2880x1800

knight427

knight427

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
183
Apple just announced their new MBP lineup today which includes Retina displays. The 15" MBP offers a 2880x1800 IPS panel. How is that Apple still offers 16:10 screens when all the PC manufactures claimed they "had to" switch to 16:9 due to market forces (HDTV glass). Total BS. I want 2880x1800 on my next mobile workstation. :(
 
I don't understand why there is not 1 Windows OEM that can match Apple when it comes to hardware.
 
knight427 said:
Apple just announced their new MBP lineup today which includes Retina displays. The 15" MBP offers a 2880x1800 IPS panel. How is that Apple still offers 16:10 screens when all the PC manufactures claimed they "had to" switch to 16:9 due to market forces (HDTV glass). Total BS. I want 2880x1800 on my next mobile workstation. :(
Click to expand...

The reason that Apple can do this is due to economies of scale. If Apple wants a specific type of screen for 100 million devices, they can do this. If Acer wants a specific type of screen for the 100k monitors they will sell that uses it, they will spend less money on acquisition if they use something being developed for several other customers (AOC, BenQ, Asus, to name a few), than requesting that the manufacturer make a screen specific to their needs.

Basically, more OEMs started requesting 16:9 display than 16:10, causing a price shift in acquisition. This caused the remaining 16:10 OEMs to have to jump ship as they could no longer compete on price. Apple isn't bound by this because they don't compete with other OEMs for their own computers. They set both the supply and demand.
 
Medion said:
The reason that Apple can do this is due to economies of scale. If Apple wants a specific type of screen for 100 million devices, they can do this. If Acer wants a specific type of screen for the 100k monitors they will sell that uses it, they will spend less money on acquisition if they use something being developed for several other customers (AOC, BenQ, Asus, to name a few), than requesting that the manufacturer make a screen specific to their needs.

Basically, more OEMs started requesting 16:9 display than 16:10, causing a price shift in acquisition. This caused the remaining 16:10 OEMs to have to jump ship as they could no longer compete on price. Apple isn't bound by this because they don't compete with other OEMs for their own computers. They set both the supply and demand.
Click to expand...

That's the best explanation I've ever heard of this situation. Still, HP and Dell offer 10-bit IPS panels at huge premiums, selling very few. So why can't they just offer it in 16:10 at least in their 17" models. I know they could get a lot of people to upgrade to 17" for the sole purpose of getting 16:10. At least, "a lot" relative to the small market share for 17" mobile workstations.
 
knight427 said:
That's the best explanation I've ever heard of this situation. Still, HP and Dell offer 10-bit IPS panels at huge premiums, selling very few. So why can't they just offer it in 16:10 at least in their 17" models. I know they could get a lot of people to upgrade to 17" for the sole purpose of getting 16:10. At least, "a lot" relative to the small market share for 17" mobile workstations.
Click to expand...

Well, this MacBook is definitely interesting, but the resolution doesn't tell the whole story. The resolution bump certainly increases clarity, but it doesn't increase usable space. The way Apple has it configured, it still only has the usable space of a 1440x900 screen, it just looks a whole lot better.

It's good marketing and will certainly look very nice, but for some, this will not help with productivity because the space of a 1440x900 screen is still a significantly smaller than the amount of usable space compared on a 1920x1080 screen.

Apple is still king of marketing and this will definitely raise some eyebrows and wow many users. However, unless there is a way to make the screen scale to show more usable space, I think it's a worthless luxury.

If I can't view documents side by side comfortably, if I can't view more pictures on the screen using Photoshop, if I can't view multiple applications simultaneously, than what good is it other than look nice?

Another question will be how it performs while gaming or under heavy load. If they don't build in some sort of scaling solution, games are either going to under perform due to the resolution and UI's will look tiny or the game will look very odd running at sub optimal resolutions. The 650M is no slouch, but at 2880x1800 it is nowhere near enough horsepower or memory to run games at native resolution.

And lastly, there's the question of how well this laptop will stay cool. Every generation of MacBook Pro's so far get very warm/hot when under load. This thing is thinner and has a much more powerful GPU than previous generations. Apple might as well put grill marks on the bottom of this thing if it doesn't have adequate cooling.
 
maverick777 said:
Well, this MacBook is definitely interesting, but the resolution doesn't tell the whole story. The resolution bump certainly increases clarity, but it doesn't increase usable space. The way Apple has it configured, it still only has the usable space of a 1440x900 screen, it just looks a whole lot better.

It's good marketing and will certainly look very nice, but for some, this will not help with productivity because the space of a 1440x900 screen is still a significantly smaller than the amount of usable space compared on a 1920x1080 screen.

Apple is still king of marketing and this will definitely raise some eyebrows and wow many users. However, unless there is a way to make the screen scale to show more usable space, I think it's a worthless luxury.

