Are there any Windows competitors for the Retina MBPro in the works?

Subject says it all: Does anybody know if any of the PC manufacturers have an answer to the Retina-display MacBook Pro in the works? In addition to the screen resolution, as a side effect we may get 16:10 back this way... Other than that, how good is Windows 7 driver support for a native Win7 install on the Apple machine?

 

Nothing right now as far as resolution is concerned. The closest thing I curently know of is the Asus UX51, but it has a 1080p lcd panel.

 

We probably won't see anything get demonstrated until CES 2013.

 

@Pirx, Im not sure if its changed much in the last years, but when I had a Mac 2 years ago and ran windows via Boot camp, the driver support from Apple was awful. I installed the drivers from the CD and nothing worked out of the box. I ended up uninstalling windows, re installing it, and fining all the drivers manually on the internet. I finally found them, but it took me a few days to get the working drivers.

 

Yeah, I love the retina display on a laptop. I hope PC makers pick up on this, because 1920 x 1080 resolution sucks. I get by my old Dell E1705's 1920 x 1200. That 120 p of more vertical space makes a big difference! I hated the matest laptop screen trends, even going down to a pathetic 1366 x 768 or so resolution...Complete junk!

 

I'm not sure if a retina-style display on a Windows system would even be a good idea at this time - having seen Windows 8 RTM running on a retina MBP, it's clear that OSX does resolution-independent UI scaling way better than Metro/Modern UI does, and that it's light years ahead of Windows 7/8's desktop UI scaling. And even then there's still problems like fuzzy text in applications that haven't been updated for the retina display...

 

I see. I was gonna say you don't actually have to use boot camp for 7 but, it sounds like it's not very viable any ways.

 

Can human eye resolve that resolution on such a small screen? I don't think so. I just got an 1080P Asus Ultrabook and as far as resolution goes, I am more than happy with it. Having an IPS 8-bit panel with thorough sRGB coverage is more important to me and hence why buying this Asus ultrabook. A friend also just bought a MBP with retina display and honestly, I cannot see the advantage. Perhaps some people have eagle eyes or, perhaps I am getting blind!

 

Definitely agree, raminux.

 

The human eye can only see somewhere around 30 FPS, BUT, that doesn't mean we wont notice the difference between 30 and 60 FPS. Why? Because our eyes seeing 30 FPS are not at all synced with the 30 FPS being outputted.
The same goes for resolution. Although we might not be able to see the pixels on a macbook pro retina screen, its not to the point yet where we can eliminate the need for anti aliasing.

Just my opinion, I could be totally wrong.

I haven't seen a retina display but I'm sure I would not see the advantage either compared to my Sony 13.1" 1080p display, but as far as seeing the advantages and disadvantages in the future, who knows... it could change more than how the screen itself looks, is what I'm saying.

 

Okay. I think you missed the point of the retina display on the OSX by about a mile. The Retina display on the macbook pro was not made to give you a high resolution experience but to fix what OSX hasn't done right in over a decade which is produce sharp fonts, and sharp renders.
1080p doesn't suck, that's personal opinion.

 

closest thing is Panasonic's 4k 20" Tablet.

 

Oft-quoted, but not true. There's a lot of good reading out there on this subject.

With higher resolution, though, I agree. Retina is a marketing term that essentially means you shouldn't be able to consciously perceive the individual pixels of the display at a standard viewing distance for whatever the device is (i.e. 8-12 feet for a 42" TV but more like 8-12 inches for a smartphone). However, just because you can't distinguish the pixels doesn't mean you won't be able to distinguish the difference in image quality.

I'd take 1080p with great color, brightness, and viewing angles over a "Retina" screen that's inferior in those departments any day, though.

 

Today I compared my new 1080p Asus UX32DV side by side to my older 1280x800 Macbook Pro. Both are 13" displays and when viewing them in normal distance (laptop on a table, me sitting on a chair facing it), I can attest the Asus display looks wonderfully sharp comparing to the MBP display which now feels soft and lame in comparison. Well, I guess if I hadn't seen the Asus screen, I had never felt missing something.

