Print 111 comment(s) - last by Smilin.. on Jun 18 at 6:26 AM

Apple is looking to make its ultrathin product line the models to beat amid tougher competition

It's that time a year again.  Love it or hate it, Apple, Inc. (AAPL) no industry player is perhaps as much of a showman as this Cupertino company.  P.T. Barnum once remarked, "Without promotion something terrible happens... Nothing!"

Apple tirelessly promotes itself year-round. But, of all the events on Apple's yearly calendar, one name has come to dominate in recent years -- the Worldwide Developer Convention.

While much of the attention, as always if fixated on the company's iPhone/iOS announcements, at this year's WWDC 2012 keynote address Apple also announced a slew of new additions to its personal computer line, including the release of its new version of OS X, OS X 10.8 "Mountain Lion", new MacBook Pros/Airs (and maybe even new iMacs...waiting on that).

Here's a taste of what new Apple CEO Tim Cook offered up:

I. Laptops

i. MacBook Airs (11-/13-inch)

Of all categories laptops are a place where Apple is most competitive in terms of cost versus deliverables versus its rivals.  While Apple has delivered on certain fronts (e.g. small form factors with the Mac Mini), it's hard to deny that there's a big "Apple Tax" on Mac Pro desktops.

Laptops are a place where that "Apple Tax" is largely a case of you get what you pay for.  Apple has long competed with another pricey player -- Sony Corp. (TYO:6758) to deliver the thinnest, lightest, most full-featured ultrathins.  Now with ultrabooks coming from a slew of other companies, Apple has to put on its 'A' game.

At the 2012 WWDC keynote Apple announced new 11- and 13-inch MacBook Airs.  The new designs pack a new dual-core 1.7 GHz (11-inch) or 1.8 GHz (13-inch) Ivy Bridge third-gen Core i-Series CPU from Intel Corp. (INTC), up to 8 GB of DRAM, and up to 512 GB of NAND flash storage in the SSD-driven designs.  

The base configuration comes with a 64 GB (11-inch)/128 GB (13-inch) SSD and 4 GB DRAM (both).

The new Airs also add USB 3.0 support to the two onboard ports that grace either side of the laptop (legacy USB 2.0 support is also maintained).  The USB 3.0 inclusion isn't exactly glamorous, but it at least fills in a long criticized lack in Apple's line.  A 720p FaceTime camera is also added, for those who use Apple's video-chat service.

The bad news for those Apple fans who have been blasting laptop makers for their "garbage" "low-resolution" displays, is that Apple is sticking with its low-resolution 1440x900 pixel LCD units in the MBA line (but wait, there is a silver lining, read on) -- not even bleeding edge by its own standards.  Unlike many upcoming Windows 8 designs, there's still no touch on the screen -- for better or worse.

There's also no discrete graphics, MBA owners will have to make due with integrated HD 4000 graphics from Intel.  The 11-inch starts at $999 USD (filling the slot once occupied by the defunct MacBook) and the 13-inch starts at $1199 USD.

ii. MacBook Pros (13-/15-inch)

Next up is the MacBook Pro refresh.  

Apple first unveiled a 13- and 15-inch models -- relatively ho-hum designs, with 1280x800 and 1440x900 pixel (respectively) displays and new Ivy Bridge CPUs.  The pair start at $1199 and $1799 a pop, respectively.  The 13-inch has 2.5 and 2.9 GHz dual-core CPU options, while the 15-inch model's processor options are bumped to 2.3 and 2.6 GHz quad-core chips. 

The base configurations comes with 4 GB DRAM and a 500 GB HDD.  The new Pros are 0.95-in. thick and weigh 4.5 and 5.6 lb, respectively.

An upgraded 17-inch model was not mentioned, it's possible Apple is eliminating that SKU.

iii. "Next Generation" MacBook Pro (15.4-inch)

But wait -- Apple packed a surprise -- a much more impressive single new entrant into the MacBook Pro line.  Tim Cook teased, "With the MBA, the team did something bold. There were aggressive in embracing new tech. They also got rid of stuff that was trending out. That enabled them to do something bold. So we've been asking the team to think about what would make the next gen MBP?"

"Want to know the answer?  You want it to have a killer new display. You want an architecture built for the future, you want it to be light. You want it unlike anything else.  Want to see it? Let's show it now.  The most beautfiul computer we have ever made."

Remember those dashed "Retina Display" hopes with the Air?  Well Apple is including an incredible 15.4-inch 2880x1800 pixel display on its high-end laptops.  So MBP gets double the resolution, while the MBA gets a miniscule bump.

MacBook Pro's flagship model indeed received a Retina display. 

Tim Cook remarks of the new screen on the 'Pro, "The pixels are so small that your retina cannot discern them."

Among the apps promised to make good use of that impressive resolution are Apple's own Mail, Safari (browser), iMovie, iPhoto, Aperture, and Final Cut Pro.  Apple's frienemy Adobe Systems Inc. (ADBE) is also offering HD Photoshop, while AutoDesk, Inc. (ADSK) is giving the high-resolution treament to its AutoCAD app.

For the gamers out their Activision Blizzard, Inc. (ATVI) Retina display Diablo III was briefly demoed.

The new "Next Generation" 15-inch MacBook Pros are also as thin as the Air (0.71 in.) and only weigh 4.46 lb.  What's more they also feature GeForce GT 650M graphics (1 GB GDDR5) from NVIDIA Corp. (NVDA) (Kepler chip).

This new super-ultrathin packs up to a 768 GB SSD (yes, you read that right).  It gets the same 7 hour battery life as its lesser 'Pro brethren, despite its 220 ppi screen.  The discrete graphics remain unchanged, but it supports an upgrade to a 2.7 GHz CPU and support for up to 16 GB of DRAM.  Bluetooth 4.0 is onboard.

The base configurations comes with 8 GB of DRAM, a 256 GB NAND SSD, and a 2.3 GHz quad-core chip.  That variant costs $2199 USD, a cost Apple promises is due to all its custom components like "asymmetrical fans" and other ultrathin oddiities.

All the new laptops are available immediately to ship, according to Tim Cook

II. OS X 10.8 "Mountain Lion"

Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) has received much criticism (including from Apple) for boldly importing pieces of its mobile operating system du jour (namely the Metro UI bits) into its upcoming Windows 8.  In many ways Apple is following a similar approach, bring onboard more iOS-like features, after first opening up the App Store expansion Mac App Store.

That said Mountain Lion's new features mark slightly less of an extreme makeover than Microsoft's arguably, and thus should be a bit less of a system shock to veteran users (though on the flip side potentially passing on the benefits of a more extreme redesign).

Mountain Lion
[Image Source: HD Wallpapers]

i. Yay Cloud

Craig Federighi previewed the new OS.

