Is a 2880x1800 Resolution Worth Getting Excited Over?

Rob Williams

Rob Williams

Editor-in-Chief
Staff member
Moderator
When Apple announced its updated 15" MacBook Pro yesterday, the company became the first to offer a notebook that far exceeds a 2 megapixel resolution. Typically, higher-end 15" or 17" notebooks have used the 1080p resolution, which is an effective 2,073,600 pixels, but not content to just barely inch past that, Apple increased it by a factor of 2.5x. This results in the staggering resolution of 2880x1800, or close to 5.2 megapixels.

2560x1600_example_bbc_1440x900_thumb.jpg

Read the rest of our post and then discuss it here!
 
DarkStarr

DarkStarr

Tech Monkey
>.> 2880x1800 on a 15 inch? No thanks I prefer not to squint at my display to read and to use a GOOD OS that doesn't require me to dual boot another in order to do what I need to.
 
MacMan

MacMan

Partition Master
I've seen Chrome on this thing, and guess what? It looks the damn same as it does on any other Macbook, Windows, or Linux 15 " laptop! However, it's only when you compare Chrome with an updated Retina version of Safari does Chrome, etc. look like crap. Rest assure, FireFox and Chrome, Opera will be coming out, I'm sure with their own Retina upgrades in the near future, and running an older version of Safari looks just as bad in comparison as any non-Retina piece of software..

Also, as sure as I'm going to be bashed (again!) for so-call coming to Apple's defense, it must be pointed out, as some have already done, that Apple clasify's the Retina Macbook as a machine designed primarily for professionals engaged in the production of video and photography, and NOT for the majority of folks, which is why Apple still makes the rest of its laptops with traditional screens.

Already, I've read that other PC manufactures are scrambling to include these very same Retina displays in and for their Windows based PC's, and yes, rest assure when they finally get them everyone here will be praising just how great they are!

As Wayne Gretsky says:

"I skate to where the puck is going to be"

In other words: Apple is bringing to market now what the rest of the market will be bringing to market later, just as it has done so many time in the past with 3 1/2 inch floppy disks, optical drives, mice, GUI, multi-touch, optical drives, and what have you?

In the meantime, enjoy the Retina MacBook Pro teaser below:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/AFUW7GcHsLQ?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Last edited:
madmat

madmat

Soup Nazi
MacMan said:
I've seen Chrome on this thing, and guess what? It looks the damn same as it does on any other Macbook, Windows, or Linux 15 " laptop! However, it's only when you compare Chrome with an updated Retina version of Safari does Chrome, etc. look like crap. Rest assure, FireFox and Chrome, Opera will be coming out, I'm sure with their own Retina upgrades in the near future, and running an older version of Safari looks just as bad in comparison as any non-Retina piece of software..

Also, as sure as I'm going to be bashed (again!) for so-call coming to Apple's defense, it must be pointed out, as some have already done, that Apple clasify's the Retina Macbook as a machine designed primarily for professionals engaged in the production of video and photography, and NOT for the majority of folks, which is why Apple still makes the rest of its laptops with traditional screens.

Already, I've read that other PC manufactures are scrambling to include these very same Retina displays in and for their Windows based PC's, and yes, rest assure when they finally get them everyone here will be praising just how great they are!

As Wayne Gretsky says:

"I skate to where the puck is going to be"

In other words: Apple is bringing to market now what the rest of the market will be bringing to market later, just as it has done so many time in the past with 3 1/2 inch floppy disks, optical drives, mice, GUI, multi-touch, optical drives, and what have you?

In the meantime, enjoy the Retina MacBook Pro teaser below:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/AFUW7GcHsLQ?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Click to expand...

Who is bashing YOU? In the thread in mobile computing I commented on the resolution rendering things too small due to the physics (if you will) of how things are displayed on a screen. If 100 pixels takes up an inch of space physically on a display running at a certain resolution and you double that resolution the same 100 pixels will take up half the space. You've gained real estate via compression rather than by expansion of space.

Stepping into a 30" monitor running 2880X1800 would be great, the resolution would make sense then but to go from 1440X900 to 2880X1800 on a 15" monitor? I just can't see it being all that great because it leads to compromising by expanding things to compensate for the physical compression.

