Next 15-inch MacBook said to have USB 3.0 and Retina display

Now that quad-core Ivy Bridge processors are out and dual-core variants are on the way, Apple is surely on the verge of introducing next-gen Macs. It’s no surprise, then, to see the rumor mill abuzz with fresh details. One of the latest reports, by the folks at 9to5Mac, claims Apple is prepping an ultra-slim 15″ MacBook Pro with USB 3.0 support and a Retina display.

Reportedly, the machine will feature a “thinner, yet more robust” version of the existing chassis, but it won’t have a tapered front edge like the MacBook Air. Rumor has it the system will also have USB 3.0 connectivity alongside Thunderbolt—not an unlikely prediction, considering Intel’s 7-series chipsets have SuperSpeed USB connectivity built in. And of course, 9to5Mac expects a high-DPI “Retina” display… but with an interesting twist:

Sources familiar with software strings left behind in OS X Lion 10.7.4 and Mountain Lion betas say that this Retina Display MacBook Pro features multiple Retina resolution modes, so users are able to adjust the sharpness and image sizes to their liking. Unlike Mac display settings of today, these Retina Display settings will not be marked with numbers/resolution sizes, but with descriptions such as big, small, or optimal, according to these software-based findings.

Leaked benchmarks also suggest the upcoming 15″ MacBook Pro refresh will pack a quad-core Core i7-3820QM processor (a 45W mobile Ivy Bridge variant), and 9to5Mac mentions the possibility of Nvidia GeForce GT 650M discrete graphics making it in, too.

That all sounds rather nice, especially the Retina display part. I have to admit, though, I’ll be more interested to see what kinds of next-gen 13-inch systems Apple has up its sleeve. We’ll probably find out soon enough. Word is that Apple will unveil the new machines at the Worldwide Developer Conference on June 11.

Comments closed
    • brucethemoose
    • 7 years ago

    [quote<] I have to admit, though, I'll be more interested to see what kinds of next-gen 13-inch systems Apple has up its sleeve. [/quote<] -"Retina" 13" displays, likely TN, possibly with an 11" variant. If it's IPS, PLS, MVA, or something else expensive, it'll likely be an optional upgrade. -USB 3.0/thunderbolt. A plethora of accessories, some useful, some obscenely overpriced, will follow. -Dual core ivy bridge processors with HD 4000 (I5, i7 doesn't matter). This means 11" and 13" laptops might not come for awhile. Last I heard, dual core IB chips aren't shipping just yet. -Otherwise, the same MPB we know and love. Mystery solved! No one saw that coming, did they? In all seriousness, I can see a few features cropping up in the new Macs. -Siri. Rumor mills say it's in the iTV. If so, it's undoubtedly coming to new Mac laptops at some point. And it won't work with older Macs. -SSD cache. I'm not sure if it already exists, but cache SSDs make everything feel snappier. And unlike a normal SSD, it's easy to advertise as a new feature (the tiny storage space of SSDs just scare the average customer away, who see less memory as slower). -iOS and OSX convergence. More focus on the app store, more flexibility in iOS, etc. That's pretty predictable. -More iCloud.

    • sweatshopking
    • 7 years ago

    thank god! it’s been a few days since we’ve had a apple rumor, and i was worried! No worries though, another one came!

    why is this post worthy?

    • Bensam123
    • 7 years ago

    People need to stop using “Retina” in place of an actual measurable number. Like using HD instead of 720p or 1080p… in the end they just ended up using both.

    Like using ppi and the screen size or simply the screen size and the resolution as they used do with all displays. PPI in general makes it easier for consumers as bigger is better and that’s something they can understand.

    • Thresher
    • 7 years ago

    With all the rumors in the past few weeks, I am guessing there will be a hardware announcement this week.

    They may leave the big announcements for WWDC in June, but my guess is we’ll see updates for some of the lower end items this week or next. With so much hardware waiting on Ivy Bridge, I expect they won’t want to introduce it all at one time.

