Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Status
Not open for further replies.
We're not trying to sound like we know more, but I do try to share what knowledge I have about computers and what is credible to hope for and not. The lamination issues with the iMac screens were supposedly only for the 27"-model and using a retina resolution that high with the GPU's the iMac's form factor allows is incredibly unlikely.

Your last sentence about GPUs shows actually you have no clue about computers. Please don't take offense. An inboard GPU could pull retina 27" if only the UI would be written for it.

Don't you find it odd that diablo 3 plays well on rMBPs but UI is still choppy? That's because diablo is written for the GPU while the UI isn't. It's not rocket science, GPUs are FAR more powerful than retina requires.
 
Your last sentence about GPUs shows actually you have no clue about computers. Please don't take offense. An inboard GPU could pull retina 27" if only the UI would be written for it.

Don't you find it odd that diablo 3 plays well on rMBPs but UI is still choppy? That's because diablo is written for the GPU while the UI isn't. It's not rocket science, GPUs are FAR more powerful than retina requires.

Well yes that's technically true and that argument does work. But I was also considering the market of which the 27" iMac is aimed at. The iMac might not be the "workhorse" the Mac Pro is, but many people still use it for very heavy tasks, and Diablo 3 is not at all as demanding as some video editing software, for example.
 
Well yes that's technically true and that argument does work. But I was also considering the market of which the 27" iMac is aimed at. The iMac might not be the "workhorse" the Mac Pro is, but many people still use it for very heavy tasks, and Diablo 3 is not at all as demanding as some video editing software, for example.

Video editing software won't require more on a retina that it would on a non retina display. Most video editor use several screen as it is on last years GPUs. The small performance steal the retina would require is absolutely negligible. Resolution takes nothing of the Processing power at all. Have your computer ever slowed down because you plugged in an extra screen?

Ofc if editors start making retina videos.... That's a different story, but they won't have to, and as long as they don't they will have the crispest screen to look at and they will have loads more desktop area to fool around on.
 
So if there's no technical drawbacks from doubling the resolution, why aren't there retina screens everywhere by now? (not talking iOS devices)
 
So if there's no technical drawbacks from doubling the resolution, why aren't there retina screens everywhere by now? (not talking iOS devices)

When screens are manufactured there are always an amount of pixels that are defect. Every time x amount of pixels are defect you have to throw away the screen. Wen you produce screens with enormous amounts of pixels the chance to reach that particular amount is increased many folds. Specially for apple when that amount very often is zero.

This is what they mean by yield. How many screens produced actually qualify for sale. Yields on retina are still too low, making prices being really high. Also most companies don't think it's needed. They will however catch up. Either because they see apples sales, or because prices go down. The latter seems most probable, as apple just by making retina screens and putting money in that industry will cause price drops as manufacturers get better.
 
I really don't think there will be a 2012 retina iMac. But it's not a technology issue like every poster and his mom loves to write about. It's a cost issue.

Oh I do agree with this, I have no doubt Apple could build it but right now it would be too expensive, even for them. Screen yields are probably too low and the cost would be too high.

Right now if I can pick up an Ivy Bridge 27" iMac in the next month I will be somewhat happy, a refreshed case would be a bonus right now.
 
Can any old hands shed light on the availability of old hardware immediately after the release of new models? I ask because I need the screen real estate, memory, and speedier CPU of an iMac as soon as possible, but have held off thinking that an updated version will be more future-proof (I've kept my 6 year-old MBP still going like a champ, thanks to Snow Leopard and recently installed SSD and whopping 3GB of RAM). However, the leak that suggests that the new iMac is going for maximum thinness worries me if it means soldered RAM. I would be sorry to lose the optical drive, but non-upgradable memory is a deal-breaker and the current models would be sufficient for my needs (with 3rd party RAM upgrade).

How does Apple tend to phase out old models after they announce a new one? If the new offerings on Tuesday (possibly? probably?) seem a step in the wrong direction, is there still a chance to order the old model before the official launch date or do you automatically get signed up for a new model and made to wait until they start shipping? I realise that the old models sometimes (always?) end up in clearance, but the fact that there haven't been refurbished iMacs in the UK for several days now makes me wonder if there's not too much overstock in the system and I shouldn't count on it.

If anybody has ideas about how Apple usually does things, or just cares to speculate blindly, it would be much appreciated. 3 days and counting!
 
Graphics card

I was wondering if someone could answer this graphics card question. Im using the imac for music production. I don't do video work or anything yet or play games. I Was planning on speccing out the new machine close to max. Processor, solid snake :cool: hard drive, ram etc. But I was wondering if I should go for the better graphics option? I mean will it make the machine much faster, would it be worth it for future proof purposes. I don't really want a massive graphics card that is noisey like they can be on pc's with their own fans. That would be annoying and bad for recordings. Wondering if one of you tech heads might be able to say if it's worth it or not for my purposes? Why exactly is it a nice thing to have?
 
