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

[rhett7660]

[/COLOR]

True that, but how do I go about patenting operating system names? I have a few that I think may be valuable in the coming years...

Half Dome (Or Yosemite, El Capitan, etc.)
Boardwalk (Santa ((Monica or Cruz)))
Redwood
Sequoia
Marijuana (Shout-out to Humbolt)
Napa
Blue Lake (for Tahoe)

And I'll throw in Fresno for good will to the central valley.

Ha, that made me laugh. That will happen when it becomes legal in California!!!!!

 

[Astronomix]

Thanks for this. Closest my 3GS is ever going to get ios7!

Looks good though.

I recreated 2 out of 3 that I like. The third one was the space and stars wallpaper. It was too difficult trying to get rid of the icons and other stuff that the initial screen grab had. Will have to spend some more time adjust but here are two wallpapers to hold you down for awhile

 

[cmanderson]

True, but just because the UI elements are scaled doesn't mean there are fewer pixels to drive. Any assets that can be rendered at native resolution will be: text, icons, high resolution graphics or video, etc.



Yeah, sorry, I may not have done the best job quoting there. The point I was trying to make is that even with Thunderbolt 2 / DisplayPort 1.2 you still can't drive a 5120x2880 panel at more than 18 bpp using a single cable. 2x Thunderbolt / DP 1.1 links isn't enough either.

I probably should have replied to tillsbury's post, which you quoted. The math there is definitely off. Even if the proposed scenario wasn't coming from 3 different DP 1.1a sources, the total number of pixels would still be 2880 * 1800 + 2 * (2560 * 1600) = 13,376,000 pixels, whereas 5120 * 2880 = 14,745,600 pixels. The scaling for the Retina display is performed by the OS before output.



Per controller, but not per cable / port. They just bonded the two 10 Gbit/s channels in a standard Thunderbolt cable to reach 20 Gbit/s and be able to transport a full DP 1.2 HBR2 main link.

OK, so three "4K capable" Thunderbolt Display's may require two cables each.

Six Thunderbolt 2 connectors on the back of the new Mac Pro...hmm...

 

[Steve J0bs]

I do not see the point in a 4K iMac. Anybody who would need this kind of resolution for working, would surely use a Mac Pro with a 4K display. Even then I am not convinced, that you would get any benefit on a 27" screen, 2 feet away.

As for anything else, I am still waiting for a decent 4K home cinema projector to come out, however there is no real content available that makes it viable. Even Panasonic and JVC's [x55, x75 & x95] top end home projectors either do not currently have that resolution, or have a software enhancements such as E-Shift tech to upscale.

Bottom line is, if I cannot get 4K to display on a 10 foot home projector screen, do I really need it on a Mac, 2 feet away from my face?

have you actually seen a 4K display in person? You can pretty much put your face up to the screen and not see any pixels. My jaw dropped when i first saw when and i didn't move from that spot for a solid 20 minutes.

 

[cclloyd]

Apple is in full speed ahead mode.

I like it.

They're going to put down the rumors that they are dying once and for all.

 

[canman4PM]

I feel you. I still use my late 2009 iMac as my only computer and I highly doubt it will run Mavericks so maybe I'll get a sexy new 27" Retina iMac if the price isn't ridiculous.

My late 2008 runs Mountain Lion, so you will probably be fine with one more OS upgrade. I'm probably done, though. At least for OS upgrades. I'll be a few more years before I replace my iMac, though as I'm sure the various program's I use will work on ML for another 2-4 years. That computer cost me around $3K and so will its replacement, so I'm gonna try and get every year out of it I can.

 

[chaseychasem]

That's what this whole discussion is about. Apple has created background art that measures 5120x2880, which is presumably the resolution of the next generation iMacs and Apple Thunderbolt Displays. How do you drive an ATD at that resolution with a single cable? If you're paying attention, that is not twice the pixels of the current 2560x1440 panels, but 4x.



Nope. 1 Gbit = 1,000,000,000 bits. There are no base 2 antics involved here. 20 Gbit = 20,000,000,000 bits.

And when you're calculating the bandwidth requirements of a display, you need to account for various types of overhead. More "pixels" are required than are actually displayed. For VESA CVT (Coordinated Video Timings), there are blanking intervals, front porch, sync, and back porch in both the horizontal and vertical dimensions. 5120x2880 at 60 Hz with reduced blanking ends up being 5280x2962. So 5280 * 2962 * 24 * 60 = 22,520,678,400 bit/s, which is pretty darn close to 22.52 Gbit/s. Thunderbolt 2 provides exactly 20 Gbit/s per link to the upper layers, and DisplayPort 1.2 with HBR2 offers 17.28 Gbit/s over a 4-lane main link.

