Apple 1st High Res Retina Laptops/ Tablets, Others Follow?

[laowai]

I like high-res screens because ______________________.

Seriously, please? Give us back real screens... in matte? The first company that does that with a tolerable keyboard gets my money. I generally budget $2200~2400 per laptop with an expected life of 3 years. I've been on this T60 for 6 years now. Cost is no object.

[khtse]

So... the new macbook pro is announced. 2880 x 1800 resolution.

OS X has high-res graphics ready, so the interface won't look too tiny. They did say that apps have to update to take advantage of the super high res screen....

Anyway, I don't need super high res in genreal. But when I'm coding, I do tend to lower the font size to the point that they start to look pixelated on my X220. Thinking about moving to a bigger laptop that is still thin and late. Either the X1 Carbon or this new 15.4" Macbook Pro. Too bad Lenovo hasn't told us much about the X1 Carbon yet.

[Puppy]

So... the new macbook pro is announced. 2880 x 1800 resolution.

And still 16:10. Why Lenovo does not "copy" this bigseller feature ?

[pianowizard]

So... the new macbook pro is announced. 2880 x 1800 resolution.

Not only that, but it will weigh only 4.5 lbs, very light for a 15.4" laptop with such a high resolution. I am one step closer to buying a Mac...

[dr_st]

Not only that, but it will weigh only 4.5 lbs, very light for a 15.4" laptop with such a high resolution. I am one step closer to buying a Mac...

That's very light for any 15.4" laptop. Will it really? It's far less than the current 15.4" Macbook Pro. What could they possibly have cut?

And still 16:10. Why Lenovo does not "copy" this bigseller feature ?

8:5 - maybe. The resolution itself - Windows won't know what to do with it.

[khtse]

Ok... the $2199 price tag set me back a bit... but at least it comes with 8GB RAM and 256GB SSD as standard. That's a $350-450 worth of upgrade that I have to do it myself if I get a Thinkpad.

[pianowizard]

Will it really? It's far less than the current 15.4" Macbook Pro. What could they possibly have cut?

See http://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/specs/ . It's actually 4.46 lb.

BTW, photos of Mac laptops (including this new 15.4" one) makes me angry about one thing: why do all PC laptops need to have such outrageously thick display bezels??!!

[khtse]

Will it really? It's far less than the current 15.4" Macbook Pro. What could they possibly have cut?

SSD (Apple uses non-standard size SSD, with only the logic board, no casing), the DVD drive, and since it is made with a single piece of aluminum, I suppose dropping those metal surrounding the DVD-drive cut the weight a bit as well. Jony Ive also said something they no longer put a glass surface in front of the monitor, and that save 0.2~0.3 (or more) pound I guess?

[ausmike]

Intresting to read ppls comments ............

Side note::
am very keen to get my hands on the new MAC PRO... (curious how ... check out side by side with new W530 & X230T)

Specs:
Retina display: 15.4-inch (diagonal) LED-backlit display with IPS technology; 2880-by-1800 resolution at 220 pixels per inch with support for millions of colors.
Supported resolutions: 2880 by 1800 pixels (Retina); scaled resolutions: 1920 by 1200, 1680 by 1050, 1280 by 800, and 1024 by 640 pixels

Also be keen to see how my OLD 2008 version IPS Panel 'looks' next to this latest fan('tic)dangle machine....

And all else fails , I would slot in newer SSD and install UNIX/LINUX ....

Fun fun fun !!! > do they have 30 hr days yet ?

(see if powers of be let me take pic to put up here)

Cheers



Edited::
OUCH !!! > ORDER CONFIRMED >$3,628.00 Ships in : 3-5 weeks Free Shipping Cant waite !

[dr_st]

the DVD drive, and since it is made with a single piece of aluminum, I suppose dropping those metal surrounding the DVD-drive cut the weight a bit as well.

Yes, that would do it.

[khtse]

It's interesting how Apple is putting the Retina on a single model of macbook pro, even calling it "next-gen", and at the same time keep the same screen and design on the "current-gen" macbook pros and airs. It seems like even Apple is having a hard time sourcing enough high-res panels to implement Retina displays across the board.

Will Apple finally phrase out the "last-gen" macbook pros (and airs) next year, when high-res small-size IPS displays become more available? I hope so, as this probably means other manufacturers will be able to source such displays as well.

