|
Post by hbk on Feb 16, 2012 17:23:51 GMT
A 'Retina Display' on a 10" screen? Imagine the expense. Not to mention who is actually manufacturing these screens. A gig of RAM is long overdue, and four cores is what it needs to stay with the competition. It isn't something the iPad should have, or what people want, it NEEDs four cores to stay in the game.
|
|
Cam
Administrator
[M:5000]
Posts: 6,381
|
Post by Cam on May 30, 2012 5:31:40 GMT
Ahh, well it ended up being basically the iPad 2 with a new name xD
|
|
JamesK
Senior Poster
Posts: 58
|
Post by JamesK on May 30, 2012 14:57:32 GMT
Ahh, well it ended up being basically the iPad 2 with a new name xD How were you people not expecting that? :L Does apple ever really change? (the answer is no)
|
|
Nick
VIP
v5 Beta Tester[M:5000]
Philadelphia Eagles: 8-8
Posts: 2,239
|
Post by Nick on May 30, 2012 17:02:47 GMT
Yeah, other than the updated 32nm manufacturing process for the cpu die, the retina display and twice the graphics power it looks nearly identical. There are some images floating around about the next iPad that it may have 2 docks? That would be nice so you could be charging it through one dock and get some kind of adapter for the second one. I guess only time can tell. Oh, and the iPad Mini! Hopefully that comes out. I'd buy it to replace my 3 year old iPod Touch.
|
|
Cam
Administrator
[M:5000]
Posts: 6,381
|
Post by Cam on May 30, 2012 19:14:06 GMT
Ahh, well it ended up being basically the iPad 2 with a new name xD How were you people not expecting that? :L Does apple ever really change? (the answer is no)The design of their computers have changed a lot from when they were first made.
|
|
JamesK
Senior Poster
Posts: 58
|
Post by JamesK on May 30, 2012 21:49:17 GMT
:L I'm talking more about there iPods, iPhones, & iPads. Every generation looks pretty much the exact same.
|
|
Nick
VIP
v5 Beta Tester[M:5000]
Philadelphia Eagles: 8-8
Posts: 2,239
|
Post by Nick on May 30, 2012 23:52:55 GMT
That's because they're sooooo simple.
|
|
|
Post by hbk on Jun 1, 2012 6:33:03 GMT
"Simple" is one word for it.
LG has recently created a new 5.0" touchscreen that makes the Retina display on the iPhone look stupid. 440ppi, which is closer to what scientist's believe is a true Retina display than Apple's 329ppi, which seems to be what Apple thinks it is. How will Apple go about this with their new iPhone? We already know it'll be 4.0", which is long-overdue and too small these days, but what about the resolution? 960 x 640 just won't cut it anymore.
|
|
JamesK
Senior Poster
Posts: 58
|
Post by JamesK on Jun 1, 2012 6:34:54 GMT
"Simple" is one word for it. LG has recently created a new 5.0" touchscreen that makes the Retina display on the iPhone look stupid. 440ppi, which is closer to what scientist's believe is a true Retina display than Apple's 329ppi, which seems to be what Apple thinks it is. How will Apple go about this with their new iPhone? We already know it'll be 4.0", which is long-overdue and too small these days, but what about the resolution? 960 x 640 just won't cut it anymore. Just proves how low Apple standards are, eh?
|
|
|
Post by hbk on Jun 1, 2012 6:39:36 GMT
From my estimations, the resolution will need to be 720pHD as a minimum to reach the closest pixel density to the iPhone 4/4S. Obviously LG's screen will still be a winner, considering Apple have already got the screens sorted, so time will tell who is Victor Spoils.
|
|
Nick
VIP
v5 Beta Tester[M:5000]
Philadelphia Eagles: 8-8
Posts: 2,239
|
Post by Nick on Jun 1, 2012 23:20:00 GMT
I believe they are doing a 3.95 inch screen with a resolution of 640x1136 pixels which is a 16:9 ratio like their iMacs and new cinema displays.
|
|
|
Post by hbk on Jun 2, 2012 11:58:18 GMT
That's just a rumour that I've heard many times.
|
|
Nick
VIP
v5 Beta Tester[M:5000]
Philadelphia Eagles: 8-8
Posts: 2,239
|
Post by Nick on Jun 2, 2012 19:22:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hbk on Jun 2, 2012 19:24:29 GMT
It seems ridiculous that they make it to this exact pixel number. It'd make more sense to use other 16:9 resolutions.
|
|
Nick
VIP
v5 Beta Tester[M:5000]
Philadelphia Eagles: 8-8
Posts: 2,239
|
Post by Nick on Jun 3, 2012 17:39:20 GMT
It seems ridiculous that they make it to this exact pixel number. It'd make more sense to use other 16:9 resolutions. Why do you think it's rediculous? All iPhone apps are optimized for either a 320 or 640px width, so messing with the width would make every app incompatible with the new display including a lot of mobile sites as well. It is much easier for apps to integrate with a different hieght than a new width which you can probably relate to when doing web design. For the 16:9 resolution it makes sense because that is a standard aspect ratio for the majority of movies and games. Also the Apple TV supports streaming up to 1080p which is also 16:9. So if you were to get a movie in itunes (which is typically 16:9) you wouldn't be wasting any space on the screen for watching the movie.
|
|
|
Post by hbk on Jun 3, 2012 18:16:14 GMT
640px is fine. It's the height that's stupid. So you have an iPhone app open from the 4/4S... You are left with empty space.
Sent from my HTC One S using ProBoards for Android.
|
|
Nick
VIP
v5 Beta Tester[M:5000]
Philadelphia Eagles: 8-8
Posts: 2,239
|
Post by Nick on Jun 3, 2012 21:41:14 GMT
I'm not sure if you've ever seen the developer api, but every app has a spot for the image for the regular and retina displays, so any app that hasn't updated their app sonce the release of the iphone 5 will probably have a bit of black space above and below the image so it doesn't pixelate, then apple would probably add a third option to include the 1136 pixel image as well. As far as in app goes, it's all content in between the top and or bottom tabs so it would just display more content.
|
|