It would be a complete insult if the next iMac has the same 2560 resolution if the iPad 3 truly gets the 2048x1536 resolution...what any guesses as to what the iMac would have? 4K maybe?
the problem is that it is much easier to up the pixel density on smaller displays than on a panel the size of the 27". it will probably take a bit of time for the technology to catch up with the larger displays.
It would be a complete insult if the next iMac has the same 2560 resolution if the iPad 3 truly gets the 2048x1536 resolution...what any guesses as to what the iMac would have? 4K maybe?
Anything else would be absolutely and completely pointless right now. Ultra.high res is great for smartphones and tables, but have no use on desktops yet. Not to mention that a 27" panel like that would cost a small fortune...
Anything else would be absolutely and completely pointless right now. Ultra.high res is great for smartphones and tables, but have no use on desktops yet. Not to mention that a 27" panel like that would cost a small fortune...
It would be a complete insult if the next iMac has the same 2560 resolution if the iPad 3 truly gets the 2048x1536 resolution...what any guesses as to what the iMac would have? 4K maybe?
Why exactly would it be an insult? These are different products for vastly different uses.
A real example of an insult would be lowering the resolution of the iMac screens (something Apple wouldn't do), not having two completely different products with similar resolutions.
How many people see an iMac screen and think, "hey, that looks like the resolution is way too low"?
Anything else would be absolutely and completely pointless right now. Ultra.high res is great for smartphones and tables, but have no use on desktops yet. Not to mention that a 27" panel like that would cost a small fortune...
I don't disagree that it looks good, but it actually has the second lowest PPI of all Mac displays, with the 21.5" iMac having a slightly lower PPI. I mean, obviously it makes sense why, though.