Evidence of Upcoming Retina iMacs Showing Up in OS X Yosemite Beta

[EwanMcTeagle]

Me too, it's a very nice size for a computer monitor as far as field of view, plus the extra vertical resolution of 2560x1600 (16:10) over the Thunderbolt Display 2560x1440 (16:9) make it feel roomier.

Now give me a backlit LCD Retina 30" Thunderbolt Display and I'll think about retiring the current 30" ACDs. Also I'm still confused by the current Thunderbolt Display being so much thicker than the iMac. It seems like a no-brainer to build them the same way.

Yeah, I'm also wondering why they didn't update the TBD along the iMacs. I own the current TBD (turns out I've made the right choice, because otherwise I would've been still waiting) and I don't mind the thickness - it's a display after all, but I would appreciate less glare that the new iMacs offer.

 

[TheJustAbout]

Can't wait for this, Apple can literally take my money now!!! So happy with the last iMac I purchased, a Retina version would be absolutely EPIC. Bring it Yahoo

 

[xmichaelp]

Yes 28 inch screen. The retina resolution 3200x1800 60hz is really great after connecting via DP. 30hz via HDMI looked much worse. The monitor in itself I would actually not recommend for other than PC action games. And that of course, not on this rMBP due to performance issues. I am actually regretting getting this screen and hope for a better screen coming down in price. Hopefully from Apple. The pic reveals which Samsung model I use now. It's not even height adjustable and colours only ok. The worst for me, viewing angles. The only plus the 4k res.

To get back on the subject - of course the next iMac will have a higher res screen. But "6400x3600" in retina terms is still less than 4k, and 4k should not cost much more when bought in volume if possible, than the consumer panel in current iMacs.

I really look forward to the coming screens and iMac from Apple! Although the maxed out 2011 iMac I still have at home is still doing really well.

Attaching screenshots from System Information and avail resolutions in Display Menu.

Thanks! And wow, all those resolution options are included in display setting? I thought there was only 5 for 4k screens. I really like the direction we're headed in, scalable sharp UIs are amazing.

 

[insane79]

Good luck pushing this with a mobile GPU

yes wonder which mobile GPU will power the retina iMac, the gpu for sure won't support games in that rez 101%

 

[Moonjumper]

I've been a longtime advocate of matte screens too, and stopped buying iMacs the day they put a shiny piece of untreated glass in front of the display. But have you guys actually compared those displays with the current iMacs? They still have the glass as you know, but it is now treated to reduce glare. Apple advertises a '75 percent reduction in reflectivity', and having compared them in-store, I believe them. It's still a little more reflective than your traditional matte display (like the Cinema Displays I still use), but the iMac displays are noticeably sharper, and obviously more durable, so I for one am happy, and have let up on the demands for those old-style matte displays. In any case, it's not going to happen.

I totally agree. The same thing happened with the retina MacBook Pro. I had one of the earlier models and it was horrible, reflections in any light. I have a retina model and it is fine. I believe a layer of glass has been removed as well as a coating.

 

[oscillatewildly]

By insane79; yes wonder which mobile GPU will power the retina iMac, the gpu for sure won't support games in that rez 101%


1 frame per minute - back to teletext days but the frames will look great.

 

[zedsdead]

I have a fairly recent model, and usually update on redesigns...however, the Retina screen would definitely be a draw to sell and upgrade....although I really would like a 6-Core processor, not sure if Broadwell will have that yet. Maybe Skylake.

On a side note, my 2007 first gen Aluminum iMac is still running strong (my father uses it). That was a really great machine.

My 2009 iMac I also gave to another family member, but that one had more issues and repairs over the years (display and hard drive replacement).

My current one seems great and has no known issues.

 

[0098386]

I mean what is the point of double or quadrupling the pixels only to show content the exact same size as on a lower resolution display?
I mean I just bought a laptop with something like 3200 x 1400 resolution, but then Windows UI is scaled at 200% so all the content is the same relative size as if it was a 1600 x 700 display. This is the same process used by iOS devices that went "Retina", same sized icons, just smoother rounded corners.

It has been maybe 15 years since I last looked at a screen and lamented how aliased some lines looked on it.

Yes I know that there is content like video and photos that will look beautiful @ 5000+ pixels, and I am sure there are apps that can use every pixel you can throw at it, but 99% of the time most users are going to simply be looking at a highly scaled up UI that is identical in physical dimensions to icons and buttons from the previous "low" res generation of screens, they just paid an *ssload more money for that privilege.

Also, I question putting this on an iMac because iMac's are not notorious for offering high-end GPU options and if you hope to play any future game on this screen, at native resolution, then you are going to need like a 4-way SLI GPU configuration option from Apple.com. Unless you can add an external GPU through Thunderbolt which also daisy chains back to the internal iMac display, then I think most people are going to be frustrated trying to make full use of their iMac with an impressive waste of pixel count.