[sysiphus]

The super-high density panels are a good thing for the sake of pushing the industry, and I'm glad somebody's still interested in 16:10 panels...

That said, the new "retina display" doesn't do much for me--1920x1200/1080 is already a high enough pixel density for a 15" machine to look very clear and nice, and gives more usable workspace, given that the new retina displays are just going to double the ppi for the basic UI...it'll basically just be a super-clear 1440x900, so far as I can tell. Sure, some apps will do better, I'm sure, but I'd rather just see a good quality 1920x1200 panel instead.

Also noticed that the machine lacks an ethernet port--while I can understand the push towards super-thin/light on the, say 13" and smaller machines, I don't get it for the full-size desktop replacement lines.

[Puppy]

Thinking of the subject, Apple is not first. IBM was first with their custom 15" QXGA FlexView panel

[khtse]

If you are wondering how OS X handle such high resolution:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5996/how- ... es-scaling

[ThinkRob]

Thinking of the subject, Apple is not first. IBM was first with their custom 15" QXGA FlexView panel

Some 7 years ago too, no?

To be fair, Apple has the market share to do something like this without sinking a ton of money into the black hole that was IDTech. Plus, you know, LCD tech has advance just slightly since then.

[ajkula66]

Plus, you know, LCD tech has advance just slightly since then.

Judging by LCDs used on most laptops nowadays, one would likely conclude the exact opposite...

But hey, now you can own a travel-size X220, a full-size MacBook and an EliteBook workstation all with IPS LCDs...not bad, in all honesty.

[crashnburn]

So... the new macbook pro is announced. 2880 x 1800 resolution.

OS X has high-res graphics ready, so the interface won't look too tiny. They did say that apps have to update to take advantage of the super high res screen....

Anyway, I don't need super high res in genreal. But when I'm coding, I do tend to lower the font size to the point that they start to look pixelated on my X220. Thinking about moving to a bigger laptop that is still thin and late. Either the X1 Carbon or this new 15.4" Macbook Pro. Too bad Lenovo hasn't told us much about the X1 Carbon yet.

Exactly one of my peeves. When you want to Zoom out / Zoom in.. on a Non-retina you can discern the "non-naturalness" / "non accuracy" of the "matter" being rendered.

I believe now that the Hardware is being pushed into Retina space, even Windows / Microsoft did not have the "guts" to push it. But, as a good "competitor" they will attempt to catch up eventually.

Honestly, if we / hardware guys/ the market waited for Windows to become Retina ready/ friendly, then we'd end up waiting.

The one good thing w MS is if there's good enough / powerful hardware they will eventually make their software USE it..

[loyukfai]

If you are wondering how OS X handle such high resolution:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5996/how- ... es-scaling

Thanks for the link.

Apple's probably chosen one of the less problematic ways to do it, doubling the resolution that of a more commonly used one and scale 200%.

Guess we'll probably seeing this on high-end ThinkPads in a year or two.

BTW, I do want to know what Apple has done anything to accommodate the higher power draw from high-res screen though.

Cheers.

Edit: P.S. Heard Apple "did away the glass", does it mean that it's a matte screen...?

[khtse]

Heard Apple "did away the glass", does it mean that it's a matte screen...?

Yes and no. They did away the glass cover, but proably put some film base protector or coating on it to make it, well... glossy:
http://cdn0.sbnation.com/entry_photo_im ... y_post.jpg

[csioucs]

Looking at the anandtech link I'm fantasizing... if only someone could engineer/hack a trackpoint on that keyboard, even perhaps frankenmac it with a (ahem) ignoble/infamous new thinkpad keyboard ), that way I may accept the new keyboard . But even so I might seriously bite the apple and add a usb trackpoint/ultranav keyboard.

____________________________________________________________________
Trackpoint and Highresolution! And keyboard not chickboard. .

[crashnburn]

And the fact that the ThinkVision L19xp monitors are dirt cheap and incredibly common in the used markets now means that it's also the best thing you can do for your wallet.

Are they that good?

[Puppy]

The one good thing w MS is if there's good enough / powerful hardware they will eventually make their software USE it..

Sorry, I don't see the point. I can use Windows with 27" 2560x1440 monitor now. The same is for double PPI display in macbook. Scaling will be still horrible there on non-native resolutions. You would need at least 10 times higher PPI (same as printers) to use it for good looking anti-aliasing at any scale.