If the next ATD were T2-only, no current MBP or MBA could drive it, correct?

 

[canman4PM]

I do not see the point in a 4K iMac. Anybody who would need this kind of resolution for working, would surely use a Mac Pro with a 4K display. Even then I am not convinced, that you would get any benefit on a 27" screen, 2 feet away.

As for anything else, I am still waiting for a decent 4K home cinema projector to come out, however there is no real content available that makes it viable. Even Panasonic and JVC's [x55, x75 & x95] top end home projectors either do not currently have that resolution, or have a software enhancements such as E-Shift tech to upscale.

Bottom line is, if I cannot get 4K to display on a 10 foot home projector screen, do I really need it on a Mac, 2 feet away from my face?

Sony VPL-VW1000ES. It's been around for over a year.

 

[Zorchie]

Compatible with Retina MacBook Pro ?

Do you guys think that a 15" RMBP will be able to power a 27" Retina Thunderbolt Display ?
Hopefully Thunderbolt 2.0 is not a requirement.

 

[AppleMark]

Sony VPL-VW1000ES. It's been around for over a year.

This is true, but £17000 for a projector using 1st generation 4K tech when there is nothing to watch, is not something I would spend that type of money on personally. Much of the 4K equipment released prior to now [and arguable even now] will probably be obsolete when you need it the most, as the hardware is evolving ahead of the content.

This reminds me of all the people who went out and bought HD 720 sets [and watched SD freeview and DVD], then bought 1080 to watch HD freeview and SKY HD, which was streamed in 720, along with App store SD content until recently.

 

[mm201]

Do you guys think that a 15" RMBP will be able to power a 27" Retina Thunderbolt Display ?
Hopefully Thunderbolt 2.0 is not a requirement.

It's entirely a matter of how they handle the signaling. TB1 has two 10gbit lanes. TB2 has one 20gbit lane. If they chose to drive the screen as two virtual screens each occupying a strip of half the full screen width, it could be driven by two DP1.1 signals. This is what the IBM T221 does over dual link DVI.

What I have to wonder is if they can put Thunderbolt into a full-duplex 20gbit mode by combining two lanes, can't they put it into a 40gbit half-duplex mode? Seeing as video is one way. This would allow for crazy resolutions like 5120x3200 or 4K at 120hz or 30-bit 4K.

 

[chaseychasem]

It's entirely a matter of how they handle the signaling. TB1 has two 10gbit lanes. TB2 has one 20gbit lane. If they chose to drive the screen as two virtual screens each occupying a strip of half the full screen width, it could be driven by two DP1.1 signals. This is what the IBM T221 does over dual link DVI.

What I have to wonder is if they can put Thunderbolt into a full-duplex 20gbit mode by combining two lanes, can't they put it into a 40gbit half-duplex mode? Seeing as video is one way. This would allow for crazy resolutions like 5120x3200 or 4K at 120hz or 30-bit 4K.

All that's well and good, but I'd be pleased as punch if they would simply release a less glossy ATD that has the courtesy to wake up when my MBP does.

 

[canman4PM]

This is true, but £17000 for a projector using 1st generation 4K tech when there is nothing to watch, is not something I would spend that type of money on personally. Much of the 4K equipment released prior to now [and arguable even now] will probably be obsolete when you need it the most, as the hardware is evolving ahead of the content.

This reminds me of all the people who went out and bought HD 720 sets [and watched SD freeview and DVD], then bought 1080 to watch HD freeview and SKY HD, which was streamed in 720, along with App store SD content until recently.

Yes, but if you always delay buing something, waiting for the next feature, you'll always be waiting. And some new features now may not be necessary/useful for a couple of years. If the next iMac is 4K, great! I'm about due, in the next year or two, to replace my 6 year old iMac. Since I keep 'em that long, I'm happy with it comming with "ahead of the curve" tech, so that the computer is still relevant a few years down the road. Besides, I have a DSLR and will take every pixel I can get my greedy little muckers on for looking at/playing with them. I'm not a "Pro" user, but i still want better than some junkie PC, and want more power for the money (and hence longevity) than an MBPr can provide. Want proof: mine is the oldest Mac that would accept the ML update. And there are rumours that she may yet accept Mavericks.

 

[terriyaki]

Now if only they would make the iPhone bigger..

 

[rocknblogger]

So I tried downloading the wallpaper and I get a broken link error. Would someone like to share the wallpaper here please?

EDIT: NVM I found it