Interestingly, if I move forward, at some point I can see the pixels on MBP, while the Asus remain sharp..

Now using my 1080p projector and 110" screen, when I watch blu-ray movies, I find them adequately sharp. However, if I watch a high resolution still image, I immediately notice the image is soft. So I think there is room for higher resolutions for projectors: maybe 4K is enough.

 

True. If your screen size increases while the distance remains the same, you'll need a proportional increase in pixels to maintain the same sharpness. This is because sharpness is determined by pixel density and distance, and increasing the screen size without increasing the resolution will necessarily reduce the pixel density. If you're sitting around fifteen feet from the screen, you'd still need double the resolution in both directions (for four times the pixels) to get the same sharpness I get on my 42" TV from 10-12 feet.

Same with the comparison between your two notebooks - at a certain distance you would notice the pixels on the Asus like you do on the MBP, but at any given distance the Asus will always be sharper than the MBP. That doesn't always equate to a better screen, but it's a significant element in determining the visual quality of a screen.

 

Acer has one:
AnandTech - Acer Shows Off 2880x1620 Panel

May show up when Haswell refreshes happen.

 

As for resolution, there are several 1080p options, my personal favorite being the Vaio S15 (4.4 lbs, 640M, quad-core i7 available, 1080p IPS display). There are 2560x1440 screens on the way (according to Microsoft documents, that'll be one of the common resolutions in the Windows 8 era), and we've seen a Samsung prototype wtih that resolution, though none are on the market yet.

As for 16:9 versus 16:10, Windows machines will likely continue to emphasize 16:9. All of the common resolutions listed for Windows 8 (1366x768, 1920x1080, and 2560x1440) are 16:9. Only one Windows 8 device so far--the HP ElitePad tablet--is 16:10.

 

Maybe 16:9 is worse for productivity than 16:10, but 1080P does not suck. At my normal working distance I cannot see the pixels on a good 1080p 13" or 15" screen. These screens look quite "retina" to me. I'm sure other people would agree with me.

1366 x 768 definitely sucks on any laptop!

 

Out of all the OEMs, Acer, aka cheap crappy notebooks is the one who offer an alternative to Apple.
Not only is Acer`s quality usually not impressive, but other OEMs like Dell/Clevo/Samsung/MSI have far superior hardware like the GPU that is able to actually work on the "retina" resolution...

 

Acer is trying to reinvent itself at the moment though and they're trying hard although imo they are still falling short on some fronts. Look at their newer ultrabooks, tablets, etc. They still have cheap laptops, but it looks to me like they are now also aiming to make higher quality products while keeping low prices, but as I said, not quite there yet. I would say that is part of that as well as other Chinese brands trying to do the same. At least, it should put pressure on the other OEMs and that is always a good thing.

 

16:9 sucks, so does 2560 x 1440 [although it is an improvement]. My dual monitor desktop has a Dell U3011 30 monitor at 2560 x 1600 - awesome for web browsing and reading book pdfs. My secondary monitor is only 1920 x 1200, but that is way better than the 120 p loss of vertical screen from 1080 p. And I once tried a 1920 x 10870 monitor as a secondary screen - it sucked big time.

You people who like 1080p don't know what you're missing. 1200p or 1600p from 16:10 is way better.

 

I have 16:9 and 16:10 monitors, 1920x1200/1920x1080.
Honestly either one is fine for me.

 

They are finally getting RMBP's display to PC's. I made a thread about it when the RMBP came out and it took much longer than I thought. I guess we will have to wait for Haswell to these to come out. Hopefully Dell, HP, Lenovo, Samsung, ASUS and everyone else each creates at least one line with these displays. I agree that 16:10 is better, especially for coders.

 

They might be succeeding at reinventing themselves on the hardware front, but their service & support is still The Old, Bad Acer. I suppose it's typical for PC OEMs to not see the forest for the trees though - they can copy bits and pieces of what makes Apple successful, but they can't ever seem to truly understand Apple's overall strategy.

