Is there any screen better than a Mac

[abillybob]

Now of course there is 4k televisions and such like although when looking at gaming laptops for the same kind of money I can't find a screen that will match it! I have just got a new MacBook and I must say the screen is beautiful it's so crisp and clear it's around double the resolution on a 1080p screen look great. Though this is being done with just a simple integrated GPU chip and everything runs fine, although big thing they have missed is that no games available for the Mac can play at the Mac's native mega resolution (and if they could the Mac would completely fail trying to render the graphics) for example I installed Rust which when hooked up to my 4k TV through my Alienware does play at 2880x1800 and this is a native resolution on a Mac screen problem is the Mac version only lets you go to 1440x900 what the hell it looks awful.

 

The GT 750m isn't the best card it's very mediocre at best in the MacBook Pro and at around £2100 it's pure daylight robbery I suppose you could call it a "starter" card you could say compared to the GTX 780m in my Alienware, what I can't understand is why Apple can produce such gorgeous screens but no other gaming laptops can they all seem to be limited to 1080p screen why is this?

 

Do any of you guys know a gaming laptop brand that produces amazing screens but still with the brute hardware that matches up to my Alienware? Or is it Mac's that only seem to have this screen type and why is that, why are they the only company to do such high resolution screens.

 

I'd be interested in all your feedback Cheers!

[SYNACK]

Guaranteed supply, Apple goes to factory X and says we'll have Y amount of screens over a couple of years and puts that in a contract. Factory X can now use that to get loans to make the screens to supply. As part of that contract they can demand exclusivity of the process through that factory making sure that only they have access to them.

 

Apple can do this as they are sitting on a cash mountain and can buy out supply chains in advance, not many other companies, like Dell with Alienware will have that kind of cash and do that kind of volume with a high res screen.

 

Disturbingly I hear complaints from teachers about these nasty tiny new fangled screens - 1080p - on 15" laptops as they are 'too small' to see. Untill resolution scaling is used better by more people or they actually admit they need classes so that their screen does not have to have pixels the size of lego bricks this probably won't change.

 

Eventyally more factories will make the panels and any supply agreements will run out making it easier for other vendors to get them in smaller quantities.

[abillybob]

Guaranteed supply, Apple goes to factory X and says we'll have Y amount of screens over a couple of years and puts that in a contract. Factory X can now use that to get loans to make the screens to supply. As part of that contract they can demand exclusivity of the process through that factory making sure that only they have access to them.

 

Apple can do this as they are sitting on a cash mountain and can buy out supply chains in advance, not many other companies, like Dell with Alienware will have that kind of cash and do that kind of volume with a high res screen.

 

Disturbingly I hear complaints from teachers about these nasty tiny new fangled screens - 1080p - on 15" laptops as they are 'too small' to see. Untill resolution scaling is used better by more people or they actually admit they need classes so that their screen does not have to have pixels the size of lego bricks this probably won't change.

 

Eventyally more factories will make the panels and any supply agreements will run out making it easier for other vendors to get them in smaller quantities.

 

Ah that makes a lot more sense now. I think it's a huge shame because actually when running Windows on the MacBook Pro it looks beautiful when you scale it properly (obviously you have to set this yourself) but it does look awesome and Windows I feel already does a good job of it! Here's to hoping this will soon become the standard because my god these screens are gorgeous.

 

I'm sure Microsoft could do something like this as they're sitting on a ton of money. Due to them releasing the Surface's I wonder if they have any ideas implementing these kind of screens into some Microsoft products!? Only time will tell I guess!

[Arthur]

Do any of you guys know a gaming laptop brand that produces amazing screens but still with the brute hardware that matches up to my Alienware?

The latest Razer Blade gaming laptop has a 14" 3200x1800 LCD and GeForce GTX 870M GPU. It looks a bit like a black MacBook with green LEDs.

 

 

www.razerzone.com/gaming-systems/razer-blade

 

Guaranteed supply, Apple goes to factory X and says we'll have Y amount of screens over a couple of years and puts that in a contract. Factory X can now use that to get loans to make the screens to supply. As part of that contract they can demand exclusivity of the process through that factory making sure that only they have access to them.

Businessweek has a great article about Apple's supply chain. Factory X doesn't even need to get a loan if Apple buys all of the equipment they need.

 

Apple's Supply-Chain Secret? Hoard Lasers

 

Apple can do this as they are sitting on a cash mountain and can buy out supply chains in advance, not many other companies, like Dell with Alienware will have that kind of cash and do that kind of volume with a high res screen.

Indeed. When you have $160 billion in cash you can get manufacturers to do almost anything for you.