Just because other MFG's are scrambling to play keep up doesn't mean it's a great idea, it just means they're not capable of independent thought.
 
MacMan

MacMan

Partition Master
madmat said:
Who is bashing YOU? In the thread in mobile computing I commented on the resolution rendering things too small due to the physics (if you will) of how things are displayed on a screen. If 100 pixels takes up an inch of space physically on a display running at a certain resolution and you double that resolution the same 100 pixels will take up half the space. You've gained real estate via compression rather than by expansion of space.

Stepping into a 30" monitor running 2880X1800 would be great, the resolution would make sense then but to go from 1440X900 to 2880X1800 on a 15" monitor? I just can't see it being all that great because it leads to compromising by expanding things to compensate for the physical compression.

Just because other MFG's are scrambling to play keep up doesn't mean it's a great idea, it just means they're not capable of independent thought.
Click to expand...

PC Magazine wrote:

"If there's any drawback to the Retina display, it's that all of your existing Mac applications will have to be updated for it (kind of like what happened with the iPhone 4/4S and latest iPad). Apple-sourced apps like Safari, Final Cut Pro, and Aperture look terrific, but non-optimized apps like Google Chrome will show upscaled and jaggy fonts. It's a problem that's likely to go away as more developers update their programs, but it's an annoyance right now."

Annantech also did a full review, and this follow up, and found that the MacBook has sliders that allow you to scale the screen down to a more traditional MacBook (or any other laptop for that matter), and stated:

"By default, the Retina MBP ships in a pixel doubled configuration. You get the effective desktop resolution of the standard 15-inch MacBook Pro's 1440 x 900 panel, but with four physical pixels driving every single pixel represented on the screen. This configuration is the best looking, but you don't actually get any more desktop space. Thankfully Apple exposes a handful of predefined scaling options if you do want additional desktop space:"

All I did was to post that all of the negative comments about how 'useless' a small high-def screen was rather a little mooted and premature, and since I knew, from past experiences, that whenever I appeared to be backing up Apple I would automatically be called an iSheep, Apple worshipper, cult member, etc., etc. I should know, since it has happened many times before, so that explains my 'bashing' comment.

As PCMag also stated:

" It's not the vaunted "15-inch MacBook Air" that was rumored prior to 2012's WWDC—it's better, thanks to an up-to-date components, super-thin chassis, and impressive battery life. This "next-generation" MacBook Pro hasn't just caught up to the thin and powerful Windows laptops and ultrabooks on the market; it has surpassed them to become the high-end choice for media professionals, enthusiasts, and general Mac fans alike."
 
madmat

madmat

Soup Nazi
MacMan said:
PC Magazine wrote:

"If there's any drawback to the Retina display, it's that all of your existing Mac applications will have to be updated for it (kind of like what happened with the iPhone 4/4S and latest iPad). Apple-sourced apps like Safari, Final Cut Pro, and Aperture look terrific, but non-optimized apps like Google Chrome will show upscaled and jaggy fonts. It's a problem that's likely to go away as more developers update their programs, but it's an annoyance right now."

Annantech also did a full review, and this follow up, and found that the MacBook has sliders that allow you to scale the screen down to a more traditional MacBook (or any other laptop for that matter), and stated:

"By default, the Retina MBP ships in a pixel doubled configuration. You get the effective desktop resolution of the standard 15-inch MacBook Pro's 1440 x 900 panel, but with four physical pixels driving every single pixel represented on the screen. This configuration is the best looking, but you don't actually get any more desktop space. Thankfully Apple exposes a handful of predefined scaling options if you do want additional desktop space:"

All I did was to post that all of the negative comments about how 'useless' a small high-def screen was rather a little mooted and premature, and since I knew, from past experiences, that whenever I appeared to be backing up Apple I would automatically be called an iSheep, Apple worshipper, cult member, etc., etc. I should know, since it has happened many times before, so that explains my 'bashing' comment.

As PCMag also stated:

" It's not the vaunted "15-inch MacBook Air" that was rumored prior to 2012's WWDC—it's better, thanks to an up-to-date components, super-thin chassis, and impressive battery life. This "next-generation" MacBook Pro hasn't just caught up to the thin and powerful Windows laptops and ultrabooks on the market; it has surpassed them to become the high-end choice for media professionals, enthusiasts, and general Mac fans alike."
Click to expand...

