I really want an iMac, but is it the right time?

[accountforit]

So just off the stand it stays up by itself? Never tried, but that would unfortunately put it several inches too low to be comfortable.

Might be worth trying though, the display itself looks great. Really wish it was a VESA mount.

Yes. The manual even shows this as an option. It was designed that way.

They make another model with the same panel that has a VESA mount. Looks the same from the front. Check their website.

There is a guy here who has the 27" version I believe that has it mounted without the stand. Scroll down the page from the following link. Looks nice.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1496069/

 

[PatriotInvasion]

The 21.5 and 27 have almost identical PPI (102 vs 109). I am not sure why the 27 would be any more "crisp" than the 21.5. Your mind is lying to your eyes. Apple loves it but your wallet hates it.

The "crisp" comment was in relation to my original post which mentioned a fear that I am so spoiled by the Retina MBP that the iMac would feel like a downgrade. I'm plenty aware of the PPI of both models.

And not sure why you are so concerned with my bank account. I've been quite clear my choices are stick with rMBP or buy an iMac. Never asked to be pointed in the right direction of "the best deal." It's like trying to tell someone shopping for a Mercedes or a BMW that they should check out the Chevy Cruz because it's pretty nice for a lot less. Um, no thanks. Good day to you sir.

 

[accountforit]

90% of what I own are Apple products. Hence, the reason why I frequent this forum. You are acting like I am hating on Apple.

You are the type of customer Apple loves. The type that will buy anything they throw their logo on with absolutely no rational thinking behind it. That is the reason you have a Retina Macbook and now realize that isn't what you want/need. Next, it's going to be an iMac which you will regret as soon as the display gets updated. Many have pointed out that you can have the best of both worlds by just adding a display to the rMBP for now, but you seem to ignore it.

You asked "what would you do" in the original post", and then when rational people respond you act like you didn't ask just because you didn't get the answer you wanted.

As I stated previously, you had your mind made up before the thread was started so this thread is moot. Stop wasting people's time and buy the iMac.

----------

It's like trying to tell someone shopping for a Mercedes or a BMW that they should check out the Chevy Cruz because it's pretty nice for a lot less. Um, no thanks. Good day to you sir.

Horrible analogy. The actual useful purpose of many displays are the same. Same quality of picture with many being better in many respects. Therefore, the experience is the same if not better. That is, except for when your buddy comes over and you point and say "look at that Apple logo on my display". Driving a luxury car is a totally different experience over driving something mediocre.

Now if you were talking Windows vs. OSX you might have a point. However, we are talking about monitor quality and the fact that you are blinded by the light (or Apple logo).

 

[minimalism]

The "crisp" comment was in relation to my original post which mentioned a fear that I am so spoiled by the Retina MBP that the iMac would feel like a downgrade. I'm plenty aware of the PPI of both models.

And not sure why you are so concerned with my bank account. I've been quite clear my choices are stick with rMBP or buy an iMac. Never asked to be pointed in the right direction of "the best deal." It's like trying to tell someone shopping for a Mercedes or a BMW that they should check out the Chevy Cruz because it's pretty nice for a lot less. Um, no thanks. Good day to you sir.

First of all, I had a similar dilemma before about buying a new iMac or just wait for the new one to arrive. While there's never really an ideal time to buy, I'd say that if you can still hold on to your new device without sacrificing productivity, then do so until the retina iMac comes out. However, if your work/productivity is already suffering, then might as well pull the trigger and buy the late 2013 iMac because you'll never be 100% sure when the retina or 4k iMac will arrive. I've owned 2010 21.5 iMac and now the 2013 27" one, both are pretty good machine. Don't get me wrong, I love retina display (iPad 3 owner) but from the viewing distance, it is hardly noticeable for the iMac really.

 

[eXan]

Regarding transition from retina to iMac, yes you will adjust. Humans always get used to things. To better and worse.

You seem to be pretty set on buying the iMac. However, if that is your decision, the options are either buy current gen, or wait until autumn for a (possible) introduction of 4k.

The necessity of such move seems questionable, but is ultimately up to you to justify. Yet, something tells me you will not be satisfied with iMac regardless.

Thus, my advice echoes others in this thread - buy a good display. You don't sound like you need extra torque the iMac provides anyway.

 

[keigo]

if the current iMac spec fit what you wanted. Just go for it...

The next refresh for iMac should be around Sept timeframe.

I had also just purchase my iMac this month and have no regret as my old MacBook Pro is suffering under my heavy usage.

