Retina Smetina, Samsung Showcases 13.3-inch Notebook with 3200x1800 Resolution

25

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

Engelsstaub

In spite of the typical banter below, I admit that this is an impressive resolution for a 13" laptop. I would love to see how it looks (and how well it functions with the rest of the hardware.)

avatar

Granite

Come on, Samsung...forget the higher resolution until you can produce a 27" touch screen monitor that common people like me can afford.

avatar

MdX MaxX

And yet I still can't get a 24" 2560x1440 monitor.

avatar

MaximumMike

double post

avatar

someuid

What's the point. Cramming more pixels into a small display only makes it even harder to get that integrated GPU to push games, even casual ones. And we all know how poorly scaling works with Windows software.

I'd be more excited if they were doing this with 15" and 17" laptop displays and making it the new defacto minimum resolution for desktop displays.

But this just seems pointless.

avatar

MrHasselblad

I think that too many people might be reading into this one a bit too far. but a part of that is that there are a lot of gamers on Maximum PC. It is to my understanding that this particular laptop wasn't aimed exclusively at gaming, but MORE towards just plain resolution - as in watching video, etc... But more so, towards items such as photography.

But then again that was before Adobe CS's (titanic type of) idea to make some of their programs as subscription.

avatar

MaximumMike

Wondering if you really understand how displays and GPU's work? If you have a GPU that supports the native resolution of the display, there are no scaling issues to speak of. If your GPU doesn't support the native resolution of the display, I'd be curious to know why you (the manufacturer) bundled them together. Furthermore, if higher resolutions are so problematic on smaller screens, why are Samsung, HTC, Sony, LG, and Nokia selling so many smart phones with 720p and 1080p screens?

avatar

vrmlbasic

I think that you should ask yourself that first question that you posed to the OP.

Also, you're arguing something that he didn't even assert: he said that games will play poorly at the native resolution of this laptop's display with integrated laptop GPUs. I don't think that this is contestable, and honestly, after reading the MPC review I think that no current laptop GPU will be able to game at this resolution as MPC reports that 2x 650M in SLI can't properly game @ 1920*1080.

Though we can hope that higher resolution displays will spur mobile GPU development onward, right?

avatar

MaximumMike

>>Also, you're arguing something that he didn't even assert: he said that games will play poorly at the native resolution of this laptop's display with integrated laptop GPUs.

Honestly, I didn't know that there weren't any mobile GPU's that couldn't handle 1920 x 1080 for gaming. I have only ever used a laptop for work and I don't game on it, so I've never really cared to investigate mobile GPU's or read any articles or bench marks on them. But from what I have gleaned over the years, I didn't think they were trailing that far behind desktop GPU's.

However, I also covered that base when I questioned why any manufacturer would include a GPU that won't handle the native resolution of the display it's using. And since the OP thought this issue would somehow be alleviated by making this the native resolution on a 15" or 17" laptop (which it obviously would not), no one in their right mind can believe the OP understood how GPU's work- not based on what he actually wrote. It was clear that the OP was hung up on the physical size of the screen, which was (and still is) very baffling to me.

avatar

vrmlbasic

The OP was concerned about screen size because Windows does not have a good track record of properly scaling GUI elements like text properly with resolution and so on a 13" screen it seems likely that text and such would be difficult to use. Making the screen, and thus the pixels, physically larger should help allay that.

I believe that we have to better define a GPU "handl[ing] the native resolution of the display it's using" as it is too vague as it stands. Sure, a mobile GPU could be "rated" to push 3200*1800 pixels and I have no doubt that it could run non-intensive programs like MSWord and Powerpoint at those resolutions.

But not all tasks for a GPU at a given resolution are equally demanding. "Productivity" programs like Office or Firefox could be easy but gaming at 3200*1800 could easily be out of a mobile GPU's league as, again, some of the best mobile GPUs we've got today struggle at much lower resolutions.

