Since it's been basically confirmed MBPs with retina displays will be revealed at WWDC, does this have any indication with the iMacs? Does Apple historically align their notebook specs with their desktop specs?
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.
Confirmed retina display in MBP, mean anything for iMacs?
- Thread starter brayhite
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Won't comment on retina iMacs, I DOUBT it, but hopefully this SHOULD mean that iMacs (like many people have been continuously suggesting) will NOT refresh at WWDC. Since I very much doubt they'd release it afterwards given stocks, rumours building etc, we're hopefully going to see a refresh in the next couple of weeks, certainly before WWDC.
Does this mean that mbp with retina display would have a higher resolution than non-retina 27" imacs?
If Apple go with their usual doubling the vertical and horizontal pixel counts, then yes.
Don't let that fool you in to thinking the MBP will have the superior screen. You'll have to squint really hard if you want to fit as much on to a 15" display as you can fit on a 27" display.
Just because apple can squeeze retina into the MBP price points doesn't mean they can make it fit the iMac. Basically I would rather a bigger hard drive and SSD than retina on an iMac. Of course if they could do both then great but not for the current release in my opinion.
I hope they do NOT increase the resolution on the iMac, at least until they get much more powerful graphics hardware, and the ability to easily scale the font size.
On the 27", the text borders on being too small, and it sucks up a lot of GPU horsepower to run any game at full resolution.
On the 27", the text borders on being too small, and it sucks up a lot of GPU horsepower to run any game at full resolution.
A retina 27" iMac would be incredible. Extremely unlikely, but incredible. I would pay a ton more for it. Just can't see it coming until "4K" displays become the norm, if they ever do.
I mean, realistically speaking, 4K displays make a lot more sense for computers than they do for TV's which you sit ten feet away from anyway.
I mean, realistically speaking, 4K displays make a lot more sense for computers than they do for TV's which you sit ten feet away from anyway.
A retina display in a 27inch is just ridiculous to even consider at this point. It would cost SO much to manufacture and drive up the price considerably.
well, sharp is producing them, but they are not 4k
i think higher resolution imac is pretty sound prediction with rumors about a redesign and anti-glare glass, dont you think? if macbook pros can get them...
It WILL come. 2013, 2014 tops.
Fortunately for me, at this size Retina isn't a compelling feature, and at normal viewing distances, the screens are close to Retina already.
What would the resolution need to be increased to on the 27" iMac to make it a "Retina" display? I know it isn't double the current resolution.
Depends on how close your face is to the screen
At 36" viewing distance, 90 dpi is retina. At 18", 180 dpi is retina. The current 27" model has 109 dpi (2560x1440). At 3840x2400, you get to 168 dpi. 4096x3072 gets you to 190 dpi.
Apple also hasn't confirmed a new iPhone would come out this year. Doubting that as well?
When's the last time Bloomberg published rumors as fact? Not saying they're never been wrong, but typically when they publish it, it's about 99.99% accurate. Not a rumor.
Serious question, do the pixels really bother you on a 27in iMac?
It's not like a phone that you hold 7in from your face, ya' know?
It's not like a phone that you hold 7in from your face, ya' know?
Confirmed is a strong word, especially when predicted at an event that doesn't typically showcase hardware. I guess we will see soon.
I'd pay a crazy amount for it, if it is out there. I use my Macs zoomed in because I'm old and blind, which blurs things (even I can notice this), so a retina display would be a magical gift from above.
Actually, up until now at least, the higher the resolution the smaller the font. In other words, if no smooth zoom appears, you be as bad off as before with a retina display because you would still need to "zoom in" (reduce number of pixels per inch to see the text)
Yes. There is absolutely no proof anything will be released or when. Speculation is not confirmation.
Thats not even remotely close to accurate.
Make of that what you will, but its quite funny to see, once again, rumours emanating from source A, then being cited by B and then A using Bs citation of their original rumour as validation.
There are three main points here that everyone is regurgitating:
- USB 3
- NVIDIA GPU
- Retina Display
USB 3 confirmed via plist reportedly in the ML code. Without seeing the snippet personally, its impossible to confirm, but this is a fairly logical one. I think we can be fairly confident of this happening.
NVIDIA GPU again, just like the above its difficult to confirm that the code being cited exists without seeing it personally. Considering the work NVIDIA has been doing in terms of drivers for OSX that you can download and use with a Mac Pro (https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1360927/), then this could well be a reality since they wouldnt be writing drivers for xxxxs and giggles.
Retina Display The high resolution icons in ML do suggest that this will happen sometime in the future. However, dont forget that high resolution icons were already found last year when Lion was released to devs. I think this is the least likely to happen out of the 3 main points, but may be a possibility.
I like how you fail to quote the other part of my statement. The key part of this is if they present the information as fact, it's 99.99% likely a fact with substantial evidence or very reliable sources. Otherwise, they'll present it as a rumor with words like "may" or "possibly".
From this article, dated Jan. 13, 2012:
"Apple Inc. (AAPL)s next iPad, expected to go on sale in March, will sport a high-definition screen (true), run a faster processor (true) and work with next-generation wireless networks (LTE, true), according to three people familiar with the product."
All info presented as a fact. Compared to this article, released earlier that same day:
"The new iPhone may (MAY, not will) use Qualcomm Inc.s quad mode chip with the capability to run on all 3G and long-term evolution networks, Huberty said. With a thinner body and the Qualcomm chip, the next iPhone may (MAY, not will) represent more of a change than the 4S model introduced last year as users look to upgrade."
Here's another, just to further show Bloomberg's track record. From an article dated June 29, 2010:
"Verizon Wireless, the largest U.S. mobile-phone company, will start selling Apple Inc.s iPhone next year, ending AT&T Inc.s exclusive hold on the smartphone in the U.S., two people familiar with the plans said."
WILL start selling. Not "may". And in January 2011, Verizon presented the iPhone.
Point is, if the MBPs don't have retina displays, it will be a rare time Bloomberg was wrong about their info and sources. I can't find any instances where they were, so feel free to cite some examples. Regardless, they worded it as "The MacBook Pro machines ... will feature high- definition screens like those on the iPhone and iPad, ... said the people, who asked not to be identified because the plans havent been made public." and historically, we have all reason to have nearly as much faith in Bloomberg's article about the MBPs as in Tim Cook saying it himself. For all we know, it's a planned leak that Apple is rumored to have done in the past, so it MAY HAVE come from Tim.
Not did.