Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!
New Mac Pro = New Displays?
- Thread starter sparkie7
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
matte/flat screen would be awesome!
Its highly unlikely but I am hoping of a new matte display.
Its highly unlikely but I am hoping of a new matte display.
New thunderbolt displays are likely. At worst they'll match the current iMac design but at least will include USB 3.0 Ports and hopefully still a FireWire port.
I think apple will keep the current 27" Thunderbolt Display, but also make a 30" or 32" 4K display. Who knows if it will be matte or glossy (hoping for matte) but hopefully it will be 16:10 and not 16:9.
4K poses a really tough decision for Apple.
Retina, or not?
If Retina, it will reflect a 1920 x 1200 (1080?) resolution, which works fine if your display is 20 - 24" in size. If they make a 27" or 30" 4K display as a 'retina' display, it would make most UI elements WAY too big. Imagine a 30" 1920 x 1200 display. Yuk.
Retina, or not?
If Retina, it will reflect a 1920 x 1200 (1080?) resolution, which works fine if your display is 20 - 24" in size. If they make a 27" or 30" 4K display as a 'retina' display, it would make most UI elements WAY too big. Imagine a 30" 1920 x 1200 display. Yuk.
Yeah, 4K... what the hell??
For me 24" to 27" is the sweet spot. A 30 or 32" display is just too big. It'll take an hour just to find your mouse cursor.
And 4K on a 30" or smaller monitor means nothing will be readable without wearing some sort of assisted technology headset.
![il_570xN.376484344_jsmu.jpg]()
Or upscaling the GUIs of every OS X application on the planet prior to release. And there are a massive buttload of applications and utilities which can not be scaled by the OS.
4K? It's gotta be for home theaters and 4K specific content creators ONLY, no?
For me 24" to 27" is the sweet spot. A 30 or 32" display is just too big. It'll take an hour just to find your mouse cursor.
And 4K on a 30" or smaller monitor means nothing will be readable without wearing some sort of assisted technology headset.
Or upscaling the GUIs of every OS X application on the planet prior to release. And there are a massive buttload of applications and utilities which can not be scaled by the OS.
4K? It's gotta be for home theaters and 4K specific content creators ONLY, no?
Yeah, 4K... what the hell??
For me 24" to 27" is the sweet spot. A 30 or 32" display is just too big. It'll take an hour just to find your mouse cursor.
And 4K on a 30" or smaller monitor means nothing will be readable without wearing some sort of assisted technology headset.
I've mentioned before that it would be possible to do with scaling. Both 24 and 27" 16:10 and 16:9 displays fall within what could be done with doubling. 24" has has used 1920x1200 and 1920x1080. 27" has also used 1920x1080. Going for double on one of those could work. 30"+ died out in favor of a 27" middle ground. For a while we had 21" 1600x1200 displays at a medium price range, then most 30" types were priced into the stratosphere. The current 27" panels actually evolved from the prior 25.5" (often called 26") ones that showed up around 2008-2009ish. Those were 16:10 types. They just retained a static height dimension and widened them to 16:9 27" types. I guess the point is that 30" displays have been tested in the past, and LG discontinued panels in that size.
For me 24" is great. 27" could work too. I use a wacom tablet. The large is the biggest one that is comfortable to use on a flat surface. The oversized versions suck for that due to the angles you have to extend your arm, and large sizes tend to make for crazy mapping. Cintiqs are larger, but they can be angled more like a drafting table. If you instead use a mouse or trackpad, large screens require mouse acceleration which is annoying in itself. I prefer consistent mapping speeds. Either way some people end up with multiple displays. My second display just holds visual references, notes, and email. I like that method of organization.
That headset is awesome. I want one, but I do lots of weird things. I've used fake beards for a laugh before.
With dual 6GB Radeon/Fire Pro cards, there's technically enough grunt there to power a 5,120 x 2,880 pixel display or two.
- '4K' (3,840 x 2,160) = 8,294,400 pixels pushed
- 'Retina 27" (5,120 x 2,880) = 14,745,600 pixels pushed
3 x 4K screens = 24,883,200 pixels
2 x 27" Retinas = 29,491,200 pixels.
I know the max output on the new Mac Pro is 3 x 4K monitors. I wonder if it could pump out dual Retina 27" displays? Not THAT many more pixels than 3 x 4K.
Of course, I'll be happy with one 4K, or one Retina 27".
- '4K' (3,840 x 2,160) = 8,294,400 pixels pushed
- 'Retina 27" (5,120 x 2,880) = 14,745,600 pixels pushed
3 x 4K screens = 24,883,200 pixels
2 x 27" Retinas = 29,491,200 pixels.
I know the max output on the new Mac Pro is 3 x 4K monitors. I wonder if it could pump out dual Retina 27" displays? Not THAT many more pixels than 3 x 4K.
