Why don't the Intel iMac's have a larger resolution?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by DevilsRejection, Apr 24, 2006.

  1. DevilsRejection macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    #1
    We all saw the news today about the 17 inch MacBook Pro. It has the same resolution as the 20 inch iMac but in a 17 inch package.

    Why isn't the 17 inch iMac using the same screen and the 20 inch iMac have full HD resolution? (1920x1200)
     
  2. gekko513 macrumors 603

    gekko513

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    #2
    Desktop screens are positioned farther from your eyes than laptop screens. Higher resolutions on desktop screens would require a resolution independent GUI before it could be used comfortably by most people.

    It's more expensive, too.
     
  3. aswitcher macrumors 603

    aswitcher

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2003
    Location:
    Canberra OZ
    #3
    I hope to see the iMacs get better screens in the next rev later this year as one of the few things Apple can do to boost this machine uless they suddenly change the form factor (which I doubt).

    I expect to see 17" with MacBook screen
    20" doing what the 23" currently has.

    I also expect to see the 17" get the larger graphics card option.

    I wouldn't mind see lightscribe disk drives -or Blu Ray! ;)

    I hope the next ones get the new 802.11N wireless standard as well

    Black models would also be an excellent move in the world of front row.

    Better speakers for front row and games would be good - virtual 5.1 like most LCD TVs seem to have at the high end.

    More ram, says 512MB/1GB on the logic board and 2 spare slots, would be most welcome.

    HDMI out would rock. Or a real DVI out to reduce clutter and connections.

    Digital TV tuner and aerial socket would be very nice.

    BT Mighty Mouse to compliment it would be good.

    OLED clock/multipurpose long screen under the chin of the chasis to display Widget like info.

    Ah time for sleep with so much dreaming...
     
  4. DevilsRejection thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    #4
    I don't see the next iMac coming out until 2007, but back on topic: I thought OS X had a resolution independent UI?

    Is that supposed to be in 10.5?
     
  5. gekko513 macrumors 603

    gekko513

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    #5
    Resolution independent UI was planned for 10.4 but was dropped, and we may see it in 10.5, but 10.5 isn't out yet, so ...
     
  6. DevilsRejection thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    #6
    Thanks for the clarification

    The problem is supply too, I don't know of any lcd manufacturs producing 20 inch panels with that tight of a resolution. sad considering there are 17 inch panels that do 1920x1200
     
  7. blueflame macrumors 6502a

    blueflame

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2003
    Location:
    Studio City
    #7
    can I ask

    for some more clarification on what resolution independant UI is?
    andreas
     
  8. gekko513 macrumors 603

    gekko513

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    #8
    It means that the pixel size and font size of user interface elements can be adjusted or are automatically adjusted to fit the pixel density of a monitor.

    Fully resolution independent UI will for instance make it possible to comfortably use a 12" laptop with 1920x1200 resolution if the physical monitor technology allows it of course.
     
  9. blueflame macrumors 6502a

    blueflame

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2003
    Location:
    Studio City
    #9
    So its like having a virtual resolution of a higher rez, vs what teh screen can produce?
    andreas
     
  10. gekko513 macrumors 603

    gekko513

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    #10
    Something like that, yes. It will be interesting to see what shape it comes in of Apple can get it working properly. There are a lot of potential problems with that kind of technology, especially for 3rd party software.

    Edit: Wait, I think you may have it wrong. It's the opposite. If the screen can produce a very high resolution, the interface will be tiny, so the OS lets you set a virtual resolution that is smaller so that you can see and read what's on the buttons and menus.
     
  11. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #11
    Like others have said, it's mostly down to:

    1. Ergonomics (lots of pixels in a small space far away from your eyes)

    2. Cost

    A 20" 1920x1200 screen is in an odd position because it's a bit small for a desktop disdlay at that res and it's too big for a laptop display.
     
  12. sk1985 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2006
    #12
    1. The MBP is made for professionals (movie editors, photographers, programers, music editors and recorders, ect...). So it just needs a higher rez screen to display more info. Some pro apts can take up your whole screen with standard rez (1280 by 760 or 800 to me at least this has become a standard resolution). With a higher rez screen you can have more apts open at once.

    2. You sit closer to the MBP so you can see those tiny pixels really well. The iMac is made to be seen from a great deal of distance (i.e a good amount of pixels, but on a larger display= a high rez image just stretched out on a larger surface which means more visibility).
     
  13. DevilsRejection thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    #13
    Resolution Dependent UI is drawing with vectors instead of lines.

    Think about it like this, have you ever played a flash game where if you maximize the window it still looks nice and crisp? That's because it isn't being drawn with lines, the game is made with vectors. Vectors scale. Just like the dock in OS X when you hover over an icon it gets larger right? Those icons are drawn with vectors, i think, someone correct me if i'm wrong with that.
     
  14. gekko513 macrumors 603

    gekko513

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    #14
    The dock just uses 128x128 images that are scaled on the fly (in the GPU).
     
  15. MarkCollette macrumors 68000

    MarkCollette

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2003
    Location:
    Calgary, Canada
    #15
    Icons are still bitmaps, it's just that they're so big (128x128) that they're always being scaled down, even when you're making them bigger, so they always look good.
     
  16. Mitthrawnuruodo Moderator emeritus

    Mitthrawnuruodo

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Location:
    Bergen, Norway
    #16
    Nah... they're just 128x128 png files (mostly), but since they never are shown bigger then they are they don't pixilate... :)

    Edit: Beaten... by 5 and 2 minutes... :eek: (now, I have to start opening fewer tabs... ;))
     
  17. dr_lha macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2003
    #17
    No it isn't. You could have a resolution independant display and still have UI elements be bitmapped (e.g. the icons, window buttons). They would simply be scaled up and down, much like the Mac's dock apps are currently.

    Of course a fully vector desktop would look at lot *nicer*, but its not a requirement.

    Basically a "resolution independant" UI, means that, for example, the menu bar is always 0.25 inches high, instead of being always XX pixels high. The number of pixels would be dependant on the DPI of your monitor.
     
  18. QCassidy352 macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #18
    a year? no way. with intel we're going to see updates a lot more frequently than that.

    I'd never heard of Resolution Dependent UI before reading this thread, but it sounds awesome. :D
     
  19. howesey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    #20
    91ppi for OS X IIRC. 72ppi for Windows.

    I doubt Apple will change the resolution unless they can have 4x the pixel count.
     
  20. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #21
    I find the 17/20" iMacs to have a perfect resolution for their size. Considering you usually need a 19" LCD to have the resolution of 1440 x 900, you're getting a deal on the 17" model.
     

Share This Page