 

Another problem is that other PC manufacturers make far too many different laptop models, so can't take advantage of the same economies of scale that Apple does. MSI's current range of gaming laptops is a perfect example.

 

 

Why do we need that much choice? It's ridiculous!

Edited June 22, 2014 by Arthur

[abillybob]

@Arthur, cheers mate didn't know that was coming out! That sounds like one hell of an amazing display, the issue I have with Razer and their laptops is the upgradability. Correct me if I'm wrong but I know that on my Alienware it pretty much does everything a desktop would do in regard of upgrading, I can upgrade GPU, CPU, RAM it has four hard drive bays which is awesome. I can even upgrade the disc drive and the screen if I really wanted to. The problem with Razer is although they're hardware looks ace, the practical side of me won't buy one until they allow you to upgrade the machines, if I'm right I know that the older Razer Blade laptop had the GPU chip soldered in and was impossible to upgrade, this is why I didn't buy it.

 

The 870m is a decent card but give it a year and you'll struggle to play on high settings. I'm waiting for the 9xx series to come out and upgrade my Alienware to that, I have checked with support and my current gen Alienware's BIOS can now apparently handle generic manufactured GPU chips so it doesn't have to be exclusive to the laptop or Dell to work which is awesome! If Razer do this then it's sold but currently I wouldn't.

[SYNACK]

I'm sure Microsoft could do something like this as they're sitting on a ton of money. Due to them releasing the Surface's I wonder if they have any ideas implementing these kind of screens into some Microsoft products!? Only time will tell I guess!

 

Check out the screen on the Surface Pro 3, it is rather nice but not coupled with a gaming gpu just yet.

[Arthur]

That sounds like one hell of an amazing display

Wait until you see Asus' ZenBook NX500!

 

www.engadget.com/2014/06/02/asus-zenbook-nx500-hands-on

 

 

^ I wish more manufacturers would ditch the useless numberpad, center the trackpad and use the remaining space for decent speakers like Asus have done.

 

the issue I have with Razer and their laptops is the upgradability.

Upgradability increases the thickness and weight unfortunately.

 

I can upgrade GPU, CPU, RAM it has four hard drive bays which is awesome.

Isn't your Alienware laptop about two inches thick, has a battery life measured in minutes and weighs in excess of 3KG though?

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but I know that on my Alienware it pretty much does everything a desktop would do in regard of upgrading

I suppose the main thing you can't upgrade is the motherboard which means you're stuck with the chipset, ports (mSATA/SATA 6Gbps, HDMI 1.4a etc.) and interfaces the laptop originally came with.

 

I have checked with support and my current gen Alienware's BIOS can now apparently handle generic manufactured GPU chips so it doesn't have to be exclusive to the laptop or Dell to work which is awesome!

That is definitely a useful feature to have, as is the ability to use the standard nVidia graphics drivers.

 

I much prefer my mITX PC + 27" LCD for gaming though.

 

The problem with Razer is although their hardware looks ace, the practical side of me won't buy one until they allow you to upgrade the machines.

Some people prefer looks over upgradability though. I think there's definitely a market for gaming laptops like the 14" Razer Blade.

[localzuk]

To be honest, I've never understood the desire to spend so much money to play games on a laptop, when a desktop of half the price will provide a better experience by quite a significant margin.

 

That said, you are indeed correct about the scaling - most developers don't use the high resolution monitors properly and there's a simple reason for it - they're still a niche product. WPF and Windows 8 apps are designed to handle such scaling but most others aren't.

Edited June 23, 2014 by localzuk

[X-13]

To be honest, I've never understood the desire to spend so much money to play games on a laptop, when a desktop of half the price will provide a better experience by quite a significant margin.

 

Space and portability.

 

I don't have room for a full gaming desktop, so I get laptops.

 

It's also easier to take a laptop to a LAN event than it is to take a desktop.

[abillybob]

To be honest, I've never understood the desire to spend so much money to play games on a laptop, when a desktop of half the price will provide a better experience by quite a significant margin.

 

That said, you are indeed correct about the scaling - most developers don't use the high resolution monitors properly and there's a simple reason for it - they're still a niche product. WPF and Windows 8 apps are designed to handle such scaling but most others aren't.

 

I got a decent discount from ecomputers at around £700 off at the time so I got an Amazing deal if I'm honest but there is no way I would buy it from Alienware direct it's ridiculously priced and you have to wait up to two months for them to build it before you get it! I've always built my own desktop machines but they lack in quality and appeal, they're generally a bunch of different branded parts shoved into a case with bright blue LED fans and don't run as efficiently as they should. It's hard to really say why but if you where to have a few minutes playing with my Alienware you'd understand you get your moneys worth the speakers alone are Klipsh audio and they beat any other speakers I have heard, sometime I think it's not just about sheer components but the 120hz screen, amazing keyboard, speakers, etc...and plus it means I can game when I'm on holiday and the Girlfriend is taking 2 hours to get ready, you can't.