 

[PatriotInvasion]

Many have pointed out that you can have the best of both worlds by just adding a display to the rMBP for now, but you seem to ignore it.

First, I stated that my iPad Air was sufficient for my portability needs. Adding a display to the rMBP that would sit on my desk 95% of the time is not really an option I want nor mentioned in my OP. I respected the suggestions and acknowledged them. For some reason, you're chapped that I don't want a cheap AOC monitor because it's just as good in your opinion yet you're giving advice to people on how to address the fact that it's stand is wobbly out of the box. You get what you pay for on those.



----------



Horrible analogy. The actual useful purpose of many displays are the same. Same quality of picture with many being better in many respects.

Perfectly good analogy albeit slightly exaggerated by design. A BMW 3 series and a Chevy Cruz are both cars. Both go similar speeds and can get you to work and back just the same. But there's a certain level of polish, fit, and finish that you don't get with going on-the-cheap that some are willing to pay for. Others would rather deal with wobbly stands to save the dough. To each his own.

PS - Amazon review of the AOC says the display stood crooked when set up so the guy had to put a piece of folded paper under the stand to get the display level. Sweet. Sounds awesome.

 

[accountforit]

PS - Amazon review of the AOC says the display stood crooked when set up so the guy had to put a piece of folded paper under the stand to get the display level. Sweet. Sounds awesome.

Wow. You are awesome. You go to Amazon and pick out one customer review thinking you proved a point. I guess all the reviews on this very forum for the retina MacBook Pro didn't sway you though did they. All the yellow tint, lack of uniformity in the display, variations in flash drives, creases in the upper corners of the display, etc threads didn't sway you? What about all the yellow tint and crappy screen threads about the iMac? They haven't swayed you either? Boy, that Apple logo sure is powerfully hypnotizing.

By the way, I never told you to buy the AOC monitor. I was conversing with someone who owns one. The funny thing is, if that monitor had an Apple logo on the front, you would pay 1k for it. But because it doesn't, you won't pay $150 for it. For a display that has been reviewed to have great picture quality and a very nice design. Many people on this forum own that exact monitor.

Go buy the iMac and come back here in six months and ask total strangers if you should upgrade again because you are unhappy. Apple loves you.

Just an added thought. You just admitted that the rMBP sits on your desk 95% of the time. Thanks for proving my point from earlier. You didn't need that either but for some reason bought one. Ah, the hypnotizing power of the Apple!

 

[Intelligent]

Where? Is there some special Apple store that has products that haven't been released to market yet?

Only Apple doesn't make retina screens, other companies do too, however, there is apple thunderbolt display 27inch with 2560x1440.

 

[PatriotInvasion]

Just an added thought. You just admitted that the rMBP sits on your desk 95% of the time. Thanks for proving my point from earlier. You didn't need that either but for some reason bought one. Ah, the hypnotizing power of the Apple!

Boy you just have it all figured out don't you? If you actual read my post you'd see that I clearly said I added an iPad Air to the mix over a year after I bought the rMBP. So at the time the rMBP was purchased, it's portability was put to use. Since the iPad, very seldom. Try paying attention amidst all of your rushes to judgement.

For all others, I appreciate your input. Still debating what to do, so we'll see.

 

[IA64]

Only Apple doesn't make retina screens, however, there is apple thunderbolt display 27inch with 2560x1440.

Pardon me if I have hard time understanding what you wrote but maybe because you are " Intelligent " and I'm not...

So you're telling me that the term " Retina " is indicative of screen quality ?

Seriously what's wrong with people on this forum ? you do realize that Sony and other mobile manufacturers went beyond the iPhone scientific breakthrough 330ppi Retina BS to 441ppi yet they never said anything about it ?


Do you know that the iphone Retina screen has a pixel density of 327PPi but the MacBook Pro 13 Retina screen has only 226 and the 15" got 220 ?

Do you even know that the 27" iMac screen is around 110 PPi and that a 4K Ultrasharp 27" monitor has only 157PPi ?

Trust me if you were to have a Retina 27" monitor, you'd be sticking your nose to the screen to read what I'm writing.

Retina was a marketing hype by Apple targeting handheld/laptop customers. With desktops, your sitting distance is fixed and at 50 cm, a 1440p screen is perfect for anything. Unless you want to hug the screen while reading or use some binoculars...

4K display maybe but I doubt it's going to happen for the 27" series, maybe 30+ but please stop using the term Retina on every freaking thread, it's really irritating.

 

[Intelligent]

Pardon me if I have hard time understanding what you wrote but maybe because you are " Intelligent " and I'm not...

So you're telling me that the term " Retina " is indicative of screen quality ?

