Report: Apple to Launch 2880x1800 Pixel MacBook Displays

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]house70[/nom]They are not popular because there are no applications that take advantage of those resolutions.[citation]

Oh my god, WHAT a crybaby. Your comment just reeks of sour grapes. Just fill out a hurt feelings report, and we'll call your mommy and get you a blankie.
 
You try reading on that screen. 27", sure, but not 17". Can you imagine the cost of that? The Apple 27" monitors are 2560x1440 which is 109ppi - the Thunderbolt Display is £900 in the UK for that sort of panel. Now, I know it's not quite the same thing, but consider shrinking that panel and increasing the resolution at the same time to the point that you're virtually halving the dot pitch. Macbooks may have been expensive before, but this will just take the biscuit if launched over the next few months. The iPad 2Kx1.5K resolution has been rumoured for a while and if that comes, if it stays at 9.7" it's going to be 264ppi. Who's going to be able to afford such things? The iPhone 4S' Retina Display may cost a little over $20 for the panel but that's tiny compared to that of a 17" Macbook.

I can definitely see a use for such a high resolution if it's done correctly, but I can also see these being the purview of the wealthy for a long time to come.
 
[citation][nom]misha87[/nom]thats an extra $3000 !!! what a waste[/citation]

It's not a waste. You must realize that higher resolution single monitors are primarily targeted to video editors and photographers (not gamers) as most cameras capture between 3k-10k resolution, believe it or not. This would be a step up for those who will NEED it.
 
[citation][nom]woshitudou[/nom]This is why I like Apple, they push things ahead while everyone else is happy selling us the same sh*t over and over.[/citation]

I totally agree! =)
 
Follow my math rant and you will see why this makes very little financial sense for a manufacturer.

Currently the smallest 2560x1920 display is 27", with 310.2 square inches of surface(23.5x13.2), 4,915,200 pixels and a pixel density of 125 ppi2.

The new proposed 17" laptop screen will have 103.6 square inches of surface (13.6x7.6), 5,184,000 pixels and a pixel density of 193 ppi2.

The iphone 4(s) has a 3.7" screen with 5.76 square inches off surface(3.2x1.8), 460,800 pixels and a pixel density of 283 ppi2.

I'm not saying this isn't possible, just that to get a 66% shrink in surface area (310 to 103) with a higher amount of total pixels you better expect really really poor yields for the first 6 months to a year. The only reason why phones have really high PPI screen's is because they are small, so if there is a dead spot of pixels they loose one 5.76 square inches, not 100+ square inches. Because of this the cost of a single dead pixel in a screen of this size is 20X more costly than a dead pixel in a 3.7" screen. If apple intends to sell these expect supply to be extremely limited and price to be extremely high.

 
Geezus, with a resolution like that you would need the screen to be huge or else how you going to read text?
 
Who cares? I'd prefer a higher end CPU or something. Also, I find that 1920x1080, even on a 23" screen, looks good enough. You really shouldn't be close enough to the screen that you can make out individual pixels. And on a 17" screen, it's even sharper. Second, will they do this for desktops? If so, how will they connect it as most video cards max out at 2560x1600 (dual-link DVI and displayport). Yes, I know the DP spec supports nearly 4K, but I haven't seen anything yet that allows such.
 
TBH, the idea of a "Retina" display on a Macbook Pro sounds good to me. If they keep everything on the screen about the same size as you get with a 1680x1050 display on a 15" and just make everything razor sharp what's not to like about that? Oh...the fact that Apple is the one doing it. Well, someone else will come along and do it too...like Dell.
 
This is all about higher ppi, that is, quality of font rendering, not about increase in desktop size or making widgets smaller. Size of the screen is irrelevant when considering quality of rendering.
Lowest acceptable printed resolution is 300ppi, which is 4446x2502 on a 17" LCD screen. This is what Apple should be aiming at.
It's great that Apple is thinking beyond the dumb-ass "bigger-is-better" consumer market.
Hopefully, their Apple's next version of desktop will be vector (and not bitmap) rendered so everything seen can take advantage of increased resolution.
 
