No Retina Display in Next-Generation iMac?

[jmbill]

TBH I don't really care what screens Apple plans to use in the next iMac's.

I just hope for the sake of new iMac customers that Apple doesn't make the same mistake as they did with the early 2008 models - i.e. cheap panels with horrible yellow casting and a high failure rate.

 

[bharatgupta]

imac has a great display and the upgraded one will def have more res so i dont mind if it does not have retina display, imac is a great desktop and i m more interested in gpu power and cpu power, other things like ssd and ram i can add myself so yeah imac is for me, its still a great computer

 

[iBug2]

How many macs currently have two TB ports right next to each other whose GPUs can push that many pixels? I don't see Apple designing a Retina Thunderbolt Display only for those machines, nor do I see them runnings cables from all over the place, far too cluttered and inelegant.

All iMacs and Retina MBP's have two TB ports right next to each other and assuming the next iMac will have a GPU as powerful or more powerful than Radeon 5870, it'll be able to push out, easily, the desired resolutions.

 

[KnightWRX]

ever heard of dual link dvi?

Yes, I've heard of it. The guy was talking about 21.2 Gbps, which is the peak bandwidth of DP 1.2. Dual link DVI can't reach those numbers.

 

[gnasher729]

Even the UK has officially adopted the metric system; besides, I don't understand why people still refer to "inches" and "feet" in an international forum, when we should at the very least have both standards indicated for the sake of non-US/Burma/Liberia readers.

That's why the speed limit on a motorway is 112.65408 km/hour and in towns it is 48.28032 km/hour. And beer is served in 0.568 litre glasses.

And I would be quite sure that anyone in Germany, Italy, France, Spain, who is educated enough to follow a discussion on MacRumors in English, is also educated enough to know how long an inch, a foot, a mile and so on are in metres.

 

[KnightWRX]

That's why the speed limit on a motorway is 112.65408 km/hour and in towns it is 48.28032 km/hour. And beer is served in 0.568 litre glasses.

Hum... Beer is served in 600 ml glasses, the speeding limit is 100, 110 or whatever your country decides, or 50 km/h in towns.

You do understand you can use round numbers in the metric system too right ?

 

[ghostlines]

Bring it on

And while they're at it bring get the 13" Macbook a retina screen as well. Anyone stating that it's not needed or overkill on a iMac I call BS. My iPad 3 and Macbook at the same viewing distance and no surprise the iPad 3 looks better (crisper, cleaner)

If you're use to retina u need it. If you skip it it your just settling.

 

[JohnDoe98]

All iMacs and Retina MBP's have two TB ports right next to each other and assuming the next iMac will have a GPU as powerful or more powerful than Radeon 5870, it'll be able to push out, easily, the desired resolutions.

So the answer is one future product might be able to do it. Do you think they will release an TB Retina display for one product?

 

[iBug2]

So the answer is one future product might be able to do it. Do you think they will release an TB Retina display for one product?

They did release a TB display which can be only connected to devices with a TB port didn't they? Still Mac Pro's don't have a TB port. They released updated iMacs and Mini's alongside that display so not only MBP's would be the ones being able to connect to it.

 

[macnerd93]

I really think some people are struggling to grasp the entire concept of a Retina display. Yes the PPI is much greater, but on the new retina pro the default setting and how the display is configured to function is still the same as the other non retina 15.4'' Pro and is the same (size) as 1440x900.

I've tried out the retina pro and although looking extremely impressive and defiantly more colourful when compared to the non retina Pro. I really personally couldn't distinguish either display quality much between the two.

It is however a lot more distinguishable between small (i) devices like the new iPad compared to the iPad 2, the 3GS compared to the 4/S etc. I guess screen size makes all the difference and for the need or not for a retina panel.

I have a 27'' 3D monitor, connected into my MBP when in use I'm sat about a foot and half back from it and I cant distinguish the pixels in it, good enough for me xD.

Most people wouldn't even have the need for a retina iMac, just more strain on the graphics card which for me at least its power could be used elsewhere. I bet if you did a test with on a random individual person and showed them two identical iMac's and said one had a retina display (when it didn't) physiologically they'd automatically think it was so, and a better quality display.

 

[DHagan4755]

It's obvious that there aren't going to be any retina iMacs or retina Thunderbolt displays because the included desktop pictures in Mountain Lion are only 3,200 x 2,000.

