Apple Updates MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, Insane New 2880x1800 Notebook Display Discussion

Physically, the screen has 2880x1800 pixels yes. You are right about the scaling ... OS X is choosing to use those pixels to simulate screen resolutions ranging of 1024x640, 1280x800, 1440x900, 1680x1050, and 1920x1200. I think it's pretty nice feature to be able to simulate a wide range of resolutions like that without the typical issues associated with running monitors at non-native resolutions.
AnandTech - How the Retina Display MacBook Pro Handles Scaling

As expected applications need to be using the standard OS X GUI APIs for the rendering to work properly though. Otherwise this happens.
AnandTech - Chrome Canary Fixes Rendering Issue with Retina MacBook Pro

Most apps (I think) would elect to use the standard APIs so I doubt this will be a widespread issue.

 

Thanks to apple, I'm glad my next notebook I can buy a 15" or 14" with high resolution . I only brought my gate NV-75s 17" because of the resolution (1600x900) vs. the 15.4" counter part (majority of all lower end 15.4" and 14") has 1366x768. My little net book has 11.6" and has that resolution, it's pitiful!

Push forward high resolution!

 

I'm all for the new panel but would have been happy with a better 1080P screen, I only see the super high res screen really useful for photo and video editing other than that it might be a huge waste of screen real estate, don't get me wrong I think it's gret that APPLE is taking this big step but the price....man the price...!

 

But the point is that you don't get real estate, you get the same lower resolution as before but sharper image due to scaling for example it would be the same as wxga+ where each pixel would be represented by 4 pixels in the new retina display.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

 

Actually you can get either. Plus, as apps become retina aware, devs will be able to do both within a single app.

 

With all the talk of "revolutionary" as always with Apple, I have to disagree. Apple sacrificed so that they could fit everything inside. If your MBP gets corrupted, you are heading back to Apple for a full replacement. Not an elegant solution for a computer aimed for business I think.

 

Out of curiosity, what do you mean by corrupted?

 

I was thinking the RAM

 

I don't know anyone who had to replace their laptop RAM due to 'corruption'. I won't say it never happens, but...near as likely.

 

Its sad that they are using this useless resolution on "premium" 15in notebooks with some not having the choice to upgrade.

 

While I don't like it either, I think Apple is taking the first steps to where computers are heading anyway.

They number of people who need to upgrade RAM every year is shrinking very quickly because 4GB-8GB is enough for most people, including the majority of business users. And I don't see RAM needs increasing *for most people* in the next few years.

Modern batteries (isn't the MBP battery rated for 1000+ cycles?), will last the typical 3-4 year business hardware replacement period.

The SSD size and upgrade difficulty is an issue, albeit one that will be addressed in a year or two.

I don't know how many small businesses repair they own laptops, or even need to upgrade parts since entry or middle level stuff is quite adequate for many. I also know that some big companies hand off repair to manufacturers since that is cheaper than employing a tech to do it. A friend of mine works at huge tech multinational and they just take their MBPs to the local Apple store and are quite happy with that solution.

Apple's implementation may not work for all, but it will work for many. And I think that is Apple's plan. I don't think Apple really cares about the 5% that truly need a different solution.

 

Yeah, in the age of the Retina MBP, no self-respecting laptop manufacturer would sell a premium $1200-$1500 notebook with a mere 1280x800 13" screen...

 

You don't think the second-generation Asus Zenbook with a dedicated GPU and a 1080p screen in a 13" ultrabook chassis is interesting? You don't think the incoming wave of convertible tablets (think Asus Transformer Prime running Windows 8) from Asus, Acer, Samsung, and Toshiba are interesting?

 

While I don't agree that hd resolution is useless, I do agree that laptops should have the option of getting higher resolution panels.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

 

Which "premium" 15" notebooks don't have an upgrade option? I'm thinking about HP dv6 and Envy, Dell XPS, Sony S15, IdeaPad Y580, and all of them have at least the option for 1080p. There are some entry-level 15-inchers that only come with 1366x768 (laptops that cost half as much as the cheapest Apple and a third as much as the cheapest 15" Apple), but I can't think of any "premium" PC notebooks that don't offer an upgrade over 1366x768.