Apple claims that there are 65 million Macs in the wild, with 26 million of those on OS X 10.7 Lion.  Humorously Apple bragged that its own OS outsold Windows 7.  Of course it's talking about percent adoption within its drastically smaller user base, but in Apple's world it's the "fastest"* selling operating system in history (*=some restrictions may apply).  So take that, reports of slowing OS X Lion adoption.

Mountain Lion brings iCloud integration.  Apple has added "Documents in the Cloud" to iCloud, which allows you to use Pages, Numbers, Keynote, Preview, and TextEdit options to present or edit your content on the go.

The new OS also supports cloud data backup (AirPlay mirroring) when its in "sleep" mode.  The process is done silently and power-efficiently, according to Apple. 

iCloud backup
Airplay mirroring [Image Source: The Verge]

ii. New Apps

The new OS introduces 3 new apps -- messages, reminders, and notes -- whose purposes are pretty self-explanatory.  Apple also has integrated dictation with a Siri-like icon into Mountain Lion.  It even works, as Apple humorously notes in Microsoft Word.  

Mountain Lion new apps
OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion also introduces 3 new core apps. [Image Source: The Verge]

Then there's the notifications -- a feature some disliked in preview builds. (Apple has added the ability to turn them off at least.)  Sharing has also been made easier with Apple's GUI offering many options such as Twitter, Facebook, AirDrop, or Message.

A new build of the Safari browser is also onboard with unified search (like Google Inc.'s (GOOG) Chrome).  Apple claims Safari is faster than Firefox 13, Chrome 19, and Internet Explorer 9 in JavaScript.  There's a couple new additions to the browser like iCloud tabs (syncs your mobile tabs) and Tabview, which allows easy zooming in and out.

Other new features include the "Gatekeeper" security app, offline reading lists, Mail VIPs, LaunchPad Search, and more -- 200 in all by Apple's estimation.  Apple is also looking to woo Chinese buyers with freshly added, Inc. (BIDU) support and an improved Chinese dictionary.

iii. Availability

Apple is releasing Mountain Lion next month for $19.99 USD.  The license is good for installing on any supported existed (Apple) system.  For those buying the aforementioned fancy new laptop designs, they will receive a free bump to Mountain Lion, so early adopters won't be burned (not that $20 USD is a big deal after you've ponied up $2200 USD for that new MBP).

Sources: Apple, The Verge

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By TakinYourPoints on 6/11/2012 6:32:35 PM , Rating: 5
I tried to use my WUXGA screen in 100% size (Win7), but everything is soooo tiny it makes my eyes hurt after 15 minutes. Now imagine 2880 pixels, which will require a microscope. It just doesn't make sense anymore.

Everything scales up properly, just like with an iPad. UI and text scale up, and OS X has had 2x res assets for months now. The latter is why rumors of a MBP with a 2x res display appeared in the first place.

None of what you're worrying about is a concern, things will be the same size as before, just with no visible pixels or anti-aliasing in text.

By retrospooty on 6/11/2012 6:57:38 PM , Rating: 2
"I tried to use my WUXGA screen in 100% size (Win7), but everything is soooo tiny it makes my eyes hurt after 15 minutes. Now imagine 2880 pixels, which will require a microscope. It just doesn't make sense anymore."

Windows was never set up to scale very well. You have the dpi adjustment, but you just lose some screen real-estate. Windows 8 corrects that, as does IOS, MAc OS, Android etc.

By Rand on 6/11/2012 8:11:54 PM , Rating: 2
Win8's DPI scaling hasn't changed at all except in Metro. The desktop's DPI scaling is unchanged from Win7.

By goatfajitas on 6/11/2012 8:28:07 PM , Rating: 2
Windows 8 will have high res screens like this, they have already announced several different hi res options. You can bet that they have a solution for it

By ritualm on 6/12/2012 10:04:34 PM , Rating: 2
Not now, they don't.

Below is what happens when you run Windows 8 Release Preview at the full 2880 x 1800 screen resolution:

Whatever Microsoft is using for DPI scaling on W8, it's clear this isn't going to work.


By retrospooty on 6/13/2012 8:56:48 AM , Rating: 2
Good thing it isnt out yet. When it comes out then take a look.

By FaaR on 6/11/2012 7:58:45 PM , Rating: 3
Its only purpose is marketing and boasting to have the highest resolution screen in the world.

No, the purpose is twofold:

One, to offer smooth text and graphics, without any visible stair-stepping in characters - maybe not quite so important for us latin alphabet users, but asian pictograms are vastly helped by it. And asia is a rapidly growing market.

Anyway, even bog-standard regular characters look much nicer at better-than-print resolution, as this screen allows when looked at at a regular viewing distance.

Reason two, screen real-estate. If you watch the presentation, you see a demo of a video editing application where you have one full-HD, 1080P stream, with lots and lots of room on the sides for user interface to manipulate said video. It's definitely an advantage to have the resolution to fit all of this all on the same screen without the need for multiple screens, or scaling down the video. You can see everything all at once, at 1:1 pixel mapping without scaling distortion or scrolling around.

Using windows as an example of trying to portray this tech as merely a marketing ploy is pure fail from the start. Windows isn't currently geared to handle high DPI screens properly.

Please broaden your horizons a bit. Maybe you should go seek out a store demo of a retina iPad and play with it for a while. I'm sure you too will see the light eventually. :)

By CubicleDilbert on 6/11/2012 8:23:41 PM , Rating: 3
It seems you just didn't understand my arguments.
I know the iPad 3 very well and I did mention the calculations.
The ultra-high resolutions does not make sense, because the human eye can only distinguish a certain amount of different pixels per arcsecond. It is pure physics. The human eye limit with 20/20 vision at 40cm distance is around 140dpi. Even Apple has this in their white paper when they explain retina. Physicists know that better and have different names for this. The limiting factor is the human retina and its low resolution. Eagles have much better vision than humans. They would look at the new Macbook and would see an ocean of individual pixels. But not humans.

Physically speaking, any resolution higher than the human eye can distinguish is a complete waste.

And yes, the more pixels the better and sharper the image. Think at laser printer and needle printer. Big difference.

But you will definitely not see a difference between a laser printer with 1200dpi and 2400dpi when looking at the printout.

So in conclusion anything beyond 145dpi on notebooks is a waste and adds only to marketing hype.
Working at 145dpi and Windows 7 or Ubuntu with standard text 100% resolution is next to impossible for a full 10h working day. You would have to enlarge fonts, icons and everything. I do this all the time and Windows does it almost perfectly.

And your argument, that with ultra-high resolution you can edit 3 videos at the same time is not valid, because then you would have to run tiny fonts and menues, which is not feasible for a 10h/7d working professional. That's why you have the 30" Apple display.

By integr8d on 6/11/2012 9:03:10 PM , Rating: 4
Agreed. Res is overhyped. Give me 100% AdobeRGB, 10-bit (wishful thinking) and decent viewing angles and then we'll talk.

By CyCl0n3 on 6/13/2012 4:58:20 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Totaly unnecessary to have anything above 140dpi.
The eye cant see difference, it needs more graphic power and rescources, thus it needs more energy, means worse battery life. Also Full HD Movies loose quality and gaming will be close to impossible on modern games on that resolution. What a waste on a mobile (Notebook) device.
So basically the usage gets hugely limited.

By inperfectdarkness on 6/13/2012 7:09:25 AM , Rating: 2
again. 1080p. 15.6" screen. i can see the aliasing on my desktop icons. guess what? that's > 140 ppi.

your logic is fatally flawed.

By inperfectdarkness on 6/13/2012 6:50:06 AM , Rating: 2

you want to move backwards in technology. thanks for playing.

By inperfectdarkness on 6/13/2012 7:18:32 AM , Rating: 2
Has it ever occured to you that how the human eye perceives an image may be different from how a display renders it? That is to say (assuming 40cm viewing distance) that the human eye may not be able to detect higher ppi, but a display at 140ppi may still render anomalies visible to the human eye (aliasing, etc).

Perhaps this is a function of rendering abnormalities...but it still doesn't change the fact that if these anomalies can be perceived by human eyes--ANY human eyes--that it is sufficient cause to increase the resolution.

There MUST be a reason why printed pictures have different effective "dpi" than a computer monitor--while displaying the same image at equal quality. It is a function of the media. 140ppi for a human eye != 140ppi from a TN panel display.

As far as I'm concerned, until games can be played in resolutions where AA is a feature no longer requiring support--then I'll take any resolution boost I can get.

By testerguy on 6/14/2012 7:46:26 AM , Rating: 2
Guys, lets try and stop the complete disinformation on this site, OK?

Let me take you through some maths/science:

The accepted capability of an eye with 20/20 vision, is denoted as an ANGLE. That angle is the smallest viewing angle between two objects (in our case, pixels) at which the human eye can discern the two separate pixels. If the angle is too small, the pixels blur into one when processed by our brains.

That angle has a commonly accepted scientific value. That value is one arcminute, or 1/60th of a degree.

Due to the laws of trigonometry, as an object becomes closer, the top and the bottom of that object, as perceived by our eyes, become separated by a greater angle. Thus, our ability to perceive individual objects (or pixels) is inversely proportional to the distance. Or, in plain English, if things are closer we can see the detail more easily.

It is possible, therefore, using the above two facts, to calculate the necessary PPI a device would need for the pixels to not be discernible, taking a single parameter of the distance the device is held away. Since PPI is measured in Inches, the distance must be too.

Lets take an example of the iPhone 4S - which Apple claim is held 12 inches away (or 'around 1 foot').

Apply an angle of 1/60 degrees over a distance of 12 inches, gives you 1/(Tan(1/60)*12) which is 286 PPI.

If we assume a distance of 11 inches, this gives you 1/(Tan(1/60)*11) which is 312.5 PPI.

Thus, if you agree that the iPhone 4S is held 11 inches away or more, it qualifies as a 'retina' display - where 'retina' display means a device that someone with 20/20 eyesight can't distinguish pixels on from normal viewing distance.

Now, lets apply this to two other examples. Firstly - the new iPad. The new iPad has a PPI of 264. Lets reverse engineer the distance at which this qualifies as a 'retina' display:

Distance = (1/264)/Tan(1/60) which gives us 13.0 (to 1 dp). Therefore, if you believe that the iPad is held (on average) at 13 inches or more away from your eyes, the iPad 2 also qualifies as a retina display.

Now, finally, lets address the claim in the post to which I'm replying that 40cm distance requires 140dpi. 40cm is 15.75 inches.

Applying 15.75 inches into the above formula gives us: 218.27 PPI. Not the 140 DPI which is claimed .

By inperfectdarkness on 6/15/2012 5:03:30 AM , Rating: 2

It's been "clear" to me from the get-go that 200ppi+ is where the 15" laptop segment needs to have its screens. I applaud you for mathematically proving it.

By shyhh on 6/13/2012 9:58:57 AM , Rating: 2
Reason number 2 is not right. Anandtech reviewed the screen and the maximum resolution you can use as desktop is 1920 x 1200. The extra pixels goes to waste.

However, judging on how people were rushing to buy the new iPad, introducing the retina macbook makes absolute business sense.

By CubicleDilbert on 6/12/2012 4:16:41 AM , Rating: 6
Thanks for the flowers, calling me a moron.

Maybe you should take a 101 course in physics and physiology before shouting out such drastic insults.

You just don't get it and I am giving up, arguing probably with an Apple fanatic.

The required resolution of a device always depends on the maximum capabilities of the human eye. Beyond that it is a waste of technology and money.

You don't seem to understand this basic concept and why an iPhone 4 perfectly needs 300dpi because it is just right before your eyes. And why an iPad 3 needs 225dpi because it is further away and why a laptop only needs 150dpi because it is an armlength away.

In the football stadium you need only 0.001 dpi for a perfect huge LED panel, because you are 100-200 yards away.

Just calling someone a moron because you don't understand the fundamental basics of physics just makes everyone else understand what you are: an idiot.

Wish you a nice day... thanks. >:-(

By Mitch101 on 6/12/2012 5:18:25 PM , Rating: 2
Apple needs the retina screen to hide the subliminal messages it feeds to its users.

By mead drinker on 6/12/2012 6:35:36 PM , Rating: 2
Ummm... I use my laptop at distances that are an arm length away very few times but use it at distances that you would define as "ipad" or "iphone" proximity. I can hardly think of the occasions when my laptop is sitting neatly on a desk and I am roughly 16" from it. Laying in bed watching streaming content or surfing the web, closer. Perched on a media cart while I stand and hover almost over it, closer. On one hand acting as a stand, closer.

I shoot and edit footage for a living, opening a 2K file at 1:1 and having all of the panes in an editing suite on the bottom and sides of the program window is pretty priceless. Also the ability to show my client what a ~3K vs 2K output would look like and their best efforts to locate pixels as their noses crush my screen sells the services of my Red Epic even more. Then I get to tell them that the camera shoots 5K. For me its a difference maker.

By TakinYourPoints on 6/12/2012 7:32:25 PM , Rating: 2
You'll be able to run full 1080p video in video editing software while also keeping the full editing and media management UI on screen. That is pretty great.

By TakinYourPoints on 6/12/2012 7:30:08 PM , Rating: 2
+6 for a post justifying the argument that going over 96 DPI doesn't matter on a desktop display.

Its nice to see the editors here also have their heads in the sand.

By inperfectdarkness on 6/13/2012 1:45:20 AM , Rating: 2
The fact that this gets a 6 is probably the most hilariously outrageous thing I've ever seen on DT.

He's making ARBITRARY judgments about the lengths you view said screens from. I sit no more than 18" from my 15.4" laptop screen, and sometimes closer. I can clearly see aliasing in my desktop icons on a 1920x1080p screen.

Is he correct that "retina dpi" varies on viewing distance? yes---but he's hardly correct at making arbitrary judgments on what those DPI should be...based on some random figure for viewer distance.

This guy should be DOWN rated, not UP rated for this comment.

By Shadowself on 6/13/2012 5:31:45 PM , Rating: 2
Obviously YOU (and the person who gave you a 6) NEVER heard of things like "edge effects" and "vernier resolution" and "sensor [human eye] motion affecting perceived resolution" and "super resolution effects of multiple frames".

Don't be so naive. Go look things up. The "one arc second resolving power of the human eye" has been debunked time and time again.

One very simple example can prove this --- and it is purely digital and not at all an analog system like the human vision system:

At worse than 1 km resolution sensor resolution the old GOES satellites easily create an image of the bridge crossing Lake Pontchartrain (and have for many, many years). AND NO ONE will ever try to claim that bridge is even close to 1 km wide. I believe at its widest point is is 150 or less feet wide across the spans -- WAY under that 1 km (about 5%).

By your reasoning, the old GOES satellites should never be able to show that bridge, but they do all the time.

And that is only one effect that shows up and proves simple systems can perceive (and record) higher resolution than that stupid yardstick of 1 arc minute on which you are relying. In some tests by the U.S. military they have shown that some people can perceive effects as small as 1/30th of that 1 arc minute resolution.

You may not be a moron, but you do need to think beyond the simplest of terms. You need to understand more than just the fundamentals and basic concepts -- and so does that person who gave you the 6.

Oh, and as a physicist who has worked on everything from designs for our nuclear fleet to designs for imaging systems for satellites, I DO KNOW THE FUNDAMENTAL BASICS OF PHYSICS!

By inperfectdarkness on 6/14/2012 2:18:42 AM , Rating: 2
THIS deserves a 6.

By inperfectdarkness on 6/12/2012 4:04:01 AM , Rating: 1
Fornicate thyself with a whetted instrument.

1. FINALLY someone is moving past 2MP resolution on a laptop. This should have happened years ago, as WUXGA was the standard for high-resolution back ~2008.

2. I'm estatic that someone is putting 16:10 resolution back into laptops, rather than the abhorrant 16:9 resolution. All that BS about letterboxing is a load of hooey when 22:9 is what all new movies are being released in today--and I for one do NOT want a 22:9 display.

3. People who complain about font size & the like are obviously not tech-savvy enough to figure out how to adjust their computer's display settings. Worst-case, you set your monitor to display in 1/2 native resolution and never worry about your PEBKAC-induced eyestrain. The rest of us in the real-world will enjoy the additional real-estate, sharper-picture, and higher-resolution gaming.

4. Funny, but you don't hear people complaining about 120hz or 240hz TV's as being "complete nonsense". The established limit for the human eye is 60FPS, so everything above that must be stupid and wasted--by the same flawed logic applied to denigrating "retina" displays.

5. I dispise apple. With a passion. And yet, this is perhaps the first time in history that I would seriously consider buying from them--since they've proven willing to tread where others have been content to sit on their fat-asses and let progress stagnate. If I could get better hardware in it, I'd buy an MBP, format it, run win 7, and live happily ever after.

I absolutely hate people like you. People who stand in the way of technical progress because of some antiquated, illogical concerns stemming from a lack of user knowledge.

By TakinYourPoints on 6/13/2012 5:16:18 AM , Rating: 2
2. 16:9 is standard throughout most of the Macbook line. The only exception is the 11" MBA, and that's the result of reducing the dimensions without shrinking the full size keyboard. Otherwise they've all been 16:9 for over a decade.

5. Internals are dictated by thermals and a target for battery life. Getting something like a 680M in there would result in a 2" thick notebook with two hours of battery life, not something just over half an inch thick with seven hours. Either way, a quad i7 and a 650M (about as fast as a 560M) in that slim a chassis was better than I was expecting.

I completely agree though, 16:9 has no place in anything smaller than a 1440p 27"

By inperfectdarkness on 6/13/2012 7:06:30 AM , Rating: 2
I was mainly referring to the Nvidia GPU. I'd much rather have ATI in there. Radeon 6970M would have been more attractive to me. I'd also be worried about sub-par cooling--a notorious problem for apple designs--as I game extensively on my laptops.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who hates 16:9 on my PC.

By chemist1 on 6/15/2012 11:56:56 PM , Rating: 2
Though for me, the NVIDIA GPU is appealing because of their CUDA programming platform, which enables the GPU to be used for highly-parallel scientific computation. ATI has something similar, but I don't believe it's as well-developed.

By chemist1 on 6/15/2012 11:50:18 PM , Rating: 2
16:9 is standard throughout most of the Macbook line. The only exception is the 11" MBA, and that's the result of reducing the dimensions without shrinking the full size keyboard. Otherwise they've all been 16:9 for over a decade.

I'm afraid it's the reverse of what you stated (maybe it was a typo). Going back to their introduction in 2006, 16:10 has been the standard for the MacBook line (both MacBook and MacBook Pro) (see and That is, to my mind, one important part of their appeal. The 11" MBA, which is 16:9, is the exception.

By WalksTheWalk on 6/14/2012 11:52:37 AM , Rating: 2
No one's stopping you from dropping $2,200 for the Mac Pro Retina. Be my guest...

(BTW - That's the base price)

By Flunk on 6/12/2012 9:03:01 AM , Rating: 2
You do have to consider that there are other people and that everyone's eyesight is different. I'm quite nearsighted and because of that I actually see things that are close to me much better than someone with "average" sight. There are also people with above average vision. So what may be good for you may not necessarily be right for everyone.

I do see your point that the resolution seems excessive, I just have a bone to pick with your reasoning because there is a wide range of human sight to account for.

Also, you won't need a microscope for the new MacBook. Apple will just blow up the size of all the text and images so all the onscreen objects will be the same size, just more detailed. But you're right, that probably doesn't matter and even if it does it doesn't matter much.

By CubicleDilbert on 6/12/2012 9:49:58 AM , Rating: 2
I heard that the ultra high resolution is because it is just 4x Macbook (1440x900) resolution and old programs can just be scaled up. Just like with the step from regular iPhone to iPhone 4.

The human eye has only a limited amount of light receptors on its retina, much lower than e.g. eagles. And the lens is suboptimal too. The very best human eyes (beyond 20/20 vision) can distinguish about 20-30 arcsec. Regular humans (like me) have maybe 45-60 arcsec resolution.

Now building a notebook LCD that satisfies a 5-10 arcsec human eye is nonsense, because no such human exists. But it increases production costs dramatically.

I guess Apple marketing just wanted this high resolution for boasting and Apple engineers wanted the simple 2x scaling horizontally and vertically. And who cares, there are enough Apple fanatics who have more than enough money to spent on a USD 2300-2800 notebook. I don't mind.

By aliasfox on 6/12/2012 2:38:12 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, but building a display with 5 arcsec resolution would allow you to pick any resolution between 5 and 45 arcsec and still have perfectly legible (ie non-fuzzy) screens.

If (for example) 1440 x 900 equates to 60 arcsec, then 2880 x 1800 equates to 30 arcsec. Even if you pick a resolution in the middle such as 1920 x 1200, you'll *still* have a display around 45 arcsec, or 1680 x 1050 would give you around 52 arcsec - still perfectly crisp to the normal eye. If you were to start with a 1920 x 1200 resolution, scaling and aliasing artifacts would be much easier for your eye to see.

In other words, if you start with 1920 x 1200, only 1920 x 1200 and 960 x 600 would look like 'native' resolutions on an LCD. If you were to start with 2880 x 1800, the pixels are small enough that pretty much every resolution down to 1440 x 900 would look 'native,' including 1680, 1920, 2560, etc.

I could see resolutions maxing out one more step above 2880 x 1800 (5760 x 3600) in a few years - with resolution independence and dynamic scaling (along with appropriately fast hardware), the screen would be able to scale from 1440 x 900 up to 4k resolutions and you'd never actually be able to tell - everything will simply always be crisply rendered at ~300dpi - a point where your computer screen will look just as sharp as a National Geographic (printed at 300 dpi, I believe).

By TakinYourPoints on 6/13/2012 5:06:52 AM , Rating: 2
Text that requires no anti-aliasing and is sharper than physical print by itself should be enough to sell anyone on the benefits of high resolution displays. I can't believe this argument is still happening when both the iPhone and iPad have made the advantages so clear.

I can't wait to hear the argument again when 27" monitors go to 5120x2880.

"But you don't need all those pixels, herp derp"


By shyhh on 6/13/2012 2:54:45 AM , Rating: 2
Now would that be just great for watching porn...

By WalksTheWalk on 6/14/2012 11:53:39 AM , Rating: 2
Way to go, my friend!

This can't possibly be right.....
By Cheesew1z69 on 6/11/2012 2:05:08 PM , Rating: 1
This new super-ultrathin packs up to a 768 GB SSD

RE: This can't possibly be right.....
By hemmy on 6/11/2012 1:58:05 PM , Rating: 2
"Up to"

RE: This can't possibly be right.....
By aliasfox on 6/11/2012 1:58:14 PM , Rating: 2
why not?

RE: This can't possibly be right.....
By Cheesew1z69 on 6/11/12, Rating: 0
RE: This can't possibly be right.....
By retrospooty on 6/11/2012 2:25:41 PM , Rating: 5
It's an option, not at the price listed. I am sure you pay for it, but if you want a large SSD, it can be done.

2880x1800 at 15 inches is just incredible. Probably overkill, but in contrast to the vast "underkill" of 1366x768, i'll take it.

RE: This can't possibly be right.....
By Solandri on 6/11/2012 2:51:23 PM , Rating: 2
I'm still wary of do-it-yourself HDD/SSD upgrades on a Mac. On the iMac, they introduced an extra data pinout on the HDD. It was linked to the fan, and if you replaced it with a generic HDD without the pinout, your fan would run at max speed all the time. So far that's the only time the issue has surfaced, but I still won't buy a Mac with intent to upgrade the HDD/SSD until I read that someone else has done so first without problems.

I like the display. About time laptops started pushing beyond 1920x1080. The nice thing IMHO is that you can run games at half-res (1440x900) to get decent performance while still having a sharp image at a decent resolution. On the 1080p screens half-res was a pathetic 960x540, so you ended up with a soft image due to resampling 1280x720 up to 1920x1080. I was actually thinking of getting a Dell 30" (2560x1600) to get around this problem (half-res 1280x800).

RE: This can't possibly be right.....
By corduroygt on 6/11/2012 3:26:52 PM , Rating: 2
Get a 27" 2560x1440 monitor instead, they're half the price of the 30" ones with slightly lower resolution, and you still get 720p gaming.

By retrospooty on 6/11/2012 4:49:59 PM , Rating: 2
I got to play with a 27 inch iMac for a few days last year. A really great screen.

I wonder if they will ever do larger retina screens at the 27-30 inch range.

Drooling just thinking about it.

By Solandri on 6/12/2012 2:39:13 AM , Rating: 2
I looked at those too. I actually prefer the smaller 27" size to 30". But all the 27" seem to be 16:9, while 30" is 16:10. And I like 16:10 more than I like 27".

RE: This can't possibly be right.....
By FaaR on 6/11/2012 7:44:38 PM , Rating: 2
I'm still wary of do-it-yourself HDD/SSD upgrades on a Mac.

No need to be wary anymore, not with this Mac anyway.

Why? Well, quite simply, because the RAM's soldered in, and the flash for the SSD is also soldered in... That's how Apple can fit such a large battery in such a small case. Sockets and modular circuit boards as used in SO-DIMMs and mini-SATA and PCIe boards take up space inside the chassis, so it'd either be smaller battery or a thicker, heavier chassis to fit the same size battery.

Of course, you can't upgrade your computer either, but I'm fairly certain most users don't ever actually do that, and the baseline spec is 4GB RAM which is more than sufficient for most people...

Extra storage if you need that can be added through either USB3 which is really fast, or thunderbolt, which is ludicrous fast, in the eyes of 99.9% of all users anyway.

By TakinYourPoints on 6/11/2012 7:51:37 PM , Rating: 2
The baseline spec is 8GB, fortunately. 4GB with an upgrade option to 8GB would have sucked given that everything on the logic board is soldered on.

The standard 15" MBP make less sense at this point. Upgrade to an SSD either through Apple or with your own parts and it comes out to about the same price as a baseline retina display MBP. The baseline spec is surprisingly decent, I would have guessed something more expensive.

RE: This can't possibly be right.....
By TakinYourPoints on 6/11/2012 2:45:06 PM , Rating: 3
Not anymore, its down to about $1 a gig for customers now. You can actually get a Crucial 512GB SSD for $400 now, prices have been plummeting this year.

RE: This can't possibly be right.....
By Mitch101 on 6/11/2012 4:52:54 PM , Rating: 3
Not on Apple. Unicorn dust is expensive.
Crucial 512GB SSD for PC $400 now
Crucial 512GB SSD for Apple $800 now

RE: This can't possibly be right.....
By Souka on 6/11/2012 5:52:53 PM , Rating: 2
per comment above, the pinout on the HDD is different for Mac. Wrong drive = full fan speed on mac... FAIL!


By TakinYourPoints on 6/11/2012 6:28:40 PM , Rating: 2
Crucial 512GB SSD for Apple $800 now

This is BS, the $400 Crucial SSD plugs into a MBP. I made the upgrade myself a few weeks ago.

RE: This can't possibly be right.....
By Cheesew1z69 on 6/11/2012 7:25:11 PM , Rating: 2
RE: This can't possibly be right.....
By TakinYourPoints on 6/11/2012 7:55:46 PM , Rating: 2
$400 512GB SSD:

If you want an Intel 480GB you'll be spending around $700. Either way, who cares? You get hit like that from any PC vendor, it is one reason why aftermarket upgrades exist.

RE: This can't possibly be right.....
By StevoLincolnite on 6/12/2012 1:07:47 AM , Rating: 2
If you want an Intel 480GB you'll be spending around $700. Either way, who cares?

Are you saying "Who cares" to having to pay more? Seriously?

In that case... I'll charge you $1,000 for making me write this message, I mean... Who cares right? right?

Higher prices is never a good thing, you should care; otherwise prices will never come down on goods that become cheaper to manufacture.
That would mean we would still be paying $1000 for a DVD drive for a PC and not $20.

RE: This can't possibly be right.....
By TakinYourPoints on 6/12/2012 2:43:46 AM , Rating: 2
No, I'm saying who cares about what Apple charges, you can get less expensive SSDs from numerous other sources.

RE: This can't possibly be right.....
By StevoLincolnite on 6/13/2012 1:04:20 PM , Rating: 2
Nope. I care. I want everything as cheap as possible, who give a rats what company is driving the products.
I'm a consumer, lower prices on everything is great.

RE: This can't possibly be right.....
By TakinYourPoints on 6/13/2012 3:11:29 PM , Rating: 2
Again, who cares what Apple charges when you can buy cheaper parts from other places. The same applies to Dell, HP, or any other company. Who cares what they charge for RAM or storage upgrades when you can buy a part from Newegg or Amazon for half the price.

I don't see what the big deal is.

RE: This can't possibly be right.....
By StevoLincolnite on 6/13/2012 4:03:46 PM , Rating: 2
The big deal is, if a big company undercuts another, then everyone else will drop prices and the cycle will continue.

By testerguy on 6/14/2012 7:58:07 AM , Rating: 2
Steve you are completely and absolutely missing the point.

TakinYourPoints isn't trying to suggest that consumers don't care about price.

He's making the point that with an Apple you can get an SSD upgrade at the SAME COST as it costs for the raw components - literally by simply buying them.

That price isn't controlled by Apple, it's controlled by the SSD manufacturers. While obviously consumers would prefer SSD's to be cheaper, the point is that you can get them for your Apple at at least as cheap as you can in a custom build.

By Brandon Hill on 6/11/2012 1:58:51 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, it is correct.

RE: This can't possibly be right.....
By GotThumbs on 6/11/2012 8:04:39 PM , Rating: 1
The REAL question is....what kind of performance does it have compared to retail SSD's that one can install in most any PC laptop. Check NewEgg for the 1T SSD. Apple will NOT be giving you the fastest options. Most Apple users wouldn't know how to tell the difference anyway.

At 2200.00, its not that big a deal. Its more of a joke. We want to see who the first sucker will be.

I'll never by an Apple product. There are too many other options I can choose.

By ritualm on 6/12/2012 9:57:55 PM , Rating: 2
Who in their bright mind would buy a 1TB SSD? The price per GB does not even make sense, and the performance isn't any better.

Regardless. I went ahead and ordered the BTO version, 2.7 and 16gb but kept the SSD stock. Guess I'm one of those guys who overspent for an inferior product, huh.

By NellyFromMA on 6/12/2012 7:56:27 AM , Rating: 2
I predict the MBP to be in the range of 10K. Don't worry, the more careless people spend on this tech, the more it will drive prices down to consumers. Right... ?

STILL 1280x800?!
By Red Storm on 6/11/2012 2:27:10 PM , Rating: 2
The only thing I really wanted improved on the 13" Pro was the pitiful resolution, shame they didn't care to update that.

RE: STILL 1280x800?!
By TakinYourPoints on 6/11/2012 2:48:12 PM , Rating: 2
The 13" MBP is the worst laptop Apple sells. You get a worse display than the MBA and mechanical hard drives instead of an SSD. What you get in return: a useless optical drive. Screw that, if you want a 13" laptop then the Macbook Air makes so much more sense.

RE: STILL 1280x800?!
By corduroygt on 6/11/2012 3:17:00 PM , Rating: 2
It's easy to upgrade the mechanical hdd to a cheap SSD, and the processor/GPU are faster on the 13" pro. The ideal laptop would be a 13" pro with retina display and standard 2.5" hdd that can be self upgraded.

Still, the screen is the biggest problem with the 13" pro, and unlike a HDD, it's not really user upgradable.

RE: STILL 1280x800?!
By TakinYourPoints on 6/11/2012 3:22:58 PM , Rating: 2
Upgrading the SSD is an option, but it isn't ideal given that you're adding a couple extra hundred dollars to something with an inferior screen and larger/heavier chassis. The tradeoffs aren't worth it to me. I myself upgraded to a 512GB SSD on a laptop I bought last year, but if I was buying new I'd be completely open to something thinner and lighter that doesn't use common commodity parts.

Eh, the 13" MBP just isn't very good, especially since the MBA is right around the same price.

RE: STILL 1280x800?!
By corduroygt on 6/11/2012 3:28:06 PM , Rating: 2
I'd get the MBA, but the $300 premium to go from 128GB to 256GB is atrocious, and the hdd upgrades for the MBA aren't cheap since it's not a standard 2.5" form factor.

RE: STILL 1280x800?!
By steven975 on 6/11/2012 3:44:24 PM , Rating: 2
Well, the screen on the MBP is worse, and better.

You step down in resolution, but you get an IPS panel. The Air is a TN panel...good panel, but still TN with all the limitations that entails.

Still, I chose the MBA and don't regret it, though I should have sprung for the 256GB SSD. With Win7 and OSX, it's less free space than I'd like.

RE: STILL 1280x800?!
By aliasfox on 6/11/2012 3:41:38 PM , Rating: 2
The 13" Pro doesn't have an IPS panel, just a really really good TN panel - the MBA panel might be better in resolution, but isn't quite as good when it comes to gamut or brightness.

The only reason the 13" Pro is around is for people who want a 'full featured' laptop to play their DVDs on. At $1200, it's not much more than what they were thinking about spending on whatever else is available from Best Buy, and it still looks lighter/sleeker than the 15.6" 7 lbs machine they were looking at. Remember, these are people who are perfectly fine with 1366 x 768 base level screens.

Sadly, these people also make up the vast majority of the retail market, so Apple can't really afford to cut them off yet. That said, I bet there's a lot of price/demand elasticity and they could drop the entry level machine to $999 and get much higher take rates (but probably not the 2x needed to make it worth the price cut).

RE: STILL 1280x800?!
By TakinYourPoints on 6/11/2012 4:33:30 PM , Rating: 2
They all use TN+ panels. Really good ones:

In any case, the 13" MBA screen looks much better than the 13" MBP side by side.

RE: STILL 1280x800?!
By TakinYourPoints on 6/13/2012 5:18:33 AM , Rating: 2
The new 2x res MBP does use IPS displays. Ugh, must resist....

RE: STILL 1280x800?!
By GulWestfale on 6/11/2012 4:59:04 PM , Rating: 2
i bought a 13" air about two months ago; it seemed like a better deal than the lower-res, heavier 13" pro.

today's update does not make want to buy a new one, a higher-res facetime cam (seldomly used) and USB 3.0 are not enough to make me spend ~1500 bucks again.
the new high-res pro does look interesting, but not at that price. guess i'll wait for next year's refresh.

1gb video card?
By Rzp on 6/11/2012 2:57:09 PM , Rating: 2
wait a second...they are going to run that insane resolution with 1 gb video card? or is there an upgrade to 2 gb? im not sure if 1 gb can support heavy games at that resolution...

RE: 1gb video card?
By TakinYourPoints on 6/11/2012 2:53:41 PM , Rating: 2
I suspect you'll be dropping down to 1400x900 for most games. Perhaps not, at full res you won't need anti-aliasing at all. Diablo 3 at that res does sound good...

As far as power goes, the 650M is pretty capable for a mobile GPU, its about as fast as a 560M.

RE: 1gb video card?
By Rzp on 6/11/12, Rating: 0
RE: 1gb video card?
By aliasfox on 6/11/2012 4:33:13 PM , Rating: 3
At 2880 x 1800, I think the amount of graphics RAM is the least of your concerns - the 650M isn't likely to be able to push playable framerates at native resolution on any modern game regardless of how much vram you throw at it.

What's great though is that if you just halve the resolution in each direction, you still get a perfectly adequate 1440 x 900, which the 650M should be able to handle on most games (at least in Windows).

RE: 1gb video card?
By TakinYourPoints on 6/11/2012 4:47:16 PM , Rating: 2
It is about as fast as a 560M, so it'll drive a desktop just fine at native res but games will be a lot tougher. It'll handle games at 1400x900 just fine though. The early 2011 MBPs with the Radeon 6750M runs games great, even when outputting to an external 1080p display, and this new GPU benchmarks faster.

RE: 1gb video card?
By Boze on 6/12/2012 7:46:52 AM , Rating: 2
Almost tempted to just wait till early 2013... maybe the MacBook Pro refreshes will have GTX 680Ms in them... that chip can really push some pixels. By then Nvidia should have tweaked it enough to fit it in that case.

RE: 1gb video card?
By ritualm on 6/12/2012 10:14:20 PM , Rating: 2
If you think Apple will give next year's MBPs a 680M, I have a bridge in Alaska I'd like to sell to you.

RE: 1gb video card?
By Rzp on 6/13/2012 7:00:07 PM , Rating: 2
more like they will just upgrade to 2 gb next year

RE: 1gb video card?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/11/12, Rating: 0
16:10 display
By kmmatney on 6/11/2012 3:26:50 PM , Rating: 2
Why is it so hard to Windows laptop makers to make a 16:10 display? 1440 x 900 is so much better than 1366 x 768, it's not even funny. It seems like all the laptop makers are trying to copy Apple with all the ultra-book stuff, but they are missing out on one of the main features - the display!

RE: 16:10 display
By Stevethewalrus on 6/11/2012 4:09:06 PM , Rating: 2
Most of there "premium" models don't even get something above 1368x768, because they save like $6 a unit, or if they do offer an upgrade, most average users won't go for it cause $50 is a lot for a nicer screen (sarcasm)

16:9 are television resolutions standards so there more of them made so there cheaper...but that doesn't really make sense because there aren't many 13" or 15" TVs that I know of.

I was actually worried the new one was gonna be something like 2880x2160 (4:3) and I cant seem to remember why...

RE: 16:10 display
By retrospooty on 6/11/2012 4:21:22 PM , Rating: 2
"Why is it so hard to Windows laptop makers to make a 16:10 display? 1440 x 900 is so much better than 1366 x 768 "

Agreed on the res, but there are options out there. Asus makes a couple models with 1920x1080 13 inch screens, and I think even and 11 inch screen. There are others that office it as an upgrade screen as well.

RE: 16:10 display
By TakinYourPoints on 6/11/2012 8:03:56 PM , Rating: 2
The Lenovo x220 is such a nice laptop, especially with the IPS upgrade, but the aspect ratio kills me. 16:9 in a 12" display is such a drag, if it was 16:10 it would be so awesome.

One bit of bad news
By johnnycanadian on 6/11/2012 3:43:26 PM , Rating: 4
... is that RAM seems to be soldered to the logic board and is not upgradeable, much like the MacBook Air. Better get the amount right when you order it.


RE: One bit of bad news
By Solandri on 6/12/2012 3:12:09 AM , Rating: 2
I like the system Asus is taking on some of its ultrabooks. 4GB of RAM soldered on to save space, but one standard SO-DIMM slot in case you want to add more RAM in the future.

I think (hope) all these soldered components are just a temporary trend though. Where this is all leading is PCs (both Windows and OS X) being an SoC (system on chip) or close to it, like tablets and phones have become. Intel has already integrated the GPU and and a good chunk of the motherboard chipsets into the CPU. Eventually the laptop's motherboard is going to be a thin circuit board with a few chips on it along the back of the keyboard. There will be plenty of room inside for user-upgradeable SSDs and RAM even in the ultraslim form factors.

all that hardware and no way to power it....
By elleehswon on 6/11/12, Rating: 0
RE: all that hardware and no way to power it....
By Ringold on 6/11/2012 4:54:53 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure the processor was binned, and the battery life suggests its overall not a powerhog, so unless you're running Folding@Home on all 4 cores and the GPU, with the screen on during use, I'd think 85w is okay. Still agree though, I wonder how well it keeps up under full load.

By CubicleDilbert on 6/11/2012 6:15:02 PM , Rating: 2
Methinks... 85W power consumption with full rendering on 4 Cores plus 1GB nVidia plus SSD. Everything packed in a slightly blown-up Macbook Air Chassis.

1.) What is the melting point of aluminum? :-D
2.) Can I still put the notebook on my lap or will it burn 3rd degree marks on my skin?
3.) Is the tiny laptop fan whirring like at the dentist?
4.) How long does the electronics survive the heat? Warranty period plus a few weeks, as usual?

By FaaR on 6/11/2012 8:06:46 PM , Rating: 2
The 85W power supply is to run the laptop in addition to being able to charge the battery at the same time. It doesn't mean the system actually burns 85W of heat.

Btw, check out images of the guts of the notebook. The cooling system actually looks quite competent, with air intakes along either side and twin blower fans cooling the big chips.

I wouldn't worry too much about heat in regard to this thing. It's a premium, $2200+ notebook, it's not going to melt in your hand after using it a while.

Retina Display
By Spuke on 6/11/2012 3:32:08 PM , Rating: 2
Tim Cook remarks of the new screen on the 'Pro, "The pixels are so small that your retina cannot discern them."
Someone on DT will claim that they can. REALLY impressed on the MBP's new hardware and screen resolution. USB 3.0?!!!! Never thought that would happen (and if Jobs were alive I bet that wouldn't be there).

RE: Retina Display
By Devo2007 on 6/11/2012 4:13:25 PM , Rating: 2
Sure it would. Ivy Bridge is the first Intel solution to offer native USB 3.0 (meaning no extra real-estate needed on the motherboard to accommodate it).

Yes, Apple is late to the party with USB 3.0, but it was the only way to have an integrated solution.

17" discontinued??
By tayb on 6/11/2012 3:30:26 PM , Rating: 2
There is no mention of the 17" and the Apple website is no longer listing it. Has the 17" been replaced by the 15" retina model? The $2,200 starting price for the 15" retina is just outrageous and I can't believe they're shipping it with a 1GB GPU and in such a slim chassis. It looks like that thing will melt trying to power that display...

RE: 17" discontinued??
By Pirks on 6/11/2012 4:06:30 PM , Rating: 1
The $2,200 starting price for the 15" retina is just outrageous
No, it's not, compared to insane $3k price of outgoing MBP 17"
It looks like that thing will melt trying to power that display
Nah, they've probably underclocked it or something. Besides, Mac users were always trained by Apple with their always super slim and super hot designs. Nothing new here, it'll be just as extra slim and extra hot as usual. Possibly a new thing for a PC user but for properly trained (forged in fire) Mac users? I don't think so.

By Solandri on 6/11/2012 2:31:13 PM , Rating: 2
Tim Cook teased, "With the MBA, the team did something bold. There were aggressive in embracing new tech. They also got rid of stuff that was trending out. That enabled them to do something bold. So we've been asking the team to think about what would make the next gen MBP?"

"Want to know the answer? You want it to have a killer new display. You want an architecture built for the future, you want it to be light. You want it unlike anything else. Want to see it? Let's show it now. The most beautfiul computer we have ever made."

When quoting multiple paragraphs, you only close-quote the last paragraph. It's to distinguish between multiple people taking turns talking (one paragraph per speaker, with a close-quote at the end of each paragraph), vs. one person talking for multiple paragraphs (close-quote only at the end of the last paragraph).

#5 on this guide:

So who provides this panel?
By mxnerd on 6/11/2012 8:15:56 PM , Rating: 2
Samsung? or LG?

OS X scaling
By TakinYourPoints on 6/12/2012 7:37:53 PM , Rating: 2
Anandtech just wrote about the new scaling method in OS X where it can tell display to act like a higher perceived resolution. It can tell it to render at an effective 1920x1080, which actually renders the desktop at 3840x2560 (wow), and then scales it back down to the native 2880 resolution of the monitor.


Dog Whistle
By Smilin on 6/18/2012 6:26:30 AM , Rating: 2
"The pixels are so small that your retina cannot discern them."

"The sound is so high pitched that your ear cannot hear it"

Buying a stereo that can emulate a dog whistle is a stupid waste of money. Yet buying a display that you cannot see makes you cool.

Retina Display
By EnzoFX on 6/11/12, Rating: -1
RE: Retina Display
By EnzoFX on 6/11/2012 2:01:18 PM , Rating: 3
and 1440x900 on 13" displays is a lot better than 1366x768 on everybody else's 15" laptops. I wouldn't say they're comparatively low.

RE: Retina Display
By retrospooty on 6/11/2012 2:20:53 PM , Rating: 3
"And haters say Apple doesn't innovate"

I am loving the new era of high res that Apple has started. It's a great thing, but it isn't what I would call "innovation". It's product design and pushing specs forward. It raises the bar and forces the rest of the industry to raise their games.

Regardless of what we call it, it's a good thing and I hope Apple keeps it up.

RE: Retina Display
By EnzoFX on 6/11/12, Rating: 0
RE: Retina Display
By Pneumothorax on 6/11/2012 3:12:20 PM , Rating: 2
Very happy that Apple is throwing the gauntlet down on resolution. I'm looking forward to BF 2015 when the $300 'door buster' will have a 1080P screen standard and the $500 come with 'retina-level' screens. The question is, will there still be B&M computer stores other than department stores by 2015...

RE: Retina Display
By mxnerd on 6/11/2012 8:36:54 PM , Rating: 1
Apple does not make these panels. Apple bought them and then ask Foxconn, etc. to assemble for it. How can Apple be credited with the term "innovate" for this display?

Love the $20 charge for a Service Pack
By Denigrate on 6/11/12, Rating: -1
RE: Love the $20 charge for a Service Pack
By messele on 6/11/2012 3:13:33 PM , Rating: 2
Let's get over that myth of these upgrade packages being Service Packs.

Windows Service packs fix problems, enhance security etc. but you need to buy a full upgrade of Windows to get extra features and functionality.

That is a direct equivalent of what Apple are doing. Is that so hard to equate?

If people are expecting Apple to dart off in erratic different directions with every major OS upgrade as MS have of late you are going to be very disappointed, that just aint gonna happen.

By TakinYourPoints on 6/11/2012 3:19:08 PM , Rating: 2
It is an argument that comes from ignorance. I myself have made Windows upgrades since 3.0 (I skipped over WindowsME and I'm not going to count 2.0) and OS X upgrades since 10.2. The jump from 10.3 to 10.4 alone was more substantial both in user-facing features and under the hood improvements than the move from XP to Vista, and on top of that there were the 10.5 and 10.7 updates.

Windows 8 is a radical change though, the biggest I've seen in any OS, but of course it is also very controversial and one that I don't particularly care for in terms of UI. That doesn't automatically mean that OS X updates are service packs, it is ridiculous given that the additions are so much more substantial.

"We shipped it on Saturday. Then on Sunday, we rested." -- Steve Jobs on the iPad launch

Latest Headlines
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
The Samsung Galaxy S7
September 14, 2016, 6:00 AM
Apple Watch 2 – Coming September 7th
September 3, 2016, 6:30 AM
Apple says “See you on the 7th.”
September 1, 2016, 6:30 AM

Most Popular ArticlesSmartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
UN Meeting to Tackle Antimicrobial Resistance
September 21, 2016, 9:52 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Update: Problem-Free Galaxy Note7s CPSC Approved
September 22, 2016, 5:30 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki