around this, you would either have to manually change the size of the image on your screen or have the browser automatically display things at 4 times their original size.
There is a HiDPI offered for web sites. The information on how to do it is out there. I expect the browser will detect that it's not a HiDPI site and scale them up accordingly. As for the rest, it's a wide open world, I don't know the specifics.
Slimmer is a dumb move. These are laptops and not bread knives. I'd rather than them a bit thicker, with the extra space taken up by a larger battery. Having used the new iPad since it came out, I'm not interested in replacing my aging MacBook until there are models with 10+ hour batteries. I like being able to go several days without recharging.
Sure, but just there is too thin (for me that is the MBA because the battery life isn't long enough) there is also too thick, too light (again, for me the MBA) and too heavy, etc. Once we get 24 hours on one charge i'll be wanting a week. After we get I'll be wanting a month.
This is one area I've come to trust Apple. They do balance out the performance, usability and portability well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
OK, now tell us how many MacBook Pro users play World of Warcraft. Darn few, I'd venture.
You don't seem to understand - people who buy Macs are generally not looking for the latest, greatest gaming experience.
Gamers for whom video power matters generally aren't Mac users, whether or not the game is a decent experience on Apple hardware or not. OTOH, the 15" MBP is THE most popular computer for pro photographers who use Macs, in my personal experience. Since Aperture completely runs off the GPU (except for exporting, where it uses it not at all), for a lot of these and potential MBP buyers the graphics performance does matter, though unlike in gaming in Aperture/LightRoom it's a question of waiting two seconds instead of six for an image to update the preview. Someone who has been sometimes waiting 10-15 seconds for updates (like on 2008 MBPs) might be someone who'd be thrilled to have it cut to 5 in a new laptop, but there is a huge community of users in the graphics world who are counting on at least competitive professional graphics power to what else is out there as it applies to their time spent waiting. There are some blazingly fast non-Apple laptops in use for graphics (obviously not Aperture but LR and PS) which beat the currently available fairly handily.
I have no idea exactly how the new cards will stack up in real world use for Photoshop and Aperture, but the relative graphics power does matter to a lot of people and it will affect their decision even if they don't play any games.
Yes, HiDPI is OFFERED for web sites, but not all web sites use it. In fact, I would venture that the majority do not use it - since there are not that many devices that will use it.
So, the argument that web sites will automatically be viewed in all their HiRes glory is not true for most sites.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Yes, HiDPI is OFFERED for web sites, but not all web sites use it. In fact, I would venture that the majority do not use it - since there are not that many devices that will use it.
So, the argument that web sites will automatically be viewed in all their HiRes glory is not true for most sites.
The point is that it will be once Apple adopts it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by landilevente
Games?
Intel 3770K CPU with HD 4000 GPU can hardly handle World of Warcraft on 1920x1200 resolution screen with 25fps on lowest settings at a place what deserted and made 5 years ago. We talk about a desktop CPU what is more powerful than mobile versions. And to be honest we know WOW isn't that demanding game. Just imagine what fps can we get if we use it on 2560x1800.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnYpLZGOMQc
I don't claim to know much about the inner workings of resolution independence or video game display technology but I don't think what you're outlining is how a HiDPI machine would work with a game. Something like WOW probably has no 2560 x 1600 setting (someone who has it can comment, I'm sure). I envision the game running at 1280 x 800 but each specific pixel in the game is displayed by four pixels on the screen to fill the screen up. It can't take 4x the horsepower to do such a thing.
It doesn't make sense to me that Apple is going to come out with a display technology and associated hardware that together equals a massive fail. These guys didn't fall off a turnip truck yesterday and decide to build an OS and computer.
Ok but that way you play the game on 1280x800 resolution on a much higher res screen. It would just look like it does on current 13" Macbook pro. You can play with anything on 800x600 too but whats the point?
Oh, sure. Every web site and app in the world uses Apple technologies. No one would ever use anything like Flash, for example, because it isn't supported by Apple.
Where have you been living for the past 3 decades?