Apple Including Ultra High Resolution Artwork in Lion for Possible Retina Displays?

1024?

anyone remember when screens were 1024x768? who would have imagined that now icons are 1024x1024... that icon is bigger than the total resolution of my first computer's display

Enough already!!!

Release the refreshed iMacs.:D

Nice weekend update. I was afraid that ugly iPhone 5 mock-up was going to be hogging the front page all weekend long.

Bogus story because Apple would never fit graphics cards capable of outputting at that res in the iMacs or laptops

3200x2000 requires 6,400,000 pixels. At 32 bit per pixel, we're talking 25,600,000 bytes of data. Considering modern framebuffers are double buffered, this requires 51,200,000 bytes of memory to hold. That fits into 48.82 MB of RAM. GPUs have had that much since ... hum... 2004 ? So we're good on framebuffer RAM.

Now, bandwidth. In order to refresh the screen 60 times, we need to push out those 25,600,000 pixels. That's going to require 11718 Mbps of bandwidth. Let's see... Display port 1.1a has 10.8 Gbps so it's a no go (though it could almost do it). If only there was a DP 1.2 spec that had a 21.6 Gbps cap... Oh wait there is. :D

So we're good on RAM and bandwidth. Now, what ATI family introduces DP 1.2 so that we can use this new standard ? Oh right, the Radeon HD 6000 series, AMD's current shipping tech! Now if only Apple would release some kind of support for these GPUs, like they did back in 10.6.7 ;) :

http://appleheadlines.com/2011/03/24/10-6-7-update-brings-native-graphic-acceleration-for-amd-5000-and-6000-series-video-cards/

So let's see if I got all of this right. We're good on RAM (have been for quite a few years). We're good on bandwidth for 60 hz 3200x2000 resolution. We're good on hardware (AMD 6000 series) and we're good on OS X support (with 10.6.7).

What exactly is missing here ? Oh right, a hardware refresh with said hardware included, which is probably a formality seeing all of these news and facts :cool:

This sounds like planning FAR ahead, but I like it!

My eyes! My EYES!!!

Retina display means the opposite of what you may fear: it doesn’t mean tiny menus and unreadable text, the way traditional computer displays look when tons of extra pixels are crammed in.

Instead, it means MORE readability: added sharpness of the same, nicely-readable, text sizes. Like an iPhone 3GS vs an iPhone 4.

Wish Apple did something towards resolution independence and not make images bigger and bigger. :confused:

The basic fact is vector graphics aren't always appropriate. A lot of things really can only be done, or can be done much better, with pixels. For any image with a lot of detail, it's easier -- both for the artists making them, and for the computers rendering them -- to store an extremely high resolution bitmapped image, and then downscale it as necessary, than it is to make and render a vectorized version that is "truly" resolution independent.

And now Apple's realized that by targeting "Retina Display" resolution levels, this is the last increase in image sizes they'll ever reasonably need: there's no point in making images bigger beyond this point (or displays with higher-than-retina-level DPI one would need to render them) because your eyes really won't be able to tell the difference.

Bogus story because Apple would never fit graphics cards capable of outputting at that res in the iMacs or laptops. Plus I don't think any single monitor can have that resolution that you can buy today?

Do you understand technology?