    Additionally, when we start having tons of rumors floating, that’s usually when something is just about to go out the door.

    For a while, they were doing releases on Tuesdays, so it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if they announce new Mac Minis at a minimum this week or next.

      • Decelerate
      • 7 years ago

      Historically the Mac Mini were a by-line of iMac releases. I don’t really expect that to change, especially with Ivy Bridge.

        • Thresher
        • 7 years ago

        Mac Minis usually get quiet releases. iMacs, unless it’s just a speed bump, usually get the royal treatment.

          • Decelerate
          • 7 years ago

          Agreed, and usually on the same day.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 7 years ago

            No, I don’t think so. You said that before, and it didn’t seem that way, so I took a look around Everymac.com and the release dates tend to be 6-8 weeks after the iMacs.

            • Decelerate
            • 7 years ago

            6-8 weeks?!? It feels very wrong. Wikipedia however seems to agree with the gist of your statement (the mid 2010 releases seemed to be inverted – the mini came out first).

            Odd, I had that feeling that it was just an extra Engadget article within a flood of Apple announcements.

    • link626
    • 7 years ago

    if they put in retina, hopefully this will prompt pc makers to finally upgrade the 1366×768 screens to minimum 1600×900.

      • chrissodey
      • 7 years ago

      PC makers do make higher resolution displays. That is the beauty of choice in the PC world. The reality is that you will just have to pay a little more, but it will still be much cheaper than buying a Mac.

      Not everyone needs high resolution on a small form factor, i.e. elderly, vision disabled. 1600×900 would be not be the most friendly in the 13.3 class. My 1440×900 Thinkpad x301 is high enough.

        • Airmantharp
        • 7 years ago

        They’re quite hard to find on a budget though- what if all you want is a basic 15″ laptop with a nice 1080p+ IPS panel in it?

        Good luck finding that, let alone finding it below $1000. The markup is much higher than the additional cost for the screen on the bill of materials. A decent laptop is around $500; one with a good screen should be available for $600, I’d think.

        • link626
        • 7 years ago

        For elderly, you just need to adjust font to “Large” within windows control panel somewhere.

        elsewhere, just adjust dpi higher.

        old people can enjoy 1600×900 too on a 15″ laptop.

          • adisor19
          • 7 years ago

          Yeah but adjusting font size in windows makes everything look weird not to mention a bunch of legacy programs that break.

          Adi

            • BobbinThreadbare
            • 7 years ago

            So the solution to preventing legacy programs from breaking is to remove the API they’re built on and not let them run at all, right?

        • Firestarter
        • 7 years ago

        IME, they were hard to find in 2006, and they’re still hard to find now. Heck, I remember a Pentium M laptop somewhere with a 15″ 4:3 1400×1050 display, and that most definitely not a high-end model! So for all the manufacturing progress and growth in the laptop market, we seem to have bought almost 0 progress in laptops displays for the last 8(?) years.

        All this beautiful choice in the PC world seems to have a rather stagnating effect on OEMs. I would welcome an Apple with a high DPI display, maybe that will make those OEMs do something … [i<]different[/i<].

        • ludi
        • 7 years ago

        Actually, the end goal of display technology should be resolution that exceeds the human eye to discern individual pixels at any usable viewing distance, and then scale the display to whatever your needs happen to be. Result: prefectly smooth edges everywhere, no visible aliasing. Hence Apple’s appropriation of “Retina” to market such displays.

        In print media and photography, this is generally understood to occur somewhere around 300dpi, although for a computer display where cost is still a problem and the user is usually a couple feet or so back from the visual surface, you can probably get away with more like 150-200dpi and still get comparable fidelity at the typical range of viewing positions.

      • riviera74
      • 7 years ago

      In PC land, finding anything higher than 1366*768 is usually hard and/or expensive. 17″ laptops are easy to find with 1600*900. 15″ laptops and13’/14″ ultrabooks with anything better than 1366*768 are more expensive and much harder to find. What should happen is that 1366*768 displays should go the way of 800*600 and 1024*768 laptop displays: obsolete and long gone.

