Macbook pro rumors (release date, display, etc)

[Nvidiaguy07]

Currently using a Macbook air, but im thinking about selling it before the new line of airs or pros come out and decrease the value.

For everyday computing its fine, and VERY light gaming, but anything more and its pretty tough. I am considering selling this and then buying either the new air - with ivb, or a new pro - with the rumored retina screen.

Right now, my air can play most games with the settings down, but cant play the newest games. I would like to be able to turn the settings up a bit in games i do play (like the res in TF2), and hopefully be able to play new games at low settings. Right now im not sure if the HD4000 will be able to do that, but if not, then maybe ill upgrade to a pro with dedicated graphics.

Anyone know when the release date is for the pros? If i decide to upgrade, i want to do it before the new models are announced.

 

[Nizzzlle]

They're expected to announce them at WWDC 2012 which is June 11-15th

 

[GT1999]

I'm guessing Ivy Bridge (pretty obvious) and "Retina" displays to play catch up with the new iPad. The Air should be a great buy if that's the case.

 

[Nvidiaguy07]

I'm guessing Ivy Bridge (pretty obvious) and "Retina" displays to play catch up with the new iPad. The Air should be a great buy if that's the case.

do we think retina will be worth it at this point? Im worried many programs wont scale correctly, and itll just be 2x magnifacation, and isnt going to end up mattering anyway, except for a few apps and the overall UI of OSX.

im excited for it, but im thinking the first gen might be a bit buggy.

I think the main reason for me to upgrade will be the graphics. Moving from the hd3000 to either the hd4000 or a dedicated card in a pro.

 

[GT1999]

do we think retina will be worth it at this point? Im worried many programs wont scale correctly, and itll just be 2x magnifacation, and isnt going to end up mattering anyway, except for a few apps and the overall UI of OSX.

im excited for it, but im thinking the first gen might be a bit buggy.

I think the main reason for me to upgrade will be the graphics. Moving from the hd3000 to either the hd4000 or a dedicated card in a pro.

If it's anything like the iPad all the native apps will support it that are built into the OS, but yeah, I'm sure it'll take a while for third party apps to support it to its full potential. I still think it'll be worth the upgrade. But I'm biased, because I think the display is what makes the device seeing you're staring at it the entire time you are using the device...

 

[dave_the_nerd]

do we think retina will be worth it at this point? Im worried many programs wont scale correctly, and itll just be 2x magnifacation, and isnt going to end up mattering anyway, except for a few apps and the overall UI of OSX.

Define "retina" in the context of laptops.

iOS apps are programmed with fixed resolutions in mind, but Macbooks aren't running iOS.

Programs and OS X already are designed to handle all sorts of resolutions, from 1024x768 all the way up to 2560x1600. (And likely higher, although hardware support for 3840 x 2400 is limited.)

So what if they cram an 11" 1080p panel into an MBA? Everybody learns where the text zoom control in Safari is, end of drama.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

If it's anything like the iPad all the native apps will support it that are built into the OS, but yeah, I'm sure it'll take a while for third party apps to support it to its full potential. I still think it'll be worth the upgrade. But I'm biased, because I think the display is what makes the device seeing you're staring at it the entire time you are using the device...

Third party OS X applications work just dandy on a 2560x1600 display already.

It's OS X, not iOS.

 

[ChAoTiCpInOy]

Define "retina" in the context of laptops.

iOS apps are programmed with fixed resolutions in mind, but Macbooks aren't running iOS.

Programs and OS X already are designed to handle all sorts of resolutions, from 1024x768 all the way up to 2560x1600. (And likely higher, although hardware support for 3840 x 2400 is limited.)

So what if they cram an 11" 1080p panel into an MBA? Everybody learns where the text zoom control in Safari is, end of drama.

That's where resolution independence comes in.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

That's where resolution independence comes in.

By resolution independence, do you mean making screen items appear the same physical size regardless of screen DPI? Or you mean having the ability to run on any resolution?

OS X is resolution independent by the second standard. So's Windows.

I'm not aware of an OS that is completely resolution independent by the first. I wouldn't want one that was though - I wouldn't spend $1200 on a laptop with a ridiculously hi-res display just to have the same functional screen real estate as some schmuck with a 1024x600 Asus EEE.

