A very valid point. Apple ends support for legacy software far sooner than Microsoft.
Windows XP is 11 years old and still gets security updates. OSX 10.1 launched at the same time - when did it stop getting updates?
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
A very valid point. Apple ends support for legacy software far sooner than Microsoft.
Windows XP is 11 years old and still gets security updates. OSX 10.1 launched at the same time - when did it stop getting updates?
10.1.5 was released June 5th 2002. Did it get other updates after that (just small security updates ?), I dunno.
Usually, Apple supports current + 1 version back. With them moving to a yearly cycle (as they said they would starting with Mountain Lion), it remains to be seen how this will work out (2 years of updates to your OS ?).
The "retina" term is not really about the resolution, it's about the pixel density.
Interestingly on this area Apple also wasn't the first. In early 2009 the LG Arena had a 311 PPI screen which could be easily called retina, but no one took any notice of it. It may be because the screen quality (color reproduction, viewing angle) wasn't even close to the iPhone 4's, but the fact is fact. LG made a phone with retina display in 2009, they just didn't know that it should've been called retina display.
It's not even pixel density. It's pure marketing bunk. It's about a certain pixel density that when viewed at a certain distance means your eye can't resolve the individual pixels by virtue of their arcs making them appear smaller than a single dot with 20/20 vision.
The plain fact is, "Retina" or not, it was Apple's answer to high resolution phones that were already on the market and had suddenly become popular thanks to the HTC Nexus One and other Android smartphones suddenly making WVGA and FWVGA the norm in higher end phones.
Interestingly on this area Apple also wasn't the first. In early 2009 the LG Arena had a 311 PPI screen which could be easily called retina, but no one took any notice of it. It may be because the screen quality (color reproduction, viewing angle) wasn't even close to the iPhone 4's, but the fact is fact. LG made a phone with retina display in 2009, they just didn't know that it should've been called retina display.
2007. Toshiba Protege G900. 313 PPI (800x480).
To be precise, it's about angular resolution of 60 pixels per degree (theoretically matching 20/20 Snellen acuity).
Apple's mistake is not clearing up:
- 20/20 isn't average acuity
- Even if it was 20/20, and it isn't - humans can perceive quality several times higher than their "Snellen acuity" (20/xx).
Instead, they implied there's nowhere to go from this. This is it. The end of resolution. It's not true and they'll have problems trying to incorporate displays with higher angular resolutions (in a few years) because of this.
20/20 is the average corrected acuity. So far as I know you won't find prescriptions for glasses and contacts for another other power. The way our world is designed, it is the perfect balance for viewing objects at a distance and close up. Obviously Apple isn't going to design their computers for people with myopia and hyperopia, those people should simply get new corrective lenses if they aren't happy with their visual acuity.
Not this again. Haven't we shown it enough times yet that the Retina display is a cost free option on the MacBook Pro and other Retina devices yet ?
Except there are still a lot of people using XP. Nobody is using 10.1. Why should it receive any updates if nobody is using it? I'd say the oldest Apple OS being used right now is Leopard. I'm sure there are few people with Tiger but a handful at most. Leopard runs on almost all machines that Tiger runs with G3's and certain G4's being an exception.
Apple's advantage is that many people upgrade to the latest OS unlike the Windows world. But then again, does Apple bring all the necessary security updates to Leopard right now?
Very little in life is actually necessary. But tell me, can you really imagine a world devoid of all luxury?
In any case, excluding a few fringe cages, the overwhelming majority of people who have worked on these Retina displays all praise it and repeatedly say that going to pre-retina displays is no longer an option. Even Anantech said he's afraid the screen has now "corrupted" him.
First read #2 in my message.
Now, 20/20 is nominal value. Meaning your eyes are considered good enough that they don't need to be corrected. Now, for average acuity.
From one study regarding angular resolution and acuity:
Newest:
Last edited:
I'm not derailing the topic. All I said was that £2300 for the MBP Retina was very expensive IMHO. I don't care how it compares to the MBP non-retina. I was making a very simple point which you seem to want to complicate. £2300 is a lot of money for a 15" laptop. It's certainly the most expensive laptop I've ever seen. I don't think they will sell many of them at that price.
Then you're completely besides the point and yes, derailing the conversation. We're discussing the Retina display's cost in the overall scheme of Apple's offerings, you're bringing in the marginal high cost of Apple's general line-up. Another topic for another thread.
As it stands, the Retina display is a cost free option on MacBook Pros by virtue of comparable specifications between Retina and non-Retina models.
My point was a response to someone saying there cannot be a retina iMac on the way because the potential screen isn't available. The specific screens were not available, that is a separate point to high density screens being available.
Details of other large high density screens have already been released at bigger sizes (Sharp IGZO 32" 4K) and higher densities (Panasonic IPS 20" 4K), just the same as you pointed to mobile screens ahead of the retina iPhone. This does point to the potential for a retina iMac.
That I will agree with. Apple shipped out their screens without them being available or hinted at (960x640 panel where ? 2048x1536 what 10 incher wha.. ? 2880x1800, completely new process laptop screen from ?) so general availability or even limited availability of the precise panel Apple would need does not prove anything.
What rubbish you will never get a iMac that would have 12Core with 64 GB of ram with 12 terabyte of hard drive...
You can get an iMac with 32 GB of RAM and 12 TB is also easily available via TB (at the same speed as an internal RAID in the Mac Pro). The Mac Pro is only faster if you need more than 32 GB of RAM or have fully multi-threaded applications (or do really fancy stuff like PCI-slot based SSDs).
In MY OPINION Windows is perfectly fine. I like both OS. You my friend have the right to what you like but you also sound like an arrogant fan boy
To be honest i like the iMac but don't like the glossy screen the mac pro is better because you can have what ever screen you like...
Never ? Not even in a few years when 12 cores fit in a single socket, 64 GB of RAM is the standard size of DDR6 module you can buy and 12 terabyte hard drives are the smallest single plater drives you can buy ?
Why don't they put Retina in the old MacBook Pro?Not this again. Haven't we shown it enough times yet that the Retina display is a cost free option on the MacBook Pro and other Retina devices yet ?
Last edited: