Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
9to5mac guess that new imac wont appear on WWDC jun 11th
- Thread starter seriall
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I took Smartie's comment to be a joke, given that they were replying to vincebio, whose forum location is Glasgow, and who claimed "There WILL be an all new iMac inside and out.. watch this space"...
Maybe it will appear on jun 12th?
The current iMac hardware is crap compared to new pc's and if apple wants to keep pace, it's a given that they must refresh the line.
Fingers crossed for loads of ram, huge hdd and a retina display
The current iMac hardware is crap compared to new pc's and if apple wants to keep pace, it's a given that they must refresh the line.
Fingers crossed for loads of ram, huge hdd and a retina display
No one is suggesting there won't be an iMac refresh at all. It's a question of when and not if.
----------
My Dad's iMac broke a few months back and I told him to wait for the updates in June.
I am sure that dad will be able to wait a couple more months or weeks.
Do you think Tim Cook reads these posts, maybe even responds under a pseudonym?
Come on Tim - get us all out of our misery. Just give us all a tincy wincy clue.
Dammit you've blown my cover...
All I am saying is that there will be a refresh. Whether its next week or not is not a reason to get upset or panic.
There will be a reason to get upset if you have been waiting for the new iMac release for a long time like I have. I can't keep my business on hold forever and I'll probably end up building a hackintosh.
Running a business when in breach of the license agreement is not the smartest idea.
Or you could just get a 2011 model, the refurbished ones are a pretty decent discount.
Good point! Let's see what happens tomorrow.
----------
Also a good point. If I own a legitimate copy of X and I ran it on virtual box would that breach any license agreement?
I'm all for different opinions and theories, but I don't really see why laptops are brought into the discussion about iMacs as if they affect Apple's other product lines, it's not like Apple have limited resources and makes more MacBooks in place of the iMac. There's a desktop market and a laptop market. All in all, the iMac is due for a refresh, the stock are going low in several places and there's no arguments that says there's any good reasons for Apple to NOT refresh them. 25h to go until the party starts!
This goes back to the leaked parts list. There doesn't appear to be enough part codes for computers left for iMacs if MBA's, MBP's, and "new MacBooks" are all coming out.
Personally I don't buy the 3-lines-of-laptop theory. If they think pros should have Retina and no ODD, then that's what the MBPs will be. They aren't a company to hedge their bets and scattershot the market. (They hedge internally, but when it's go time, they pick one.)
You can virtualize all you want, but the underlying hardware must be Apple branded to not breach the license.
Personally in your situation, in the absence of new iMacs, given that it's for work you might consider the new entry Mac Pro (which seems to not be plagued by rumors saying it won't come out).
How could you possibly be drawing this conclusion? One of the biggest points of separation between devices, especially with larger screes are the ability to reach into the high-resolution realm.
You might want to check out this article, and see that iMacs are almost retina quality already, and this 5120 x 2880 is not the correct resolution for true Retina Display graphics. You can't just double the current resolution. There actually is a formula to determine how many pixels are needed in conjunction with the screen size so that they are not discernible to the naked eye at the correct viewing distance.
It actually wouldn't take much to make most of these models Retina Displays.
Prohibitive cost of big high-res panels and not fast enough GPUs. This are my reasons. For something like Air this could work, as the panels won't be that expensive.
You might want to check out this article, and see that iMacs are almost retina quality already, and this 5120 x 2880 is not the correct resolution for true Retina Display graphics. You can't just double the current resolution. There actually is a formula to determine how many pixels are needed in conjunction with the screen size so that they are not discernible to the naked eye at the correct viewing distance.
It actually wouldn't take much to make most of these models Retina Displays.
There is one essential thing that you are missing here. If you render text or draw images on a 160ppi screen suing the same resolution (say, around 10x10 pixels per character), you will have to stick your nose into the display to actually see anything. You tus have to adjust the size of elements to the PPI, otherwise, the high-res display will be totally uselles. Look how it works with the iPad - basically, they render everything bigger than with the smaller resolution, than it appears the same size. Read Apple's developer pages on resolution independence, they describe it very neatly.
To support this, Apple has something called the scale factor in their API. This is simply a number which controls the look of things liek font and UI elements. Per default, this factor is 1. Say, you have a 100x100 pixels window in your application, then it will be displayed as 100x100 on the default screen. For a high-PPI screen, this windows would be very small. Thus, Apple sets the scale factor to be bigger with such screens. The API will then convert the dimensions automatically, e.g. resulting in 150x150 window on a display with 150% as much PPI.
Now, the trick is than Apple seems to support only x2 scale factors in its developer tools. They have these things called HiDPI modes - which basically emulate 2x2 increase of resolution on the same screen size. Based on this, I find it unlikely that they will implement any other resolutions. If they go this way, 3840 x 2160 is only 1080p quadrupled, which means that 2x scale factor will make it a logical 1080p display. This would be a step back indeed, as it will actually have less useful screen estate than the current 1440p screen. To have the same screen estate, you need the scale factor of 1.5, this would give you logical 1440p mode. Now, I am unsure whether this won't introduce artifacts in some cases (because you'd have 1.5 pixels for each logical pixels) and also Apple has no single HiDPI mode which would let you tests these things out.
Hence, I do not believe that retina is coming to iMac yet.
I think you are going into something that I am not... I am not referring to actual application settings, and developer tools. I am referring to the screen resolution that the iMac will need to be technically a "Retina Display." These are two different aspects. How apple renders these things is beyond me, as in your wonderful explanation. But I don't think the actual display setting would not be a 2x factor.
Of course, you are correct here. But does the 'retina' label means anything if the display itself is barely usable? Support of high-DPI resolutions is not a trivial thing. So I thing one has to consider these things (hardware availability/specs and software implementation) together, otherwise we will get subpar products.
WWDC is just few hours away, we will know for sure then
It still is, unfortunately. Basically the license states that you may only install it on an "Apple labeled" computer. The wording is a bit odd though since you could slap on an Apple sticker onto any computer and claim that it is Apple. If you're a home user and are doing a hackintosh, then it's no big deal since Apple has never done anything legal-wise to stop people from doing it. As a business I would reconsider going down that route though and I am not sure why my previous post got down-voted when I am only stating facts and giving sensible advice.
It is questionable if Apple's EULA is actually legal in that regard. Its not that companies can just demand what they want, the EULA has to be reasonable and not put the consumer at a disadvantage. Imagine a food-manufacture requiring you to eat their food using only cutlery from the same company. This would hardly work. Similar is true for OS X. If you bough it, and you are not hacking/selling/distributing it, you should be free to use it as you seem fit. Of course, they are free to deny you support...
Though, as you point out, there is still no precedent of Apple suing a private customer (probably precisely for that reason) though, so we may not have a official court-based answer anytime soon. They do know how to make life hard for a business though...