      If only PC makers would dump 1366*768 entirely. . . . .

      • burntham77
      • 7 years ago

      I hate that so many laptops have that crummy 1366×768 resolution. These are screens that are meant to be viewed close-up. Credit to Apple for moving past this.

    • tcunning1
    • 7 years ago

    Any word about the presence or absence of optical drives in this “ultra thin” chassis? I know many people don’t use them, but I’m a teacher, and for classroom use their absence is a dealbreaker.

      • MadManOriginal
      • 7 years ago

      It’s a good thing it’s a dealbreaker. The less schools overspend on Macs the better, and the less they get kids used to an OS that they won’t use in a work setting the better.

        • yogibbear
        • 7 years ago

        Considering how much the facebook IPO is set to go for… I guess you could say they might use it in a work setting? 😛

        • bhtooefr
        • 7 years ago

        On the flip side, forcing kids to learn multiple systems may teach them to be more flexible – to learn how to explore stuff in an unknown system, rather than teaching them Word, Excel, and PowerPoint on Windows by rote, and they break down when presented with even a new version of one of those three.

          • lilbuddhaman
          • 7 years ago

          Children are simply NOT learning basic common sense, problem solving, critical thinking as well as those of yesteryear. Pushing devices that “teach” them to rely solely on that device is setting them up for failure.

          Just like my generation (not me personally mind you) has much more trouble doing basic algebra, as we grew up with calculators, our future generations are having trouble doing more and more tasks that were once taken for granted. While these future generations are getting better at the basics of new tech, they are -not- learning the fundamentals of how/why this technology works. More and more they are learning “it just works, and if it does break, just get a new one”.

          I could go on a 20 page/comment rant on this, but I won’t….for now.

          TLDR: Tech should not be an excuse to turn off our brains.

          edit: note, i have nothing to back up what I have said above and is completely opinion + experience, if you have solid facts to back up a rebuttal please, do so.

            • Airmantharp
            • 7 years ago

            I agree with your opinion about education.

            The problem I think is related to a lack of goal- and career-oriented education tracks in our public education system; that, and we should be learning algebraic concepts by the 3rd grade, not the (average) 7th, and we should be applying it everywhere possible.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            3rd grade? have you taught children before? third grade children?! i think not…

            I’m not saying it’s impossible, but for a great many children, it’s not a concept they have the necessary brain ability to do.

            edit: down voted for child development!

            • BobbinThreadbare
            • 7 years ago

            I don’t think people understand how abstract algebra is and how much an 8 year old struggles to think about the world in that way.

            • BobbinThreadbare
            • 7 years ago

            Everyday math has probably contributed to more math learning troubles than any calculator ever has.

        • lilbuddhaman
        • 7 years ago

        But but but kids learn “better” on ipads!

        (awaits pseudo-science study results from some nameless firm that is funded by Apple)

        • Grape Flavor
        • 7 years ago

        eh. The computer lab in my grade school was all Macs, our family computers were all Macs and yet I had no trouble mastering Windows. I mean really, whether it’s System 7, 10.7 Lion, Win95 or Win 7, the basics are the same.

        Besides, isn’t this for the teacher’s system, not the students’?

          • sweatshopking
          • 7 years ago

          why would you ever want 2 systems? double the IT expense, plus training for the teachers? that’s the worst of both worlds.

      • Kurotetsu
      • 7 years ago

      Optical drives are definitely out if the mockups on the linked site are any indication. If you absolutely must have the newest Macbook and still need an optical drive you could get an external USB one or use Remote Disc.

        • grantmeaname
        • 7 years ago

        External USB optical drives are not 5th-grader friendly.

          • demani
          • 7 years ago

          Um- optical media isn’t 5th grader friendly either. Those things make great frisbees, throwing stars, wheels…

            • grantmeaname
            • 7 years ago

            True enough.

