And they will come and they will buy.....
Because is is written in the Holy Book of Job
In addition to updating its existing MacBook Air and MacBook Pro lines, Apple has introduced what it's calling the "next generation" MacBook Pro, complete with a 15.4-inch, 2880-by-1800 pixel, 220ppi "retina display". "It's the most beautiful computer we have ever made," said Apple marketing honcho Phil Schiller during the …
And they will come and they will buy.....
Because is is written in the Holy Book of Job
Ultrabook with a great display, now that's a turn up for the books!
Why is it an ultrabook when it is full sized (just thin), still has optical drive, still has a full power CPU and GPU.
The ultrabook equivalent is the Macbook air.
No optical drive on retina model.
"And they will come and they will buy.....
Because is is written in the Holy Book of Job"
No because for once Apple are genuinely offering something nobody else is. So it can BE expensive, they are without competition until everyone else copies them.
Did the line about buying stuff come before or after the hideous boils? I forget.
isn't that Retina display made by Samsung? If so, they'll have competition soon enough.
Paris, because I may be talking out of my ass there.
now that's a turn up for the books! and a turn out of your pockets and bank account
Hmm, so could they be called a "Samsung re-brander" then..?? ;-)
they will be when Anna gets around to writing and posting this exact same story
Intel and Samsung rebrander without a windows license but a Linux mock off :)
"No because for once Apple are genuinely offering something nobody else is."
Yes, I often think the one thing missing from my laptop is another 2,500,000 pixels.
There's a reason nobody was offering it before this...
So that the industry can move on from its screen resolution plateau. I don't particularly care that Apple have moved first — it really says more about their category of device (ie, the expensive end of the market) than anything else.
But they are really pretty to look at, just compare the Sony Tablet display and the new iPad, nip into Tesco and see...
Could it really be that my aging ThinkPad T60 (2048x1536@15") finally have a worthy replacement?
I'd rather talk battery technologies myself. Having a display with a resolution bigger than Jesus is nice, but not if it comes at a battery cost.
7 hours for web usage etc according to Apple's website. Has "power nap" feature to continue collecting email whilst having a bit of downtime. Info is on the UK site's Mac section, but not the store.
> ThinkPad T60 (2048x1536@15")
That's resolution to external display, not internal, or were you trolling?
Internal display. T60 with 1440x1050 display can be upgraded to 2048x1536 using the IAQX10N TFT panel. Pretty easy upgrade, too. Just make sure you get a T60 with 1440x1050 screen to start with - otherwise you'll also have to change the backlight inverter. You may also need to re-flash EDID on the new TFT panel to get it exactly right, otherwise some modes might not work.
My hp/compaq nc8000 has 1400x1050 internal (so mythtv says). Sadly, 1.6Ghz single core pentium m system is showing its age with random freezes.
Totally agree - resolutions started getting worse when the HD was introduced for TV-s. Suddenly it was acceptable to release monitors with crappy HD specs and shopping for a decent monitor became a real pain.
My 8 year old Dell has 1920x1200 is still lovely, if I can't see the difference between 1 pixel and 2 pixels then that's good enough, not sure a 15" screen will benefit that much from such a boost, perhaps a 17" would, but hey.
If it was 1/.2 the price and came with XP I'd be sorely temped, or maybe Linux. Or Was simply 1/2 the price and let me triple boot or VM those.
8:5 aspect screen if square pixels (16 x 10). A bit better than 16:9 for Internet, email, PDFs, CAD and schematics. (1.6 vs 1.78 is 16:9 and 1.33 is 4:3)
Have you heard of BootCamp?
Not only can you multi-boot, you can VM too... So I guess your only real problem is the price.
Why would you want to pay 5 times as much?
If it was two turds the price...
A3 landscape or 2 x A4 side by side should be readable if a bit small. A 15.4" 4:3 would be better. Might need stronger glasses to read a full A4 PDF as a 15" 4:3 1600 x 1200 while only 133dpi is actually TALLER (over 10 years ago) even though a smaller diagonal.
Strong glasses icon.
This means we'll likely have PC laptops with high-res screens in time for the holidays. Finally.
Is that your summer holidays or Christmas?
I am just trading in my crappy 5 yr old work HP with 1650 px for a spiffy new work Dell (if there is such a thing) with... 1366 px. & I had an Acer Ferrari 5 yrs ago with 1650 too.
This resolution thing is crap in 2012. Cheap kit with cheap screens. Not everyone wants to hook up to an external monitor.
Yeah, but unfortunately it'll look like jagged shite unless Apple's willing to license the patent for their super-obvious idea of handing out the appropriate one of multiple fixed resolutions for UI widgets to applications.
Nice screen, shame about the brand logo. But hopefully other laptop makers will stop putting 15" screens with the resolution of phones with a 4" screen in
Thumbs up for awsome trollage
It stinks of a cartel agreement between everyone except Apple.
