Done, it is rather smallish the pixel, but it is visible. Keeping in mind as I said above my 27'' is LED and rather bright (have it on the vivid setting) the 30'' is LCD and quite a bit duller, that may make it look more pixelated?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
No Retina Display in Next-Generation iMac?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Done, it is rather smallish the pixel, but it is visible. Keeping in mind as I said above my 27'' is LED and rather bright (have it on the vivid setting) the 30'' is LCD and quite a bit duller, that may make it look more pixelated?
I am not talking about that, I was referring to measures used in charts and so on, such as viewing distance and the like.
I do understand that a few things such as flight distances and screen sizes are often referred to in miles/inches due to US influence...everything else is metric, and should continue as such.
I don't think the difference of backlighting should make that kind of difference. But you already said that they are visible when you do the test, so you can see them anyway.
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.
I am more than well educated and yet couldn't care less about miles and inches, as much as you don't seem to care about meters, centimeters or Celsius temperatures (not that we can't use a unit converter, of course). We buy 1.5 liter water bottles and 1 liter milk cartons, drink 10 cl alcoholic shots and drive at up to 120kph. And we do NOT boil water at 212 F or burn the road at 60mph, as a few of you do may do.
Just try to stick to what the majority of the world uses instead of trying to impose US exceptionalism on others...in case this is not possible, show BOTH unit standards, for people's sake...just like Apple does on its Mac specs page.
Perhaps you should read this:
http://ukma.org.uk/why-metric
UK is the ONLY Commonwealth member still using in part the imperial system (most aspects have already been metrified even in the UK); other than the UK, you have the mighty company of the US, Liberia and Burma.
And also this:
http://chartsbin.com/view/d12
"Only three countries - Burma, Liberia, and the United States - have yet to adopt the International System of Units as their official system of measurement (weights and measures). Although use of the metric system has been sanctioned by law in the US since 1866, it has been slow in displacing the American adaptation of the British Imperial System known as the US Customary System. The US is the only industrialized nation that does not mainly use the metric system in its commercial and standards activities. At the same time, the US Armed Forces and medical and scientific communities do use metric measurements exclusively (including for nutritional information of consumer goods and drugs), and there is increasing acceptance many other sectors of industry."
The right Mini rev might get me to buy a Mac this year. Quad core is a must as you note. I'm hoping for more than a trivial update though.
The screen on my early 2008 iMac 24" looks just as good today as it did 4 years ago when I bought it. I sure don't remember any discussions back then about panel problems and I've never had any. Was the problem particular to the 21.5" panel?
This doesn't even make sense. It's not like you hook up ad internal monitor with a thunderbolt cable.
What about the 27" Thunderbolt display? What about using the iMAC as a second display for your Retina MBP? You won't be able to operate at 60 Hz at those resolutions via TB or Mini DP. They don't have enough bandwidth. Apple is not going to go that high today. It would make for a terrible experience.
I know it's hard for you to understand, but i'll try to explain... dual DVI was an example that over a single cable you can actually double the amount of data using 2 different streams.
Thunderbolt is "capped" at 10gbps only because you have to reach some margin of safety using it on a cable, because there are an immense amount of variables that can influence its efficiency. An hypothetical onboard channel could reach MUCH greater speeds.
There are plenty of reasons to believe retina won't be in the next iMac refresh, but the "cant deliver 14MP worth of pixels to the monitor" is the dumbest...
Just read above. Not talking about carrying all that pixels over a cable. That's actually a good reason to believe that we won't see any 27" Thunderbolt display soon.
Thats what you think in your country though, frankly I prefer the old system because thats what I'm use to. If you had been brought up around that system you'd feel the same way.
I've learnt to read.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12570323
Maybe the new screens will be accompanied by the promised optical version of Thunderbolt that can exceed the requirements by far.
You mean like you do in your signature where you reference your 27" iMac? Oh, perhaps you meant your 27" (68,58 cm) iMac?
Can't believe how inflated expectations are for these iMacs. Retina on an iMac would be pretty tough right now because of components and gpu strain but people act like apple are holding back features.
They had lots of old MBPro models left over. That didn't stop them from releasing the MBPro with a new speed bump in the 13" and 15". Best Buy for instance is selling those at $400 off (Sandy Bridge)
Tim Cook is not going to just delay something because of inventory.
There is a reason that the iMac was not released with the rest of the bunch and it's not because of inventory.
----------
You obviously have no clue what you are talking about.
...Intel’s Vice President and General Manager of the PC Client Group Kirk Skaugen revealed (14:30 mark) that Intel’s upcoming Ivy Bridge Processor is built for Retina display computers,“ if OEMs choose to use it.”