Seriously what's wrong with people on this forum ? you do realize that Sony and other mobile manufacturers went beyond the iPhone scientific breakthrough 330ppi Retina BS to 441ppi yet they never said anything about it ?


Do you know that the iphone Retina screen has a pixel density of 327PPi but the MacBook Pro 13 Retina screen has only 226 and the 15" got 220 ?

Do you even know that the 27" iMac screen is around 110 PPi and that a 4K Ultrasharp 27" monitor has only 157PPi ?

Trust me if you were to have a Retina 27" monitor, you'd be sticking your nose to the screen to read what I'm writing.

Retina was a marketing hype by Apple targeting handheld/laptop customers. With desktops, your sitting distance is fixed and at 50 cm, a 1440p screen is perfect for anything. Unless you want to hug the screen while reading or use some binoculars...

4K display maybe but I doubt it's going to happen for the 27" series, maybe 30+ but please stop using the term Retina on every freaking thread, it's really irritating.

Chill out, i like retina, i never said retina wasn't about ppi, he wanted retina and i just said that theres a screen with higher quality than the iMac, AND i also didn't say sony etc. doesn't make retina screens?

 

[fig]

Yes. The manual even shows this as an option. It was designed that way.

They make another model with the same panel that has a VESA mount. Looks the same from the front. Check their website.

There is a guy here who has the 27" version I believe that has it mounted without the stand. Scroll down the page from the following link. Looks nice.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1496069/

Sweet, thanks! I will definitely check that out.

And people on here sure get defensive quickly. I'd seriously consider something like a 24" Thunderbolt Display but Apple doesn't make one, hence the need to find other options. For several hundred dollars cheaper I'm certainly willing to look at other options that are of a good go very good quality level.

Screen quality far outweighs needing to adjust a stand slightly.

 

[IA64]

Chill out, i like retina, i never said retina wasn't about ppi, he wanted retina and i just said that theres a screen with higher quality than the iMac, AND i also didn't say sony etc. doesn't make retina screens?

First, thanks for editing your post. Again, there is nothing called Retina display in today technology except for Apple.

Retina Display (marketed by Apple with a stylized lowercase 'd' as Retina display) is a brand name used by Apple for liquid crystal displays that have a pixel density high enough that the human eye is unable to discern individual pixels at a typical viewing distance. The term is used for several Apple products, including the iPhone, iPod Touch, iPad, MacBook Pro, iPad Mini, and iPad Air ( Wikipedia )

Even with a vision of 12/10, if you can see the pixels on a 27" @ 1440p from 30 inches, i'll give you my money.

The funny story is that the 27" 2560x1440 display was introduced before this hype. Maybe they should have called the iMac screen Retina as well...

Again it doesn't make any sense on fixed displays as you're sitting far enough.

 

[PatriotInvasion]

First, thanks for editing your post. Again, there is nothing called Retina display in today technology except for Apple.

Retina Display (marketed by Apple with a stylized lowercase 'd' as Retina display) is a brand name used by Apple for liquid crystal displays that have a pixel density high enough that the human eye is unable to discern individual pixels at a typical viewing distance. The term is used for several Apple products, including the iPhone, iPod Touch, iPad, MacBook Pro, iPad Mini, and iPad Air ( Wikipedia )

Even with a vision of 12/10, if you can see the pixels on a 27" @ 1440p from 30 inches, i'll give you my money.

The funny story is that the 27" 2560x1440 display was introduced before this hype. Maybe they should have called the iMac screen Retina as well...

Again it doesn't make any sense on fixed displays as you're sitting far enough.

I understand the marketing aspect of "Retina" the way Apple originally used it. I think over time, people have used it to describe screens where you can't make out individual pixels from a normal viewing distance as you and Apple described it, but people have also used the term to describe Apple's strategy of pixel-doubling an existing resolution to provide crisper text and images while maintaining existing screen real estate - something that people would like to see on an iMac with the understanding that it's possible for the 21.5" (this would result in 4K given it's resolution now) and unlikely anytime soon for the 27" (5K, yea right) unless it displays 4K pixel for pixel or sacrifices real estate in exchange for pixel doubled 1080p.

Whatever you call it, a 4K iMac display would be a good thing regardless if you think it wouldn't matter all that much. As nice as the existing models are, you can still see pixels even at a normal viewing distance so improving the density would be a welcomed addition for many of us who have been spoiled by Retina iPhones, iPads, and MacBooks for years now.

 

[IA64]

Regardless of what you call it, a 4K iMac display would be a good thing regardless if you think it would matter all that much. As nice as the existing models are, you can still see pixels even at a normal viewing distance so improving the density would be a welcomed addition for many of us who have been spoiled by Retina iPhones, iPads, and MacBooks for years now.

Are you sure mate ? I mean come on...you can see the pixels from 80 centimeters /30 inches ?

That's the recommended viewing distance anyway.

Hold on... how about mythbusting.... Okay.... let's do it....

Part 1

Human visual system limitation


The human visual system has a fixed capacity to detect detail from a distance related to the viewing distance. Recommended viewing distance is calculated using the below formula :

VD: Viewing distance
DS: Display's diagonal size
NHR: Display's native horizontal resolution (in pixels)
NVR: Display's native vertical resolution (in pixels)
CVR: Vertical resolution of the video being displayed (in pixels)


Implies :

VD = 27 / rst [( 2560/1440 )^2 +1 ] x 1440 x tan ( 1/60 ) = 31.6 INCHES

What does it mean ??? See below.

SO AT TYPICAL VIEWING DISTANCE, THE IMAC SCREEN IS INDEED RETINA. PLEASE STOP KIDDING YOURSELF.

 

[PatriotInvasion]

Are you sure mate ? I mean come on...you can see the pixels from 80 centimeters /30 inches ?

That's the recommended viewing distance anyway.

Hold on... how about mythbusting.... Okay.... let's do it....

Part 1

Human visual system limitation


The human visual system has a fixed capacity to detect detail from a distance related to the viewing distance. Recommended viewing distance is calculated using the below formula :

Image

VD: Viewing distance
DS: Display's diagonal size
NHR: Display's native horizontal resolution (in pixels)
NVR: Display's native vertical resolution (in pixels)
CVR: Vertical resolution of the video being displayed (in pixels)


Implies :

VD = 27 / rst [( 2560/1440 )^2 +1 ] x 1440 x tan ( 1/60 ) = 31.6 INCHES

What does it mean ??? See below.

Image


SO AT TYPICAL VIEWING DISTANCE, THE IMAC SCREEN IS INDEED RETINA. PLEASE STOP KIDDING YOURSELF.

All of that is based on a fixed viewing distance but where I sat when I previously owned a 27" iMac I could see pixels. I could see the grey fuzzy haze around text when zooming in. I could see the graininess of the edges of images when zooming in. And zooming in is a part of OS X. Double tap to zoom. The Retina MacBook Pro's have none of that fuzz and none of that haze. 4K would help make that better. Not sure why that is an argument, but I think we may be arguing two different things.

 

[IA64]

Oh my goodness... Okay whatever mate.... iPhone was said to be Retina from 10-12 inches. Of course you'll see the pixels from 5 inches...

I'm just giving you facts but you don't wanna listen. You are free to wish whatever you like, Santa is listening.

iMac 27" has Retina Display whether you like it or not.

 

[PatriotInvasion]

Oh my goodness... Okay whatever mate.... iPhone was said to be Retina from 10-12 inches. Of course you'll see the pixels from 5 inches...

I'm just giving you facts but you don't wanna listen. You are free to wish whatever you like, Santa is listening.

iMac 27" has Retina Display whether you like it or not.

If I hold my iPhone 5s to my eyeball I can't see ANY individual pixels MATE. It's too dense. If I put my eyeball up to an iMac, I can count the pixels one by one. Your equations factor in a fixed distance from the screen to label something Retina or not, and that's fine, but my argument from the beginning is that more native pixels on a display is better than less pixels on a display. No one would argue that.

If you sit at an iMac at exactly the distance from the screen you outline and never move and never zoom in on anything like text or images and basically just sit there like a statue, than yes, your point is made. A 27" iMac can be considered "Retina" the way Apple defines Retina. There you go. But not all of us use our Macs like a statue to fit your mathematical equation so a higher pixel density on the iMac would be a nice addition.

 

[Intelligent]

First, thanks for editing your post. Again, there is nothing called Retina display in today technology except for Apple.

Retina Display (marketed by Apple with a stylized lowercase 'd' as Retina display) is a brand name used by Apple for liquid crystal displays that have a pixel density high enough that the human eye is unable to discern individual pixels at a typical viewing distance. The term is used for several Apple products, including the iPhone, iPod Touch, iPad, MacBook Pro, iPad Mini, and iPad Air ( Wikipedia )

Even with a vision of 12/10, if you can see the pixels on a 27" @ 1440p from 30 inches, i'll give you my money.

The funny story is that the 27" 2560x1440 display was introduced before this hype. Maybe they should have called the iMac screen Retina as well...