      • deathBOB
      • 7 years ago

      Idea: Apple TV with built in disc drive. Stream wirelessly from Apple TV to Macbook.

    • mcnabney
    • 7 years ago

    Retina on a 15″ screen? Not bloody likely.

    Retina is 326ppi – the current 15″ Macbook ppi is 110 at 1440×900.

    Having an actual Retina resolution would suggest a 4300×2700 display – a bit higher than 4K. I think the odds of a 4K display showing up on a 15″ screen are about zero.

      • grantmeaname
      • 7 years ago

      Retina is a brand. Retina is not a measurement, not a standard, a brand. Even the Retina iPad and iPhone are two different dot pitches! What Apple did when they Retina’d the iDevices was doubled the dot pitch in order to quadruple the total number of pixels. To Retina a Macbook, then, would be to take it from 1440*900 to 2880*1800.

      • bhtooefr
      • 7 years ago

      Retina is not 326 ppi. It’s higher than the limits of 20/20 human vision at typical viewing distances.

      It’s worth playing with this: [url<]http://bhtooefr.org/displaycalc.htm[/url<] At 12 inch viewing distance (IIRC the distance quoted for the iPhone), anything above 286.5 ppi is enough to exceed the limits of 20/20 human vision. At 18 inch (reasonable for a tablet or laptop), it's 191 ppi.

        • khands
        • 7 years ago

        Yeah, that makes sense, 300+ DPI on a 15″ screen (and the GPU power to run it) doesn’t, at least not for a macbook.

          • bhtooefr
          • 7 years ago

          To be fair, I wouldn’t mind a 3840×2400 panel, but it’d be on the edge of even my tolerance at anything resembling normal viewing distances.

          But, going ridiculously far actually does give Apple more flexibility to get intermediate sizes while raster scaling.

        • BobbinThreadbare
        • 7 years ago

        Retina means whatever Apple wants it to mean. It’s a marketing term.

          • Corrado
          • 7 years ago

          Also, remember, Apple hasn’t called these Retina displays. They haven’t even acknowledged they exist yet. The internet is calling them Retina MacBooks.

    • jdaven
    • 7 years ago

    Only rumor missing now is price.

    Given the rumored specs above, how much would you pay for this 15″ Macbook Pro? The current entry level price is $1800. History tells us that Apple increases specs on each new model while keeping prices nominally the same. I think $1800 is still a little too much given the current specs. For me, $1500 seems about right.

    • 5150
    • 7 years ago

    I thought the whole point of Thunderbolt was to move away from USB 3.0?

    edit: 5150

      • Tumbleweed
      • 7 years ago

      Um, no? TB is not a replacement for USB3 in all cases. You’re not going to have TB thumbdrives, etc. TB won’t let you use all the zillions of USB 2 devices like USB 3 does. They are mostly for different things, with some overlap in the area of connecting up harddrives.

        • OneArmedScissor
        • 7 years ago

        [quote<]TB won't let you use all the zillions of USB 2 devices like USB 3 does.[/quote<] The way it was originally talked up, that was precisely the point.

          • Tumbleweed
          • 7 years ago

          That may have been the way clueless people originally talked it up, but a different physical connector trumps that. I’d still like to see a cheap TB->USB 3 adapter.

            • Corrado
            • 7 years ago

            The original hype was that you could run whatever protocol you wanted over TB as its essentially just an empty PCI-Express bus.

            • jdaven
            • 7 years ago

            Exactly and this will pave the way for Apple to be able to drop all ports from laptops except power and thunderbolt. In this case, thunderbolt is like a standardized dock connector where you can break it out into ethernet, USB, firewire, etc. Another benefit is that Apple can further reduce the size of its laptops with only two thin connectors present (Ethernet and firewire connectors are thicker than thunderbolt).

            • derFunkenstein
            • 7 years ago

            I don’t think you’ll see USB ports disappear. Incidentally they’re relatively short, so they don’t need to.