 

Upgradability increases the thickness and weight unfortunately.

This doesn't bother me so much as long as I have the ability to upgrade the GPU etc.... an i7 Processor no matter what type will last for years so I don't see the need to upgrade a motherboard in a computer for a very long time, it's the GPU that normally needs upgrading once every 2 years or so, the i7 will still be a power house in 2 years time.

 

Isn't your Alienware laptop about two inches thick, has a battery life measured in minutes and weighs in excess of 3KG though?

 

That is one of the main issues is that it is heavy, I mean so heavy it aches my arm when carrying it far! How thick it is doesn't really bother me it adds to the beasty factor of the laptop and I love the design. The battery life I don't think is too bad when gaming it will last two hours using dedicated Graphics and the brightness medium on the screen though when just using the integrated graphics you can expect 8-10 hours of battery life easily!

 

Some people prefer looks over upgradability though. I think there's definitely a market for gaming laptops like the 14" Razer Blade.

 

Don't get me wrong it is tempting but I just can't see it outlasting my Alienware and when you're spending that much on a laptop I'd choose the one that can be upgraded and last longer than the one where everything is soldered onto the main board, but that's just me

[synaesthesia]

Being blunt, there are a million and one screens better than anything Apple have. They're just consumer purchased from phillips/lg/samsung/benq/whoever happens to be friendliest at the time. I enjoyed this fact a few years ago when Apple users were blathering on about their shiny, "unique" screens until I took one apart in front of such a fanboy, slotted it straight into the Dell Latitude D830 and turned it on.

Loved that laptop. 1920x1200 on a 15" was pushing it a bit though!

[seawolf]

Being blunt, there are a million and one screens better than anything Apple have. They're just consumer purchased from phillips/lg/samsung/benq/whoever happens to be friendliest at the time. I enjoyed this fact a few years ago when Apple users were blathering on about their shiny, "unique" screens until I took one apart in front of such a fanboy, slotted it straight into the Dell Latitude D830 and turned it on.

Loved that laptop. 1920x1200 on a 15" was pushing it a bit though!

 

I get a kick out of you...yur funny

 

I'm just trying to figure out what other companies were using high PPI screens in their laptops at the time Apple released them to market. Can't think of any. That would kind of make them "unique" and special ordered rather than just grabbing something from off the shelf from the "friendliest" manufacturer at the time.

 

Of course, if there were loads if other PC manufacturers using high PPI screens before or at the same time as Apple did, then please feel free to clear the air

Edited July 2, 2014 by seawolf

[SYNACK]

Of course, if there were loads if other PC manufacturers using high PPI screens before or at the same time as Apple did, then please feel free to clear the air

 

There were loads about 6 years before, not quite as high definition but plenty like my 7 year old hp that was running a 1920 by 1200 15" screen. it was only when HD tvs became more popular that 1080p became the 'best' you could get and they all started shipping with lego block 720p screens for smaller units. It was all a stupid cost cutting move thanks to being able to use the same controllers and lithography for all the screens along with the geriatrics winging about small writing back when Windows was rubbish at UI scaling.

 

Long story short Apple was not the first to do high PPI they were the first to start implementing it again after the great quality plato caused by Sony and the other TV manufacturers along with the 'people will only ever consume' brigade from Hollywood that saw the height of laptop design as being able to play toy story 97 at 'full HD' of blueray.

[seawolf]

There were loads about 6 years before, not quite as high definition but plenty like my 7 year old hp that was running a 1920 by 1200 15" screen. it was only when HD tvs became more popular that 1080p became the 'best' you could get and they all started shipping with lego block 720p screens for smaller units. It was all a stupid cost cutting move thanks to being able to use the same controllers and lithography for all the screens along with the geriatrics winging about small writing back when Windows was rubbish at UI scaling.

 

Long story short Apple was not the first to do high PPI they were the first to start implementing it again after the great quality plato caused by Sony and the other TV manufacturers along with the 'people will only ever consume' brigade from Hollywood that saw the height of laptop design as being able to play toy story 97 at 'full HD' of blueray.

 

Ummm...1920 x 1200 is quite a ways off from 2880 x 1800. But hey - a million or a billion - what's the difference besides 3 extra zeros? Just don't take up a career in accounting.

[Arthur]

like my 7 year old hp that was running a 1920 by 1200 15" screen.