 

[iBug2]

I really think some people are struggling to grasp the entire concept of a Retina display. Yes the PPI is much greater, but on the new retina pro the default setting and how the display is configured to function is still the same as the other non retina 15.4'' Pro and is the same (size) as 1440x900.

I've tried out the retina pro and although looking extremely impressive and defiantly more colourful when compared to the non retina Pro. I really personally couldn't distinguish either display quality much between the two.

It is however a lot more distinguishable between small (i) devices like the new iPad compared to the iPad 2, the 3GS compared to the 4/S etc. I guess screen size makes all the difference and for the need or not for a retina panel.

Most people wouldn't even have the need for a retina iMac, just more strain on the graphics card which for me at least its power could be used elsewhere. I bet if you did a test with on a random individual person and showed them two identical iMac's and said one had a retina display (when it didn't) physiologically they'd automatically think it was so, and a better quality display.

I think 99% of the people would identify them immediately unless they have an issue with their vision. Just looking at text, the difference was huge at the Apple store when I checked the new retinas alongside the old ones.

 

[ericinboston]

I've been itching to buy an iMac since February. Lack of Retina would be an annoyance...but I understand there is a (price) difference of putting a 4" Retina on an iPhone and 10" on an iPad with a much larger 21" or 27" display. However, let's get real...Retina has been here for years and is dropping in price every week...whether Apple admits it or not.

What I would really like to see in the new iMacs are:

1)Faster CPUs for all models
2)More default system RAM...such as 8GB (come on Apple, who ships a $1200 desktop with 4GB these days?! Even in 2010!)
3)500GB SSD default drive for all models (a wish, but it will be late 2012 when iMacs are released...let's "think different" right Apple?)
4)USB 3.0

 

[macnerd93]

I think 99% of the people would identify them immediately unless they have an issue with their vision. Just looking at text, the difference was huge at the Apple store when I checked the new retinas alongside the old ones.

I was implying looking between the two just on the desktop with no apps open, its pretty difficult to distinguish. obv on closer inspection the retina comes on more impressive, I can see the value in having a retina display on a mobile phone, because its a much smaller device and benefits from the higher PPI, but on an iMac would anyone benefit?

 

[gnasher729]

Hum... Beer is served in 600 ml glasses, the speeding limit is 100, 110 or whatever your country decides, or 50 km/h in towns.

You do understand you can use round numbers in the metric system too right ?

Fact is that the speed limit in the UK is 70 mph on the motorway, and _not_ whatever you could round it to, and beer is served in pint glasses, and 600 ml of beers wouldn't fit, and whoever says people outside the USA are all using the metric system is talking nonsense.

 

[iBug2]

I was implying looking between the two just on the desktop with no apps open, its pretty difficult to distinguish. obv on closer inspection the retina comes on more impressive, I can see the value in having a retina display on a mobile phone, because its a much smaller device and benefits from the higher PPI, but on an iMac would anyone benefit?

I would love a Retina macbook pro for its sheer power, but the display alone wouldn't make me buy it. That would be its lightness, thinness and overall design. The display would just be an extra feature to have.

Device size doesn't matter imho. If anything, having retina on a larger display is even more impressive since you can look at photos at incredible quality, which you can't do on small devices really. Whenever I read text at my iPad 3, and then look at my 30" ACD, text seems so pixelated and basically terrible compared to the iPad. I'd love to have a retina 30".

 

[Menneisyys2]

I'm sorry, but do we really need a retina iMac now? I hope nobody sits close enough to distinguish individual pixels.

Well, I do, and I do need a Retina iMac.

 

[Mister Bumbo]

It's obvious that there aren't going to be any retina iMacs or retina Thunderbolt displays because the included desktop pictures in Mountain Lion are only 3,200 x 2,000.

Hah! Good one!

 

[macnerd93]

Device size doesn't matter imho. If anything, having retina on a larger display is even more impressive since you can look at photos at incredible quality, which you can't do on small devices really. Whenever I read text at my iPad 3, and then look at my 30" ACD, text seems so pixelated and basically terrible compared to the iPad. I'd love to have a retina 30".

I have a 27'' 3D display hooked up to my pro and used at my desk, I generally tend to sit at least a foot and half back from it and I cant distinguish the pixels either. Its only when I go, maybe several inches closer to it can I then see the individual dots making up the picture, but who really sits that close to a largish display anyway?

I'm a photographer use Aperture 3.0 constantly and love it, but at this current time I don't really have the need for a large computer monitor/panel whats a retina display, although I do get your point seeing every pixel in my photos. At current my Nikon shoots at a resolution of 4,288 × 2,848 the retina pro is 2880 x 1800.

