[PCWorld]

Post your comments for Samsung Shows Off Series 9 Laptop WIth Retina-Matching Display here

[HankRearden]

If Adobe gets support for this soon this could be nice. I like the series 9 already.

[easydone101]

The pixel density is actually HIGHER the the Retina Macs since it's a 13". This means Samsung kind of came up with a retina Macbook Air in a way before Apple did.

[easydone101]

If this gets dedicated graphics like the HP Envy Touchsmart Ultrabook 4, I'm sold.

[frlwinslow]

I wonder if the fruit maker will somehow try to claim ownership of high res displays and sue Samsung in a home court again. Good on Samsung for those who are ABA fans!

[LiveBrianD]

Nice! Now can we PLEASE get better dpi scaling in 3rd party apps (Windows 7 is actually pretty good, as far as its' built-in programs go...), and some high dpi desktop displays?

[Same6ja]

Your Apple screen or iPhone screen is made by Samsung, dude... That's why it is the same spec....

[PhillyPhan23]

easydone101, on 31 August 2012 - 03:49 PM, said:

The pixel density is actually HIGHER the the Retina Macs since it's a 13". This means Samsung kind of came up with a retina Macbook Air in a way before Apple did.

The Mac has more pixels on a larger area(2880 by 1800, 15.6", 220 ppi) than the Samsung (2560 by 1440, 13"?, 220 ppi) so the pixel density is about the same. Since this isn't a shipping product, it might be a bit premature to say that Samsung came up with the first retina ultrabook. Battery life might be problem (small battery, huge power demand from the display). Still, why wouldn't PC makers also use high density displays in some models? It's not magic, just engineering.

[NickanFayyazi]

Retina display? Great! Windows 8? Goodbye!

[iCrapple]

PhillyPhan23, on 31 August 2012 - 06:25 PM, said:

easydone101, on 31 August 2012 - 03:49 PM, said:

The pixel density is actually HIGHER the the Retina Macs since it's a 13". This means Samsung kind of came up with a retina Macbook Air in a way before Apple did.

The Mac has more pixels on a larger area(2880 by 1800, 15.6", 220 ppi) than the Samsung (2560 by 1440, 13"?, 220 ppi) so the pixel density is about the same. Since this isn't a shipping product, it might be a bit premature to say that Samsung came up with the first retina ultrabook. Battery life might be problem (small battery, huge power demand from the display). Still, why wouldn't PC makers also use high density displays in some models? It's not magic, just engineering.

My guess is some will, but I really don't think it's a must have feature the way apple wants you to think it is. I mean 1920x1080 looks crystal clear on my 47" tv. On a screen so small it really is just a waste. I have 1080 on my 17" laptop and the desktop is huge, which is nice, but many times the fonts are too small and you need to zoom in. On my 24" desktop monitors 1920x1080 seems about perfect. But on a small 15" screen, or even my 17" screen its over kill. Let alon the ipad. 220 pixels/in is just total over kill, so much so that to make up for it apple has all of their developers make their icons and fonts bigger. So any benifit of having a bigger desktop is gone lol. But, but apple puts it on their hardware so it must mean it's an important feature right? Right? I mean they have to give you a reason to upgrade after all.

This post has been edited by iCrapple: 01 September 2012 - 10:57 AM

[JaredNewman]

easydone101, on 31 August 2012 - 03:49 PM, said:

The pixel density is actually HIGHER the the Retina Macs since it's a 13". This means Samsung kind of came up with a retina Macbook Air in a way before Apple did.

That depends on the exact size of the screen. I assumed it was the same 13.3-inch (not 13-inch flat) as the existing Series 9, which would give it the same 220 ppi as the Macbook Pro. That'd especially make sense since displays are typically created at one resolution and cut into sheets. (Although apparently it's LG, not Samsung that makes the displays for the Retina Pro, according to here: http://www.appleinsi...s_to_apple.html)

[smcchrn]

easydone101, on 31 August 2012 - 03:49 PM, said:

The pixel density is actually HIGHER the the Retina Macs since it's a 13". This means Samsung kind of came up with a retina Macbook Air in a way before Apple did.

Except the 15 inch retina Macbook pro has a higher resolution than this one.

[opiniator]

Every Windows 8 vendor at IFA should have come with "retina" level touchscreen LCDs on their new wares, ready to ship in October.