For example text like"iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii...." will look good on native 2880x1800 or half 1440x900 resolution. But if you try to mimic something in between you get a blurry unreadable mess. 1440x900 is just too low for a 15" display but 2880x1800 is also too low to get sharp blurry-free readable result at scale between 100% and 200%.

[twistero]

Scaling will be still horrible there on non-native resolutions. You would need at least 10 times higher PPI (same as printers) to use it for good looking anti-aliasing at any scale.

For example text like"iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii...." will look good on native 2880x1800 or half 1440x900 resolution. But if you try to mimic something in between you get a blurry unreadable mess.

If the Anandtech article is true, this won't happen on OS X. Everything will always be rendered at native resolution, 2880x1800, so you always get sharp text. This scaling is different than simply setting the video card to output a non-native resolution.
Also, on my SXGA+ X60t with Windows 7, I have the scaling set to 125%, and all Windows components scale perfectly. It almost look the same as Win7 on a same size XGA screen, except everything is smoother.

[Puppy]

If the Anandtech article is true, this won't happen on OS X. Everything will always be rendered at native resolution, 2880x1800, so you always get sharp text.

No, you don't. You can not display for example two color 1500 vertical lines on a 2880 pixel display to look sharp. The same is valid for the "i" letter. You can display 1440 i's one by one (one pixel for the letter, second for the space) being sharp. But you can't display 1500 of them. They will be always blurry, at least some of them. You would have to had much better resolution (at least like printers have) to do that.

[twistero]

No, you don't. You can not display for example two color 1500 vertical lines on a 2880 pixel display to look sharp. The same is valid for the "i" letter. You can display 1440 i's one by one (one pixel for the letter, second for the space) being sharp. But you can't display 1500 of them. They will be always blurry, at least some of them. You would have to had much better resolution (at least like printers have) to do that.

OK, I get you. But I don't see why you would ever want such small text. The 15.4 inch LCD is 33.17 centimeters wide. To fit 1500 letter "i"s in there, each letter will occupy 0.02 centimeters, or 0.2 millimeters. Considering whitespace, each letter itself is 0.1 millimeter wide, and maybe 0.5 millimeter tall. That's, what, 1pt font size?

Also, the DPI of a printer does not directly compare to the PPI of a display, because several dots (of only 4 colors of ink) on paper are required to represent one pixel (of 16 million colors) on screen.

Edit: Actually, I don't get you, because what you said has nothing to do with your post above. Of course a screen cannot display details finer than the pixel density, e.g. 3000 lines on a 2880px wide screen. How does this relate to your original issue that

... Scaling will be still horrible there on non-native resolutions. You would need at least 10 times higher PPI (same as printers) to use it for good looking anti-aliasing at any scale.

For example text like"iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii...." will look good on native 2880x1800 or half 1440x900 resolution. But if you try to mimic something in between you get a blurry unreadable mess.

If your logic holds on the new high-density screen, it must hold on our current lower-density screen as well. Then, by your logic, the second smallest font you can read on your current screen should be exactly double the size of the smallest font you can read, because anything in between will be a "blurry unreadable mess". Is this the case? Of course not. Subpixel rendering a.k.a. ClearType makes any font size above the absolute minimum readable. Try zooming this page out until the text becomes unreadable. Then zoom in step by step, each time noting whether the text is readable. Does the text get small and sharp, then become a blurry mess, then become readable again? I imagine not.

[khtse]

Also, the DPI of a printer does not directly compare to the PPI of a display, because several dots (of only 4 colors of ink) on paper are required to represent one pixel (of 16 million colors) on screen.

You are confusing DPI (dot per inch) with PPI (pixel per inch). PPI is fixed, a hardware specification that you can't change. DPI is something adjustable in software. Holding a PPI specification, and screen resolution fixed, you can still change DPI to scale the font and image sizes in most OS ( as in Windows/OS X/Android (root required) etc )

And each pixel on a display are also made of several fixed color sub-pixels, the most common one is of course 3-subpixel RGB structure .

[twistero]

You are confusing DPI (dot per inch) with PPI (pixel per inch). PPI is fixed, a hardware specification that you can't change. DPI is something adjustable in software. Holding a PPI specification, and screen resolution fixed, you can still change DPI to scale the font and image sizes in most OS ( as in Windows/OS X/Android (root required) etc )

And each pixel on a display are also made of several fixed color sub-pixels, the most common one is of course 3-subpixel RGB structure .