 

apple has loads of short comings, but one cannot say that they arent extremely well run, and have a good idea of what make things desirable or not

I like this new position from acer, I hope that they understand that the consumer experience is hardly limited by the product, but there is a lot more involved

 

I went nuts looking for a laptop with a higher than 1080 screen, something similar to my display in my gateway (1920 x 1200). One of the posters on here, Meaker i think, pointed out the 16:10 ratio is no longer in production. Even when i compare the gorgeous matte display on my sager to my old gateway, I still prefer the extra resolution. It makes a big difference to me personally.

 

The loss of the 16:10 ratios in the PC market to me is one of the most amazing examples of a failure of the market. After all, there are plenty of people who prefer the 16:10 aspect ratio, while it is probably quite hard to find a person who will complain about the additional vertical screen real estate, and insists on 16:9. Yet here we are, with 16:10 displays having entirely vanished from the market, despite the fact that people would be willing to pay a premium for such screens if they were only offered...

 

Issues like this are typically the vocal minority crying out against industry profit and the indifference of the average consumer. The further you get from a 1:1 aspect ratio, the smaller the area of the screen gets with the same diagonal, advertised size, and the lower the cost per screen. Manufacturers can convince consumers that the aspect ratio makes for a "sleek" notebook shape and allows their HD videos to fill the screen (nevermind that HD is 1280x720 in video and 1366x768 in computer screens), leaving no black bars other than those the producers want you to see.

Note I'm not railing against the vocal minority: I'd like 16:10 myself, but manufacturers are happy to make cost-cutting moves like going from 16:10 to 16:9 aspect ratios, but loath to return to the more-expensive variant, and it takes more than a handful of people complaining on an internet forum to force a change.

 

I think it is consumer apathy that lets companies move to the 16:9 standard. For many computer usage scenarios, taller is better. When you use 1080 and higher resolutions, you tend to notice much more white space in websites especially for fixed width sites. Here is an extreme example of why taller is better. Try to orient your monitor 90 degrees in Windows (portrait mode) then load up this forum. It's a revelation. You will see much more content without scrolling. Taller is better for many computing situations. But not enough people care or understand this. Instead manufacturers are actually touting 21:9 screens. No way. They keep going down this route and we will just have one long line of text scrolling like a ticker tape.

 

Yep, and then they're going to tell you that this screen is "Optimized for Windows 8!", "Perfect for endless side-scrolling on the Start Screen!". The idiocy of Windows 8 paired with the nonsense of high-aspect ratio screens. It's awesome, I tell you...

 

Calling anyone who disagrees with you ignorant is stupid. It's not that I don't know what 16:10 is like; it's that I disagree.

I have both a 16:10 machine (2008 MBP 15) and two 16:9 machines. I prefer 16:9 because, for a given amount of screen surface area, a wider design is better for working with two documents side-by-side than a more square design such as 16:10 or 4:3. And that's my workflow: two documents side-by-side. The fact that I get to use 100% of the screen while watching 16:9 video is just icing on the cake.

 

Uhmm, you do realize that you can watch those exact same documents side-by-side on your 16:10 screen, giving you the exact same amount of horizontal resolution, but you'll see a bit more content vertically, right? So how is it again that 16:9 is better suited for your workflow?

Oh, and note that "for a given amount of screen surface area" is entirely academic. Hint: The surface areas of the screens are not the same.

 

Debating tactics like this are what start flame wars. Of course Mitlov realizes this, but for reasons either aesthetic- or text-size-related he doesn't prefer it, so 16:9 is his preference.

One of my favorite moves, when possible for space and input reasons, is to change the aspect of my monitor and set up my laptop on its side. My friend sent me a bunch of comics in some proprietary file format and that was the only way I could stand to read them, since the alterrnative is to scroll up and down every single page if I don't want to destroy my eyes.