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
I wouldn't be surprised to see the new 680M in the iMac. That GPU might be the reason for the launch delay.
Nobody cares.
----------
False garbage nonsense gibberish.
The difference between Macs that don't run Mountain Lion, and PCs that won't run 8, is so laughable I can't believe you even dared to throw that in there.
There is no off the shelf PC more than 3 years old that will run Windows 8 with any degree of quality. The ONLY Macs that can't run Mountain Lion are Core Duo processors more than 6 years old, and all of two core2duo machines with integrated graphics.
And my comment on 8 is generous....you'd be a fool to install 8 on anything but a brand new machine with the latest core 2 duo or quad core processor and at least 4 GB of RAM, if not 8 GB.
----------
LMAO. Says someone who has never even seen one in person, let alone used one.
My 2006 iMac is still working fine and I run Lion. I did add a gig of RAM so it has 3 total. I run two external drives for backup. Was having lock up issues a month ago and thought it was going to die. I got a utility that runs the fans and keeps the unit well under 100 degrees instead of 120+ and it hasn't had a problem since. Just makes it harder now to convince the wife to get a new one. My work HP has 8gigs of RAM and is all solid state and it has good performance. Won't buy a new iMac until I can get that much RAM and a 256G SSD. Retina is optional for me.
Sounds like I won't be able to run ML on my current one, so will need something new eventually.
Sounds like I won't be able to run ML on my current one, so will need something new eventually.
I've only used an iMac - haven't bothered to open one up - but is there enough space savings to even bother with removing the optical drive? Especially when you consider potentially adding a juicier GPU that will issue as much or more heat than its AMD predecessor.
Side note to anyone hoping for Retina on an iMac: You're delusional.
I will add that for Apple, they probably want 5120x2880 so it can run in 2560x1440 HiDPI mode, so the above may not be as true as we'd like.
Exactly. I don't think it needs to be Retina resolution, but the manufacturing and assembly process they used on the Retina MBP to eliminate the front glass panel made a marked improvement in glare on that screen. Once you compare the glare of the old MBP and iMac to the new Retina MBP in store, it's hard to imagine living with the glare of the older screens.
I think AidenShaw has the right idea. The resolution scaling in the retina MBP shows that higher and lower resolutions look great, with only a slight performance penalty. I'm betting the retina iMacs will have 3840x2160 in the 27" and 3200x1800 in the 21.5". This has been hashed out elsewhere. See here and links within:
http://appcubby.com/blog/os-x-at-2x/
The reason we haven't seen it except rMBPs is because Apple can't charge too much of a price premium on their non-pro lines for retina. When cost of the display comes down over the next year or so, retina will begin to infiltrate rest of Mac line.
word. and as soon as the retina iMac is released people will buy, even those saying now they don't see the need.
it will come, but who is surprised there are some technical issues to solve?
they did it at 3.5" first. Then 9" then 15". for a technical reason. 27 will come in time.
I have read your link, but if I understood it correctly he suggests that Apple will use HiDPI 1920x1200. Again, this would be a step back - because the usable workspace will be significantly reduced. The great thing about the 1440p of the iMac is that you could have an editor window, a database window and some additional data on the same screen quite comfortably. I don't want to go back to 1080p or the like. Furthermore, the current 27" iMac has less pixels per inch than the non-retina MBP, meaning that the text and UI is already bigger compared to the MBP screen - using HiDPI 1920x1200 will make it look even bigger.
Now, another possibility is to use the 3840x2160 panel to display HiDPI 2560x 1440, downscaling the 5120x2880 down to 3840x2160. This won't look horrible due to how small the pixels are, but it also won't look perfect.
IMHO, until 5120x2880 is economically available, the native 2560x 1440 will be preferable.
What price premium ? The Retina is cheaper than the non-retina.
----------
Only in "Best for Retina" mode. What's to say you won't have a scaling factor that provides 2560x1440 like the MBPR has for 1920x1200 ?
Yes, a 3840x2160 iMac 27" might make sense considering this (they did use the "low-res 1440x900" for the MBPR 15" after all).
