Apple Takes the Stage to Unveil New iPad and More

[audioee]

[citation][nom]supall[/nom]Someone justify the purpose of a "2048 x 1536" resolution on a 10" display...someone? anyone?[/citation]
Apple thinks we are all going blind and need to hold the screen at 4 inches from our face. At that distance the pixels will be visible so they have to make them small. And then to fill the 10" screen they have to use that many pixels.

 

[ap3x]

[citation][nom]supall[/nom]Someone justify the purpose of a "2048 x 1536" resolution on a 10" display...someone? anyone?[/citation]

I can. On tradition computing devices an increase in resolution made everything smaller and if you tried to zoom everything to be usable icons text and other content did not look very good but it reduced jaggies and all that. That is why we all like her resolution screens. On iPad's and iPhones the resolution is independent of the pixel density. That is why they talk about the Higher PPI level. The PPI is really the important part here. So you get the benefit of less jaggies from the higher resolution without the decrease in size of icons and with higher PPI you get much better display quality. The side effect of that is that image sizes that take advantage of the higher pixel density take up a bit more space.

 

[ap3x]

[citation][nom]ap3x[/nom]I can.[/citation]

forgive the typos in prior post.

 

[ap3x]

[citation][nom]audioee[/nom]Apple thinks we are all going blind and need to hold the screen at 4 inches from our face. At that distance the pixels will be visible so they have to make them small. And then to fill the 10" screen they have to use that many pixels.[/citation]

Here is a easy way to justify it. Put it next to the current nearest competitor. If you see the difference then you just justified it.

 

[supall]

[citation][nom]soldier37[/nom]Sounds like someone thinks that 1080p is the best it gets. I do agree this res on 10 inches is a tad excessive but if you ever tried a 30" desktop monitor at 2560 x 1600 you'll never wan to go lower again. Playing BF3 on ultra settings is to die for.[/citation]

No. Having such a high resolution on a 10" display is absolutely unnecessary. This is the equivalent of the 8MP, 10MP, 12MP cameras on smartphones - its really just a waste and a marketing gimmick to justify the product's existence. Having a 2560x1600 on a 30" monitor makes perfect sense. Having a 2048x1536 on a 10" screen does not.

 

[scuba dave]

[citation][nom]supall[/nom]Someone justify the purpose of a "2048 x 1536" resolution on a 10" display...someone? anyone?[/citation]

More pixels, better image quality possible. I would think that was self-evident.

[citation][nom]audioee[/nom]Apple thinks we are all going blind and need to hold the screen at 4 inches from our face. At that distance the pixels will be visible so they have to make them small. And then to fill the 10" screen they have to use that many pixels.[/citation]

/facepalm Haters.. And if Android came up with a higher res screen, that would be thrown against Apple as a now sub-par product. Gotta love all that green smoke.

 

[ap3x]

[citation][nom]supall[/nom]No. Having such a high resolution on a 10" display is absolutely unnecessary. This is the equivalent of the 8MP, 10MP, 12MP cameras on smartphones - its really just a waste and a marketing gimmick to justify the product's existence. Having a 2560x1600 on a 30" monitor makes perfect sense. Having a 2048x1536 on a 10" screen does not.[/citation]

It does not make sense at the normal pixel rates. In order to make room for higher pixel density images you have to increase the resolution. Normally on a computer when you increase the resolution everything gets allot smaller, that is why it works well on a massive 30" monitor. However, if you had resolution independence from the pixel density like OSX and IOS and had a screen that supported higher PPI levels you can increase the resolution and get the aliasing benefits without shrinking everything while at the same time having clearer and more detailed images.

 

[pereirdp]

Unlike most plebes, I refuse to wallow in the mediocrity of android devices. I own a T-mobile Vibrant and the device has no sense of aesthetics--a shiny all-metal "t-mobile" logo is prominently displayed at the top of the phone and an equally large "SAMSUNG" logo is plastered at the bottom, squeezed between the edge of the screen's base and the hardware buttons.

In contrast, Apple devices have refreshingly understated bezels with no text oriented a particular way to suggest that the device be held in a particular orientation or that detracts from or to detract from the content being viewed. Furthermore, all android devices espouse a ridiculous aspect ratio (16:9) that makes webpage viewing inefficient.