If the Ivy Bridge built on chip can handle it, then a Nivida 650+ GT or GTX (not sure what they would put in the iMac) sure could handle it easily.
For a 27" retina, I'd be willing to pay a $1k premium over the stock high-end model. I know several photographers and pre-press friends that would spend an extra $2500. If it doesn't happen in 2012, I won't be terribly disappointed. Please understand that retina is a revolutionary feature for those people who work in professional image/layout/colorization trades.
F
F
I don't presume to know Apple's plans for the iMac...BUT it's been a YEAR and a HALF since they've been updated, and if Apple waits until the fall, that'd make it TWO YEARS!
I'd say if they are waiting THAT long, then SOMETHING is going on. And a retina iMac could be the reason. Otherwise Apple could just update the iMacs now with ivy bridge. They still may do just that along with the Cougar OS next month.
If they wait, maybe they will do what hey did with the MacBook pros, release two iMacs, one version being a regular update, and the other being a more expensive retina iMac.
Or maybe they'll update the iMacs with ivy bridge next month and save the more expensive retina iMacs for the fall?
Who knows.
If a retina iMac is gonna cost $3,500.... Perhaps it will be dubbed an iMac Pro.
Personally, I love the look of the current 27" iMac screen which is already better than HD. I am just waiting for ivy bridge and ssd drives as standard. Heh heh heh.
However, if Apple can add retina for a reasonable price, i wouldn't complain.
I'd say if they are waiting THAT long, then SOMETHING is going on. And a retina iMac could be the reason. Otherwise Apple could just update the iMacs now with ivy bridge. They still may do just that along with the Cougar OS next month.
If they wait, maybe they will do what hey did with the MacBook pros, release two iMacs, one version being a regular update, and the other being a more expensive retina iMac.
Or maybe they'll update the iMacs with ivy bridge next month and save the more expensive retina iMacs for the fall?
Who knows.
If a retina iMac is gonna cost $3,500.... Perhaps it will be dubbed an iMac Pro.
Personally, I love the look of the current 27" iMac screen which is already better than HD. I am just waiting for ivy bridge and ssd drives as standard. Heh heh heh.
However, if Apple can add retina for a reasonable price, i wouldn't complain.
The iMacs already have one of the most beautiful screens available. Lack of retina would not kill any potential future sale for me.
On the other hand, if the Retina MBP can drive its own display plus three external monitors, it is very much capable of driving a single 5120x2880 display, although I'm sure you'd want to move up to the GT660M or GT670M or ATI/AMD equivalent.
On the other hand, if the Retina MBP can drive its own display plus three external monitors, it is very much capable of driving a single 5120x2880 display, although I'm sure you'd want to move up to the GT660M or GT670M or ATI/AMD equivalent.
I understand completely! The new iPad with Retina ruined me
Retina screen is a must have, it will influence all future Apple buying decisions. I can wait until it happens, across the board
----------
"want" is half of "need", so nice that you can assess everyone's want/need, and determine they are ******* ridiculous!
Last edited:
why not 3840x2160 ?
Why does everyone assume that it must be double the current 27" resolution?
At what viewing distance would 3840x2160 be "retina" on a 27"?
That's double the res of the 21.5" Imac, of course.
Would the 21.5" be "retina" if it's bumped to 2560x1440?
Why does everyone assume that it must be double the current 27" resolution?
At what viewing distance would 3840x2160 be "retina" on a 27"?
That's double the res of the 21.5" Imac, of course.
Would the 21.5" be "retina" if it's bumped to 2560x1440?
Last edited:
I think that people should post in whatever they use in their country of residence. 27 inches to centimeters is only a Google search away, and that aside, I'm sure you've seen the machine and know how big it is anyway.
Correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm not looking it up, but it seems like MacRumors is an American-owned forum, given that it's in English, and isn't spelled MacRumours, so it's safe to assume that many Americans frequent its pages. Become aware of and accept the other systems of measurement out there. All things aside, I would like the US to accept the metric system as well, but if I tell someone that something is 58 kilometers away, or 32 C, they're more than likely to look at me funny.
When they first introduced the aluminum iMac, they were using cheap TN panels in the 20" iMac (a downgrade from IPS panels used in the white 20" counterpart). Your 2008 24" iMac has the higher quality H-IPS panel. Fortunately, they've wised up and are using better panels in both the 21.5" and 27" iMacs.
Because this is how Apple's resolution independence works in the end. The Apple HiDPI graphics modes are 2x2 scaled 'normal resolution' modes, with UIs and all other elements also scaled accordingly. This way, you get perfect quality of scaled images and much richer details, while still retaining same size of UI. A 3840x2160 would be a HiDPI equivalent of 1080p meaning that 1080p HiDPI mode would fit less content on screen than the current 1440p iMac.