Have you been an Apple user for a long time? Mac users are used to paying $4000 for the original 22" Apple Cinema Display when it first came out.
Since about 1979 or so.
Have you been an Apple user for a long time? Mac users are used to paying $4000 for the original 22" Apple Cinema Display when it first came out.
You're gonna need a lot of GPU for that!
Thank god you are not working on Apple's R&D. Everything where you display resolution is below eye's capabilities, is so 00's.I personally think the current 27" iMac screen resolution is good enough for 95% of folks at 2560 x 1440.
No you don't. Intel Integrated are enough for desktop and video use, driving the bits to the screen. It's just memory and bandwidth.You need a very high end video card to push the pixels for 4k screens.
But they are filming in a 8k now so
Seems like 8K will be here before too long.
Well 8k is already out in testing. Japan and the UK have been playing with it for a while and were looking to jump 4k altogether.
Word is out that Apple has created a new non-reflective glass without a matt finish. We'll see.
That's pretty nice, but damn, that price! Not going to be any cheaper with the Apple tax either.
I don't want an ultra-high res 27" monitor. I want an ultra-high res 32" monitor, so I can actually take advantage of the added screen real estate to, you know, display MORE stuff at once on a single screen.
What Apple tax? Look at an iMac for an example. Don't forget that Dell sells 12 monitors like these per decade, while Apple can move 1 million of them in 1 quarter after release (iMac + Thunderbolt display 2).
They will bring price down.
Since about 1979 or so.
8K will not be standard in a year or two, period. You can quote me on that.
I doubt the adoption of 4K will be that great two years from now.
touché good sir. I'll take that!
$2500 isn't a lot of money for those who have cash to burn and love the highest tech. If I knew the Mac Pros could power one of these fluidly, I'd buy one.
You're so right! And having 2880x1800 pixels on a 15" laptop is stupid, right? You need a bigger laptop to display more stuff at once, oh, wait? Retina displays are awesome.
There's more than one reason for increasing pixel count. Screen real estate is just one. Clarity is the one that's important in this instance.
Dell, make a 30" 5120 x 3200 and I'll buy it in a heartbeat.
Once Apple introduces it, it'll get cheaper. I don't know why, but Apple always pioneers screen resolution. It's finally time for the buzzword "1080p" to meet its doom.
Walk away from these Dells and don't look back: I had high hopes, but the product quality is just not good.
I have their 24" 4k "retina" display (the only sane size for 4k high-DPI in my view), and the panel at least is TERRIFIC. I hope Apple uses it for a display of their own (they often use the same panels Dell does). I'd love a comparable 5k panel too! A little glow on pure black or dark video, but gorgeous the rest of the time.
But my Dell UP2414Q (styled exactly like this 5k) often fails to turn on when connected to a Mac, and that seems to be a common complaint that warranty swaps don't fix. And the whole thing is chintzy, squeaky plastic. You plug in a USB device and the whole thing flexes. You try to use the menu buttons and some need a harder touch than others. The sensor that lights up the buttons for use goes nuts and starts pulsing a light in your face when you're nowhere near the buttons. The "real aluminum" that reviewers seem to love is actually a BIT of aluminum coupled with a lot of not-quite-matching silver-painted plastic. It's just way below Apple ruggedness and design.
And it generates a ton of heat, has no speakers, no webcam, no mic, no hub beyond USB, and no glass to protect your investment and easily clean.
I wish Apple made a 4k or retina Thunderbolt 2 Display with this same LCD panel. But they don't
I've always recommended Dell displays to others, and their laptops to low-end buyers with a dire budget. I can't recommend either anymore. Just not well-made products.
The UP2414Q has a nice long warranty, though, is priced well under $1000, and when it DOES power on, the picture is spectacular! And has several nice scaling modes--just like a retina MacBook pro made bigger. (Windows-based reviews don't like it because Windows doesn't support high-DPI nicely--and I can say that's very true since I use Boot Camp. Mac OS does it well, though.)
We're talking about a desktop display here, not a laptop. Try to keep up.
Screen real estate is the only compelling reason for increasing the resolution beyond 1280*1024 at 27" for the vast majority of users, outside of the 1 in a thousand who are doing some kind of 4K video or design work. Moving to 32" - with a proportional resolution bump - would give users a display around 800 square centimeters larger than a 27" display - that's not far from the size of an entire old 19" 4x3 display. For folks running dual displays, it would come close to adding a third 27" display to your setup. Many users would find that extremely valuable.