Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
63,537
30,847



As part of its flurry of updates to Apple.com today, Apple's web team posted the new OS X Mavericks background image at 5120x2880. That resolution is identical to the one anticipated for a 27" Retina display for the iMac or a standalone Retina Thunderbolt Display.

osxretina.jpg
The image, which was noticed by Twitter user Marvin Scharle, is similar to Retina-sized images that were included in Lion in 2011, long before Apple had released any Retina-equipped Macs publicly.

With Apple's announcement today that the new Mac Pro would include support for 4K video displays along with Thunderbolt 2, the company is clearly getting ready for larger Retina panels in the future.

Article Link: Apple Posts 27" Retina iMac-Sized OS X Mavericks Background
 

longofest

Editor emeritus
Jul 10, 2003
2,924
1,682
Falls Church, VA
Pretty Sweet File size for such a big image :)

Yeah, but it's still 3.3MB for an image to be broadcast over the web. Over a Fiber connection it may not be much, but for folks still stuck with DSL or Cable not by their choice (lack of options), that will suck. Also, imagine the kind of cache you will build up. I'd imagine caches of gigabytes easy, and when SSD based macs start at only 128GB, that's not something to sneeze at.
 

AlligatorBloodz

macrumors regular
Oct 13, 2010
107
0
Yeah, but it's still 3.3MB for an image to be broadcast over the web. Over a Fiber connection it may not be much, but for folks still stuck with DSL or Cable not by their choice (lack of options), that will suck. Also, imagine the kind of cache you will build up. I'd imagine caches of gigabytes easy, and when SSD based macs start at only 128GB, that's not something to sneeze at.

huh? its 3.3MB!

Edit: I'm guessing that was sarcasm.
 

Woodcrest64

macrumors 65816
Aug 14, 2006
1,303
515
I really hope I can run a 27" Retina Display off of my 2012 Retina Macbook Pro via running it with both my thunderbolt ports but I doubt it. :|
 

3282868

macrumors 603
Jan 8, 2009
5,281
0
Nice. Apple just replaced my 2 24" LED LCD's after three years of endless issues with 2 27" mini-DisplayPort models as my Mac Pro doesn't have Thunderbolt (yet). I was extremely thankful, they even refunded AppleCare and added it to the replacements. I was torn about getting the thunderbolt models in case of a new Mac Pro as they have more inputs, HD camera and can be daisy chained. If they release new displays, looks like I may be listing my 27" displays with my Mac Pro soon. :p
 

tillsbury

macrumors 68000
Dec 24, 2007
1,513
454
I really hope I can run a 27" Retina Display off of my 2012 Retina Macbook Pro via running it with both my thunderbolt ports but I doubt it. :|

Why do you doubt it? You can already run two 2560x1600 displays as well as the internal display at an effective 3840x2400, which is a shedload more pixels than this...
 

Jensend

macrumors 65816
Dec 19, 2008
1,380
1,594
Update: I was wrong. In data rates 1 GB/s = 1,000,000,000 byte/s
Thunderbolt 2 = 20 Gigabits
5120 * 2880 * 60 * (24 bits) = 19.7753906 Gigabits
5120 * 2880 * 60 * (24 bits) = 21.23 Gigabits

And there's probably some other overhead...
 
Last edited:

simon the diver

macrumors member
Jan 26, 2010
34
30
Hello....

Yeah, but it's still 3.3MB for an image to be broadcast over the web. Over a Fiber connection it may not be much, but for folks still stuck with DSL or Cable not by their choice (lack of options), that will suck. Also, imagine the kind of cache you will build up. I'd imagine caches of gigabytes easy, and when SSD based macs start at only 128GB, that's not something to sneeze at.

"Hello, are you from the past ?"
 

bigwig

macrumors 6502a
Sep 15, 2005
679
0
They haven't updated the ACD with USB3 ports yet, I'll believe a Retina version when I see it.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.