If you have to upscale everything I just don't see the point to be honest. Four pixels doing the work of one pixel is a waste of pixels IMO. Like I said before, the resolution itself is sound on a larger display. The reason I'm not hot and heavy into getting a 27" display is the fact that the majority only offer 1920X1080 resolution. The few that have a bigger resolution are so expensive that they're too far out of my price range. If this drives the resolution up and price down on larger monitors, it's great but for anything under 23 or 24 inches it's simply not needed by the majority of users out there.

5MP displays are going to eat video memory like candy. For gaming you won't be able to remain even slightly behind the curve if you want to run it at full resolution with all the eye candy turned up to 11.

Right now I see it more as a bragging rights sort of thing.
 
MacMan

MacMan

Partition Master
madmat said:
If you have to upscale everything I just don't see the point to be honest. Four pixels doing the work of one pixel is a waste of pixels IMO. Like I said before, the resolution itself is sound on a larger display. The reason I'm not hot and heavy into getting a 27" display is the fact that the majority only offer 1920X1080 resolution. The few that have a bigger resolution are so expensive that they're too far out of my price range. If this drives the resolution up and price down on larger monitors, it's great but for anything under 23 or 24 inches it's simply not needed by the majority of users out there.

5MP displays are going to eat video memory like candy. For gaming you won't be able to remain even slightly behind the curve if you want to run it at full resolution with all the eye candy turned up to 11.

Right now I see it more as a bragging rights sort of thing.
Click to expand...

I can see your point, but my point is that it won't be long before you don't have to do that, as companies will adapt quickly just as they did for the iPhone 4S and the new iPad. As you can see, companies, like Google, are already beginning to respond by updating their products such as Chrome:
 
madmat

madmat

Soup Nazi
MacMan said:
I can see your point, but my point is that it won't be long before you don't have to do that, as companies will adapt quickly just as they did for the iPhone 4S and the new iPad. As you can see, companies, like Google, are already beginning to respond by updating their products such as Chrome:
Click to expand...

If the response is making the fonts and images bigger (upscaling) to compensate for the huge resolution in a small area... why bother?
 
Rob Williams

Rob Williams

Editor-in-Chief
Staff member
Moderator
Hmm... I think I might start benchmarking our games at Larger Text and More Space resolution. Any objections?
 
madmat

madmat

Soup Nazi
Nope.

I don't have a single icon on my desktop purely to save the video memory. I didn't know that the memory used by your desktop remains in use during gaming when I first started with PC's.
 
Last edited:
Rob Williams

Rob Williams

Editor-in-Chief
Staff member
Moderator
madmat said:
Nope.

I don't have a single icon on my desktop purely to save the video memory. I didn't know that the memory used by your desktop remains in use during gaming when I first started with PC's.
Click to expand...

Are you sure this is still the case? I know it used to be back in the day of 98 and possibly XP, but I thought this was an issue that disappeared with Vista and beyond. If it does remain the case, then Aero would also remain in memory, and that'd likely use much more space than a desktop full of icons.
 
madmat

madmat

Soup Nazi
Rob Williams said:
Are you sure this is still the case? I know it used to be back in the day of 98 and possibly XP, but I thought this was an issue that disappeared with Vista and beyond. If it does remain the case, then Aero would also remain in memory, and that'd likely use much more space than a desktop full of icons.
Click to expand...

I've never read anything to the contrary. I have heard of gamers that won't run Aero because it eats Vram. They run the basic UI in windows classic mode so it looks like 9X.
 
Rob Williams

Rob Williams

Editor-in-Chief
Staff member
Moderator
madmat said:
I've never read anything to the contrary. I have heard of gamers that won't run Aero because it eats Vram. They run the basic UI in windows classic mode so it looks like 9X.
Click to expand...

I think those gamers are making a mountain out of a molehill. GPUs are more efficient than ever, so it's not as though running Aero is going to affect your game's framerate in a noticeable way - especially if you are running the game full-screen. In windowed mode, it'd be understandable that Aero would use a bit more VRAM, but I still don't see it affecting performance noticeably.

Of course, if you're running the lowest-end of the low and with less than 1GB of VRAM, then maybe I can begin to understand it a little bit (but then, the resolution would also matter).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top