If I can't view documents side by side comfortably, if I can't view more pictures on the screen using Photoshop, if I can't view multiple applications simultaneously, than what good is it other than look nice?

Another question will be how it performs while gaming or under heavy load. If they don't build in some sort of scaling solution, games are either going to under perform due to the resolution and UI's will look tiny or the game will look very odd running at sub optimal resolutions. The 650M is no slouch, but at 2880x1800 it is nowhere near enough horsepower or memory to run games at native resolution.

And lastly, there's the question of how well this laptop will stay cool. Every generation of MacBook Pro's so far get very warm/hot when under load. This thing is thinner and has a much more powerful GPU than previous generations. Apple might as well put grill marks on the bottom of this thing if it doesn't have adequate cooling.
Click to expand...

BS.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5996/how-the-retina-display-macbook-pro-handles-scaling
 
Quake said:
I hate to say this but I'm becoming an Apple fan now, they know we WORK on our computers... unlike Microsoft with its disgusting Windows 8.
Click to expand...

Too bad Windows 8 has nothing to do with display sizes, MS does not make computers, and it is not meant to replace Windows 7... other than that, sure.
 
No windows based PC will have a resolution anywhere NEAR that for a year at least. We might get some mid-tier 16:9's though. 1440p on a bulky 17"

I might just pick one up and throw windows on it.
 
ShadeZeRO said:
No windows based PC will have a resolution anywhere NEAR that for a year at least. We might get some mid-tier 16:9's though. 1440p on a bulky 17"

I might just pick one up and throw windows on it.
Click to expand...

Probably. Sucks. Of course I do not want to haul around anything bigger that my X220 now anyway. I lugged a W700 around for 2 years... f-that
 
ComputerBox34 said:
I don't get it - by downresing my 1920x1200 display, it looks worse, not better. What's the difference with the retina display?
Click to expand...

Has to do with the scaling method. The OS itself is running at 1800p, but renders it it at the lower setting keeping the quality.
 
That's actually pretty cool... So you can give yourself the effective screen space of 1680x1050 or 1920x1200 without all sorts of ugly scaling artifacts... since the OS is using vectors for most of the window chrome and text... am I getting this right?
 
schizrade said:
Too bad Windows 8 has nothing to do with display sizes, MS does not make computers, and it is not meant to replace Windows 7... other than that, sure.
Click to expand...

Windows 8 and OS X are standing in the opposite side the spectrum. One one hand we have Apple which knows desktops are not tablets therefore they haven't made lots of changes to how people work with computers.

On the other hand, we have Windows 8. Microsoft vision of the desktop is that we will use it as a tablet computer which is ludicrous. Why would you want to use full-screen applications on that 24-27 inch monitor you brought?

Microsoft does not control the hardware, but they can certainly influence the computer industry to go into a certain way and the path Microsoft has chosen will be a failure like Windows ME and Vista were.
 
Should make for a really nice looking 1920x1200

although a 2560x1600 scaling option would have been really cool to see (but perhaps challenging for comfortable use)...never hurts to have options
 
Medion said:
The reason that Apple can do this is due to economies of scale. If Apple wants a specific type of screen for 100 million devices, they can do this. If Acer wants a specific type of screen for the 100k monitors they will sell that uses it, they will spend less money on acquisition if they use something being developed for several other customers (AOC, BenQ, Asus, to name a few), than requesting that the manufacturer make a screen specific to their needs.

Basically, more OEMs started requesting 16:9 display than 16:10, causing a price shift in acquisition. This caused the remaining 16:10 OEMs to have to jump ship as they could no longer compete on price. Apple isn't bound by this because they don't compete with other OEMs for their own computers. They set both the supply and demand.
Click to expand...

Yup... Apple has the buying power.
 
ShadeZeRO said:
No windows based PC will have a resolution anywhere NEAR that for a year at least. We might get some mid-tier 16:9's though. 1440p on a bulky 17"

I might just pick one up and throw windows on it.
Click to expand...

I'm seriously considering this myself.

My gaming PC, in recent years, has pretty much turned into a media server since I really don't have much time for gaming these days. And when I do, it's usually in front of the TV on my PS3 or 360 (as much as I love PC gaming, after being on a PC all day at work, the last thing I want to do is go home and hunch over a KB and mouse)

I can't stand most laptops for a lot of reasons, but I have to say that this one is really attractive. It has decent performance, an amazing display, thin/lightweight and good battery life. It would make a good desktop replacement for me.
 
If a Windows OEM does not come out with a laptop within six months that has a screen that matches the new Macbook, I am seriously going to switch to OSX for my laptop, even if it means rebuying Photoshop and Microsoft Office.
 
fishrule said:
If a Windows OEM does not come out with a laptop within six months that has a screen that matches the new Macbook, I am seriously going to switch to OSX for my laptop, even if it means rebuying Photoshop and Microsoft Office.
Click to expand...

You don't need to switch. Just install Windows.
 
I don't think Windows 7 will work so well on that screen. Sure there is DPI adjustment, but that doesn't adjust much, like applications.

Maybe Windows 8 will have better DPI scaling for applications but I kind of doubt it.

Metro apps will have proper scaling though.
 
450 said:
You don't need to switch. Just install Windows.
Click to expand...

Windows 7/8 is going to attempt to run the desktop at the panels native resolution (2880X1800). I imagine the results aren't going to be good. That high a resolution on a 15.6" screen is unusable (fonts and icons will be super small). I guess running Windows at 1440X900 might be OK but things might get a bit fuzzy.
 
extide said:
Can't wait till the high-res-movement comes to pc laptops!
Click to expand...

Good luck lol. Windows OEM builders are more focused on cutting corners and making profit by using lower quality parts (hence, 16:9 instead of 16:10, etc).
 
ShadeZeRO said:
Good luck lol. Windows OEM builders are more focused on cutting corners and making profit by using lower quality parts (hence, 16:9 instead of 16:10, etc).
Click to expand...

Intel has already been pushing them, and now they have the "Apple is doing it" excuse.

Personally I can't see a use for anything much beyond 2560x1440 on a 17" screen. But maybe once pixel density gets high enough, it will be able to simulate most any resolution with no visible distortion.
 
fishrule said:
If a Windows OEM does not come out with a laptop within six months that has a screen that matches the new Macbook, I am seriously going to switch to OSX for my laptop, even if it means rebuying Photoshop and Microsoft Office.
Click to expand...

Check with Adobe about doing a cross platform upgrade with Photoshop.
 
That display is incredible. I can't wait to see that technology trickle down into desktop displays. I also hope to see similar scaling options in future versions of windows. That is really the way it should work imo.
 
It does look incredible, but there is not way I'd be willing to pay that price.
 
StryderxX said:
Windows 7/8 is going to attempt to run the desktop at the panels native resolution (2880X1800). I imagine the results aren't going to be good. That high a resolution on a 15.6" screen is unusable (fonts and icons will be super small). I guess running Windows at 1440X900 might be OK but things might get a bit fuzzy.
Click to expand...
It's 'workable' at 150% DPI scaling: http://images.anandtech.com/galleries/2080/2880-150.png
 
maverick777 said:
Well, this MacBook is definitely interesting, but the resolution doesn't tell the whole story. The resolution bump certainly increases clarity, but it doesn't increase usable space. The way Apple has it configured, it still only has the usable space of a 1440x900 screen, it just looks a whole lot better.

It's good marketing and will certainly look very nice, but for some, this will not help with productivity because the space of a 1440x900 screen is still a significantly smaller than the amount of usable space compared on a 1920x1080 screen.

Apple is still king of marketing and this will definitely raise some eyebrows and wow many users. However, unless there is a way to make the screen scale to show more usable space, I think it's a worthless luxury.

If I can't view documents side by side comfortably, if I can't view more pictures on the screen using Photoshop, if I can't view multiple applications simultaneously, than what good is it other than look nice?
Click to expand...
As has been said you can choose a 1680x1050 or 1920x1200 workspace, though I think it is less sharp than the 1440x900 workspace option, but still sharper than the normal 1440x900 display.
Another question will be how it performs while gaming or under heavy load. If they don't build in some sort of scaling solution, games are either going to under perform due to the resolution and UI's will look tiny or the game will look very odd running at sub optimal resolutions. The 650M is no slouch, but at 2880x1800 it is nowhere near enough horsepower or memory to run games at native resolution.
Click to expand...
Games can run at 1440x900 and look just as good as they do on a standard 1440x900 panel, or you can run them at practically any resolution you want up to native, so you can mix and match resolution and settings.
And lastly, there's the question of how well this laptop will stay cool. Every generation of MacBook Pro's so far get very warm/hot when under load. This thing is thinner and has a much more powerful GPU than previous generations. Apple might as well put grill marks on the bottom of this thing if it doesn't have adequate cooling.
Click to expand...
According to The Verge it gets hot, but the fans are quiet. If that's true, then you could bump up the fans if you want a cooler laptop. EDIT: It seems that the fans run at max when under intensive operations, so there's nothing you can do to cool it down further.
 
Last edited:
I applaud apple. I really like this new MBP. If I were in the market where I had to choose to have have one computer and be mobile, this one would be it. Plain and simple. I hope these retina type displays trickle down into the MBA's and start forcing other PC manufactures to include high end, high resolution IPS panels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top