I'm not talking about the "software" DPI, as a scaling factor. I'm talking about a printer's DPI, as in how dense a printer can put ink dots on paper. That too is a hardware specification you can't change. Well, you can lower it for lower quality printouts, but there is a hardware limit on how high the DPI can go on a certain printer. But of course what you said is correct.
And my point was that the DPI of a print is not directly comparable to the PPI of a display, because many dots on paper are required to represent the information carried by only one pixel on a display.

[khtse]

And my point was that the DPI of a print is not directly comparable to the PPI of a display, because many dots on paper are required to represent the information carried by only one pixel on a display.

Same is true for display. Each pixel is made out of a number of sub-pixels, and the number of sub-pixels and how they are arranged differs from display to display. The notable one in recent years is the Pentile arrangement, which is known to produce more pixelated images at the same resolution.

On the other note. It seems like OS X's scaling method doesn't solve the problem 100%
http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/12/30798 ... k-pro-apps

Apps need to be updated to take advantage of the higher resolution. For actively developing apps like Chrome browser, this probably will only be a very short term problem. But this could be a problem for legacy apps (e.g. old games, the photo/movie editing apps you purchased few years ago for $1000 which don't want to pay for update anytime soon), as well as apps that only get updated every few years.

[ThinkRob]

Are they that good?

If you want a good 19" SXGA screen, yes.

I have a couple of them around the house and they're all around a solid choice if you're looking for a nice 5:4 monitor on a budget. I like the reasonable bezel size, the classic IBM style, the decent *VA panels they put in, and the fact that I can almost always find one in great condition (often flawless refurbs!) for well under $100 including shipping.

So no, it's not the best display out there in terms of style or price or performance, but it strikes a very good balance between all three -- and that makes it a good choice as a boring "workhorse".

[crashnburn]

As any old school programmers here know that we started with monitors that were barely capable. VGA etc.

At that time, things HAD TO BE DRAWN to screen using Pixel "DOTS" (A DOT MATRIX that was kind of visible to the human Eye) that were AVAILABLE. EGA/ VGA etc.
A Hardware Limitation - That has now been surpassed by high density of dots.

TV started with low res.. PAL/ NTSC (maybe lower?) 1080p has also become a standard (which again is a Matrix of Dots)

Exactly what Laser/ Ink/ LED/ Jet Photo graphic printers did to the DOT MATRIX printers is what High Density/ High Res/ Retina Displays can do for computing. It has become standard. On a good one, the human eye cannot PERCEIVE individual dots.

Of course, the software/ driver for a DOT MATRIX was kind of less precise as compared to the Dot/Resolution capability of a Laser/High Res PRINTER.

Can you imagine using a Dot Matrix printer now.. for a good output / presentation? (Ok.. unless you're printing bills & accounting)

The same will have to happen for OSes and Applications. People are confusing Small vs Big size text on OS/Apps menus based on their own size preferences.

Once this kind of hardware (Displays) becomes standard like Laserjets, then we will forget how "resolutions" mattered. All displays would be RETINA (beyond human eye) density and software/ OS would be DISPLAY-DENSITY, SIZE & PIXEL AWARE. Allowing user to increase / decrease the Vector drawn MENU sizes.

Why shouldn't humanity get / use such displays? I have to say Apple took the lead in beautiful type faces, graphical OSes, iPod/iPhone and a bunch of the HUMAN-FRIENDLINESS BEAUTY that was added to computing/ telecommunication. If the fingers deserve better, so do our eyes

I can imagine Steve Jobs looking at his LCD Monitor/ iPad and thinking.. why can I see these individual PIXELS/ jaggedness in Text/Images when I zoom in/out. I'd like to create a device/ machine that MATCHES the PERCEPTIVE ability of the Human Eye.

It is not THAT BIG a challenge. Of course, like every evolution in the computing industry, there will be LEGACY issues. If we can create such feature rich Virtualization platforms, I am sure this would be less complicated than rocket science. And maybe some legacy apps will have to die to let the new ones come through.

Maybe there will be good porting tools/ guidelines. All in all.. There are solutions. TIMING & HOW/ WHEN THEY HAPPEN.. is well..