Of course they "can" make a retina 17" laptop. The question is should they, and will they? The answers are no and no, as they should be. That product does not deserve to exist. The addressable market is tiny. I don't know who the hell the 17" would be for. It's barely portable. If you really need more screen than the 15" retina, then just get an iMac. a 17" is the worst of both worlds. Which is why you barely see anyone with a 17" laptop, and barely see anyone making them.
I don't want to get it yet ANOTHER debate over whether or not there's any benefit to the 17", but the fact that the larger screen is not useful to your activities is not a reason to disparage those of us who prefer it. Perhaps if you spent a day doing what I do you would see why there's benefit for ME, even if there may not be for you.
I'm not even going to get into the issue of whether or not Apple should make one. I'm simply pointing out that one extreme is no more absurd than the other. There's no way in hell I could be sufficiently productive with an 11" Air, but you don't see me insulting those whose needs it satisfies.
Help me out here... is the article suggesting that the SCREEN resolution will 6400x3600, or that UI elements will be produced in that size and scaled 50% for display on a screen resolution of 3200x1800? I thought the latter.
Help me out here... is the article suggesting that the SCREEN resolution will 6400x3600, or that UI elements will be produced in that size and scaled 50% for display on a screen resolution of 3200x1800? I thought the latter.
6400x3600 proper pixels, rendered as 3200x1800, like other retina panels are.
I don't want to get it yet ANOTHER debate over whether or not there's any benefit to the 17", but the fact that the larger screen is not useful to your activities is not a reason to disparage those of us who prefer it. Perhaps if you spent a day doing what I do you would see why there's benefit for ME, even if there may not be for you.
I'm not even going to get into the issue of whether or not Apple should make one. I'm simply pointing out that one extreme is no more absurd than the other. There's no way in hell I could be sufficiently productive with an 11" Air, but you don't see me insulting those whose needs it satisfies.
I agree with [@]Slurpy[/@]'s first sentence, but not the rest. They should make the 17" MBP again if they want to and we don't know if they will. My suspicion is they won't but I have to think they probably sell the various desktop Macs in the same ballpark of the 17" MBP, but even if they didn't the question is still "would they sell enough to warrant the effort and cost in producing one?" I don't anyone thinks it would be as profitable as their other Mac notebooks but I think they would probably sell enough to be net gain.
Personally, I hope it returns as I see way it would negatively affect my goals with Apple but the 17" users need to consider why Apple would get rid of that size if it was such an important product to have.
If they can make a retina iMac, then they can make a retina 17" laptop.
Of course they "can" make a retina 17" laptop. The question is should they, and will they? The answers are no and no, as they should be. That product does not deserve to exist. The addressable market is tiny. I don't know who the hell the 17" would be for. It's barely portable. If you really need more screen than the 15" retina, then just get an iMac. a 17" is the worst of both worlds. Which is why you barely see anyone with a 17" laptop, and barely see anyone making them.
That's a truly blinkered post.
Many pros would find a 17" retina laptop invaluable. Apple could easily produce one now that is substantially lighter than their last 17" laptop. Suggesting a desktop as a substitute for a laptop is an incredibly crass thing to do. If you barely see anyone with a 17" laptop, that might just be because Apple doesn't make them and hasn't for some while.
Your posts are usually spot on, of course, but we can all write duds from time to time. I forgive you for it.
Which is still wrong, though. 2560x1440 doubled is 5120x2880. 1920x1080 doubled is 3840x2160.
I made no mistake in my calculations. The reason why Apple doubles the resolution for Retina is so objects can sharper without altering their size. My calculations show that to keep everything at the exact same size the display would be 33.75" for the stated resolution. IOW, the Menu Bar between a 27" iMac and a 33.75" Retina iMac would be exactly the same height.
Quite. Which is why I suggested a 34" display in my earlier posts on another thread.
I don't want to get it yet ANOTHER debate over whether or not there's any benefit to the 17", but the fact that the larger screen is not useful to your activities is not a reason to disparage those of us who prefer it. Perhaps if you spent a day doing what I do you would see why there's benefit for ME, even if there may not be for you.
I'm not even going to get into the issue of whether or not Apple should make one. I'm simply pointing out that one extreme is no more absurd than the other. There's no way in hell I could be sufficiently productive with an 11" Air, but you don't see me insulting those whose needs it satisfies.
I agree with @Slurpy's first sentence, but not the rest. They should make the 17" MBP again if they want to and we don't know if they will. My suspicion is they won't but I have to think they probably sell the various desktop Macs in the same ballpark of the 17" MBP, but even if they didn't the question is still "would they sell enough to warrant the effort and cost in producing one?" I don't anyone thinks it would be as profitable as their other Mac notebooks but I think they would probably sell enough to be net gain.
