Inside Apple's 13-inch Retina Display MacBook Pro

[JMcEntegart]

What's Apple hiding under the hood?

Inside Apple's 13-inch Retina Display MacBook Pro : Read more

 

[emperor piehead]

do you even need 2560x1600 on a 13in. screen anyways? With my 1366x768 laptop i can't notice really any pixels.

 

[wildkitten]

[citation][nom]Emperor Piehead[/nom]do you even need 2560x1600 on a 13in. screen anyways? With my 1366x768 laptop i can't notice really any pixels.[/citation]
I would imagine video and pictures would look much crisper and vibrant on it.

 

[N.Broekhuijsen]

[citation][nom]wildkitten[/nom]I would imagine video and pictures would look much crisper and vibrant on it.[/citation]
Pictures, maybe. Video? Pointless waste of time. Highest resolution you can find movies these days are 1080p, with the odd exception. It won't be for another few years before we actually get 2k or 4k video as market default. Until then, such a resolution on such a tiny screen is just a waste of time and money. I've got nearly that resolution on my 27 inch screen and with that it does serve a purpose, but that's because you can actually read text at the normal DPI settings, so you actually have added screen real estate.

 

[esrever]

[citation][nom]Emperor Piehead[/nom]do you even need 2560x1600 on a 13in. screen anyways? With my 1366x768 laptop i can't notice really any pixels.[/citation]
people paid for the ipad's retina display which is smaller than this.

 

[panini]

How come this got a 2 and the 15" got a 0?

 

[bryonhowley]

So when one of the ram chips go bad you though the whole laptop out and buy a new one!

 

[wemakeourfuture]

[citation][nom]Emperor Piehead[/nom]do you even need 2560x1600 on a 13in. screen anyways? With my 1366x768 laptop i can't notice really any pixels.[/citation]

it's basically a 1280 x 800 display just with twice the ppi than normal laptops. You can adjust the screen resolutions to get different sort of effects.

Saw a friend's 15" Retina (2880 x 1800) which basically becomes 1440 x 900 with twice the ppi (220) than most laptops.

Viewing pictures, looking at text looks way nice and sharper.

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]xbeater[/nom]Pictures, maybe. Video? Pointless waste of time. Highest resolution you can find movies these days are 1080p, with the odd exception. It won't be for another few years before we actually get 2k or 4k video as market default. Until then, such a resolution on such a tiny screen is just a waste of time and money. I've got nearly that resolution on my 27 inch screen and with that it does serve a purpose, but that's because you can actually read text at the normal DPI settings, so you actually have added screen real estate.[/citation]

with gpu driveing the video, you can get a decent upscale, not as good as a pre bake but still decent.

that said, photos, good, but on a 13 inch that 2560x1600 is wasted, and the fact that the whole thing is cheaper than most decent 2560x1600 monitors for the pc is an insult to injury on our part.

[citation][nom]esrever[/nom]people paid for the ipad's retina display which is smaller than this.[/citation]

that honestly annoyed me even more than this... WHY CANT WE GET THESE RESOLUTIONS ON THE CHEAP YET?

 

[yobobjm]

I feel like with intel hd graphics 4000 this basically can't do anything graphically intensive at that resolution.

 

[Guest]

The Retina looks great for photos and text. Can't imagine what else.

Checked out the one on display at Best Buy. Went to view the sample photos, and the first thing it did was tell me "Generating high-res thumbnails, please wait". I just walked away

Laptops aren't ready for 2560x1600 displays yet, unless you don't need to do anything productive with them other than read. Just get a freaking iPad

 

[cjl]

Really guys? You're complaining because someone finally decided that laptops with crappy screens needed to go?

As far as I'm concerned, the problem is that it's taken this long for this to happen - we've been stuck at miserable resolution for a long time, and I'm ecstatic that someone (even though it's apple) has finally decided to push display quality as a feature in laptops. Maybe this will finally convince the other manufacturers that they need to include decent displays with their computers - I'm sick and tired of 1366x768 TN panels on laptops.

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]cjl[/nom]Really guys? You're complaining because someone finally decided that laptops with crappy screens needed to go? As far as I'm concerned, the problem is that it's taken this long for this to happen - we've been stuck at miserable resolution for a long time, and I'm ecstatic that someone (even though it's apple) has finally decided to push display quality as a feature in laptops. Maybe this will finally convince the other manufacturers that they need to include decent displays with their computers - I'm sick and tired of 1366x768 TN panels on laptops.[/citation]

yea... 13 inch is about a quarter the size of my screen, and it has more resolution in that 13 inch that my whole monitor has.

im willing to bet money that if you put that 13 inch and a normal resolution at 13 inch side by side, at a comfortable distance, i doubt i would notice which was which is the ui was the same size.

that essentially means its pointless.

are their uses, yea
but i look at it this way,
i have a 1920x1200 monitor.
my zoom level for toms hardware is at 175%, to make it easy to read at a distance, most websites i go to get zoomed atl east to 150%
extra realestate... not really used if i full screen everything, and the applications i could take advantage of 2560x1600 are not doable on a 13 inch laptop.

for me all this would do is make browsing the web annoying as every site i go to i would have to zoom in
i look at images alot, so i have mouse buttons assigned to zoom + zoom = and zoom 100% it would suck useing that thing without easy to hit commands like that.