            • Airmantharp
            • 7 years ago

            That, and they’re cheap (on both ends!). TB isn’t, and we don’t know if it ever will.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 7 years ago

            Another fair point. I was thinking more along the lines of the convenience of USB flash media and how completely inconvenient this would be with no USB ports. You’d have to be a loon. It’s not even close to the same scenario as Apple dumping the floppy (before some troll brings it up) because unlike the floppy, USB media hasn’t been replaced with something better yet.

            • Tumbleweed
            • 7 years ago

            You still need adapters, and they need to be smart, due to the way TB works, so they’ll never be cheap. TB will never be a replacement for the vast majority of (cheap) USB devices; only for things like harddrives.

        • Bensam123
        • 7 years ago

        And this is why TB is a stupid idea and it will work its way into obsolescence. Why would you make a interface that is designed to completely replace USB in design and then not use it that way? It will be relegated to the same tasks and areas as Firewire its entire life till it disappears.

          • Beelzebubba9
          • 7 years ago

          ….because LightPeak/Thunderbolt was never intended to replace USB 3.0? Firewire didn’t replace USB 1.0/2.0, nor did SAS replace SATA, nor SCSI Parallel ATA, etc, so why would you assume the more costly, better featured Thunderbolt interconnect was intended to exclude USB 3.0?

            • Bensam123
            • 7 years ago

            You’re missing the point, read Corrados post.

            From a use perspective TB is made to be completely universal and by doing so replace all other interconnects, that includes USB3. I’m not talking about how it’s being marketed now, I mean in theory of what it does and how it functions. Now what did they do with it? They use it for niche tasks and couple it with a company who just wants to set itself apart from everyone else by doing different things. This is completely the opposite of where TB would shine.

            That means it will be relegated to a slow and painful death as the successor of Firewire in consumers eyes as that’s all it will ever be used for.

            If TB was physically and logically compatible with USB as well as having it integrated into Intel chipsets it would’ve completely replaced it from the get go.

    • FuturePastNow
    • 7 years ago

    > Next 15-inch MacBook said to have USB 3.0 and Retina display

    Isn’t that exactly what was rumored for the [i<]current[/i<] Macbook Pro?

      • Corrado
      • 7 years ago

      No? The current MacBook came out almost a year ago. The Retina display was only being talked about since about fall/winter of this past year.

    • dpaus
    • 7 years ago

    [quote<]these Retina Display settings will not be marked with numbers/resolution sizes, but with descriptions....[/quote<] Oh, good! I clearly remember how well the QHXTVGA-WH coding system worked in replacing a simple '1280x1024' description. It made it [i<]so[/i<] much easier for consumers to know what they were getting. (since it's Monday: [/XtremeSarcasm] )

      • Corrado
      • 7 years ago

      Well, I think the point is that the resolution will no longer control the ‘size’ of things on the screen. If you put an iPhone 3GS next to an iPhone 4, the icons are the same size. They’re just higher DPI. It doesn’t matter WHAT the resolution is between the two, because you’re not going to be working in sizes by pixels, independent of the total resolution anymore, you’re working with sizes in a ratio to the resolution of the screen.

        • WaltC
        • 7 years ago

        Resolution hasn’t “controlled the size” of things on the screen for many years. To wit: I can make the text on my 1920×1080 display large, mid-sized, or small, and I can do it with a simple keyboard command in my browser: ctrl-+/-, all while my resolution remains at a comfortable 1920×1080 and my retinas both seem quite happy with this, actually.

        Apple: using marketing to make the world dumb. It’s the thing Apple does best: taking worn-out, old ideas and concepts and marketing them with a new coat of paint as if they were something entirely new and never-before-heard-of. What’s amazing is how successful Apple is with the tactic–never underestimate the number of gullible, easily misled people! I usually want to give people more credit than Apple does, but I have to say that Apple is usually right, unfortunately.