Personally, I hope it returns as I see way it would negatively affect my goals with Apple but the 17" users need to consider why Apple would get rid of that size if it was such an important product to have.
I suspect it was just too heavy in its previous incarnation. Apple should get it much lighter now.
Yeah, it's really the same kind of niggles you'd get on any multi-monitor Mac setup.
I remember when Mavericks came out they were crowing about all the improvements they'd made to multi-monitor support. But the first time I go to use it, they haven't even implemented the naive/obvious multi-monitor mode, which is to just ignore all boundaries and treat all monitors as one big canvas. That is, with a menu bar across the top of the whole canvas, and a Dock centred on the whole canvas, and full screen apps that fill the whole canvas. That kind of mode would be perfect for this application. I think Ubuntu can do that.
You really want a big blank bar across the middle of your screen content, both vertically and horizontally, where there's display bezel and no pixels?
Help me out here... is the article suggesting that the SCREEN resolution will 6400x3600, or that UI elements will be produced in that size and scaled 50% for display on a screen resolution of 3200x1800? I thought the latter.
6400x3600 proper pixels, rendered as 3200x1800, like other retina panels are.
I apparently don't understand how Retina works (which as you know, isn't AT ALL surprising! " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />)
So the number of actual, physical pixels on the screen is 3200x1800, or does the physical screen actually have 6400x3600 pixels?
If the former, what is the load on a graphics chip? Is it pushing 6400x3600 pixels or 3200x1800?
17" users need to consider why Apple would get rid of that size if it was such an important product to have.
I promised myself I wouldn't derail this thread any further...
I completely understand your point. What I wonder is if Apple's choice to axe the 17" was similar to GM closing plants the 90's. Certain GM plants, while profitable, were not profitable ENOUGH so they closed them. I don't have sufficient understanding of how a business of that scale works to get my head around the perceived "upside" to such a decision. I don't see how building a 17" computer would interfere with also building more profitable products like iPhones etc.
The only benefit to Apple that I can come up with is making the bottom line look better to shareholders by getting rid of things that drag down the aggregate score. Maybe that's a good enough reason on its own.
So the number of actual, physical pixels on the screen is 3200x1800, or does the physical screen actually have 6400x3600 pixels?
64 physical pixels, displaying on the screen as though it's 32.
For example, the MacBook Pro is 2880x1800, but it appears as though it’s still 1440x900 (like the pre-retina), because where there was one physical pixel before, there are now four.
Yeah, it's really the same kind of niggles you'd get on any multi-monitor Mac setup.
I remember when Mavericks came out they were crowing about all the improvements they'd made to multi-monitor support. But the first time I go to use it, they haven't even implemented the naive/obvious multi-monitor mode, which is to just ignore all boundaries and treat all monitors as one big canvas. That is, with a menu bar across the top of the whole canvas, and a Dock centred on the whole canvas, and full screen apps that fill the whole canvas. That kind of mode would be perfect for this application. I think Ubuntu can do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dysamoria
You really want a big blank bar across the middle of your screen content, both vertically and horizontally, where there's display bezel and no pixels?
I don't.
There are some situations where a single menu bar stretched across two or more monitors is OK. One is where ultra-thin bezel videowall monitors are used. Also, many times there is not so much information in the middle of the menu bar so even standard width bezels would be OK.
I like the idea that going full-screen on any app would fill all of the monitors with that one app.
The videowall application is way more important in my line of work. In this case, I'm not interested in having the menu bar shown at all. It would however be really nice to be able to address maybe a 2x2 array of monitors at each monitors' native resolution from a single MacPro that is treating the four monitors as a one big canvas (as ascii describes).
One thing though, this pretty well confirms that we won't see new iMacs until Yosemite releases in the Fall.
Fall begins on Sept 23, so we're probably looking at a post-iPhone 6 October event.
The big hold up here is likely Intel. If Apple wants Broadwell in the iMac they need to get Intel to deliver. Having an interim driver release has never stopped Apple in the past.
The Mini DisplayPort part of Thunderbolt can't do 6400 x 3600, but data to drive an external GPU could run over TB2. Maybe something like the Matrox "double head to go" or "triple head to go" could present itself as a ~6400 x 3200 monitor to the Mac, so a only a single TB2 connector on the Mac drives a multi-monitor setup. Or maybe new TB monitors will have integrated GPU, so multiple monitor setup is via daisy-chaining the monitors, again, off of a single TB connection. Theoretically, the e-GPU concept could enable even GPU challenged MacBooks to power multi-monitor rigs, couldn't it? It's fun to speculate.
pci-e 2.0 X4 less overhead sucks for any mid to high end GPU
pci-e 2.0 X4 less overhead sucks for any mid to high end GPU
Yes it does for many tasks. However there is one advantage when driving very high pixel count displays and that is when the bandwidth demand to the GPU is lower than that required to drive the display. Thus an embedded GPU would permit reasonable performance over a TB2 connection. There are a lot of if ands and buts here as such a system would suck for many uses where lots of data has to transfer between the CPU and GPU.