Apple, just focus on making iMac affordable and/or come out with a headless Mac that doesn't cost as much as a used car and let people decide how many pixels they need to waste on a display of their choice.

Smaller dot pitch means a better looking image, better font rendering, better photo viewing and (if you have the power for it) higher resolution games.

I wish I could find the study now, there was research into high DPI generated images and how they look more life-like, even if your eyes don't recognise each individual pixel. High DPI also makes images look slightly "3D".

Personally I'm all for it. I can't wait to see how my photos look on a small 4k display.

----------

By insane79; yes wonder which mobile GPU will power the retina iMac, the gpu for sure won't support games in that rez 101%


1 frame per minute - back to teletext days but the frames will look great.

Maybe it's a hint that the next systems will have capable video cards? Because you're right. There's no point in 4K if the system doesn't run it.

 

[kazmac]

thanks for explaining this

Smaller dot pitch means a better looking image, better font rendering, better photo viewing and (if you have the power for it) higher resolution games.

I wish I could find the study now, there was research into high DPI generated images and how they look more life-like, even if your eyes don't recognise each individual pixel. High DPI also makes images look slightly "3D".

Personally I'm all for it. I can't wait to see how my photos look on a small 4k display.

----------



Maybe it's a hint that the next systems will have capable video cards? Because you're right. There's no point in 4K if the system doesn't run it.

I'm years out of the design loop, so your explanation is appreciated. Thanks for posting.

 

[kalsta]

I totally agree. The same thing happened with the retina MacBook Pro. I had one of the earlier models and it was horrible, reflections in any light. I have a retina model and it is fine. I believe a layer of glass has been removed as well as a coating.

In the words of Apple's own marketing (for iMac):

Instead of applying an antireflective coating to the glass in a conventional way, we adapted a process used on smaller surfaces like camera lenses and fighter pilots’ helmets. It’s called plasma deposition, and it involves coating the glass with layers of silicon dioxide and niobium pentoxide so precise and so thin they’re measured in atoms. The result: an astounding 75 percent reduction in reflectivity — and vibrant, accurate colors.​

Whatever it is, it's pretty effective.

 

[xgman]

This is great news. I'm in the cue. I just wonder how long we will have to wait. I wonder what the average wait has been when code like this first appears to when products are ready.

 

[Casstiel]

The only thing that matters is UI performance. Most games don't support past 1440p with good performance, and gaming in OS X is a complete waste of time. Apple isn't going to market this as a native res gaming platform and no one will even remotely expect them to. To game at 4k you need at least an $8,000 gaming rig, and if you want to game at a solid 60fps at 4k you're talking closer to $10,000 to do it right (60hz V-sync locked). An iMac will never game at this resolution because it's simply not possible in that form factor, and trying to do so while running games in OS X is a fools errand. Gaming on a Mac is a complete waste of time if you're looking to play the types of games that would take advantage of a screen of that resolution. Even playing Dota 2 on my MBP in Mavericks has easily a 40% framerate deficit to running it in Windows through bootcamp. If you're going to want to game at a resolution like this is won't be with a machine like this, you'd be wasting your money.

I wouldn't be surprised if in 7~ years time we will have viable, good-framerate 4K gaming on Retina iMacs. It's inevitable that graphics performance at that level will eventually fall to that viable price point and PPW. Seven years ago I NEVER thought I'd have 3D high-performance retina-resolution graphics on a cell phone.

 

[Dr Charter]

Won't happen. For example, Retina MacBook Pros did not simply take over the existing MacBook Pro pricing. They were marked up hundreds.

There will probably be two lines of desktops, non-retina and retina iMacs just as they did with the original retina and non-retina Ivy Bridge MBPs. Hopefully, the non-retina iMacs will get a price drop and the retina models won't break the bank. I'm hoping for around $1400 for a base 21" retina iMac.

 

[CausticSoda]

I still don't understand why they don't create an ultra thin monitor with a high spec mac mini that hooks to the back rather than wasting a monitor.

The monitor life far outlives the life of its computer parts, I have two iMacs that prove this...

And Apple has profited nicely from it - that's why. I guess also it is a historic love affair with the all-in-one.

 

[DempaX]

Thanks! And wow, all those resolution options are included in display setting? I thought there was only 5 for 4k screens. I really like the direction we're headed in, scalable sharp UIs are amazing.

The list is displayed in the app "Display Menu" which can be downloaded from the app store. The dev said "The resolutions offered by Display Menu are those that we can parse through the official API of the OSX display service library. In theory, the 4k resolutions should be part of this but I do not know if Apple has already implemented 4k support into this library." - so all these resolutions are definitely there already in 10.9.3 as that's what I'm running on the rMBP even though OSX officially still only shows the five options where the fifth is full 4k - NON-retina.