With monitor sizes, first many people in the UK or the USA wouldn't know what exactly "27 inch" means. Many would guess that it is the width, or the height, and only after some thinking would they figure out that it is the diagonal. (Which has the side effect that a 27" 16x10 monitor has more area than a 27" 16x9 monitor but much less than a 27" 4x3 monitor). But still, most people would have some idea that 27" is quite big for a monitor but small for a TV, and if I told them that another monitor is 24" or 30", they would have some reasonable idea about the usefulness or value.
On the other hand, if you go to Germany, and tell people that you have a 27" monitor, they may have no immediate idea how long 27" is (although anyone with half an education knows that 1" = 2.54 cm), but they would all know that 27" is quite big for a monitor but small for a TV. Just as Americans or Brits would.
Sorry, I was actually replying to another poster, not you. Your reply though is just full of ignorant piffle it isn't worth dignifying with a response.
You clearly don't have a clue about Windows so I would suggest you keep your opinions to yourself lest you embarrass yourself.
BTW : My 7 year old single core Athlon 3500+ machine runs the preview build of Windows 8 perfectly fine.
Last edited:
Space saving is irrelevant. Apple wants to hasten its demise, just as they did with floppy drives.
I don't think it's a fair comparison. The rMBP doesn't use RAM modules (RAM is soldered), and the flash modules may very well cost Apple as much as the base hard drive in the non-retina model. It's about Apple's cost, not what they charge. They likely need that extra margin from the flash and RAM cost savings to add retina and not have a $3k notebook.
How does a retina display make anyone more creative or more productive - it's not like the screens are rubbish at the moment?
Because the vendor, Apple does in the country where the modal readers of MacRumors reside.
Posters from other countries are more than welcome to post in metric and cause most of the actual readers to either convert in their head or be confused. US residents are free to do the obverse.
Deal with it. Folks use certain conventions to describe certain things based largely on tradition and inertia of the folks who "popularize" it.
Most computer hardware is made in metric countries, yet the engineers and marketers reside in English countries.
Wait till your Chinese overlords do the engineering and manufacturing and have all messaging in mandarin Chinese language as well as metric measurements. That'll throw a wrench (spanner) in the works.
Rocketman
bipolar-multi-lingual metric/english/SI
4k, etc are measured on the horizontal, not the vertical as 720 etc are
If they pixel doubled the upper res of the current 27 inch iMac, you would have a 5k screen
It's not like they need a retina display in order to bring forth much needed changes to the design (if not a complete redesign, which we're due for at this next rev). Frankly, if they took design cues from the retina MacBook Pro while MAINTAINING the current thickness, there might finally be enough room inside the iMac for proper heat dissipation. The optical drive doesn't offend much as it's a laptop optical drive and it's pretty thin itself, but that hard drive generates a massive ton of heat relative to other components. Replace that with two mSATA blade-style SSDs, and you now have enough room to dissipate the heat generated by the desktop chipset, the desktop CPU, and the gamer laptop PC video card...all of which generate a ton of heat as is.
I agree. I compared text and pictures on safari between the current iMac and the retinal mbp in the store. The iMac did better on pictures on that site and I didn't see that marked a difference on stock graphics that apple put on both. Current big iMac has good enough resolution for me, especially considering cost and the degraded photos until all websites increase resolution.
A photographer can see more of the image, so they do not have to scroll as much.
For me as an app developer, I will be able to see a retina iPad at full resolution on screen. Currently a developer has to go through the build process and deploy to the device to do that. That takes many times longer. Iteration time is critical for being able to polish an app as much as possible.
Two ways in which a retina screen would make people more productive. It doesn't take long to think of more.
So any idea the kind of bandwidth that would be needs not including GPU to run x4 pixels on a 27" iMac I know one thing if it did come out it would sell like crack.
----------
I second that!
----------
Apple has done stranger things, but I doubt it too. Still if they did I would rock the personal computer world.
----------
I second that!
----------
Apple has done stranger things, but I doubt it too. Still if they did I would rock the personal computer world.