I've stated many times before that the GPU belongs as close to the CPU as possible. For the most part that remains true. Putting a GPU in the monitor would get around the bandwidth issues associated with TB2, but it would still suck for any advanced GPU usage.
Comments
Of course they "can" make a retina 17" laptop. The question is should they, and will they? The answers are no and no, as they should be. That product does not deserve to exist. The addressable market is tiny. I don't know who the hell the 17" would be for. It's barely portable. If you really need more screen than the 15" retina, then just get an iMac. a 17" is the worst of both worlds. Which is why you barely see anyone with a 17" laptop, and barely see anyone making them.
I don't want to get it yet ANOTHER debate over whether or not there's any benefit to the 17", but the fact that the larger screen is not useful to your activities is not a reason to disparage those of us who prefer it. Perhaps if you spent a day doing what I do you would see why there's benefit for ME, even if there may not be for you.
I'm not even going to get into the issue of whether or not Apple should make one. I'm simply pointing out that one extreme is no more absurd than the other. There's no way in hell I could be sufficiently productive with an 11" Air, but you don't see me insulting those whose needs it satisfies.
Of course, 6400x3600 is completely wrong, too.
Help me out here... is the article suggesting that the SCREEN resolution will 6400x3600, or that UI elements will be produced in that size and scaled 50% for display on a screen resolution of 3200x1800? I thought the latter.
Help me out here... is the article suggesting that the SCREEN resolution will 6400x3600, or that UI elements will be produced in that size and scaled 50% for display on a screen resolution of 3200x1800? I thought the latter.
6400x3600 proper pixels, rendered as 3200x1800, like other retina panels are.
I agree with [@]Slurpy[/@]'s first sentence, but not the rest. They should make the 17" MBP again if they want to and we don't know if they will. My suspicion is they won't but I have to think they probably sell the various desktop Macs in the same ballpark of the 17" MBP, but even if they didn't the question is still "would they sell enough to warrant the effort and cost in producing one?" I don't anyone thinks it would be as profitable as their other Mac notebooks but I think they would probably sell enough to be net gain.
Personally, I hope it returns as I see way it would negatively affect my goals with Apple but the 17" users need to consider why Apple would get rid of that size if it was such an important product to have.
One thing though, this pretty well confirms that we won't see new iMacs until Yosemite releases in the Fall.
Fall begins on Sept 23, so we're probably looking at a post-iPhone 6 October event.
If they can make a retina iMac, then they can make a retina 17" laptop.
Of course they "can" make a retina 17" laptop. The question is should they, and will they? The answers are no and no, as they should be. That product does not deserve to exist. The addressable market is tiny. I don't know who the hell the 17" would be for. It's barely portable. If you really need more screen than the 15" retina, then just get an iMac. a 17" is the worst of both worlds. Which is why you barely see anyone with a 17" laptop, and barely see anyone making them.
That's a truly blinkered post.
Many pros would find a 17" retina laptop invaluable. Apple could easily produce one now that is substantially lighter than their last 17" laptop. Suggesting a desktop as a substitute for a laptop is an incredibly crass thing to do. If you barely see anyone with a 17" laptop, that might just be because Apple doesn't make them and hasn't for some while.
Your posts are usually spot on, of course, but we can all write duds from time to time. I forgive you for it.
Which is still wrong, though. 2560x1440 doubled is 5120x2880. 1920x1080 doubled is 3840x2160.
I made no mistake in my calculations. The reason why Apple doubles the resolution for Retina is so objects can sharper without altering their size. My calculations show that to keep everything at the exact same size the display would be 33.75" for the stated resolution. IOW, the Menu Bar between a 27" iMac and a 33.75" Retina iMac would be exactly the same height.
Quite. Which is why I suggested a 34" display in my earlier posts on another thread.
I don't want to get it yet ANOTHER debate over whether or not there's any benefit to the 17", but the fact that the larger screen is not useful to your activities is not a reason to disparage those of us who prefer it. Perhaps if you spent a day doing what I do you would see why there's benefit for ME, even if there may not be for you.
I'm not even going to get into the issue of whether or not Apple should make one. I'm simply pointing out that one extreme is no more absurd than the other. There's no way in hell I could be sufficiently productive with an 11" Air, but you don't see me insulting those whose needs it satisfies.
I agree with @Slurpy's first sentence, but not the rest. They should make the 17" MBP again if they want to and we don't know if they will. My suspicion is they won't but I have to think they probably sell the various desktop Macs in the same ballpark of the 17" MBP, but even if they didn't the question is still "would they sell enough to warrant the effort and cost in producing one?" I don't anyone thinks it would be as profitable as their other Mac notebooks but I think they would probably sell enough to be net gain.