I'm impressed the mobile GPU can drive 3840x2400 plus 6400x3600 pixels at the same time though. But don't count on fast frame rates .

 

[mixel]

.. If cloudy dust stuff can creep into the edges of the screen like it *still* can in many laminated screen iMacs I'm scared of this update.. How would you get into the screen to fix it?

I'm on my second iMac to have the dust-inside-the-LCD-Panel problem, but I'd absolutely LOVE to have a 4K iMac and ditch my second display.. 4k iMac sounds like a dream if it's not got issues.

I'd definitely pay for Applecare, that's for sure. @_@

 

[arthurc]

Nice to see people are abiding by their NDAs. NOT.

 

[knewsom]

Can't wait for a 4k+ cinema display. Hopefully it won't cost a bajillion dollars... I'm still using my 2010 27" iMac as the display for my new workstation. It does ok, but after a couple hours of use the fan is roaring nonstop on that thing.

 

[aaronvan]

17" screen?

 

[thermodynamic]

If these models won't get piping hot when doing rendering on them, I will be interested.

The 2009 models got so hot, even under basic use, that the monitor had developed burn-in marks from components sitting behind it. The 2010-2013 models may be similar with the poor design, but I've never owned any models from those years.

----------

17" screen?

If it's economical.

(signature line) Italy had warfare, murder and bloodshed but produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. Switzerland had 500 years of peace and democracy and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.

And there are more cuckoo clocks in existence compared to Mona Lisa reproductions... oh dear, did somebody in Switzerland forget to patent something?

The Italian men of that era all dead and their creations losing out to entropy that's endemic to nature. And some people would hasten that process for a thrill if they could (e.g. vandalism...)

And which one do people prefer more? The clock. Still, if you want warfare, try it sometime. With your bare hands. Will you still champion war, which is the biggest conceptual cuckoo ever created? No other species makes time to creatively or consciously kill off one another....

 

[hinkalink]

I wonder how they are going to fit SLI Nvdia Titan's in the iMac to run a 4k display?

 

[nilk]

I mean what is the point of double or quadrupling the pixels only to show content the exact same size as on a lower resolution display?
I mean I just bought a laptop with something like 3200 x 1400 resolution, but then Windows UI is scaled at 200% so all the content is the same relative size as if it was a 1600 x 700 display. This is the same process used by iOS devices that went "Retina", same sized icons, just smoother rounded corners.

On a laptop, one advantage of a high-res display is that you can choose arbitrary resolution modes without it looking pixelated (at least in OS X), which brings back an advantage we lost when we went from CRT to LCD. On my 15" rMBP, which has a 2880x1800 display, I use 1920x1200 mode most of the time when I'm working, but I occasionally switch to the best-for-retina mode (1440x900 equivalent) when I am laying in bed and the display is further away from my face. And the 1920x1200 mode looks better and has more detail than an actual 1920x1200 because of the way scaling in OS X works (renders 3840x2400, then downscales it to 2880x1800), all the fonts, widgets, images, video have more detail than they would on an 1920x1200.

This advantage is less so on the desktop, as you'd probably settle on a single resolution mode since your face will be at the same distance. But in any case you answered your own question - video and photos. The main reason I still have a desktop is to do video editing and manage my photos. I also appreciate sharper fonts because for my work (software development), I spend all day looking at text, and being able to use smaller fonts that are still very readable is great. Though admittedly, I'm fine with a 2560x1600 monitor on the desktop for text, and it's photos where I see the need for higher resolution (and eventually I'll want to do 4K video).

Personally, I don't think we're going to see a Retina iMac this year, as I don't think they can hit a price point in the ballpark of the current high-end iMac. But if they can, and it's cheaper than a Mac Pro, that would be a very compelling option for a lot of people, myself including. Maybe it won't make much sense to your average consumer, but high-end Macs shouldn't target that demographic.

Edit: Though I actually hate the idea of the iMac because I like to upgrade my computer and monitor separately. It would have to hit a really compelling price point for me to consider an iMac. But the discussion still applies to a 4K/5K/6K standalone monitor.

 

[Ballis]

This is just awesome.
I guess ill hold on to my 2007 model a few more months.

 

[Roller]

If these models won't get piping hot when doing rendering on them, I will be interested.

The 2009 models got so hot, even under basic use, that the monitor had developed burn-in marks from components sitting behind it. The 2010-2013 models may be similar with the poor design, but I've never owned any models from those years.

My late 2012 iMac (high end 27") stays cool and very quiet no matter what I use it for. I also had a 2009 which did run quite hot, so it looks like Apple solved the thermal issues in the redesign, at least for now.

 

[PBG4 Dude]

nvm