4 ms·

OS X doesn’t have resolution independence. That’s why the resolution is what it is. Apple tried (for years) and it was working – more or less – but with Lion t

by ugh 15y ago

OS X doesn’t have resolution independence. That’s why the resolution is what it is. Apple tried (for years) and it was working – more or less – but with Lion they just dropped that. What they have now is a HiDPI mode which quadruples the size of UI elements. It’s not yet completely done (some bitmaps still have to be updated). They are following the lead of iOS in that respect. What this hints at is a 2880×1800 screen in some future 15" MBP. To figure out when a MBP like that will arrive you only have to find out when it becomes feasible to sell it for around $2000 (while also keeping the performance and battery life at least constant). I’m not sure whether it’s currently even possible to buy 2880×1800 panels for any price, not sure where screen technology is standing in that respect. By the way, a 2880×1800 15" panel merely (well …) has 230 PPI. Apple couldn’t even call it a Retina display.

whiskers 15y ago
Because of the greater viewing distance to a laptop panel they should still be able to give it the "Retina" tag.
prof_hobart 15y ago
Not sure what resolution independence has to do with available screen resolutions. Apple already offer multiple resolutions (mine's the 15" with 1680x1050).
- ugh 15y ago
  Because anything beyond 1440 is uncomfortable for large numbers of people. 1680 is sort of ok but would suck as a default.
  - RobAtticus 15y ago
    Agreed, when I first got my MBP at 1680x1050 I found it extremely tiring on my eyes when I used it for periods of time (as little as 30 minutes). I guess I've gotten used to it though.
  - prof_hobart 15y ago
    That's true, but I'm not sure how it's relevant. OP wanted higher resolution screens, and Apple produce them.
    - ugh 15y ago
      For one model. You have to pay extra. And in the grand scheme of things it’s not a very large increase. (Besides, the OP was corrected on that point already – more than once. I didn’t think it was necessary to also correct him or her. That would have been redundant.) What I wanted to try and explain was why Apple didn’t substantially and across the line increase the resolution of its computers during the last years, option for a bit more resolution on the 15" MBP notwithstanding.
      - prof_hobart 15y ago
        It's 36% larger, which is fairly significant - and of course you have to pay more for it - you're getting more. My point is that I don't think resolution independence has a great deal to do with it. Very few Windows laptops offer much option either (the Dell ones I've just looked at offer 1366X768 and that's it, and from when I last looked round at laptops this seemed to be pretty standard). The reason is simply that companies like to limit the range of products they need to manufacture. Making the same size screen with 15 different resolutions would be hugely costly compared to sticking with 1 or 2.
        ugh 15y ago
        You wouldn’t have to pay extra if the extra resolution were default. (You would, but I guess you know what I’m talking about.) That’s exactly what I’m talking about. Apple can’t just increase the resolution for everyone and that’s what they would like to do. To be able to do that they need resolution independence.
        prof_hobart 15y ago
        No I don't know what you're talking about. Are you trying to suggest that if MacOS were resolution independent, they would start including 1680x1050 as standard on all 15" Macs?
  - gujk 15y ago
    No one is upset by high resolution or DPI. They are upset that Apple ships a 150dpi system with a 120dpi UI.
cicloid 15y ago
Isn't Quartz 2D providing resolution-independent and device-independent rendering of bitmap graphics ?
- ugh 15y ago
  I have no idea. I was mostly paraphrasing what I read in John Siracusa’s Lion review: http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2011/07/mac-os-x-10-7.ars/14#hi-dpi http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2011/07/mac-os-x-10-7.a...
aaronajp 15y ago
You must have absolutely amazing eyesight. 2800x1800 is entirely too many pixels on a 15" screen. I could see a resolution that extreme on a 27" iMac, or possibly even a 21.5" iMac, but on a 15" screen, no way. Resolution for resolution's sake is pointless if its not useable.
- ugh 15y ago
  That’s what the HiDPI mode suggests, though. If Apple wants to keep the size of UI elements constant (and I’m guessing they don’t want to make them larger) they have to quadruple the resolution. Anything less and they give the user less space to work with. This has not much to do with eyesight. UI elements would stay exactly the same size. That’s the point. It would be like the change from the iPhone 3GS to the iPhone 4.
- m3koval 15y ago
  This is the point of resolution independence. Increasing resolution only shrinks graphical elements if the operating system isn't smart enough to render them using more pixels. With good resolution independence moving a higher resolution screen will make everything look sharper (higher pixel density) but not significantly smaller (same physical size). Compare the screen on the iPhone 4 to the iPhone 3G. Graphical elements are the same size on both but the iPhone 4 has twice the resolution.
m3koval 15y ago
> By the way, a 2880×1800 15" panel merely (well …) has 230 PPI. Apple couldn’t even call it a Retina display. Whether a display is "retina" or not depends upon how far the display is from your eyes. I could definitely see Apple stretch a 230 PPI display to be "retina" by arguing that you sit further from your laptop than your smartphone. I haven't done the math, so this is all speculation. I wonder what the graphics performance on a laptop with a 2880x1880 display would be. Intel's integrated GPUs are the only sane option while on battery and they notoriously slow.

by ugh 15y ago

whiskers 15y ago

Because of the greater viewing distance to a laptop panel they should still be able to give it the "Retina" tag.

prof_hobart 15y ago

Not sure what resolution independence has to do with available screen resolutions. Apple already offer multiple resolutions (mine's the 15" with 1680x1050).

ugh 15y ago
Because anything beyond 1440 is uncomfortable for large numbers of people. 1680 is sort of ok but would suck as a default.
- RobAtticus 15y ago
  Agreed, when I first got my MBP at 1680x1050 I found it extremely tiring on my eyes when I used it for periods of time (as little as 30 minutes). I guess I've gotten used to it though.
- prof_hobart 15y ago
  That's true, but I'm not sure how it's relevant. OP wanted higher resolution screens, and Apple produce them.
  - ugh 15y ago
    For one model. You have to pay extra. And in the grand scheme of things it’s not a very large increase. (Besides, the OP was corrected on that point already – more than once. I didn’t think it was necessary to also correct him or her. That would have been redundant.) What I wanted to try and explain was why Apple didn’t substantially and across the line increase the resolution of its computers during the last years, option for a bit more resolution on the 15" MBP notwithstanding.
    - prof_hobart 15y ago
      It's 36% larger, which is fairly significant - and of course you have to pay more for it - you're getting more. My point is that I don't think resolution independence has a great deal to do with it. Very few Windows laptops offer much option either (the Dell ones I've just looked at offer 1366X768 and that's it, and from when I last looked round at laptops this seemed to be pretty standard). The reason is simply that companies like to limit the range of products they need to manufacture. Making the same size screen with 15 different resolutions would be hugely costly compared to sticking with 1 or 2.
      - ugh 15y ago
        You wouldn’t have to pay extra if the extra resolution were default. (You would, but I guess you know what I’m talking about.) That’s exactly what I’m talking about. Apple can’t just increase the resolution for everyone and that’s what they would like to do. To be able to do that they need resolution independence.
        prof_hobart 15y ago
        No I don't know what you're talking about. Are you trying to suggest that if MacOS were resolution independent, they would start including 1680x1050 as standard on all 15" Macs?
- gujk 15y ago
  No one is upset by high resolution or DPI. They are upset that Apple ships a 150dpi system with a 120dpi UI.

cicloid 15y ago

Isn't Quartz 2D providing resolution-independent and device-independent rendering of bitmap graphics ?

ugh 15y ago
I have no idea. I was mostly paraphrasing what I read in John Siracusa’s Lion review: http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2011/07/mac-os-x-10-7.ars/14#hi-dpi http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2011/07/mac-os-x-10-7.a...

aaronajp 15y ago

You must have absolutely amazing eyesight. 2800x1800 is entirely too many pixels on a 15" screen. I could see a resolution that extreme on a 27" iMac, or possibly even a 21.5" iMac, but on a 15" screen, no way. Resolution for resolution's sake is pointless if its not useable.

ugh 15y ago
That’s what the HiDPI mode suggests, though. If Apple wants to keep the size of UI elements constant (and I’m guessing they don’t want to make them larger) they have to quadruple the resolution. Anything less and they give the user less space to work with. This has not much to do with eyesight. UI elements would stay exactly the same size. That’s the point. It would be like the change from the iPhone 3GS to the iPhone 4.
m3koval 15y ago
This is the point of resolution independence. Increasing resolution only shrinks graphical elements if the operating system isn't smart enough to render them using more pixels. With good resolution independence moving a higher resolution screen will make everything look sharper (higher pixel density) but not significantly smaller (same physical size). Compare the screen on the iPhone 4 to the iPhone 3G. Graphical elements are the same size on both but the iPhone 4 has twice the resolution.

m3koval 15y ago

> By the way, a 2880×1800 15" panel merely (well …) has 230 PPI. Apple couldn’t even call it a Retina display. Whether a display is "retina" or not depends upon how far the display is from your eyes. I could definitely see Apple stretch a 230 PPI display to be "retina" by arguing that you sit further from your laptop than your smartphone. I haven't done the math, so this is all speculation. I wonder what the graphics performance on a laptop with a 2880x1880 display would be. Intel's integrated GPUs are the only sane option while on battery and they notoriously slow.