Personally, I hope it returns as I see way it would negatively affect my goals with Apple but the 17" users need to consider why Apple would get rid of that size if it was such an important product to have.
I suspect it was just too heavy in its previous incarnation. Apple should get it much lighter now.
You really want a big blank bar across the middle of your screen content, both vertically and horizontally, where there's display bezel and no pixels?
I don't.
Bringing back the 17" in slimmer form would be trés cool for DTPers, movie-editors and photographers.
But Apple's probably going to say that TB docking the 15" to a 27" display eliminates the need.
Help me out here... is the article suggesting that the SCREEN resolution will 6400x3600, or that UI elements will be produced in that size and scaled 50% for display on a screen resolution of 3200x1800? I thought the latter.
6400x3600 proper pixels, rendered as 3200x1800, like other retina panels are.
I apparently don't understand how Retina works (which as you know, isn't AT ALL surprising!
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />)
So the number of actual, physical pixels on the screen is 3200x1800, or does the physical screen actually have 6400x3600 pixels?
If the former, what is the load on a graphics chip? Is it pushing 6400x3600 pixels or 3200x1800?
I promised myself I wouldn't derail this thread any further...
I completely understand your point. What I wonder is if Apple's choice to axe the 17" was similar to GM closing plants the 90's. Certain GM plants, while profitable, were not profitable ENOUGH so they closed them. I don't have sufficient understanding of how a business of that scale works to get my head around the perceived "upside" to such a decision. I don't see how building a 17" computer would interfere with also building more profitable products like iPhones etc.
The only benefit to Apple that I can come up with is making the bottom line look better to shareholders by getting rid of things that drag down the aggregate score. Maybe that's a good enough reason on its own.
So the number of actual, physical pixels on the screen is 3200x1800, or does the physical screen actually have 6400x3600 pixels?
64 physical pixels, displaying on the screen as though it's 32.
For example, the MacBook Pro is 2880x1800, but it appears as though it’s still 1440x900 (like the pre-retina), because where there was one physical pixel before, there are now four.
Yeah, it's really the same kind of niggles you'd get on any multi-monitor Mac setup.
I remember when Mavericks came out they were crowing about all the improvements they'd made to multi-monitor support. But the first time I go to use it, they haven't even implemented the naive/obvious multi-monitor mode, which is to just ignore all boundaries and treat all monitors as one big canvas. That is, with a menu bar across the top of the whole canvas, and a Dock centred on the whole canvas, and full screen apps that fill the whole canvas. That kind of mode would be perfect for this application. I think Ubuntu can do that.
Quote:
You really want a big blank bar across the middle of your screen content, both vertically and horizontally, where there's display bezel and no pixels?
I don't.
There are some situations where a single menu bar stretched across two or more monitors is OK. One is where ultra-thin bezel videowall monitors are used. Also, many times there is not so much information in the middle of the menu bar so even standard width bezels would be OK.
I like the idea that going full-screen on any app would fill all of the monitors with that one app.
The videowall application is way more important in my line of work. In this case, I'm not interested in having the menu bar shown at all. It would however be really nice to be able to address maybe a 2x2 array of monitors at each monitors' native resolution from a single MacPro that is treating the four monitors as a one big canvas (as ascii describes).
The big hold up here is likely Intel. If Apple wants Broadwell in the iMac they need to get Intel to deliver. Having an interim driver release has never stopped Apple in the past.
The Mini DisplayPort part of Thunderbolt can't do 6400 x 3600, but data to drive an external GPU could run over TB2. Maybe something like the Matrox "double head to go" or "triple head to go" could present itself as a ~6400 x 3200 monitor to the Mac, so a only a single TB2 connector on the Mac drives a multi-monitor setup. Or maybe new TB monitors will have integrated GPU, so multiple monitor setup is via daisy-chaining the monitors, again, off of a single TB connection. Theoretically, the e-GPU concept could enable even GPU challenged MacBooks to power multi-monitor rigs, couldn't it? It's fun to speculate.
pci-e 2.0 X4 less overhead sucks for any mid to high end GPU
Yes it does for many tasks. However there is one advantage when driving very high pixel count displays and that is when the bandwidth demand to the GPU is lower than that required to drive the display. Thus an embedded GPU would permit reasonable performance over a TB2 connection. There are a lot of if ands and buts here as such a system would suck for many uses where lots of data has to transfer between the CPU and GPU.
I've stated many times before that the GPU belongs as close to the CPU as possible. For the most part that remains true. Putting a GPU in the monitor would get around the bandwidth issues associated with TB2, but it would still suck for any advanced GPU usage.