 

[Bateluer]

Since Asus is putting a 1080P IPS display into their 11.6in UX21A model, Apple can do the same easily.

Better question would be, even though the HD4000 is faster than the HD3000, its not going to be fast enough to do anything at 1080P.

 

[Eug]

A 2560x1600 MacBook Pro 13" would be perfect. That'd be 226 ppi, close enough for retina IMO for a laptop.

I'd like to see the iMac drop a bit in its ppi though. Its current 109 ppi is too high, and if doubled with the same text size would suffer the same issues. I'd like to see the 27" iMac go to about 102 ppi, which when retina-ized would be 204 ppi... which would be roughly about 2 x 2400x1350 = 4800x2700.

 

[runawayprisoner]

Define "retina" in the context of laptops.

iOS apps are programmed with fixed resolutions in mind, but Macbooks aren't running iOS.

Programs and OS X already are designed to handle all sorts of resolutions, from 1024x768 all the way up to 2560x1600. (And likely higher, although hardware support for 3840 x 2400 is limited.)

So what if they cram an 11" 1080p panel into an MBA? Everybody learns where the text zoom control in Safari is, end of drama.

I don't suppose you have looked up HiDPI in OSX Lion and Mountain Lion yet?

Basically, when you enable HiDPI, current resolution is reported as half its actual value, so 1440 x 900 turns to 720 x 450. Texts will be rendered at twice the pixel count, and all graphics are scaled up by a factor of 2, plus it works with most (about 90%) of third-party applications just fine. At least it does from my brief testing.

So if Apple can fit a 2880 x 1800 display into the next MacBook Pro 15", the machine will display the same 1440 x 900 space as the current base model, but with twice the sharpness.

 

[Eug]

By the way, I've used 204 ppi on a desktop, 10 years ago. It was great. (Windows wasn't really suited for it, but the software I used on that monitor was built for it, so text size was appropriate.) I really don't think a desktop needs more than that. Upscale the text size to the functional equivalent of 102 ppi with current OSes, and it will be awesome.

102 ppi is "better" than 109 ppi with current text sizes in modern OSes, on desktops. Similarly, 204 ppi would be "better" than 218 ppi in a similar scenario.

 

[KeithP]

At this point I think its clear that Apple is moving OS X to resolution independence. I wouldn't be surprised if this finally comes up at WWDC with new retina display hardware.

Things simply won't shrink with a hi res display, they will just look sharper. End users will be able to adjust settings to whatever size they are comfortable with.

-KeithP

 

[dagamer34]

You're not going to get any kind of decent gaming experience on a MacBook Air. Avoid the MacBook Pro route also, that will also be a disappointment in the long run. Build a PC for gaming as $200 goes much farther in getting a good GPU.

 

[dagamer34]

At this point I think its clear that Apple is moving OS X to resolution independence. I wouldn't be surprised if this finally comes up at WWDC with new retina display hardware.

Things simply won't shrink with a hi res display, they will just look sharper. End users will be able to adjust settings to whatever size they are comfortable with.

-KeithP

Not resolution independence. They've tried that already and failed. Resolution doubling. Very different and conceptually far easier.

You will end up loosing image sharpness if you switch to a resolution that isn't 1/2 max res. Resolution independence doesn't have that problem.

 

[KeithP]

From the Mac OS X Developer Library, Introduction to Resolution Independence Guidelines

While they mention 72 DPI and 144 DPI it seems pretty clear that these numbers are just examples. I don't think they are limiting their definition to those numbers.

Maybe a developer could chime in here and clarify?

-KeithP

 

[Eug]

I would LOVE to see resolution independence in the next version of Mac OS X. However, so far hints point to resolution doubling only. As was mentioned, they tried to include resolution independence many generations of OS X ago, and failed miserably.

BTW, 72 ppi is too low. I think for a desktop somewhere around 100 ppi is good, and for a laptop somewhere around 115 is good. If you have younger eyes, those numbers may be 110 and 130 ppi respectively.

IBM got it right with its 204 ppi a decade ago, for its desktop monitor, if it were used resolution halved/quartered at 102 ppi with OSes that aren't truly resolution independent.

 

[runawayprisoner]

From the Mac OS X Developer Library, Introduction to Resolution Independence Guidelines

While they mention 72 DPI and 144 DPI it seems pretty clear that these numbers are just examples. I don't think they are limiting their definition to those numbers.

Maybe a developer could chime in here and clarify?

-KeithP

It's pixel doubling as mentioned.

Basically, you'll have a range of set resolutions that support HiDPI, all of them will have a scaling factor of 2.

But the physical size of the screen remains the same.

So, say... 1440 x 900 HiDPI is actually 2880 x 1800 in reality. On a 15" screen, that translates to 220DPI. But if you set it to, say... 1280 x 800 HiDPI, which is actually 2560 x 1600, then on the same 15" screen, DPI drops to 196, and so on...

But to be truly resolution independent (as in taking into account the physical size of the virtual window), developers should take note of these scaling changes because even if DPI drops or increases, the physical size of the screen doesn't change. In that case, the scaling factor should be some number that ties the current resolution (DPI) to the physical size of the display rather than just 1.0 or 2.0.

So, for instance, if I consider 1440 x 900 (non-HiDPI) as a 1.0 base, then 1440 x 900 HiDPI would have a scaling factor of 2.0, and 1280 x 800 HiDPI would have a scaling factor of 1.78.

 

[amdhunter]

I'm salivating over a higher res display. I'm such a DPI whore. I already have my wallet open and will most likely preorder one the moment it comes out.

 

[rivan]

From the Mac OS X Developer Library, Introduction to Resolution Independence Guidelines

While they mention 72 DPI and 144 DPI it seems pretty clear that these numbers are just examples. I don't think they are limiting their definition to those numbers.

Maybe a developer could chime in here and clarify?

-KeithP

Eug is completely correct that there's no true resolution independence currently and as long as UIs are drawn predominantly with pixels there won't be.

After reading your link and especially this page I see Apple is indeed pushing for vector UI elements, but based on the level of page presence on the subject, I think we're some time away from seeing that as a reality. Almost as an addendum to the "Overview section":

Also, consider handling simple drawing such as fills, gradients, and lines programmatically. Point-based drawing classes such as NSBezierPath and NSShadow automatically scale according to the scale factor.

The new ipad's resolution was a significant improvement over the older version's, but was also absolute overkill in terms of diminished returns. In fact when I saw the new resolution I totally could NOT figure out why they went as small with the pixels as they did, until I considered the code behind it. 264 ppi is well over what the human eye can make use of at normal reading distances. All it's doing is pixel doubling for elements it doesn't have a correct size for, however, and that makes PERFECT sense from a coding angle.

 

[TheStu]

The new ipad's resolution was a significant improvement over the older version's, but was also absolute overkill in terms of diminished returns. In fact when I saw the new resolution I totally could NOT figure out why they went as small with the pixels as they did, until I considered the code behind it. 264 ppi is well over what the human eye can make use of at normal reading distances. All it's doing is pixel doubling for elements it doesn't have a correct size for, however, and that makes PERFECT sense from a coding angle.

It is the exact same thing that they did on the iPhone 4 vs 3GS.

 

[Atty]

I'd like to know how Apple plans on pushing any sort of graphic intensive apps (games, mainly) to a retina display with the level of current technology that they fit into those devices.

Am I right in assuming that the increase in resolution doesn't impact the processing power much? That it would just require more VRAM to hold the textures. I guess some clever AA/AS/AF (or whatever it is these days) would be required too? Hmm...

 

[runawayprisoner]

I'd like to know how Apple plans on pushing any sort of graphic intensive apps (games, mainly) to a retina display with the level of current technology that they fit into those devices.

Am I right in assuming that the increase in resolution doesn't impact the processing power much? That it would just require more VRAM to hold the textures. I guess some clever AA/AS/AF (or whatever it is these days) would be required too? Hmm...

For gaming, the impact would be huge... since some games enable AA by default and there is no way to turn AA off.

But if you just run the game regularly, then technically, 2880 x 1800 without AA should look and perform about as well as 1440 x 900 with 2xSSAA (not MSAA) provided the GPU has enough VRAM.

For interface elements, then only VRAM is necessary since Apple is not doing anything fancy with the interface.

 

[Koing]

I'm looking forward to it. I heard the Macbook pro won't have an optical drive, but seeing as I can't remember the last time I put a dvd in to my 2008 Macbook I won't be missing it.

Retina screen seems interesting. If they give the airs faster processes I may go that route.

Koing