 

you do realize that the dv6 aint premium. aside that the y580 is the first of the y series to pack a FHD (also not regarded as premium), aside me being annoying you are correct, currently we are going for higher res displays, or for some gaining the lost ground.

 

I was trying to be inclusive as possible with the "premium" label to show that you can get better than 720p in basically any 15" laptop besides true entry-level models. dv6 isn't like Envy, but it isn't like the G6 either, so I included it. I personally don't think the dv6 or the Y580 are premium in the way the XPS and Envy are premium.

And yes, it used to be different. But I'm talking about what's out there today, not what was out there three years ago.

 

That same self-respecting laptop manufacturer also does not sell a $1799+ 15" laptop that requires a $100 upgrade to get a 1680x1050 screen.

What annoys me is that "premium" laptops (especially 15" and above) should have an HD+ (whatever that means) panel as the standard panel - no extra cost. Charge extra for the FHD, Retina, or those more specialized panels.

 

I miss Dell's reasonably affordable RGBLED 1080p displays.

 

I saw this screen and while the OS and text looked beautiful and sharp, images on websites were blurred. I guess I'm not really seeing the appeal...there's really no way around that, right?

 

In a resolution-aware browser, bitmapped images should look exactly like they would on a non-retina display (similar to how non-updated iPad apps on the iPad 3 should result in an experience equivalent to the same app on an iPad 2).

 

That's really what I'm worried about... nothing is designed for screens of this resolution!

 

not to be the stick in the mud but its not all celebratory. initial screen calibrations for the retina display show it to be about 65-69% RGB gamut. resolution is not everything especially to designers

 

that was such a bummer, I was hoping a lot more in the house of 80-90%

 

Ditto. Curious to see more testing done.

 

[citation needed]

 

Same here as well, calibratable screens are a must for me and my 15" could use replaced

from DPreview

How long do you think it will take them to update the suite?

No idea. Maybe Adobe will make an announcement later today.

How will images edited on a retina screen translate to other screens?

They will look bigger.

Now for my questions:

How well will these new IPS screens calibrate?

How much dynamic range can they handle? -oops, Apple answered this one already. Looks good, although It will be interesting to see results from third party testing.

What sort of color gamut do the screens have?

Apple - MacBook Pro with Retina display - Features

Got mine this afternoon and calibrated using Lacie Blue eyes pro. calibration is almost the same as last years 15" but a bit worse on greens. see attachment. black levels are great though

 

I played with the RMBP at the Apple store yesterday. Obviously I was impressed with the size and screen

I tend to avoid 15" laptops as I feel they are just too big and heavy for frequent portable use. The RMBP still felt big, but I did feel I could live with it for heavy portable use. It's so surprisingly light for a 15" and it felt more like an oversized 14" *cough cough e6420* than a 15".

The thinness is amazing, but I do have to wonder if Apple could have made it a few mm thicker to allow for a standard SSD. I don't know if a few mm would have made much difference to the overall feel of the laptop. I think it's a little early in the game to preclude DIY storage upgrades - but I suppose people willing to spend $2200 for such a laptop will be open to paying more for the higher spec model.

I suppose it would have been a big headache to make it thicker now and shrink it down when 512MB+ SSDs became standard.

 

very disappointing if this is the standard experience.

I'd really like to have seen at least 85%-95% of the Adobe RGB spectrum covered. yes, the black level performance is known to be good.

In the mean time, this may answer some contrast questions.

AnandTech - MacBook Pro Retina Display Analysis

It's not as bright of a panel, but the black levels and contrast are literally TWICE as good as last year's model. That said, it's really suprising to hear that it doesn't have the RGB spectrum covered better given its IPS nature.