          • bhtooefr
          • 7 years ago

          OK, that’s your web browser.

          Try the rest of the OS, seamlessly, without utterly breaking old software. On Windows, it’s not gonna happen.

          So, resolution does control the size – for all practical purposes, the OS runs at 96 ppi (on Windows) or 72 ppi (on Mac OS X). Apple’s technique here is to use even multiples – so 144 ppi and 216 ppi, it appears, in this case – which won’t break old software.

          • Corrado
          • 7 years ago

          Instead of being a 12×12 pixel font, you increase it to 16×16 (examples). The size is still controlled by the amount of pixels. On a resolution independent OS (which doesn’t exist yet in any mainstream form), you would say ‘this icon needs to take up 4%x4% of the total pixels on the screen’ and thats it. I don’t care if your screen is 1024×600 or 1920×1080. If both screens are 20″, if put side by side, the elements would be the same size.

          Where as now, if you had those same 2 screens, the 1024×600’s icon would be about 1.8x larger than the 1920×1080 screen’s icon.

            • adisor19
            • 7 years ago

            Indeed. Apple has realized that as long as Carbon will still be present in one form or the other in OS X, there is no way for them to implement Resolution Independence in its TRUE meaning that you described above.So for now, they’re going with the easy way out doubling (or should i say quadrupling) the resolution for easy scaling. Once Carbon will be completely gone in 10.9, we can expect true Resolution Independence to finally make its debut. Can’t wait.

            Adi

            • bthylafh
            • 7 years ago

            So, uh, is the reason that iOS isn’t resolution-independent Carbon?

            /trollface

            • Corrado
            • 7 years ago

            iOS is built on a trimmed down OS X Darwin kernel. My guess is when they built the components for iOS way back in 2005/2006, they didn’t think ahead enough. Seeing as Windows Phone 7 is way newer than iOS and STILL doesn’t have resolution independence, its obviously something that isn’t as easily implemented as we think it should be.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 7 years ago

            Android does a remarkable job of at least faking resolution independence. UI elements on a 4″ 800×480 screen and a 4″ QHD 960×540 screen are basically the same size measured in inches/cm. And again on 1280×720 displays that are roughly the same dimensions.

            • Corrado
            • 7 years ago

            I’ve seen a LOT of Android apps that are broken horribly if they’re not rewritten for tablet resolution/sized screens. Granted, thats on the app developer, not the OS, but I digress.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 7 years ago

            I’ve seen a couple that don’t look right on the Kindle Fire running CM7, but by and large it doesn’t seem to be an issue. Particularly with ICS, now that CM9 is usable on the device.

            • grantmeaname
            • 7 years ago

            I know that you have this huge thing for resolution independence, but for the rest of us, could you articulate why it’s supposed to be exciting?

            • derFunkenstein
            • 7 years ago

            Because things become entirely too small when the pixels per square inch increases dramatically. You can then make things much bigger in terms of pixels and give them more detail. Particularly fonts and UI elements (that are vector based).

          • TakinYourPoints
          • 7 years ago

          Your posts are still terrible but at least this one isn’t book length. Kudos

    • Parallax
    • 7 years ago

    Hopefully the display is IPS/PLS and has none of the 6-bit + AFRC crap. Bonus points to Apple if they’re able to get panels with A-TW filters though.

      • adisor19
      • 7 years ago

      Crossing my fingers here.

      Adi

    • adisor19
    • 7 years ago

    If Resolution Independence is finally showing up, it will mean that Carbon will be 100% removed from 10.8. This is huge and will surely send a little wake-up shockwave in the Mac community.

    Adi

      • TheMellomonk
      • 7 years ago

      Carbon has been deprecated as of 10.8. Though in reality it has been a non-issue for so long that I was surprised to learn that Lion has support for 32bit Carbon. Maybe an issue for uses where old software is commonly encountered, like the education market.