Err... people? You do know that OS X Lion include a 2x magnification hidden API, that allow to display application at 2 time the resolution without interpolation right? 2880 by 1800 will have the same text size as a 1440 by 900 display. Exact same thing. It will just have more pixel to define it. It will not be small text, it will be high definition text. You know, kind of like bumping the DPI setting in Windows 7. Ever tried that? You know they already did that with the iPhone 4 and it gave incredibly crisp and easy to read text right?

As for the graphic card, what kind of idiot buy a Mac to play game anyway? Regular app will be able to work at that definition on the integrated GPU. Maybe Illustrator Photoshop will need a beefier GPU for real time preview of filter, but Crysis this is not.
 
So if they are doing 800X1200 or more on 4-5 inch smartphone screens, how is 2880X1880 a problem on a 15 inch screen? Soon the cell phone screens (if the new ones don't already) will be doing full hd resolutions; the small print hasn't stopped anyone from playing games or surfing the net on their phones.
 
if this pushes the industry to stop acting like 1080p is the *max* (with a few expensive exceptions) then i'm all for it. Apple releases it at an insane price, everyone else has to compete. at a cheaper price. consumer wins.
 


Indeed! 1080p on a 27'' screen is already meh... need moar... like 2500x1600... but there's nothing...
 
[citation][nom]getreal[/nom][citation][nom]house70[/nom]They are not popular because there are no applications that take advantage of those resolutions.[citation]Oh my god, WHAT a crybaby. Your comment just reeks of sour grapes. Just fill out a hurt feelings report, and we'll call your mommy and get you a blankie.[/citation]
Dude, you REALLY need a therapist.... and maybe to go get a life, while you're at it. They'll work wonders with your self-confidence issues. And if not, there's always medication; don't despair.
 
Dell and other manufacturers already offer full HD laptops for years. Their resolution is way less spectacular. But from a normal viewing distance, their small pixels are already invisible to the human eye because it is just useless to create a screen the offers more than 170dpi on a laptop (and say 250 on a smartphone).
if you asked a few months ago to an Apple fan why resolution was so low on their machines, he would tell you that "having a higher resolution is soooo useless and Steve knows that so 1440x900 makes us so happy we don't want anything else"
Now, they will claim that those screens are a revolution and it's so superior to any other screen on the market, but I think it's quite a tragic waste of pixels and GPU power. The specs are an overkill so it will end up overpriced. The real reason behind this crazy resolution is by no mean based on deep studies of what the human eye needs. It's just that Apple never upgrades anything until a LCD panels manufacturer can create a panel that has exactly double the resolution of the previous model... for the sake of simplicity according to them, but I think more because their OS's are not that resolution independant as they pretend it to be with their hidpi buzz
Just think at how long Apple users were stuck with 320×480 on their iPhone's display while WinMo or Android phones were offered with 480x800 (my 2005 Windows Mobile 5 Dell Axim 51v pda had already a 3.7 inch 640x480 screen!!!)
 
[citation][nom]bystander[/nom]Don't expect it. That resolution will only be useful at the desktop and normal apps. To game on it, you'd likely want to drop down to 1440x900, which actually isn't that bad.[/citation]

Yep you are right about that. Even Sandybridge integrated GPU can be used for office aplications and web browsing, and it is fast enough and provide most propably quite crisp fonts to read. This resolution is not for gaming! Not for many years in Macbooks or any other ultrabooks neither. That half resolution for the games may bee to much, but maybe Ivy offer so much more umph that you can play Angry birds and similar simple games at that 1440x900 resolution...
All in all I still would like to see my busines laptop to have 2880 x 1800 or even higher resolution for any busines aps, if the display othervice is equally good! It would make text so much sharper to read!

 
[citation][nom]house70[/nom]Dude, you REALLY need a therapist.... and maybe to go get a life, while you're at it. They'll work wonders with your self-confidence issues. And if not, there's always medication; don't despair.[/citation]

The sooner you get that hurt feelings report filled out, the sooner we can get your blankie for you, kid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom