Coffeehouse Thread

37 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

retina display

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    SteveRichter

    Is Windows capable of retina display levels of display resolution?  I thought the advantage of the Windows PC model was that new technology peripherals could be integrated into the system thru the use of platform independent device drivers. Why are we not seeing higher resolution monitors being introduced on the Windows platform?

     

  • User profile image
    Harlequin

    There's lots of high DPI monitors out there, but it's up to the vendors to pimp their wares, not Microsoft.

  • User profile image
    Ray7

    From a hardware point of view, no reason at all. Microsoft says that it will support the higher resolution screens in Windows8, which is probably why you'll only see it on a Macbook Pro for the time being.

    What the vendors will ask themselves is if they really need it.

     

     

  • User profile image
    spivonious

    Windows has supported high DPI screens since at least XP. I'm running Win7 on a 130dpi screen right now.

    Some older apps don't support it nicely, but pretty much every major program made in the past 5-7 years handles it fine.

    I think OEMs haven't offered them more because the consumers weren't asking for it. Unlike a phone or tablet, where you're using it 1-2 feet from your eyes, most PC monitors and laptops are at least 3 feet from your eyes. 96dpi is fine for that distance. HDTVs are even worse: a 1080p 50" TV is only 44dpi, but it's okay because most people are watching 6-10 feet away.

  • User profile image
    PaoloM

    Especially seeing as Mountain Lion doesn't really have a concept of a universal "retina-like" resolution. Regular apps are just pixel-doubled (like iPhone apps on an iPad) and you have to write special code to use the high resolution. Think about it as addressing a special graphics card that has special drivers per application.

    So, while Apple has that beautiful hardware, OSX is still not as good as Windows 7 (and 8) handling different resolutions.

  • User profile image
    SteveRichter

    Jeff Atwood has some interesting comments on high resolution displays in this Scott H webcast. ( around the 17:25 mark. )
    http://www.hanselminutes.com/321/randomness-and-windows-8-with-jeff-atwood

    He said he is switching to Mac for the display resolution.

     

  • User profile image
    magicalclick

    I am not sure any hardcore gamer would want to upscale their demanding 1080p 3D shooter games using a typical poor upscale quality high resolution monitor.

    In my current line of work, I actually blow up 1px to 200x200 to make sure everything is pixel perfect. So, I suppose I will just press ctrl+ few more times. Perplexed

    Leaving WM on 5/2018 if no apps, no dedicated billboards where I drive, no Store name.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    Ray7

    , PaoloM wrote

    Especially seeing as Mountain Lion doesn't really have a concept of a universal "retina-like" resolution. Regular apps are just pixel-doubled (like iPhone apps on an iPad) and you have to write special code to use the high resolution. Think about it as addressing a special graphics card that has special drivers per application.

    So, while Apple has that beautiful hardware, OSX is still not as good as Windows 7 (and 8) handling different resolutions.

    I don't think that's strictly true.

    If you have used ObjectiveC/Cocoa to write the application, then the special code is little more than adding high-res artwork and any custom UI elements you've written to the bundle and letting the OS pick the right set. This is why quite a few apps were made 'retina-ready' before the new Macbook was launched; that, and the fact that Apple has been brow-beating its developer community to use relative positioning on layouts for years. The notable exceptions will be apps that don't use the Cocoa frameworks the way Apple intended or don't use it at all: Adobe CS (though they are aiming to fix this as soon as possible) and Google Chrome (Google is already working on it apparently).

    When the user picks a particular screen resolution, OSX will actually render the screen at the next higher supported resolution and then scale the UI elements and artwork for that resolution downward on the fly, rather than trying to scale existing artwork upward. And from the folk who have looked at it already, the effect is quite stunning. You basically get a pin-sharp UI at non-native resolutions. A rather interesting take on the resolution independence problem. When it comes to supporting higher resolutions in the future (if there is a need), the developer supplies more artwork and the operating system works out the details. RI has been an obsession of Apple's for years, and I don't think they're quite done with it yet.

    Now when I select non-native resolutions on my Win7 box, the effect is not all that pleasing, so I'll be interested to see what the same trick looks like on the new Macbook. 

    For me though, this wasn't the most interesting news from the WWDC. If I were an IT pundit then I'd pay a lot more attention to what Apple has planned for Passbook. With all the excitement over the new laptop, the maps, the crap upgrade for the Mac Pro; the IT press missed that Cook mentioned Cupertino has 400 million active credit cards on file – and he felt the need to mention it twice.

  • User profile image
    Ray7

    @Ray7: Heh, ranted off-topic a bit there.

     

  • User profile image
    GoddersUK

    , Ray7 wrote

    Cook mentioned Cupertino has 400 million active credit cards on file – and he felt the need to mention it twice.

    Isn't that fairly meaningless though? IIRC every owner of an iDevice (at least iPod, iPhone,iPad) has to activate it with a credit card before they can use it, regardless as to whether or not they subscribe to anything Apple provides. I'm annoyed enough when a company that had good cause to require my card details (I paid for something) stores them indefinitely - let alone when they don't really need them in the first place. Yet another reason to hate that company.

  • User profile image
    Ian2

    Sheesh, I Think they should issue a warning for anyone over 40 so as not to inadvertently waste their money ...

  • User profile image
    Ray7

    , GoddersUK wrote

    *snip*

    Isn't that fairly meaningless though? IIRC every owner of an iDevice (at least iPod, iPhone,iPad) has to activate it with a credit card before they can use it, regardless as to whether or not they subscribe to anything Apple provides. I'm annoyed enough when a company that had good cause to require my card details (I paid for something) stores them indefinitely - let alone when they don't really need them in the first place. Yet another reason to hate that company.

    Mmmm, no. You need an account to activate the device, but you don't need to give them your card details until you actually buy something. And since he stressed the word 'active' then I imagine they discount cards that aren't in regular use (depending on how Apple defines 'regular').

  • User profile image
    giovanni

    Being one who really likes high quality images and graphics, I like the concept of retina displays, but what is the cost in term of file size, bandwidth and battery life? I would like to know.

  • User profile image
    GoddersUK

    @Ray7: I don't own an iDevice myself but that's not what I have heard from owners or read in the media (I've seen several stories like that). (Although apparently that's changed now.) I'd be interested to know how the policy of requiring someone to use a card to buy an iDevice and then holding their card details on file would stand up to UK data protection legislation which requires that (I know they did this in the UK too...)

     

    I suspect active simply means that the expiry date on Apple's file hasn't lapsed. 

  • User profile image
    Ray7

    , giovanni wrote

    Being one who really likes high quality images and graphics, I like the concept of retina displays, but what is the cost in term of file size, bandwidth and battery life? I would like to know.

    I think the answer to that is 'huge'. Here's an image of the inside of the new Macbook:

    Generic Forum Image

    Beautifully put together, but if I'm not mistaken, almost half the internal space is taken up by the custom battery cells. That (and the removal of the hard drive and optical disk) is what it takes to keep this machine running for seven hours without a recharge.

    Does make you think.

     

  • User profile image
    Ray7

    , GoddersUK wrote

    @Ray7: I don't own an iDevice myself but that's not what I have heard from owners or read in the media (I've seen several stories like that). (Although apparently that's changed now.) I'd be interested to know how the policy of requiring someone to use a card to buy an iDevice and then holding their card details on file would stand up to UK data protection legislation which requires that (I know they did this in the UK too...)

    Even if Apple was prepared to break UK law in such a blatantly obvious way, I don't think it would make much difference here: an active iAccount needs an id and an email address to set up, neither of which is asked for in the shop. (They can send you a receipt through email, but this doesn't tie you to an account and it's not compulsory). The credit card alone isn't enough for them to secretly set up an online store account for you.

    And I have bought an iPod Touch and an iPad fairly recently from our local Apple Store

    I suspect active simply means that the expiry date on Apple's file hasn't lapsed. 

    Well, they apparently have one of the most active online shops in the UK so I suspect 'active' means that it has seen card activity in the last three months. 

  • User profile image
    Proton2

    "Windows 8 will let you select the full 2880 x 1800 panel resolution:"

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/6008/windows-8-on-the-retina-display-macbook-pro

  • User profile image
    GoddersUK

    , Ray7 wrote

    *snip*

    I think the answer to that is 'huge'. Here's an image of the inside of the new Macbook:

    Generic Forum Image

    Beautifully put together, but if I'm not mistaken, almost half the internal space is taken up by the custom battery cells. That (and the removal of the hard drive and optical disk) is what it takes to keep this machine running for seven hours without a recharge.

    Does make you think.

     

    That many batteries can't come cheap, either....

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.