 

[alidan]

i just googled the infinity blade thing above...

textures, better than most console games, expectantly ones where the majority of the game is spent zoomed out
shadow effects at :32 are of higher quality than consoles (granted its 1 person, so it may just be more detail can be put there)

its kind of funny, im not doubting that its pushing more graphical capabilities than current consoles, though i thought the idea was stupid when i first read it.

 

[ap3x]

If it would make you Android guys feel better.

http/www.idroidproject.org/

You guys would be all over this thing if it had Asus or Samsungs name on it.

 

[ap3x]

Here is the new iPad video on Apple's site.

http/www.apple.com/ipad/#video

 

[leeashton]

retina is a display technology NOT a display type, also the new OMAP dual core from TI at 900 MHz kills a Quad core Tegra 3 by almost 4 times, this new OMAP from Texas Instruments is the most powerful CPU/GPU on the market, but people will suck this shit up

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]ap3x[/nom]Actually, Microsoft does complain about OEM copies. If you re-install a OEM version of Windows on same machine with slightly different hardware configuration. Like a new video card for example. After a certain period of time they will not activate the install and you have to call Microsoft directly. I ran into this several times which is why I buy retail versions now. In terms of Hackintosh. Apple does not support it but if you want to build one they do not bother you about activation or even require a cd-key. It just installs. The only real issue is that you have to make sure that your hardware is supported but there are community websites that have that information. Now that UEFI bioses are prevalent you can install it right from the DVD/USB without having to do any patching of the ISO. Gigabyte boards tend to work well with OSX if you are interested in giving it a shot.Not really a good comparison though in talking about how MS allows you to install Windows vs Apple's OSX. Two very different business model. Last I checked MS never put out their own computers. They just supplied the hardware. Apple is doing everything themselves. Just a different business model.[/citation]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Apple nab a guy for his Hackintosh? It was a more complicated problem and I don't remember exactly why they yelled at him, but it was related to his hackintosh.

Sure, if you reinstall OEM Windows then you might have a problem, but why are you reinstalling it? Virus problem or something similar? If you sort it out with MS, then it's an inconvenience. If Apple tries to screw you over like they did with the guy I mentioned (sorry I don't remember more, it was in the news of several sites, I think Tom's included last year or so), then it's more than just an inconvenience.

Yes, it's two different business models (you mean MS supplies software, I think you did a typo at the end of your post), but that's not the problem. MS supports retail and OEM machines as proven by them resolving the issue with a reinstalled OEM Windows. Apple, on the other hand, doesn't. I am quite convinced that it's simply because you didn't pay for the way overpriced hardware they want you to buy.

You make a very good point, but MS isn't complaining about you having an OEM copy, the copy is complaining if it's reinstalled. If you simply buy the machine and don't need to reinstall it, then it's not a problem. Apple is the same in this regard (as far as I'm aware), they don't hate you for buying their own hardware with OSX preloaded, but unlike MS, they don't like you making your own system and installing the OS on your home built system. Sure, different business models, but that doesn't excuse it.

 

[nebun]

personally i call this crap that was not needed...to expensive for me, i blame the recession

 

[viciouz2000]

ipad dud, icrapple ftw!!! pricing is ridicioulous!!!!

 

[saxplayingcompnerd]

Oh NOW tom's comes out with an article in a timely manner, as long as its Apple crap... should call the site ApplesHardwareandsomeotherstuff.com

 

[blackened144]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]Quad core graphics, they claim much faster than Tegra 3....[/citation]

The dual core GPU in the iPad2 and iPhone4S are already the most powerful you can get in either a phone or tablet, easily besting the GPU in Tegra3... The only thing that might compare is the Playstation Vita which has the same quad core GPU..

 

[Guest]

I have an ipad 1 and it's still the third best tablet on the market, right behind the new ipad and the ipad 2

 

[back_by_demand]

I am usually the first to critisise Apple, and usually rightly so for their business practices, but as far as the hardware goes they have very nice products
...
This new iPad looks very impressive
...
My only niggle is the aspect ratio is still the archaic 4:3 from last century, my only wish for the next iPad after this is that they go widescreen, because at the moment those lovely HD movies you play on it will have a large number of those tightly packed pixels wasted with black bars

 

[darkstar845]

Oh it's the Ipad 3 ..... next news please.