Of course, I'll be happy with one 4K, or one Retina 27".
Doubling? Wouldn't that make text and buttons look like crap?
----------
Thru technical understanding and by the way Apple said what they said I think it's like: If you use 4K displays you're limited to three. Implying of course that it support 6 2K displays or 6 1080 displays, etc.
If Apple makes a retina Thunderbolt display at 4K resolution or so, are the rest of the Macs going to be able to power it? I don't see Apple making a product only one of their Macs can handle, a very niche Mac at that.
Or maybe it so happens that they all can power one of these theoretical new displays, but it just so happens the New Mac Pro can power a few more at once than the others, and in which case I have no idea what I'm talking about.
Or maybe it so happens that they all can power one of these theoretical new displays, but it just so happens the New Mac Pro can power a few more at once than the others, and in which case I have no idea what I'm talking about.
My best combination is a single 27" Cinema flanked by two 24" Cinema displays with my Mac Pro on my circular sit/stand desk. Three 27's won't fit on a desk - too big. And too much real estate really. The 24-27-24 is pretty ideal visually and space wise. Unfortunately they don't sell the 24's anymore.
The next best is 27-27, which I have next to it (an identical desk) in TB monitors.
The next best is 27-27, which I have next to it (an identical desk) in TB monitors.
I meant what they do currently to keep things from being tiny on the 13 and 15" rmbps. admittedly I haven't spent much time wiht them. When I did, they looked fine to me. Viewing angles were better than the old ones. They didn't have the really cold whites either.
Ah, OK, I see. Yeah I dunno much about retina displays. They're supposed to be of some resolution relative of the human retina or something. I guess my son's iPhone5 has it. The few times I looked I didn't notice any difference but I'm sure there must be.
My Android Galaxy Note II phablet is supposed to have some super-special screen too but I don't notice much difference with that either. But I'm pretty ancient too and my eyes are starting to go, so...This is Apple's Thunderbolt strategy.
Everyone is bitching about legacy ports and the need for adapters.
Your adapters and legacy ports are included on the display.
Am I the only one who loves his 27" mac cinema display? Sure it could use some upgrading, the usb 3.0, maybe retina to sharpen it up. But I think the size is perfect, colors and brightness good, and I like the resolution it runs at. But this is a guy who is doing CAD and personal use, no crazy 3d or video stuff
Still running my old cinema displays, a 23" and 20" aluminum, but will switch my main monitor to a pro model for photo retouching .
Any issues to expect, if I got a new MP, and want to use a current HDMI or Displayport Monitor along with one or two of my old ACDs ?
Any issues to expect, if I got a new MP, and want to use a current HDMI or Displayport Monitor along with one or two of my old ACDs ?
Ah, OK, I see. Yeah I dunno much about retina displays. They're supposed to be of some resolution relative of the human retina or something. I guess my son's iPhone5 has it. The few times I looked I didn't notice any difference but I'm sure there must be.
Yeah silly overly generic Apple math that is overly parroted by the Apple faithful. I wasn't referring to that so much. I was referring to the way they're scaled. They have twice the pixels in each dimension when compared to the standard resolution models (not the "high res"), and things on screen are displayed at the same size. It helps a little with text and things.
No, I will suggest something quite different.
During the Mac Pro reveal, Phil showed a photo with three displays hooked up to the Mac Pro. None of them were Apple displays. I just went back and watched that segment of the reveal. Phil said, "Of course you want to hook up the latest third-party displays, and this supports 4K displays." When has Apple ever even recognized that there are displays other than Apple's? And especially at a big media event?
I think the writing is on the wall -- there will be no more Cinema Displays. It will go the way of the LaserWriter. I'm sure Tim wants to trim down the Pro line to the barest minimum, and I would bet most people who buy a Mac Pro use third-party displays with it anyway, aside from companies like ad agencies that lease Mac products en masse.
During the Mac Pro reveal, Phil showed a photo with three displays hooked up to the Mac Pro. None of them were Apple displays. I just went back and watched that segment of the reveal. Phil said, "Of course you want to hook up the latest third-party displays, and this supports 4K displays." When has Apple ever even recognized that there are displays other than Apple's? And especially at a big media event?
I think the writing is on the wall -- there will be no more Cinema Displays. It will go the way of the LaserWriter. I'm sure Tim wants to trim down the Pro line to the barest minimum, and I would bet most people who buy a Mac Pro use third-party displays with it anyway, aside from companies like ad agencies that lease Mac products en masse.
If it wasn't for the huge market for ACDs to compliment Apple notebooks, I might agree. I'm of the opinion that there will be TB ACD displays as long as there are Apple notebooks with TB ports on them. Now, if you said Apple was not building displays for the Pro market... that... I'd agree with. The length of the interconnect cables on the current ACDs should be enough to convince anyone of that.