 

[john_4]

[citation][nom]Emperor Piehead[/nom]do you even need 2560x1600 on a 13in. screen anyways? With my 1366x768 laptop i can't notice really any pixels.[/citation]
Have you looked at iPad with retina? It's looks great and I'm sure these high density screens on the Macbooks will be same. The price is too high for me right now and my 13" Macbook Pro has years left in her.

 

[jecastej]

In fact almost all printed material you can find is 300 dpi or a retina resolution as this has been a standard worldwide for decades. So it is very natural to read text or see an image on a display at 300 ppi but that is at a reading position and assuming you have a good sight. But 300 ppi is very close on average to the human sight limit and why Apple use a term like "retina display".

 

[del35]

do you even need 2560x1600 on a 13in. screen anyways? With my 1366x768 laptop i can't notice really any pixels.

Yes, you do if your tech IQ is as low as an iTard's.

 

[del35]

So when one of the ram chips go bad you though the whole laptop out and buy a new one!

Yes indeed. Good reason to use an aluminum chassis. It makes for good land filling.

 

[wemakeourfuture]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]yea... 13 inch is about a quarter the size of my screen, and it has more resolution in that 13 inch that my whole monitor has. im willing to bet money that if you put that 13 inch and a normal resolution at 13 inch side by side, at a comfortable distance, i doubt i would notice which was which is the ui was the same size. that essentially means its pointless.are their uses, yeabut i look at it this way, i have a 1920x1200 monitor. my zoom level for toms hardware is at 175%, to make it easy to read at a distance, most websites i go to get zoomed atl east to 150%extra realestate... not really used if i full screen everything, and the applications i could take advantage of 2560x1600 are not doable on a 13 inch laptop. for me all this would do is make browsing the web annoying as every site i go to i would have to zoom in i look at images alot, so i have mouse buttons assigned to zoom + zoom = and zoom 100% it would suck useing that thing without easy to hit commands like that.[/citation]

I don't think you understand resolutions and ppi.

The laptop is displaying at 1280 x 800 but at twice the ppi.

Do you think the new smartphone 1080p displays on 5 inch screens are the same ppi as your 1080p monitor? Seriosuly, they're at ~440ppi, that's nearly quadruple the ppi of your monitor. These Retina Laptops are twice the ppi of your monitor.

Everything is not super small with lots of real estate, its the same size with twice the quality. Web pages look great on the Retina display, the text is really, really sharp. Zooming in is like pinch zooming on smartphones and tablets with really good ppi there's high level of details.

You can install Windows and get that to display as 2560 x 1600 and have everything super tiny, but that's the only way I've seen the resolution with the regular ppi of most other laptops on these Retina laptops.

 

[jacobdrj]

For 13 inch? This resolution is most welcomed. I might recommend one to an artist friend of mine who does illustrator. But he is waiting for one he can use a stylus with, right on the screen.

 

[wemakeourfuture]

[citation][nom]jacobdrj[/nom]For 13 inch? This resolution is most welcomed. I might recommend one to an artist friend of mine who does illustrator. But he is waiting for one he can use a stylus with, right on the screen.[/citation]

Interesting lots of artsy people I know like to use the stylus + pad that have higher accuracy than a stylus on a touch screen.

 

[jacobdrj]

[citation][nom]wemakeourfuture[/nom]Interesting lots of artsy people I know like to use the stylus + pad that have higher accuracy than a stylus on a touch screen.[/citation]
I would argue that this is more of a problem with stylus technology than a need to change how he wants to use the product. The way he sees it, he wants to 'ink' the same way he would on paper, just on a computer screen. Therefore, using a tablet is something he is shying away from...

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]wemakeourfuture[/nom]I don't think you understand resolutions and ppi.The laptop is displaying at 1280 x 800 but at twice the ppi.Do you think the new smartphone 1080p displays on 5 inch screens are the same ppi as your 1080p monitor? Seriosuly, they're at ~440ppi, that's nearly quadruple the ppi of your monitor. These Retina Laptops are twice the ppi of your monitor.Everything is not super small with lots of real estate, its the same size with twice the quality. Web pages look great on the Retina display, the text is really, really sharp. Zooming in is like pinch zooming on smartphones and tablets with really good ppi there's high level of details.You can install Windows and get that to display as 2560 x 1600 and have everything super tiny, but that's the only way I've seen the resolution with the regular ppi of most other laptops on these Retina laptops.[/citation]

i use monitors for computer and i change the resolution back when i still used a crt.
with a change in resolution, comes a change in the content size unless the os is built around the monitor, which phones, tablets, and now that i think about it mac notebooks are.

ill give it that the user interface for it will be bigger, but if automatically makes websites zoom in to look normal size on it, i see absolutely no use for the 2560x1600 outside of looking at a picture.

professional use for that would either require the ui to shrink, or a multi monitor setup.
now like i said, on my 1920x1200 94dpi, and im not seeing pixles from being between 2 or 3 feet away, the only places that i see something would be the negative neutral or positive check areas for this article, and thats because im zoomed in to 175% with everything uneffected by the zoom looks... normal...

the only things that a 2560x1600 monitor would improve in my experiance on the internet, would be looking at pictures.
it wouldnt change the way i see video
it wouldnt change how i use the internet (moveing to a 16:10 did that)
and god knows no applications or game i use would take advantage of a 2560x1600

and at 13 inch, i could safely say that resolution for me would be pointless,
at 30 inch or so... that resolution has a purpose, but not at 13.