Do you want Retina-Like Displays on a laptop?

Yeah but it's not meant to be used as a computer screen. It's like a giant far away tv....

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

 

PC's can push that many pixels, just it would have to be broken up into more than one data stream.

AMD's Eyefinity 6 card for instance can run 6 monitors with display port so thats 2650x1600 I know supported and maybe higher.

If you had a uber res display made to work with PC's it could be designed in a way that its broken into 4 or 6 panels rather than 1.

That maybe the much faster track to bring uber high res to the "homies" rather than waiting for some new interface to be made that we would need new equipment for and tons of time before its produce and adopted.

 

HDMI - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
DisplayPort - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

hdmi 1.4 can support 4k at 24 fps
display port can support quad HD at 60 fps


dual link DVI from wikipedia
WQXGA (2,560 × 1,600) @ 60 Hz with CVT-RB blanking (269 MHz) (This is for high end monitors when operating at greater than 24 bits per pixel.)
WQUXGA (3,840 × 2,400) @ 33 Hz with GTF blanking (2 × 159 MHz)

 

Here is an article on Cult of Mac that says the doubling of the resolution on a 15 inch Macbook might be a waste of money and resources and battery life.

 

I recall the same naysayers prattle when 1080p was in development.

 

and they would be stupid saying that res is too high. I remember my first desktop years ago was 1600x1200 on like a 15-19 inch screen(CRT) way before LCD was around/practical. It was one of those new flat panel screens I could have sworn it was 17 but not sure....loved it and don't know how anyone could say 1080 would be back in laptops. The fact that there are still 1366x768 in this world is ridiculous. I had to use my sister-in-laws computer and it is horrible. 15 inch screen with that res. My netbook has that res...sigh

 

As expected, the Macbook pro has a retina display. The question is, when will it come to PCs? They've largely known about this from rumors for months so they should be prepared. I'm guessing Windows 8 is the soonest we'll see high res laptops but it could be not until 2013. What does everyone else think?

 

Thunderbolt came to PC less than a year after the exclusive debut with Apple. Unless Apple has some sort of contract with the display OEM, it's all a matter of other companies releasing higher-red models.

Though honestly, I couldn't care less. Don't like following all the Apple-related rumors, and when they come to PC then great, but I'm not going to occupy myself with wondering What Would Apple Do? (And What Will PC Do in Response?)

 

I'm hoping high res displays will be available next year as the Haswell refresh comes in. Can't wait for those high res IGZO displays!

 

You really think PC makers will wait a year before introducing >= 2880x1800 displays? They've probably been designing laptops and readying their channels with hires at least since the rumors appeared a few months ago.

And with regards to privatejarhead, I don't want everyone to follow Apple either (buttonless trackpad, no optical, no ethernet) but some things such as hires are where they are going anyway eventually. Apple is just accelerating the timing.

 

Haven't read through everything, but in case nobody mentioned it, Windows 8 will have 2560x1440 as a "common resolution," in everything from big all-in-ones to high-end 10" tablets.

Why they doubled 1280x720 instead of 1366x768, I'm not quite sure, as 1366x768 was the screen resolution of basically everything unveiled at Computex.



AnandTech - Microsoft Talks Screen Resolution in Windows 8, Suggests "Retina"-esque Tablets

 

completely wrong.

you may not like apple, I dont really care. However there are hints towards higher dpi displays, since you like yours so much, try to not look in such a negative light, and think that sooner or later when you change your w520, you could grab a more spacious screen.

 

2560x1440.............my eyes will bleed trying to see anything at that resolution on a 15inch screen......

 

nah on apple products, if the iOS is any indication, everything will still be in the same ratio, just with more pixel density. Windows on the other hand...

 

The chart shows 2560x1440 for 10 and 11 inch tablets (where it'll be like the iOS approach...everything's sized like 1280x720 only the images and text are twice as sharp) and for 27" monitors (where it'll display at native resolution). It doesn't show 2560x1440 for 15" screens, where neither approach works well. Instead, for 14" and 15" screens, 1920x1080 appears to be the high-resolution option of choice.