Point being, if the GPU can do some tasks at 3200*1800, but fail at others, then it technically "handles" that resolution. I, and the OP, disagree with this as it'd be forever tantalizing: a great screen but no way to use it to its fullest.

avatar

tony2tonez

If it has Haswell and SSD I'm sold. A win7 option would awesome but I doubt it.

avatar

MaximumMike

Seems like I remember someone recently asking why no one had a better resolution than the Macbook, but based on this article it looks like there are at least two laptops that beat Apple in that category. So much for the supposedly long list of Apple devices with a superior display.

avatar

vrmlbasic

There's only one in this article as the chromebook doesn't count by "virtue" of being a chromebook.

avatar

MaximumMike

Yea, but to that degree Macbooks never counted to begin with. But all the Apple fanboies can't stop raving about how great the retina display is. So, if the display is all that counts, the chromebook certainly fits the bill.

avatar

Ghok

I have to use a Macbook Pro Retina for my job. I hate the OS, I use my Windows PC 90% of the time if I can help it. But the Retina display on the laptop is awesome, and works very well here. It's well integrated into the OS, and really improves the user experience. Apple leads the pack with this. I hate Apple for pretty much every other reason, but that doesn't mean I won't give it credit where credit is due.

avatar

Engelsstaub

What the hell do you mean they don't count?? A Macbook is an x86 computer that can do anything a Windows-based laptop can do. A Chromebook runs a browser OS and is mostly dependent on "cloud computing."

Since I'm fairly certain you were referring to me in your original comment (as I recall the "conversation") I'll also tell you that, in response to your OP

"Seems like I remember someone recently asking why no one had a better resolution than the Macbook, but based on this article it looks like there are at least two laptops that beat Apple in that category."

...anybody can ascertain that there WASN'T until just about now. I wasn't "asking why no one had a better screen" I was responding to some dumbfuckery that was along the lines of "Apple never innovates--just copies!" Remember? The only company "copying" is (once again) Samsung. "Let's see what Apple does and we'll do it too...but bigger!!" In fact the entire idea of an "ultrabook" is based off of 2nd Gen MacBook Airs. Period. You don't have to love or hate Apple to see that.

I'm glad that other companies are following Apple's lead on the so-called Retina displays. It helps everyone...not just zealous hard-ons who think that technology is some big game and we should all be on some sides of it...swearing allegiance or hatred for one manufacturer or another.

Stop talking out of you ass, Mike. You're the only one who sounds like an irrational scorekeeper right about now. It's one thing to say that Apple does little by way of innovation, but you're to the extreme that you pretend they do nothing and close your eyes and cover your ears when you see and hear about it.

avatar

MaximumMike

>>Since I'm fairly certain you were referring to me in your original comment (as I recall the "conversation")

Alright, I admit it. I was baiting you a little. But I certainly didn't expect you to bite so wholeheartedly.

>>What the hell do you mean they don't count?? A Macbook is an x86 computer that can do anything a Windows-based laptop can do.

vrmlbasic reiterated my thoughts further down the thread when he said of the chromebook, "Almost none of what I do on my computer could be done on the Chromebook, and as such it is useless..."

I realize that Macbooks run on the PC architecture. Infact, despite Apple's insistence otherwise, they are indeed PC's in every physical way. However, they are PC's with an Apple experience, and unfortunately, every experience I have ever had with a Mac has screamed, "this is not a device for me." Call me old fashioned, but I like eject buttons on cd rom drives, for instance. Also, I'm a developer and very little of what I do could do can be done on a Mac, and even if it could I wouldn't want to learn their infuriating interface. Furthermore, I'm a gamer and Apple doesn't even come close to offering the level of customization I want. Even more so, I'm a hardware junkie and I have only ever owned one computer I didn't build myself- the first one. Apple in no way offers the ability to custom build my own rig- and ran (sued- sicked their legal scum lawyers on) out of business anyone who tried to provide this service.

I realize that last bit was a little off topic because we're actually talking about laptops (or macbooks or ultrabooks or whatever), but I'm trying to drive home the point that Apple's offerings are as useless to me as a chromebook is to vrmlbasic.

So, in context of the original thread, that's what I mean't when I said they don't count. You could argue that macbooks are useful to many other people, but so are chromebooks. And if one doesn't count, why should the other. Ultimately, the discussion boils down to screen resolution. And whether you find any of the devices useful or not, there are two with a higher resolution than the Macbook.

>> I was responding to some dumbfuckery that was along the lines of "Apple never innovates--just copies!

Perhaps that's an asinine notion in your mind, but I've seen very little useful innovation from Apple over the last decade or so, although there has been a lot of really good marketing. They pretty much threw in the towel when they realized they could no longer compete with x86 and made the switch (which I cheered for by the way).

The one innovation I will give them credit for was the original iPod. I thought the thing was amazing when I saw it. Then I actually used it and hated the experience, especially iTunes. It had so much potential, but I wanted something better. And depending on who you asked there were certainly better devices, like the Zune. But I didn't really like any of them and kept hoping for an mp3 player that was clearly superior. Then I realized that I didn't even really want an mp3 player, that all this functionality would soon integrate into phones, and that I could wait for that device. Looking back, the iPod was neither the first nor the best mp3 player, but simply the best marketed. But I will give Apple credit for the innovative and simple interface the thing had.

Since then, I have seen little in the way of innovation from Apple. Despite popular belief, the original iPhone was not the first cellphone on the market that could respond to finger touch, although it was the smoothest and most responsive at the time. But it did not come with anything close to the abilities of then-current generation PDA devices, although those required a stylus. Furthermore, I felt the overall form factor was a blatant copying of HTC's well established and long running line of PDA devices. You have to remember that at this time there were many styles of cellular devices and that the rectangular form factor we all expect to see today was almost exclusive to HTC. So, how people think Samsung copied it from Apple I'll never understand. It seems to me they're all ripping off HTC.

Since the release of the original iPhone, the iOS platform has improved immensely. But so have competing platforms. And there has never been a point where I didn't feel there were devices clearly superior to the iPhone. And I can't think of a single thing Apple brought to the table over that time that was clearly innovative. The one thing you want to point to is their "retina display." But I already explained to you why it's a toss up that the original Galaxy S had a better screen despite its inferior pixel density. And that device released before the iPhone 4 and it's retina display.

Furthermore, the following year saw the first Android device with superior pixel density to the "retina display". And Apple has failed to do anything even slightly innovative with their screens since then. I think it's rather silly to talk about how innovative Apple is because they wore the pixel density crown for a single year, especially considering that screen technology has been steadily improving since the introduction of the television with no help from Apple, and without even anecdotal evidence that it would have for some reason stopped if Apple hadn't introduced the retina display. But I've already made this point to you and you ignored it the last time. I wonder if you will ignore it again?

>>The only company "copying" is (once again) Samsung. "Let's see what Apple does and we'll do it too...but bigger!!

Really? And in the last 15 years when has Apple NOT done this? Isn't their retina display a prime example of what you just accused Samsung of?

>>I'm glad that other companies are following Apple's lead on the so-called Retina displays. It helps everyone

But screen technology would have advanced anyway. See above if you haven't already. Additionally, Samsung is the company actually leading the way. They are the company doing the research into the actual chemistry and processing techniques that make these ultra high resolution screens possible. That is true innovation. And I don't pretend to understand the licensing and contractual issues that allowed Apple to bring that technology to market first, but it was clearly Samsung's technology. And now that Apple has lost that agreement with Samsung, you see the iPhone left in the dust. All the while, Samsung is making the best TV's, projectors, phone screens, laptop screens, and who knows what else.

>>not just zealous hard-ons who think that technology is some big game and we should all be on some sides of it...swearing allegiance or hatred for one manufacturer or another.