 

Am I the only one a bit disturbed that the new retina display is middle of the road for consumer units in whites? thats another strike for doing accurate colors

 

too bad you can't upgrade jack on the new one as in aftermarket upgrades which explains them still selling the non retiny display version that you can upgrade.

 

You are not.

I would have greatly preferred the improve the color gamut and black levels of the existing resolutions of MBP's than go "retina".

 

At least they've upgraded to an IPS panel. From an above average TN to a below average IPS is still a step up.

 

its still better than the usual sutff in terms of color gamut

 

in that price range, it's pretty below average.

 

agreed. np6165 with 1080 - 95% ntsc screen ( matte ), 650m, 16 gb and 256 ssd, roughly $1300.00.

 

Are you seriously comparing a Sager to a MacBook Pro?

 

for color reproducible screen gamut yes. Im actually dismayed how gaming laptops are able to do color accuracy better than laptops supposedly designed for color work etc.

 

Count me in on this criticism as well. I also noticed today that the RMBP screen is not as bright. What does Apple have against a wide color gamut? Is it the battery life? Apple has a long history of falling short in the color department.

The RMBP makes the other MacBook Pros, feel heavy, clunky, and fat looking. I wouldn't be all that surprised if Apple discontinued the fat 13 and the fat 15 altogether once they can bring the price down a bit. Probably after Christmas.

 

point conceded

 

I'm pretty ignorant to the whole world of color gamut and whatnot, so I'm going to consider myself the typical laptop user. I do minor upgrades to the RAM and harddrive, I can do basic partitions and etc, and I know basic computer stuff to build my own. My point is, literally don't know what the heck you guys are talking about for the past three pages so I can assume that most users wouldn't care about this specialized knowledge (the whole 65% color gamut thing, no idea what it means).

Personally, I wouldn't buy a rMBP because I don't need it. Typing 10-20 pages of reports a day can be tiring on the eyes, but I still don't see a legit use for a screen with a higher resolution than 1080p. I'm assuming the folks that utilize photoshop and other esoteric design software are going to fall into the small minority and will be knowledgable enough to differentiate a good screen from a bad one.

 

We deal only with things that we "need"? On a laptop forum where just about all of us have much more than the minimum we need? The irony should be obvious.

It will be easier on the eyes. Applications that are optimized for it will be decidedly crisper. For comparison, go look at the text on an iPad 2, then look at the same text on a new iPad. The difference is pretty clear, and if you spend a lot of time at your computer typing/reading/whatever, your eyes will get used to the difference and you'll appreciate it.

There is always a legit reason for higher resolutions.

 

Just adding confrimation to this man's findings:

AnandTech - The next-gen MacBook Pro with Retina Display Review

"Apple made no mention of impact to color accuracy or color gamut. It turns out that the omission was for good reason, the Retina Display offers no improvement along either vector. The numbers show a slight regression compared to last year’s panel but the difference is imperceivable."


That said, this is the first Mac to ever receive Anandtech's Editor's Choice award. That's a pretty big deal.

 

Apple has updated its MacBook Pro with the addition of the highest-resolution screen currently used in a laptop. As rumored for some time, the latest Pro model features a 2880x1800 pixel 15.4" display panel. The screen, which equates to a resolution of 220 pixels per inch, is being branded as a 'Retina' display - Apple's name for a display with pixels too small to discern at a sensible working distance. The cheapest version, which features a 2.3GHz quad-core i7 processor and 8GB of RAM, will cost $2199. The MacBook Pro is likely to herald a wave of high-resolution screens on laptops and mobile devices, with companies such as Sharp developing high-res, low-power displays.

As is usual with Apple, it's not yet known who is providing the MacBook Pro's display, but it is common knowledge that Sharp has been working on IGZO (Indium gallium zinc oxide) displays that can offer higher resolutions and lower energy consumption than conventional amorphous silicon designs. Sharp proposed that its technology could offer 10 inch screens with 2,560 x 1,600 pixels - more densely packed, at 300 ppi, than the panel in the Macbook. It has already started production but the specifications of the panels it's making have not been announced.