Which works for me...1080p is really "good enough," and beyond that is a matter of diminishing returns. I've never looked at a 15" 1080p screen and said "dang it, this text is too pixelated for me."

And I certainly don't want to pay the price that a 15" Retina screen seems to demand. The Retina 15" MBP starts at $2,200, and that's with a paltry 256 gb SSD...

 

What exactly is the point? You won't be able to watch movies at those resolutions, since they'll still be 1080p, and good luck trying to run a game at those resolutions driving off a 650M. Is it just for looking at pictures and playing around with your desktop?

It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, and seems to be high resolution just for the sake of cramming as many pixels as possible into a 15 inch display.

 

all the more reason NOT to buy anything until next year. I haven't seen such a massive push for all this new technology in a very long time.

 

Exactly my view on this as well. I just read that Blizzard will update the Diablo 3 to support 2800x1800. 1080p the 650M get around 40FPS. Even though Diablo 3 is not very demanding, even a game like this will choke the 650M with 1800p resolution.
You will need one of the newest GPUs (7970M and such) to be able to game with it

But Retina is super great for windows, office programs and such.
The cat is out of the box now. Once Apple launch something and it sell like crazy, all the other notebook OEMs will follow.

 

4K2K & 8K4K action on the other side of the lens. Video Broadcast Engineering

If you are in London during the 2012 Olympics without a ticket, there is an alternate way for you to “be present” at certain events. The BBC plans to broadcast part of the games in Ultra High HD (UHD) in select locations. UHD, which has been under development by NHK for years, delivers an “8K4K” (7680 × 4320) pixel image. With a planned commercial introduction in five years, an intermediate production step is necessary.

For many in the broadcast industry, 4K2K will be a surprise — likely an unwanted surprise. For those in the film world, 4K2K is not new at all. Film is routinely telecined to 4K2K files for digital intermediate (DI) processing, and features are shot with 4K2K cameras.

 

Ultra-crisp text for word processing; photo editing; video editing (displaying a 1080p video at native resolution with room on the side and bottom for plenty of toolbars). Ultra-high-res screens aren't about gaming or watching movies.

 

Word processing? Meh, I'll give you photo and video editing.

Still, I think it's an innovation with limited real life application.

 

My work machine has a 1680x1050 screen, I'm guessing about 22". I work, for the majority of each day, with two pages side-by-side. I can see individual pixels. With a serif font and a footnote at fontsize 10, the pixelation is prominent and annoying. It's less of an issue with a 16" 1080p screen, but regardless, with serif fonts (which I dislike but are still the standard for legal documents), the sharper the better.

But you're right, it's real-life application will be "limited," just like sales of 1080p screens instead of 1366x768 screens are limited. Most buyers don't want to pay extra for a FHD screen, so they'll be even less inclined to pay even more for a Retina screen. A retina screen would be an extra-cost option for a vocal minority of buyers, not a standard for all buyers (who likely will continue to gobble up inexpensive 1366x768 screens), just like FHD screens are currently an extra-cost option for a vocal minority of buyers.

 

The sharper the better, yes, but I can't see there being an appreciable difference in the usability of word processors. My work machine has two 19 inch monitors running at 1280x1024, and I can't really notice a difference between text on them and text on my personal machine which is 16 inches at 1080P.

 

It's not a question of not being able to do the work at all; it's a question of how pleasant it is to do the work and how easy it is on the eyes. Think glossy versus matte screens. People have a preference, sometimes a firmly-held preference, but it's not that they are literally unable to do work if the screen is the other way.

 

Like I said, I don't notice the difference between text at 1080p and 1280x1024. I guess I just don't have sensitive enough eyes.

 

It will eventually become the norm, prices will go down and applications will be tuned for it.

gotta start somewhere it seems