Or also the ones who just like to pretend they're not on some side, but who actually are, right? For myself, I swear allegiance to no manufacturer. When their processors were clearly superior, I would run nothing but AMD stuff. But since the introduction of the original Core 2 architecture, I have run Intel. I absolutely and most utterly hated Microsoft until Apple came on the scene and demonstrated what true evil was. But at least Microsoft has some useful products- Visual Studio, Excel, Visio, Project, Windows 7, and the Xbox (though i really don't game on consoles) to name a few. But Apple offers not even one single product that is even remotely interesting to me. I'm sorry, but they don't. When they do, I'll reevaluate them. But as long as they stay on their current course I will hate them.

>>Stop talking out of you ass, Mike.

I rarely talk out of my ass, (especially since I stopped reading William Burroughs), but I often don't have the time or patience to type out fifteen pages of explanation, especially for someone who ignored most of it the last time.

>>It's one thing to say that Apple does little by way of innovation, but you're to the extreme that you pretend they do nothing and close your eyes and cover your ears when you see and hear about it.

When I see or hear about something truly innovative from Apple, I'll be the first to let you know. Heck I might even stand in one of those long lines to get one. But I honestly cannot think of one device Apple has introduced in the last decade that was truly innovative. And despite your lengthy rant chiding me for "talking out of my ass," you have yet to offer even one example of something innovative they have done. I'm the blind one, and you're the one who sees it, correct? So please enlighten me.

avatar

Engelsstaub

Your hatred of Apple and/or dislike of the OS you're certainly entitled to. (You can even, amusingly to me, frame it in degrees of "evil" as you did with your Apple topping Microsoft-thing.) It has nothing to do with the usefulness of a MBP in comparison to a Chromebook. "You could argue that macbooks are useful to many other people, but so are chromebooks." ...nobody was arguing that. A Chromebook is of limited utility in comparison to a computer. A MacBook is on par with any x86 Windows or Linux laptop. Some people's needs can be met with a Chromebook or tablet, but (barring an extreme dislike for a particular OS like yours) MacBooks are the functional-equivalent of Windows-based laptops. They can even run Windows (and IME the trackpad works better with Windows than any Windows laptop I've ever tried.)

"Perhaps that's an asinine notion in your mind, but I've seen very little useful innovation from Apple over the last decade or so, although there has been a lot of really good marketing." You dismiss any innovations you don't want to see, due to extreme prejudice, as marketing. MacBook Airs begat the Ultrabooks, for example. Plain and simple. (Since we're typing out pages of opinions the Zune is hardly better than the iPod. That's why it doesn't exist anymore. I've had two of them. The battery life sucked, the hardware was no better and often worse, and it was poorly supported = well-deserved failure.)

There's no evidence that any manufacturer planned on as high of a resolution laptop screen until Apple ordered one to their specs. The definition of innovation has nothing to do with manufacturing. In this world, Mike, engineers get credit for what the workers create to their specs. Samsung deserves credit for creating the panel for Apple but it's not the same as introducing and "marketing" it.

"Really? When has Apple not done this?" ...they have. Just like every other company. Most have innovated in one way or another and the rest copy what is successful and can be marketed.

"But screen technology would have advanced anyway...Samsung is the company actually leading the way." The former is speculation and conjecture (or as I rudely referred to it "talking out of ones ass." All we have is evidence of who made the push in that direction *cough* INNOVATION. I WILL concede that Samsung is innovating and leading the way in many respects too.

I don't have a weapon's-grade grudge against Samsung as you do Apple. I'm counting three Samsung devices in my household right now. That's equal to the number of Apple devices and less than Sony. ...I'm not on Apple's "side" anymore than I am on those companies or the Dell computer that I currently also own. Of course you can't game for shit on Apple's OS and hardware. That's no secret to anyone and they don't even try for that market. Their "high-end" MacPro workstations are poorly-updated and a bad value for almost everyone.

