Current Macbook Owners - Retina Display Expected Q2 2012

Apple insiders are anticipating a retina display for the refresh Macbook Pro in 2012. What does that mean for us current Macbook Pro owners. I would love to have a retina display on my laptop but I bought a 2011 i5 13in Macbook already and don't want to spend another $1100 on a new notebook when the one I have is fine. Do you guys think Apple will give an option to previous gen Macbook owners to upgrade display or will they just force us to buy to new notebooks?

 

Apple giving option to upgrade displays?

 

Well, I'm rocking a 2010 MacBook Pro w/ a Core 2 Duo processor, so anything is going to be an upgrade for me. I don't even have Thunderbolt .

Maybe I should just wait for this to upgrade.

 

It's just a rumor thus far, I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

Agreed... on both counts!! I will be buying my new mac sometime in February '12... and I am pretty sure Apple will release the updates within a month or two...

 

IF Apple puts in a retina like display im curious on 2 points

1: will it be IPS or have an actual high gamut calibration ( min 90% actual )

2: what the heck GPU are they going to use to drive all those pixels? look at the refresh and framerates on 720/900 vs 1080/1200 now. If I have to wait 2 seconds for a wireframe model to redraw on that resolution the whole machine goes out a 4th story window

we buy new notebooks, aftermarket screen upgrades have NEVER been big on MBP's and im certain that with that resolution we would be looking at a different LVDS controller, such as other high datarate laptops use ( AW's with 120hz 3D screens or portable workstations with IPS screens )

 

It is nice to hear that even with the next redesign/upgrade Apple is sticking with the 16:10 screen format.

1920x1200 would be great for the 15" as the base configuration. Maybe they will have an screen upgrade option to get an even higher resolution (2560x1600??) and 2880x1800 is only for the 17".

 

When you get to the point where your screen resolution gets really high (we're talking about 220 dpi at about 2 feet viewing distance in this case - not sure if that's enough for retina-display, but it's probably close and lets assume it is, and check the math later) then you wouldn't need to render 3d at native resolution to get a sharp looking image. Just a thought.

 

That sounds like my nightmare. I felt like Mr. Magoo when I briefly had a 17" with 1920x1200, I also don't like the 1680x1050 high res on the 15." Pretty sure I'd go blind at 1920x1200 or 2560x1600 on a 15" screen. There's no way I'd buy that.

I think the base model/high res upgrade options work well as is. At some point, if you need that many pixels, an external display is in order.

 

Kinda with you on that one. My old ThinkPad T61 has a 1680x1050 res screen, and I had to increase the DPI in Win7 to make the text readable. I'm a young guy, but I'd like to preserve my already bad eyesight.

There is a sweet spot for DPI and display sizes. 1440x900 on a 13" display is really nice and sharp. Tried out my buddy's 13" MBA, and the screen is fantastic. 1600x900 on my T420 is also nice, but can feel a little small sometimes. I wouldn't go beyond that density.

 

im agreeing I had this screen
IBM Thinkpad 15" LCD Screen for R50 R51 R52 Series QXGA 92P6684

in a 15" R50 and T60 with screen mod and 2048x1536 was way too high a pixel density and screen scaling wasnt even a good alternative

 

The QXGA screen was also significantly dimmer than the other IPS screens, which does effect readability. I think a pixel density of 125 is about perfect. That would be HD on a 12.5" screen, SXGA+ on a 14" 4:3 or WSXGA+ on a 15.6" laptop. When I did the screen mod on my R60e, I thought about getting the UXGA, which is a better screen, but am kind of glad I went with the SXGA+. It's easier on the eyes with a 115 pixel desnity, but you still get a lot of vertical real estate.

 

Guys, 2560x1600 on a 15 is not going to be any smaller than what it already is. They are using the same trick they did with the iphone 3 vs the iphone 4 to just double the pixels in both directions, so everything is the same size as it used to be as far as what you can fit on the screen, but you just get a sharper picture because things like small fonts can be more accurate because they will make it so they do not double, so you get a sharper picture without needing to blur so much.

 

Honestly, I don't mean to sound insensitive but In Your Dreams! In the computing world (especially laptops) you have to use common sense. Companies are not going to help you keep your old model laptop by allowing options to upgrade to the features found in newer models. It would easily slow down sales of new models. Also the logic boards won't accommodate upgrades like LCD upgrades and new ports like Thunderbolt unless the logic board was designed that way from the start.