Can any old hands shed light on the availability of old hardware immediately after the release of new models? I ask because I need the screen real estate, memory, and speedier CPU of an iMac as soon as possible, but have held off thinking that an updated version will be more future-proof (I've kept my 6 year-old MBP still going like a champ, thanks to Snow Leopard and recently installed SSD and whopping 3GB of RAM). However, the leak that suggests that the new iMac is going for maximum thinness worries me if it means soldered RAM. I would be sorry to lose the optical drive, but non-upgradable memory is a deal-breaker and the current models would be sufficient for my needs (with 3rd party RAM upgrade).

How does Apple tend to phase out old models after they announce a new one? If the new offerings on Tuesday (possibly? probably?) seem a step in the wrong direction, is there still a chance to order the old model before the official launch date or do you automatically get signed up for a new model and made to wait until they start shipping? I realise that the old models sometimes (always?) end up in clearance, but the fact that there haven't been refurbished iMacs in the UK for several days now makes me wonder if there's not too much overstock in the system and I shouldn't count on it.

If anybody has ideas about how Apple usually does things, or just cares to speculate blindly, it would be much appreciated. 3 days and counting!

All stock of 2011 goes into the refurb store, and they will have some remaining so dw. Also 3rd party resellers will also have stock at a reduced price. I don't think you should worry getting ahold of the old iMacs post launch of the new ones.
 
Can any old hands shed light on the availability of old hardware immediately after the release of new models? I ask because I need the screen real estate, memory, and speedier CPU of an iMac as soon as possible, but have held off thinking that an updated version will be more future-proof (I've kept my 6 year-old MBP still going like a champ, thanks to Snow Leopard and recently installed SSD and whopping 3GB of RAM). However, the leak that suggests that the new iMac is going for maximum thinness worries me if it means soldered RAM. I would be sorry to lose the optical drive, but non-upgradable memory is a deal-breaker and the current models would be sufficient for my needs (with 3rd party RAM upgrade).

How does Apple tend to phase out old models after they announce a new one? If the new offerings on Tuesday (possibly? probably?) seem a step in the wrong direction, is there still a chance to order the old model before the official launch date or do you automatically get signed up for a new model and made to wait until they start shipping? I realise that the old models sometimes (always?) end up in clearance, but the fact that there haven't been refurbished iMacs in the UK for several days now makes me wonder if there's not too much overstock in the system and I shouldn't count on it.

If anybody has ideas about how Apple usually does things, or just cares to speculate blindly, it would be much appreciated. 3 days and counting!


I rekon that the old ones would end up in clearance or what not. Obviously I don't think you could buy a 2011 one BTO.

I think sensibly if its upgradability your looking at id stay clear of imac in general and wait for a mac pro in 2013 then just buy a 27 inch monitor. Personally I think if its only a ram issue and they solder it in, it hurts but just buy as much as you can afford. Anything over 8gb is suitable for most purposes. If you can take the hit get 16 and don't get crazy. I don't think anyone really needs 32.

I don't think you will save that much buying 2011 machine. Maybe 200 at best. When you think of the future proofness of the 2012 model its worth extra. That is unless the F it up with mobile processors and such for the thinness. Then don't buy. I guess wait and see!
 
So if there's no technical drawbacks from doubling the resolution, why aren't there retina screens everywhere by now? (not talking iOS devices)

Around 2007/2008 Nvidia wanted to introduce 4k display format, but the industry (not us consumers so to speak) did not play dice, they were still ripping into peoples pockets for fullhd displays. Years before that there was a 4k photo editing display from a number of companies. Now it should be relatively cheap, and they are introducing it at great prices. Indeed I have found cheaper 4k display providers/manufacturers than what the main companies are now doing.
 
Last edited:
IF we get a retina iMac next week I can almost guarantee it will be a separate premium model, like the MBP retina and it will NOT be a 27" screen.

I doubt they'll release iMac Retina yet, but if they do I hope/assume they'll do it that way. As an optional SKU instead of completely replacing the regular rez.

As some people simply don't want Retina on their machines (myself included... yet).
 
ok none knows why they had screen lamination issues with the iMac and whether it has to do with screen resolution, we'll just see what happens so don't try to sound like you know better

Actually he does know a bit better since he follows the rumor sites better than you. :D
 
Actually he does know a bit better since he follows the rumor sites better than you. :D

images
 
Thanks, guys, I'll do as everybody else and hang on til Tuesday!

Remember people who purchased in the last 14 days will be able to take back for a new one, so they will hit the refurb store to. Some of them will be BTO but I believe apple sell them as standard spec and its then a lottery if you get any extras.
 
Why can't we see photos for the upcoming iMac like it happened with the MBPR 13?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.