That's only 150.94 PPI though so not really that high.

 

The only high PPI displays I know of that were released prior to Apple's were IBM's T220 and T221 22.2" monitors. These had a native resolution of 3840x2400 (204 PPI) and were insanely expensive.

 

Apple's MacBook Pros have 2560x1600 or 2880×1800 LCDs so 232.22 PPI and 226.42 PPI respectively.

[SYNACK]

Ummm...1920 x 1200 is quite a ways off from 2880 x 1800. But hey - a million or a billion - what's the difference besides 3 extra zeros? Just don't take up a career in accounting.

Like one extra cheap monitors worth but yes, at the time those were high, the reason Apple is ahead by a margin is because everyone went backwards for a while there. Besides, 'high' PPI is a rather arbitrary line in the sand, suffice it to say that much higher PPI screens than were generally available in laptops from a couple of years ago existed and were used a long time ago and had it kept progressing instead of being hijacked most things would have as good or better screens today.

[seawolf]

Coulda, woulda, shoulda I reckon. Just shows how lacking in vision and courage the other manufacturers were/are.

 

It's kind of like saying that the athlete who constantly choked during crucial moments would have been better than anyone ever, if he hadn't choked constantly. But they weren't great. They choked. Every time.

[SYNACK]

Coulda, woulda, shoulda I reckon. Just shows how lacking in vision and courage the other manufacturers were/are.

 

It's kind of like saying that the athlete who constantly choked during crucial moments would have been better than anyone ever, if he hadn't choked constantly. But they weren't great. They choked. Every time.

 

Apple weren't really ever under the push of Hollywood anyway as even getting a blueray to play was a mission. Not that I am condoning the other manufacturers, you are right, they were stupid and Apple did get back to using higher def screens first.

[localzuk]

Coulda, woulda, shoulda I reckon. Just shows how lacking in vision and courage the other manufacturers were/are.

 

I don't think it was a lack of courage. It was done on purpose to grow profits.

 

Basically, they cut the market up into segments - consumer/low end and high end.

 

They assumed that 95% of everyone fit into the first category, and decided that 1366x768 would suit them fine, and as all the panel manufacturers worked together on this (they were fined for the financial side of the fixing activity), no-one had any choice. They then produced the "high end" stuff just like they did before, but bumped the price up, because it was now a niche product.

 

It was a very capitalist thing to do...

[SYNACK]

Not that Apple would ever do such a thing. They wouldn't...give it away that is. But then again neither would MS, Google, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Sony, Lenovo, HP, Dell, Samsung, et al. - no, they would all seek to suck as much money out of us that they could.

.

 

I'm sure they would, there are degrees though, Microsoft has Microsoft research which has made lots of stuff and released a bunch of it, they also contribute to and donate to OSS as they realise it benefits them too. Facebook have released a bunch of their developments in their database back end and work with google and the others in ultra dense server work. Google despite their evil have made and released a bunch of stuff open source and worked - yes in their own interests - to get ultra fast internet to some and any internet to others, they have google earth and streetview which are rather decent services that can be used by anyone, likewise Bing maps that uses the excellent nokia maps that don't direct you through airfields. World wide telescope, sketchup, Microsoft robotics studio are all hugely useful tools that can be used by anyone. Google has also been a massive contributor to mapreduce and twitter with non-relational database tech, hp donates to OSS but can't think of anything else this second, likewise to dell.

 

This is leaving out work by The MS founder who while he has been a massive tool is now with some of the other tech billionaires on the verge of getting rid of malaria. The Google founders donating the use of their personal jets to NASA for research and the huge amounts they have both put into education even if it has not worked out as well as they hoped thanks to unforeseen barriers.

 

Question is what has Apple or their lorded founder done, build some services that are locked solely to their platform, fork a bunch of tech so that they contribute back comparatively very little given their dependence on it to OSS and buy a shiny boat/car lease deal.

 

You are right that the other companies would charge for it too but as far as I can see they may actually care enough to give a little back rather than hording it like scrooge mcduck in a tower of gold.

Edited July 4, 2014 by SYNACK

[abillybob]

@SYNACK has a point. @seawolf you've been beaten, let it go

[Arthur]

Question is what has Apple or their lorded founder done

Both Steve Jobs and Tim Cook have donated millions of dollars of charity.

 

• www.apple.com/uk/product-red/
  
• CEO Tim Cook breaks down $150M in charitable contributions by Apple « 9to5mac
  
• How Steve Jobs and his wife secretly gave away TEN OF MILLIONS of their own money to charity... even as critics accused him of not doing enough « Daily Mail
  

[SYNACK]

Both Steve Jobs and Tim Cook have donated millions of dollars of charity.