Also, the Windows vendors really, really need to STOP with the horrible 16x9 aspect ratio already (This means you too Microsoft with your low resolution junk 16x9 "Surface")! The proper aspect ratio is 16x10, which along with the Retina display is why my next Windows laptop is going to be an Apple MacBook Pro 15" Retina fully loaded (about $4,000.00 and yet cheaper than a not quite comparable fully loaded Dell M6600 [over $5,000] which only has a 1920x1080 LCD!), and setup to triple boot MacOS, Windows, and Linux. If the other hardware vendors want my money instead, they will have to build a laptop that can stand next to and compete with it, and it better have a 16x10 aspect ratio display and at least (2880 by 1800, 15, 220 ppi) resolution.


Retina level resolutions:

(2880 by 1800, 15", 220 ppi)
(2560 by 1600, 13", 220 ppi)
(3840 by 2400, 27" or 30")

Come on Wintel hardware vendors, step up, especially since Sharp already has the displays you need ready to OEM!

[opiniator]

iCrapple, on 01 September 2012 - 10:55 AM, said:

PhillyPhan23, on 31 August 2012 - 06:25 PM, said:

easydone101, on 31 August 2012 - 03:49 PM, said:

The pixel density is actually HIGHER the the Retina Macs since it's a 13". This means Samsung kind of came up with a retina Macbook Air in a way before Apple did.

The Mac has more pixels on a larger area(2880 by 1800, 15.6", 220 ppi) than the Samsung (2560 by 1440, 13"?, 220 ppi) so the pixel density is about the same. Since this isn't a shipping product, it might be a bit premature to say that Samsung came up with the first retina ultrabook. Battery life might be problem (small battery, huge power demand from the display). Still, why wouldn't PC makers also use high density displays in some models? It's not magic, just engineering.

My guess is some will, but I really don't think it's a must have feature the way apple wants you to think it is. I mean 1920x1080 looks crystal clear on my 47" tv. On a screen so small it really is just a waste. I have 1080 on my 17" laptop and the desktop is huge, which is nice, but many times the fonts are too small and you need to zoom in. On my 24" desktop monitors 1920x1080 seems about perfect. But on a small 15" screen, or even my 17" screen its over kill. Let alon the ipad. 220 pixels/in is just total over kill, so much so that to make up for it apple has all of their developers make their icons and fonts bigger. So any benifit of having a bigger desktop is gone lol. But, but apple puts it on their hardware so it must mean it's an important feature right? Right? I mean they have to give you a reason to upgrade after all.

Are you sure you might not just need a trip to the ophthalmologist and some new spectacles so that you can appreciate the "retina" levels displays the rest of the world craves?

[gimzzzz]

Now a days Samsung is putting its efforts to reach to peakk...

[gimzzzz]

Now a days Samsung is putting its efforts to reach to peakk...

[Bruizer]

iCrapple, on 01 September 2012 - 10:55 AM, said:

My guess is some will, but I really don't think it's a must have feature the way apple wants you to think it is. I mean 1920x1080 looks crystal clear on my 47" tv. On a screen so small it really is just a waste. I have 1080 on my 17" laptop and the desktop is huge, which is nice, but many times the fonts are too small and you need to zoom in. On my 24" desktop monitors 1920x1080 seems about perfect. But on a small 15" screen, or even my 17" screen its over kill. Let alon the ipad. 220 pixels/in is just total over kill, so much so that to make up for it apple has all of their developers make their icons and fonts bigger. So any benifit of having a bigger desktop is gone lol. But, but apple puts it on their hardware so it must mean it's an important feature right? Right? I mean they have to give you a reason to upgrade after all.

My guess is you are someone without an option and a clue. HiDPI displays are not about desktop space and you make yourself look foolish bring in a 47"TV to the discussion LOL.

[42n81]

easydone101, on 31 August 2012 - 03:49 PM, said:

The pixel density is actually HIGHER the the Retina Macs since it's a 13". This means Samsung kind of came up with a retina Macbook Air in a way before Apple did.

Pixel density is independent of screen size. It is the measure of the number of pixels per inch. More inches = more pixels = lower production yields

Samesung probably made this preemptive vaporware announcement on recent rumors that Apple will be introducing updated 13" MacBook Pros with retina display later this year.

******************************

"Samesung, proudly making other people's innovations available to the masses."

This post has been edited by 42n81: 02 September 2012 - 07:57 AM

[42n81]

Same6ja, on 31 August 2012 - 05:22 PM, said:

Your Apple screen or iPhone screen is made by Samsung, dude... That's why it is the same spec....

No, our recent iPhone screens were made by Wintek and TPK Holding. That MacBook Pro retina display? Probably by LG.

The iPhone 5 screens will apparently be made by Sharp, LG, and Japan Display Co.

Myth BUSTED ... dude.

[waldojim]

Samsung just makes other Apple parts - SSD's, Ram, and SOC's. The displays they reserve for themselves, or other high-end companies. I can live with this. I prefer Samsung displays anyhow.