I will say one thing, you are using the word "Force" in kind of an odd way. It's not like your current software requires a retina display to function.

 

Apple has all but ditched the pro market, so I wouldn't expect anything like this.

The new laptops will probably all have a dedicated Twitter button on the F-keys though, so there is a silver lining to them going after the bigger and more lucrative markets !!!

 

I noted the same problem when I read this. It's too convoluted for them to design new features with the requirement that they all must be upgradeable from old models. Now- instead of selling laptops, they're also selling laptop screens, and the screens have to be designed to be user replaceable in the first place. How far back should they support? One version previous? Two? Five? What if the interface changes? Should they sell logic boards, CPUs, hard drives, memory, and GPU upgrades as well? Those are all likely to change in the upcoming version. The only reason you should feel forced into buying the new model is if you expected Apple to offer component upgrades for their laptops, which they have never done.

I don't know of any manufacturer which offers upgrades to LCD screens on laptops at all, much less LCD screens that weren't even available on the original laptop in the first place.

---

*Too high pixel density* is based on all graphics and fonts being drawn as raster images of a certain pixel size. When the pixels shrink, all the images get smaller, and it can be uncomfortable to see and read on such a screen. Apple has recently been implementing "retina displays" on it's phones somewhat differently. The significant features of the retina display are likely to be present on future devices which get the retina display treatment. These are 2-fold:

1. The display DPI is approximately as high as is discernible by the eye at a normal viewing distance (major advertised feature)

2. Software is redesigned so all images and graphics remain the same physical size (not advertised as much as the first feature, but critically important)

#2 marks a very different approach to resolution increases. Up until now, screen resolutions have been increasing over time, and screen sizes have also been increasing over time, which partially accommodated the resolution increases. Physical screen size has plateaued for mobile devices. That's why we have this change.

 

IBM was known to on some models in the old R and T series. you had to do the upgrade but they would supply parts. HP certainly does as one of works 8760W's was ordered without a DC screen, work bought the DC screen assembly and they dispatched a tech under our NBD service to change it no charge. Panasonic does on the CF-18/19/28/29/30/31 models I had an official 1300nit LED screen upgrade in my CF-29 ( 6 years old ) recently

if you said consumer laptops i'd agree.

dont get me started

 

sounds more rare than a GPU upgrade.

 

Interesting....my parent just bought my brother a MBP for Christmas...doubt they'll 'upgrade' the screen...

 

If this retina / good quality IPS display is true for 2012, I'm eagerly waiting ha! I was on the verge of buying a fully loaded MBA 13 i7 1.8Ghz, but the inconsistent viewing angles of the screen in the apple store turned me off. The 11" model had a more consistent image, but I'm understanding this to be because of its physically smaller display area.

 

Great! I can see a high res pic with an unacceptably low color gamut. I'll take a 3 year old Sony AW with a 137% RGB LED display over a Macbook Pro with a ultra high resolution.

 

okay. 10char

 

To each his own... A three year old Sony AW would come mighty cheap, if you can locate one that is for sale, or rather in a buy-able condition

 

I own an AW with the RGB LED display and a 17 inch MBP. I'm just saying that the the Apple display is inferior to a 3 year old Sony AW. If Apple wants to advance the display technology, I'd prefer that they look into improving the color gamut than increasing the resolution. If you could see the difference between these displays than you'd agree with me.

 

Perhaps... I'll give you the benefit of doubt

 

I have to give him the benifit if the doubt. I have never seen that particular Sony panel but agree the RGB LED screen in many AW's, the Clevo/Sager 95% gamut screen and the IPS in the m6400 and Elitebooks is far superior for gamut. the best my MBP 17"'s have ever done CALIBRATED is 71%, my current one is 67%

its one reason alot of editors are getting annoyed, features we need are falling behind ( 67% was great 4 or 5 years ago but still not top even then )

 

I think Apple is too focused in MBA's and does not give the time of day for MBP's. Hell the screen is more or less the same since the last few years its past the time Apple should have reacted.

I wonder how 720p would look on these displays games would die at native resolution if same ATI cards are used.