 

• www.apple.com/uk/product-red/
  
• CEO Tim Cook breaks down $150M in charitable contributions by Apple « 9to5mac
  
• How Steve Jobs and his wife secretly gave away TEN OF MILLIONS of their own money to charity... even as critics accused him of not doing enough « Daily Mail
  

 

Good so they - founders - did manage some charity, my other points still stand though, the pay us to donate some of the profit to help people project does not change the overall theme of Apple as a company not being as charitible as the others with their tech and with their money, at least until a leadership change.

Edited July 4, 2014 by SYNACK

[seawolf]

I'm sure they would, there are degrees though, Microsoft has Microsoft research which has made lots of stuff and released a bunch of it, they also contribute to and donate to OSS as they realise it benefits them too. Facebook have released a bunch of their developments in their database back end and work with google and the others in ultra dense server work. Google despite their evil have made and released a bunch of stuff open source and worked - yes in their own interests - to get ultra fast internet to some and any internet to others, they have google earth and streetview which are rather decent services that can be used by anyone, likewise Bing maps that uses the excellent nokia maps that don't direct you through airfields. World wide telescope, sketchup, Microsoft robotics studio are all hugely useful tools that can be used by anyone. Google has also been a massive contributor to mapreduce and twitter with non-relational database tech, hp donates to OSS but can't think of anything else this second, likewise to dell.

 

This is leaving out work by The MS founder who while he has been a massive tool is now with some of the other tech billionaires on the verge of getting rid of malaria. The Google founders donating the use of their personal jets to NASA for research and the huge amounts they have both put into education even if it has not worked out as well as they hoped thanks to unforeseen barriers.

 

Question is what has Apple or their lorded founder done, build some services that are locked solely to their platform, fork a bunch of tech so that they contribute back comparatively very little given their dependence on it to OSS and buy a shiny boat/car lease deal.

 

You are right that the other companies would charge for it too but as far as I can see they may actually care enough to give a little back rather than hording it like scrooge mcduck in a tower of gold.

Who's wearing the rose coloured glasses?

 

You must not remember the many, many years of attacks against open source by Microsoft. I was a very early adopter of Linux back in the days when you had to first compile it and I remember well their "cancer" comments and war on everything open source, including their infamous "235 patents" lawsuit. Here's a (very, no microscopically small) sampling:

 

Why Microsoft is wary of open source - CNET News

 

"Microsoft Attacks Open Source" Want to know why? [Archive] - SpeedGuide.net Broadband Community

 

SCO v. IBM - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Linux Foundation to Microsoft: stop secretly attacking Linux | Ars Technica

 

Dead and buried: Microsoft's holy war on open-source software - CNET

 

Today, Microsoft tries to pretend they like Open Source, but it's only a ploy. If you can't beat em, join em. All the while looking for for a soft spot to stab them in the back of course. Need proof?

 

Opinion: Antitrust complaint against Android is an attack on open source | Ars Technica

 

Linus Torvalds: I will not change Linux to “deep-throat Microsoft” | Ars Technica

 

Hidden Costs of Open Source

 

How Linus Torvalds Helped Bust a Microsoft Patent | Enterprise | WIRED

 

Now, let's consider Apple. They have actually been more supportive of OSS and generally more respected by a country mile by the OSS community than Microsoft has been. For a good reason. They've contributed far more and attacked far less. Of course, it has been somewhat self serving. Anything that damages Microsoft was good for Apple for a long time and OSS was considered a threat by MS so Apple fed their fear. Besides that, Apple doesn't make money selling software, so OSS was no real threat to them anyway. That's the case for Google, Amazon, Facebook, and others you mentioned - none of them make money off of software, so OSS is no threat. To Microsoft though, software was their bread and butter.

 

https://www.apple.com/opensource/

 

Symbiotic: What Apple Does for Open Source — RoughlyDrafted Magazine

 

Apple's Relationship to Open Source

 

As for Steve Jobs philanthropy or lack thereof, it appears the criticisms on that front were misplaced as well. Maybe he was following the advice of Matthew 6:2, or at least just disliked making a big show of helping other people out. It's hard to say what anyone's true motives are, so it's wisest not to try to judge that.

 

How Steve Jobs and his wife secretly gave away TEN OF MILLIONS of their own money to charity... even as critics accused him of not doing enough | Mail Online

Edited July 4, 2014 by seawolf

[witch]

OK

That's enough please - you are ALL descending into "he said" and "I said"

Play nice and stick to the original question

Edited July 4, 2014 by witch