        • ltcommander.data
        • 7 years ago

        Old software like Office 2011? Only Outlook in the suite is fully Cocoa. Word, Excel, and Powerpoint still use a mix of Carbon and Cocoa. I’m not sure all parts of Adobe CS6 are Cocoa either.

        I think all games on Mac even the latest RAGE, Deus Ex, and upcoming Diablo III are probably all Carbon. It’s supposed to be easier to port C++ game code using Carbon and the UI advantages of Cocoa aren’t really relevant. 32-bit OS X programs have always been able to utilize a full 4GB address space unlike 32-bit Windows which limits programs to 2GB, so going 64-bit isn’t as pressing.

        • adisor19
        • 7 years ago

        Deprecated, yes. Removed, no.

        10.9 should remove Carbon once and for all.

        Adi

          • Grape Flavor
          • 7 years ago

          No doubt, considering how eager Apple is to destroy backward compatibility even when they don’t really have to (removal of Classic in the PPC version of 10.5, removal of Rosetta in 10.7).

          I kind of like how Windows at least in theory supports old software. Macs, if you don’t actually have an old system running an old OS your software is completely useless.

            • ltcommander.data
            • 7 years ago

            That’s why I’m pleased Apple relaxed their licensing restrictions on virtualization. Going forward critical older software/older OS can be run in VMs. Admittedly it isn’t the most convenient solution. Hopefully as a trade-off/benefit, not having to maintain so much legacy code in new OS releases means more new features, better performance, and smaller security surface area.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            anyone else find the obnoxious names annoying? carbon, cocoa? wtf? it’s as annoying as gingerbread, ice cream sandwich, etc.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 7 years ago

            Carbon’s name makes plenty of sense, tbh. It was originally developed as an easy-to-use method of porting Classic Mac OS apps to the new OS X. The API is essentially a carbon copy of what was used in Mac OS 8.5, 8.6, and 9.x.

            It was what Apple needed to make sure people would actually develop applications that ran on the new OS. But now, 13 years after its introduction, it’s time to bid adieu.

            • BobbinThreadbare
            • 7 years ago

            None of these things are annoying. I think you need to relax.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            that’s probably true, and i didn’t down vote you. code names are fine, and it seems carbon makes some sense, but geez, let’s use real names when the products are real.

    • cegras
    • 7 years ago

    I’m not sure how big, small, or optimum relate to the retina display – which is supposed to have a high PPI compared to the images it displays. Are they saying, that small is getting the ‘standard’ (windows / current OSX) PPI, optimum is something they’ve calculated for your viewing distance, and big oversized?

      • derFunkenstein
      • 7 years ago

      Big, small, and optimum are surely UI element sizes, not resolutions.

    • DancinJack
    • 7 years ago

    [quote<]Unlike Mac display settings of today, these Retina Display settings will not be marked with numbers/resolution sizes, but with descriptions such as big, small, or optimal...[/quote<] Goodness that is terrible.

      • bhtooefr
      • 7 years ago

      Based on the rumors of the panel being 2880×1800, I’m guessing it means this:

      Small: Desktop area of a 2880×1800 Mac with HiDPI disabled. 72 ppi to the OS, 221 ppi in reality
      Optimal: Desktop area of a 1440×900 Mac. 144 ppi to the OS, 221 ppi in reality with some older programs rendering at 110 ppi. The current MBP renders display elements in this size, but the OS sees 72 ppi, and it’s 110 in reality.
      Big: Desktop area of a 960×600 Mac. 216 ppi to the OS, 221 ppi in reality with some older programs rendering at 74 ppi. Most people won’t use this unless they have vision problems.

      Oh, and to clarify… in the HiDPI modes, my understanding is that programs get the lower resolution’s area to draw in, but OS calls to draw text or an image will cause the OS to use a higher resolution asset instead, in that location. So, each pixel is 2×2 or 3×3 pixels to the program, but to the OS, it’s 4 or 9 discrete pixels.

      • Deanjo
      • 7 years ago

      System info will still show the current resolution.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This