iMac 2013 update to have PCI-E SSD flash storage? PCIe

KaraH said:

Actually, I would consider a retina screen a reason NOT to buy an iMac! Applications that are not designed for retina would suddenly have small UI elements. Oh sure, it would be great for apple-written programs but they are not the only company making software.

Click to expand...

That's not how it works. OS X's implementation of HiDPI for Retina screens means that there's a difference between the "addressable" resolution for things like drawing windows and the actual resolution. By default, the difference is a factor of 2 in each axis, meaning that a Retina screen in HiDPI typically has the same screen real estate as a typical screen with 1/4th of the total pixels.

Applications that don't have inherent support for HiDPI mode will simply be scaled up to the best of OS X's ability. Unless they did something abnormal with the text display in the app, it should adapt automatically to the HiDPI fonts. The images will simply be pixel-doubled, so that they'd look (approximately) the same as they did on the lower-resolution screen, only using 4 pixels to paint each pixel in the image.

Anyway, the most logical direction for a Retina iMac would be a 4K screen at 3840x2160. If the default scaling factor was still 2x, this would mean that a 27" Retina iMac out of the box would actually have less screen real estate (and larger UI elements) than a 27" normal iMac out of the box, though undoubtably there would be a setting to switch to 1.5x scaling to get the same 2560x1440 of real estate available today.

forty2j said:

...
Anyway, the most logical direction for a Retina iMac would be a 4K screen at 3840x2160. If the default scaling factor was still 2x, this would mean that a 27" Retina iMac out of the box would actually have less screen real estate (and larger UI elements) than a 27" normal iMac out of the box, though undoubtably there would be a setting to switch to 1.5x scaling to get the same 2560x1440 of real estate available today.

Click to expand...

The 21" iMac might have a 3840x2160 Retina resolution. The 27" Retina would need to double the current 27" resolution or 5120x2880.

Bear said:

The 21" iMac might have a 3840x2160 Retina resolution. The 27" Retina would need to double the current 27" resolution or 5120x2880.

Click to expand...

Why would it *need* to? Yes, that's where doubling the current resolution takes you, but I don't think that needs to be a rule. 5120x2880 would just be overkill for the sake of overkill.

forty2j said:

Why would it *need* to? Yes, that's where doubling the current resolution takes you, but I don't think that needs to be a rule. 5120x2880 would just be overkill for the sake of overkill.

Click to expand...

If the full resolution of the 27" Retina display is not at least double what the current resolution is, the iMac becomes less usable for me. I would either have to add a second screen or get some different computer.

Bear said:

If the full resolution of the 27" Retina display is not at least double what the current resolution is, the iMac becomes less usable for me. I would either have to add a second screen or get some different computer.

Click to expand...

So for your use case, you would select the "More Space" option, which in this circumstance would give you virtual 2560x1440 with 1.5x pixel scaling.

forty2j said:

So for your use case, you would select the "More Space" option, which in this circumstance would give you virtual 2560x1440 with 1.5x pixel scaling.

Click to expand...

1.5x pixel scaling is also an issue. You don't want fractional pixel scaling on a photo you're trying to work on. I was quite accurate when I said what my needs were.

forty2j said:

That's not how it works.

Click to expand...

I already know one of the programs I use will have some elements that come out as small. Sure, you can say they were programmed wrong but that does not change the fact that not every UI element of every program is just dandy with retina.

http://jira.phoenixviewer.com/browse/FIRE-9075

[Oh, and for any SLers who want to rage against firestorm: that is Linden Lab code that has the problem.]

Bear said:

1.5x pixel scaling is also an issue. You don't want fractional pixel scaling on a photo you're trying to work on. I was quite accurate when I said what my needs were.

Click to expand...

Photo editing is different.. I would assume that the canvas portion of a photo program would be writing to the native resolution.

KaraH said:

I already know one of the programs I use will have some elements that come out as small. Sure, you can say they were programmed wrong but that does not change the fact that not every UI element of every program is just dandy with retina.

Click to expand...

Games (and I count SL as a kind of game) are also different in that they typically write directly to the native resolution for performance reasons - but they typically also allow you to change the resolution and/or UI scale via settings.

I know I am going off the threads topic but do you think there is any likely hood that this years iMac will see the revised thunderbolt ports?

I'm very confident that it will get a PCI-E SSD simply because the MacBook Air has it.

mrmarts said:

I know I am going off the threads topic but do you think there is any likely hood that this years iMac will see the revised thunderbolt ports?

Click to expand...

I am thinking probably not for 2 reasons. The first is that Apple might want to reserve Thunderbolt 2 for the Mac Pro initially and the second is there may not be enough Thunderbolt 2 parts initially from Intel to handle the Mac Pro and the iMac.

Bear said:

I am thinking probably not for 2 reasons. The first is that Apple might want to reserve Thunderbolt 2 for the Mac Pro initially and the second is there may not be enough Thunderbolt 2 parts initially from Intel to handle the Mac Pro and the iMac.

Click to expand...

Considering the fact that no Mac Pro available today has a thunderbolt port, even the last updated one, while even the lowly MacBook Air has it, I don't believe that TB 2.0 will be exclusive to the Pro line...

tuxon86 said:

Considering the fact that no Mac Pro available today has a thunderbolt port, even the last updated one, while even the lowly MacBook Air has it, I don't believe that TB 2.0 will be exclusive to the Pro line...

Click to expand...

I said initially exclusive to the Mac Pro. My guess is that all Macs updated after early 2014 will have Thunderbolt 2.

yes and iMac will have retina..so i guess they will not update untill the mac pro is ready and the retina for imacs too. for god sake..1080p now is on mobile phone 5"

----------

so from now on...every new update/new product will have retina...the next macbook airs, the next ipad mini, the next iMacs, and the next thunderbolt display...and if will make apple tv will be 4K from the start

I am putting all my money down that this years imac will have pci - e ssd present, along with Haswell and the ac standard wifi. Whilst next years imac will get better graphics, thunderbolt 2, revised USB 3.0 ports, a retina display on certain models like the "27 only, and bigger hdd. Now lets wait till late next year to see if my forecast sheds light.

New Mac 2013

Typically, when are new models likely to come out?
"Fall". is Autumn for others in the northerm hemisphere. so which month September or October.

Dambuster43 said:

Typically, when are new models likely to come out?
"Fall". is Autumn for others in the northerm hemisphere. so which month September or October.

Click to expand...

With the 2012 model being the exception, there's typically an 8-11 month refresh cycle on iMacs, with the average being around 9 months. Anything more specific we're unable to say with certainty.

sammich said:

It's a virtual certainty. No discussion.

Click to expand...

Bingo. If the "low-end" Macbook Air gets it and the upcoming MacMiniPro will have it, then its certain that everything in between will also. The Mac Mini, maybe. I'd bet it will be last to get that.