5 ms·

The ThinkPad R50p had a QXGA screen (2048x1536) option back in 2003. Granted Windows had zilch support for it which is probably why it died. Even the base model

The ThinkPad R50p had a QXGA screen (2048x1536) option back in 2003. Granted Windows had zilch support for it which is probably why it died. Even the base model was a 1600x1200 screen. And there was plenty of phones with 200+ ppi before the iPhone 4. I think it has more to do with higher PPI screens getting cheaper and Apple could just get more supply first...

dijit 5y ago
That was an extreme outlier, the r-series is an uncommonly deployed thinkpad line. Check the t- or x- series which are many many orders of magnitude wider deployed.
- goosedragons 5y ago
  You could get a 1600x1200 T60p too...
- diffeomorphism 5y ago
  Which also had higher resolution than macbooks. Random cheapo laptop: 1366x.. One better: apple Even better: higher priced laptop had 1920x.... Oh, and those had IPS displays unlike apple with (halfway decent) TN panels. So everybody else pushed, then apple not only caught up but jumped ahead. And now they are again behind with 3k vs 4k and 5k vs 8k and miniled vs oled with the same order: cheap < apple < expensive. Same for the macbook air/ultrabook form factor: Invented by Sony but only got popular once apple jumped on the train years later. Apple is really good at "sherlocking" and getting out a polished/well-integrated version of something that has been around for years and making it popular.
alwillis 5y ago
Remember that it’s more than just raw resolution. Of course macOS supports these higher resolutions but there’s also the color calibration and support for wider color gamuts other than sRGB and having that all integrated together. For example, the iMac had Display P3 (a color space 50% bigger than RGB) support starting in 2015.
- goosedragons 5y ago
  And Apple still hasn't shipped a laptop with a higher refresh rate than 120hz when competitors have been shipping 144 or even 240hz for years (A 100% bigger value than 120hz!).
  - alanbernstein 5y ago
    Is there any evidence that such high refresh rates provide any value, or are even detectable by human eyes?
    - cliftonk 5y ago
      In games with fast motion, 120hz vs 240hz is easily perceptible (outside first person shooters it’s not good to provide much value). I would be fine with 120hz for desktop work, but 60hz displays has been a gripe of mine about Macs for a long time. 120+hz was available on CRTs 25 years ago…
      - georges_gomes 5y ago
        I can see benefits even while scrolling a webpage or moving windows around. It's very confortable. This been said, I can remember CRTs at 60hz with side scrollers and demos at 60fps with perfect image stability while scrolling. You could read tiny texts scrolling up and down perfectly. This is not the case anymore with LCD panels... Try to read a webpage while scrolling, impossible. 60hz or 120hz I would pay for a stable image in motion. It would bring tremendous confort.
    - esyir 5y ago
      Yes, blind tests have shown that users are easily able to discern between 60 vs 144hz. This isn't really contested anywhere.
      - halfstar91 5y ago
        I know this isn't what you mean.. but I'm imagining someone blindfolded in a research lab testing this out...

dijit 5y ago

That was an extreme outlier, the r-series is an uncommonly deployed thinkpad line. Check the t- or x- series which are many many orders of magnitude wider deployed.

goosedragons 5y ago
You could get a 1600x1200 T60p too...
diffeomorphism 5y ago
Which also had higher resolution than macbooks. Random cheapo laptop: 1366x.. One better: apple Even better: higher priced laptop had 1920x.... Oh, and those had IPS displays unlike apple with (halfway decent) TN panels. So everybody else pushed, then apple not only caught up but jumped ahead. And now they are again behind with 3k vs 4k and 5k vs 8k and miniled vs oled with the same order: cheap < apple < expensive. Same for the macbook air/ultrabook form factor: Invented by Sony but only got popular once apple jumped on the train years later. Apple is really good at "sherlocking" and getting out a polished/well-integrated version of something that has been around for years and making it popular.

alwillis 5y ago

Remember that it’s more than just raw resolution. Of course macOS supports these higher resolutions but there’s also the color calibration and support for wider color gamuts other than sRGB and having that all integrated together. For example, the iMac had Display P3 (a color space 50% bigger than RGB) support starting in 2015.

goosedragons 5y ago
And Apple still hasn't shipped a laptop with a higher refresh rate than 120hz when competitors have been shipping 144 or even 240hz for years (A 100% bigger value than 120hz!).
- alanbernstein 5y ago
  Is there any evidence that such high refresh rates provide any value, or are even detectable by human eyes?
  - cliftonk 5y ago
    In games with fast motion, 120hz vs 240hz is easily perceptible (outside first person shooters it’s not good to provide much value). I would be fine with 120hz for desktop work, but 60hz displays has been a gripe of mine about Macs for a long time. 120+hz was available on CRTs 25 years ago…
    - georges_gomes 5y ago
      I can see benefits even while scrolling a webpage or moving windows around. It's very confortable. This been said, I can remember CRTs at 60hz with side scrollers and demos at 60fps with perfect image stability while scrolling. You could read tiny texts scrolling up and down perfectly. This is not the case anymore with LCD panels... Try to read a webpage while scrolling, impossible. 60hz or 120hz I would pay for a stable image in motion. It would bring tremendous confort.
  - esyir 5y ago
    Yes, blind tests have shown that users are easily able to discern between 60 vs 144hz. This isn't really contested anywhere.
    - halfstar91 5y ago
      I know this isn't what you mean.. but I'm imagining someone blindfolded in a research lab testing this out...