Right now I can go to sony.co.uk and upgrade the bog standard resolution on their customisable 17" laptop for a mere forty quid, but no such option on the 15" model.
It gets worse. Try configuring a Dell XPS 15 or XPS 15z and basically you just cannot get what you want. One version has the processor but doesn't let you upgrade the screen resolution past the now ridiculous base level. Another lets you upgrade the screen but not the processor past an i5. It's just pointless.
Dell's web-based configurator software -- and/or the database behind it -- is flakey and inconsistent. If you really want a Dell with specs their web page doesn't show/won't allow you, try calling them up and explain what you want. You might be able to get it.
Indeed, and if you act all unsure you'll probably get them to wiggle in a bit of a discount too - it's a tough market place for hardware vendors!
Not for Apple. I wonder why?
When is the iS or is that iEYES upgrade out so I can read the tiny letters on the small screen?
Not for me, I'm quite happy with my 48" 38400 * 1200 display thanks.
People will buy them 'cause the equivalents (Sony Vaio for example) are both more expensive and marginally lesser specced (max 12GB of ram, max 512 gig SSD if you buy from Sony, lower screen res etc etc etc).
It's also heavier, thicker and won't run OS X.
Well done Apple, I'm going to be £2.5k worse off by the end of the day. : )
This "retina display" stuff is pure hype when applied to laptops because of the typical eye-to-screen distance. With an iThing, it kinda made some sort of sense, because of the "squint at the screen from a distance of 6 inches" use case, but with a laptop that's not ever going to be relevant.
Consider: my current relatively-bog-standard laptop offers a 1920x1080 screen, and the individual pixels are thoroughly invisible as it is.
Beyond the nonsense of the "retina" tag, note that Apple's 2880x1800 display only really makes sense as EITHER a doubling of a 1440x900, which makes for nice clean graphics at a less-than-stellar resolution, OR you have to use customized applications which employ oversized fonts and icons to be able to read the blasted things on the native resolution (hence the otherwise odd remark that Adobe and Apple were working on new software "to take advantage of" (which should be read as "to be usable on") the new display.
Fun point to ponder: what will that display do to 1080-line video? It'll have to scale by 166%, which basically means taking a group of three source pixels (A-B-C) and creating 5 display ones (A-A-B-B-C), which will probably look less-than-totally wonderful! [ Sure, if you have the GPU horsepower, you can produce intermediate pixels A-AB-B-BC-C, but that will create some subtle banding, too. So it looks like MBP folks are doomed to either HD video in windows, not full screen...
They're obviously waiting for HD Mk II. It does allow video to be edited/rearranged whilst having a display window up of full HD and not taking up the whole display. I for one, if I can afford such a beast at only 2kg in weight but doubtless more than 2k of the other, will not be complaining.
The vast majority laptops come with 1366x768 display - and most companies don't let you configure your own laptops anymore either, at least with meaningful options.
I think only HP, Dell and Sony do, out of the big name ones. And HP has a miserable reliability record, and Dell's consumer-targeted systems aren't much better (in reliability - per Consumer Reports), and Sony is more expensive for a comparable product than the competition....
We wouldn't be pissing and moaning in the comment section for every article about a laptop release, whining about the crap resolution if they came with 1920x1080!
Fun point to ponder: what will that display do to 1080-line video? It'll have to scale by 166%
Surely as most 1080p video is 16:9 and this is a 16:10 display it has to scale by 150% and add black bars top and bottom?
Dude: if "only" HP, Dell, and Sony offer 1080p laptops, who is left? Remember, we're talking about competitors to an Apple product, so any second or third tier vendor isn't germane to this discussion.
Beyond that, why do you think I used the word "relatively"? Bottom line is that you can get a 1080p laptop if you want one.
(And incidentally, I've not had reliability issues with HP's higher-end laptops, although I have heard of issues with the more consumer-oriented ones)!
My laptop is only 1280*800, but at 12" that's fine for me.
The funny thing is, back in 2003 I got a laptop with a 15" 1400*1050 screen and that wasn't all that unusual at the time for mid-high end laptops. The equivalent now really would be though, that's effectively more than the resolution that these "retina" displays are doubling.
And in 2008 I had a smartphone with what would now be classed as "retina" DPI - no one made that much of a fuss about it then.
Nope: we know what "HD Mk II" looks like, because it's alive and well in the content production world (i.e. "Hollywood"). "2K" is either 2048x1152 for 16:9 HDTV aspect ratios, 2048x1536 for 4:3 aspects, or 2048x856 for Panavision ratios. "4K" is double those.
Due to the pain suffered getting from 4:3 to 16:9 in broadcast, I wouldn't bet on 16:9 going away anytime soon!
True: I missed that: you'd just letterbox for the vertical resolution, but that still leaves you with the awkward 150% thing in both dimensions: A-B-C-D would have to become A-A-B-C-C-D (or A-AB-B-C-CD-D).
fscked by SHA-1 collision? Not so fast, says Linus Torvalds