Again it doesn't make any sense on fixed displays as you're sitting far enough.

I edited my post to what i actually meant . Because i said that there is other retina 27 inch screens and he said "is there an apple store for unreleased products?" And when i said there is other retina 27 inch screens i meant non-apple.

 

[accountforit]

If I hold my iPhone 5s to my eyeball I can't see ANY individual pixels MATE. It's too dense. If I put my eyeball up to an iMac, I can count the pixels one by one. Your equations factor in a fixed distance from the screen to label something Retina or not, and that's fine, but my argument from the beginning is that more native pixels on a display is better than less pixels on a display. No one would argue that.

If you sit at an iMac at exactly the distance from the screen you outline and never move and never zoom in on anything like text or images and basically just sit there like a statue, than yes, your point is made. A 27" iMac can be considered "Retina" the way Apple defines Retina. There you go. But not all of us use our Macs like a statue to fit your mathematical equation so a higher pixel density on the iMac would be a nice addition.

^^^this guy is a joke.

"I want retina; should I really buy an iMac now"

FYI - There are other displays out there with a higher pixel density than what Apple offers right now.

"I need to stare at an Apple logo. That is most important to me"


He made this thread to argue. Everyone should just quit responding. He is insatiable.

 

[IA64]

^^^this guy is a joke.




He made this thread to argue. Everyone should just quit responding. He is insatiable.

That's what I did

 

[PatriotInvasion]

^^^this guy is a joke.

"I want retina; should I really buy an iMac now"

FYI - There are other displays out there with a higher pixel density than what Apple offers right now.

"I need to stare at an Apple logo. That is most important to me"


He made this thread to argue. Everyone should just quit responding. He is insatiable.

Listen clown. You are the one that decided to start an argument because I said I am only interested in Apple products on an Apple forum in which I asked for advice about which Apple product I should buy. As soon as I shot down your suggestion of some cheapo depot $149 monitor on Amazon you got all butt-hurt and started shouting that I am an Apple fan boy as if I find it to be an insult, which I don't.

All of your posts continued to ignore the spirit of my original post and morphed additional responses to fit your argument and crusade against those who don't consider AOC (never heard of that brand) and ASUS bargain basement monitors to be an acceptable alternative to an all-in-one iMac. All while you give another guy advice on how to fix his cheap monitor's wobbly stand (hilarious).

My original post was designed to get more insight from others in the market for an iMac who are aware of the growing transition to 4K resolution among desktop displays and who care about pixel density enough to have an opinion on whether now is a good time to buy - given all the factors I outlined. You took it to a place that it didn't need it to go.

 

[accountforit]

Actually....and I'll repeat myself once again seeing as you have a hard time comprehending.....I never suggested one product to you. I was conversing with someone else about what they owned and what another was looking to buy.

What I suggested to you was actually helpful. If you weren't on such a high horse, then maybe you would take some constructive criticism.

Apple currently does NOT offer a product that will fully suit your needs. You have a hard on for "retina", but only if it has an Apple logo on the front. Therefore, you are not going to be happy either way which is why I stated you are insatiable. Once again, currently Apple can not satisfy your wants.

You started this thread asking for advice but crap on the rational folks that respond. If Apple offered a retina 24" display (or even a normal PPI display in a current model) I would be all over it, but unfortunately they don't. Therefore, I chose to look elsewhere for my monitor needs. You, on the other hand, are pigeon holing yourself into another product you don't need nor really want just because it has an Apple logo. That's fine....really. However, you will never be happy.

----------

My original post was designed to get more insight from others in the market for an iMac who are aware of the growing transition to 4K resolution among desktop displays and who care about pixel density enough to have an opinion on whether now is a good time to buy - given all the factors I outlined. You took it to a place that it didn't need it to go.

There is no "growing transition" for 4k desktop displays. There are a bunch of people who are continually trying to predict new tech. That's it. You are waiting for something that isn't going to come for some time.


Now nitpick my response and ignore all the good advice and only respond with the stuff you think you can argue about. You've done it numerous times so why stop now?

 

[fig]

All while you give another guy advice on how to fix his cheap monitor's wobbly stand (hilarious).

Just an FYI, but my "cheap monitor" rates off the charts by pretty much every major computer magazine and has an IPS display for about 100 bucks less than comparably equipped models from Dell and other brands. It pays to shop around.

I do think the stand is less than ideal, hence the discussion between myself and another poster, but the display quality is stellar. I was able to set up a dual display workstation using a loaded Mini for under $1400 which is tough to beat.