1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Displays Retina Displays for normal people?

Discussion in 'Hardware' started by fuus, 11 Jun 2012.

  1. xinaes

    xinaes New Member

    Joined:
    17 Jan 2011
    Posts:
    103
    Likes Received:
    2
    The question about AA is one I feel I really ought to be able to answer quite easily, but feeling too stupid at this precise moment. :sigh:

    I dunno, I still think I'd prefer 4:3 given the choice, but I've got pretty used to widescreen now. FWIW, I suppose wide matches the way our vision works a bit better. I find most things can be arranged fairly sensibly that way (although things like IDEs do need a bit of shuffling sometimes). Two 16:9 screens side by side is a bit odd, though. Even my 16:10 laptop feels rather square to me now (mostly because I remember how wide it felt when I first got it).

    The other thing to note about these new Apples is that they are all IPS too, and we can probably expect to see more of this in laptops going forward. It may not grab the same headlines, but more and more people are becoming aware of such issues.

    An aside: I've known someone go out of his way to find a 1024x768 laptop which really seems odd; they must realise that almost all normal contemporary screens exceed that in each dimension (although this was someone who was also very much motivated by ethical / environmental issues of new computer hardware to look for old second hand things, which tbh is fair enough if perhaps futile, I don't expect many here feel similarly strongly...).

    Anyway, real estate trumps squareness for me, I'm generally fairly happy enough as long as I have >1000 vertical pixels. I do somewhat miss the not-so-distant past of 2x1600x1200...
     
  2. GoodBytes

    GoodBytes How many wifi's does it have?

    Joined:
    20 Jan 2007
    Posts:
    12,300
    Likes Received:
    710
  3. Elton

    Elton Officially a Whisky Nerd

    Joined:
    23 Jan 2009
    Posts:
    8,575
    Likes Received:
    189
    I have 2x 1600x1200. It's awesome. Lemme repeat. Awesome.
     
  4. faugusztin

    faugusztin I *am* the guy with two left hands

    Joined:
    11 Aug 2008
    Posts:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    261
    Pivot mode ?


    Not as awesome as my 2x 2560x1440 :rock:.
     
  5. xinaes

    xinaes New Member

    Joined:
    17 Jan 2011
    Posts:
    103
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hmmm.... that looks like a sure-fire winner ;)

    In all seriousness though, that's very wrong and I'm afraid it's going to give me nightmares. Less than 1000px height is no good...
     
  6. Elton

    Elton Officially a Whisky Nerd

    Joined:
    23 Jan 2009
    Posts:
    8,575
    Likes Received:
    189
    I would do that if i could afford a high quality panel. But as of right now 2 S-IPS NEC's at 20" are perfect for my desk.

    Touche. But I paid <$100 for it. :D
     
  7. play_boy_2000

    play_boy_2000 It was funny when I was 12

    Joined:
    25 Mar 2004
    Posts:
    1,473
    Likes Received:
    66
    I dropped from a 25" cheap TN to a 24" MVA; in addition to the superior color, I also noticed that I wasn't sucking as much in FPS games, due to more of the monitor being in my visual butter zone. I still want a 3 way eyefintiy racing setup though :baby:
     
  8. Mac_Trekkie

    Mac_Trekkie Source Engine's #1 fan!

    Joined:
    10 Sep 2011
    Posts:
    636
    Likes Received:
    8
    Has nobody considered that you can display the content in full res while upscaling the interface? Give software developers time, now that Apple has started the pushing HiDPI displays, everyone is going to be rushing to compete. In half a year, everyone will have crummy TN displays still, but they'll be Retina displays now! And that means that software devs will start putting out applications designed around a Retina interface. Especially with the Windows 8 scaling improvements.

    Also side note: The way the new display works is you have the option for a usable space of 1440x900, 1600x1050, or 1920x1200, and many games will take advantage of full resolution. It's just everything looks much clearer at all of those than the 'normal' MBP displays. Even the 1600x1050 one looks better, despite not being a 1:2 perfect scaling, than a true 1600x1050 MacBook Pro. Additionally, the screen has a LOT less glare, and even better blacks than before.
     
  9. Elton

    Elton Officially a Whisky Nerd

    Joined:
    23 Jan 2009
    Posts:
    8,575
    Likes Received:
    189
    You know unintentionally, this might actually force a surge in GPU speeds. Higher resolutions are much more demanding.

    And I doubt screens will be TN for long, proliferation of cheap E-IPS panels have increased and gone are the serious inherent lagginess of E-IPS for the most part. I'm not saying the screen in the MBP is irrelevant, but isn't a great indicator of display technology.

    What we see however are more lenient dead pixel warranties. All those pixels aren't cheap.
     
  10. Guinevere

    Guinevere Mega Mom

    Joined:
    8 May 2010
    Posts:
    2,484
    Likes Received:
    176
    I used to use three 1600x1200 screens (Dell 2001s if I recall... it was such a long time ago now)

    :D
     
  11. Guest-44432

    Guest-44432 Guest

    Well, if you look at Nvidia's road map, you will notice that Maxwell has a Hugh jump in performance than previous architecture's.

    [​IMG]

    So a nice 4k monitor and a couple of Maxwells, will go nicely. :)
     
  12. azrael-

    azrael- I'm special...

    Joined:
    18 May 2008
    Posts:
    3,852
    Likes Received:
    124
    And of course nVidia's roadmaps are always so reliable... ;)
     
    Last edited: 13 Jun 2012
  13. GoodBytes

    GoodBytes How many wifi's does it have?

    Joined:
    20 Jan 2007
    Posts:
    12,300
    Likes Received:
    710
  14. wyx087

    wyx087 Homeworld 3 is happening!!

    Joined:
    15 Aug 2007
    Posts:
    10,980
    Likes Received:
    328
  15. hamza_tm

    hamza_tm Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    10 Apr 2012
    Posts:
    3,169
    Likes Received:
    186
    All I know is I want a massive monitor with 300ppi
     
  16. Dave Lister

    Dave Lister Member

    Joined:
    1 Sep 2009
    Posts:
    875
    Likes Received:
    11
    I was reading a great article about this yesterday. The reason apple can do that high a res on the macbook or whatever is that a lot of the OS is vectorised, while windows is still bitmap based causing everything to look smaller the higher the res' you go. Windows 8 is partially vectorised but only in that metro thing and not in normal desktop mode.

    Article here: http://www.techradar.com/news/compu...tina-display-is-great-news-for-the-pc-1084843
     
  17. GoodBytes

    GoodBytes How many wifi's does it have?

    Joined:
    20 Jan 2007
    Posts:
    12,300
    Likes Received:
    710
    HD bitmaps are in Windows 7/8. So it's not the problem.

    The problem is that programs under Windows, as the great majority of people use the default DPI setting, don't bother making HD icons, or even test their software under higher DPI. Some even set text boxes exact height and width instead of following the text itself (easier to code), so the result is that when the text is bigger, the text is cut in some fashion.
     
  18. Dave Lister

    Dave Lister Member

    Joined:
    1 Sep 2009
    Posts:
    875
    Likes Received:
    11
    Yes they go into that in the article saying that 3rd party programs are mostly low res bitmaps but they also say that there are only a few different dpi's to choose from in win7, the one's included probably not scale-able enough to start supporting "retina" (Puke) resolutions.
     
  19. GoodBytes

    GoodBytes How many wifi's does it have?

    Joined:
    20 Jan 2007
    Posts:
    12,300
    Likes Received:
    710
    You can put the value that you want under advance. I tried 129%, seams to be working.
     
  20. Elton

    Elton Officially a Whisky Nerd

    Joined:
    23 Jan 2009
    Posts:
    8,575
    Likes Received:
    189
    At 15" this screen in retrospect is not that great. Even though there's a huge amount of pixel density most if not everyone will end up scaling it down to a lower resolution.

    Which in a sense defeats the purpose of the screen. Simply at 15" at native resolution this is a bonkers excercise in extravagance. Not saying that it's bad. It's awesome. Just a bit pointless at such a small size.

    I also wonder what the display panel yields are with such high density displays, it must be worse as the size and PPI increase.
     

Share This Page