3 ms·

> Now, seriously, there is absolutely no need to increase pixel density Isn't that what they said in 2010, and 2005, and 2000? When we have a display that's "

by jarek 14y ago

> Now, seriously, there is absolutely no need to increase pixel density Isn't that what they said in 2010, and 2005, and 2000? When we have a display that's "retina" when being held 1 mm in front of sharp eyes you might be able to say there's "no need." Until then, the market will decide.

MartinCron 14y ago
I don't think anyone was saying that there's no need to increase pixel density in 2000 or 2005, at least not to me. Can you even focus 1mm in front of your eyes? I can't, but I'm old.
- jarek 14y ago
  > I don't think anyone was saying that there's no need to increase pixel density in 2000 or 2005, at least not to me. Well, there's that Apple marketing page that in 2004 said 100 ppi was the "ideal resolution" (http://web.archive.org/web/20041011130432/http://www.apple.com/displays/technology.html http://web.archive.org/web/20041011130432/http://www.apple.c...). I'm sure internally they wouldn't have minded a 220 ppi MBPwRd display with around 100 ppi effective, but they weren't saying that - they were saying higher density causes eye strain. > Can you even focus 1mm in front of your eyes? I can't, but I'm old. Arbitrarily small distance. Vast majority of people physically can't hold a screen that close in front of their face, so a "retina at 1 mm" display would be retina for all feasible uses - unlike the current "retina at 25 cm."