 

[iBug2]

I have a 27'' 3D display hooked up to my pro and used at my desk, I generally tend to sit at least a foot and half back from it and I cant distinguish the pixels either. Its only when I go, maybe several inches closer to it can I then see the individual dots making up the picture, but who really sits that close to a largish display anyway?

I'm a photographer use Aperture 3.0 constantly and love it, but at this current time I don't really have the need for a large computer monitor/panel whats a retina display.

I sit at 27 inches (longer than 1.5 feet) from my 30" and can see the pixels very easily. I think you can see them as well, just prepare a test for it if you don't believe you can.

 

[macnerd93]

I sit at 27 inches (longer than 1.5 feet) from my 30" and can see the pixels very easily. I think you can see them as well, just prepare a test for it if you don't believe you can.

the thing is I get your argument about zooming and enlarging certain aspects giving a greater improvement in quality, but I don't do that. I edit in iMovie, Final Cut Studio 3, Aperture 3.0 and Ps CS6. To me text in Pages, and in my journal system for Uni looks perfectly fine. I have a 4S and I can see the value in a retina display it does look beautiful quality, just saying on a large display I don't think i'd have a need.

 

[iBug2]

the thing is I get your argument about zooming and enlarging certain aspects giving a greater improvement in quality, but I don't do that. I edit in iMovie, Final Cut Studio 3, Aperture 3.0 and Ps CS6. To me text in Pages, and in my journal system for Uni looks perfectly fine. I have a 4S and I can see the value in a retina display it does look beautiful quality, just saying on a large display I don't think i'd have a need.

Zooming? I'm talking about how text looks from 27 inches while looking at a website. I'm not zooming in on anything to discern the individual pixels. I can just see them from where I sit as they are.

 

[macnerd93]

Zooming? I'm talking about how text looks from 27 inches while looking at a website. I'm not zooming in on anything to discern the individual pixels. I can just see them from where I sit as they are.

maybe the extra few inches on the 30'' compared to my 27'' makes them more distinguishable or maybe because you've used a new iPad for a fair amount of time you get use to the quality on that display.

Mine is also LED as well, the 30'' ACD is LCD is it not. Perhaps making it a bit darker too. Mine is rather bright I think I have it set on the vivid colour setting.

My vision is perfect, but and I cant see the individual pixels on my 27'' display when sat at normal using distance. Its only when I get a bit closer can I see the dots and the slight jagged edges around text and what not.

 

[iBug2]

maybe the extra few inches on the 30'' compared to my 27'' makes them more distinguishable or maybe because you've used a new iPad for a fair amount of time you get use to the quality on that display.

My vision is perfect, but and I cant see the individual pixels on my 27'' display when sat at normal using distance. Its only when I get a bit closer can I see the dots and the slight jagged edges around text and what not.

Test it. Prepare a photoshop document which has the same resolution as your screen, then zoom on it and prepare some block of pixels, like one black, then one white next to it then another black etc, using the pencil tool, maybe even use colors. Then zoom out and look at it at 100% and try to see if you can make out the pixels you just put there.

 

[MacAddict1978]

No One Needs This

The Mac Pro is coming in at an entry level price of $2,199... what do you people upset over this think an iMac with 21.5" and 27" displays would cost?

MORE THAN A MAC PRO! And why do you need this exactly???

I think so many people are all into this hype word, "retina display" (Apple invented hype word) and don't grasp the concept. These are also the people who don't grasp why 1080P is useless on televisions below 50" (or that don't grasp that why it appears to look better is the other under the hood power of the 1080P set absent in the 720P, not the resolution.)

Apple could totally put an iMac out there with an HD display of some kind, and that would be welcome. (Especially on the 27" for people who also use it as a second tv screen.)

But what is the benefit to a retina display on a larger screen? You're not being pixel deprived. You're not sitting with your face that close. I can see where people would want it on the Macbook Pro... photo/video pros can make great use of it... but an average joe not so much.

What made the retina display so great with the iPhone 4 was that is made a small screen so much easier to see/read. Text popped better. Eye strain went down. Video looked better. Same with the iPad, another smaller screen in contrast. And the iPad retina display is not the same as the iPhones. It's a pop word.

If Apple did something like this with a larger screen, it would be better for them to just release a standalone monitor. Pros are about the only people who are going to find practical use for this. Everyone else doesn't even understand the differences in display technologies. You're just pop word happy.