I respect you and your opinion, Mike. Apple isn't for anyone. I may be abrasive at times, when I disagree with some points you or others tried to make, but I try to come off as reasonable. What I don't get is why people like you find it so unfathomable that someone who likes PCs (and builds...one of the big reasons why I am an avid MPC reader) could also like a Mac or appreciate some other Apple product as much as any other. There was a time when I was seemingly alone in this opinion...at least among regular commentators. I'm not the only one anymore.

I'm OS-agnostic, Mike. I spend most of my time on OS X for professional reasons, software investment, and current personal preference. I have always had a Windows computer and am basically proficient in Linux as well. If I had more time to play games these days I'd spend more time on Windows. You think I'm some "iSheep?" ...you should see the bug reports I submit to Apple ;)

avatar

kevaskous

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina_Display

For the less informed here, Apple did not make the Retina, they did not invent it, they did not create it, they simply asked for it. Samsung makes it, LG makes makes it, they created it, they invented it, they copied nothing here, simply improved upon their existing tech. Apple has a patent on the name, not on the device itself.

Apple is a recipe company,nothing more or less, see the following for more and please stop posting garbage, tiring to read it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFeC25BM9E0

Please be informed, not bias, thanks.

avatar

DeltaFIVEengineer

You're right. Just as Ford didn't invent the wheel, Chevy didn't invent the combustion engine, and Exxon didn't invent gasoline. However, they still put the engineering into making those things work in a way that created a solution to a problem.

Apple put a high DPI screen into a laptop, made it functional, and was the first to bring it to a wide market. Everyone else saw the opportunity to make money doing the same thing and so they did. They copied the approach Apple took and decided to put higher spec'ed hardware into their solutions (as usual). Engineering solutions can be original in their approach using existing technology. No one looks at a Segway and says, "well that's nothing more than two wheels, some plastic, and a couple of gyroscopes. Anyone could've done that!"

The world is not black and white and neither are ideas, so stop trying to make it seem like it's supposed to be that way.

avatar

Engelsstaub

What's tiring to read, uninformed, and biased, is this same "argument" that invention equals innovation. Like most companies they ask for things to be made to their specifications, assemble, and market it.

The first and foremost definition of innovation is THE INTRODUCTION OF SOMETHING NEW. ...not the creation of the parts to the innovator's specifications.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innovation

...even if this were a valid argument it would apply to every PC manufacturer. The bias is when you roll out this same nonsense to try to deny that Apple has ever innovated.

Do you really think that anyone thinks that Apple, or nearly any other PC manufacturer, makes their monitors in-house? What a thought-provoking revelation FFS.

avatar

MrHasselblad

Great background and research!!

Almost wishing that every comment posting were half this good

avatar

Engelsstaub

It took "background research" to discover that Apple, like pretty much every other PC maker, doesn't manufacture its display panels?? ...or are you just applauding because someone's telling you something you want to hear no matter how nonsensical? That is bias.

Check out that definition of innovation for me, please. Almost every PC maker has innovated in some ways or others. I'll give you a hint: innovation is about idea, not manufacturing the idea to the specifications of the one introducing something new (innovating.)

avatar

vrmlbasic

The display isn't all that counts. The being able to use that display, the functionality, is what really counts. I want more screen real estate (which comes from the resolution) so I can more conveniently complete my computing tasks.

Almost none of what I do on my computer could be done on the Chromebook, and as such it is useless, a waste of a high-res screen.

Almost everything I do on my computer could be done on a Macbook Pro, especially if I were to install Windows 7 on it via bootcamp.

Thus, the Macbook Pro counts; the chromebook still does not.

avatar

Engelsstaub

Truth. A Chromebook is functionally crippled in comparison to a good Windows laptop or MacBook. It is a specialized-device of limited functionality similar to a tablet.

We all know that Apple likes to count iPads as "PC sales" but we all know the vast difference between an iPad and a modern x86 laptop. For most people's computing needs a tablet or Chromebook can only ever be supplemental to their personal computer.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.