The screen on the current generation of iMacs is already stunning... how much better does it need to be?
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
Apple holding back features once again
Source? A retina mac would be like 180-200 ppi, versus the current 90-110. Are there even screens with that kind of density in that size yet? If iMacs don't go Retina it is because of screen tech or gpu tech lagging.
Just bump the resolution a bit, and you're in retina town. So HiDPI scaling won't be relevant, but so what? Screen elements will be a bit smaller, but you won't be able to see pixels.
Last september I bought a 27" 3.4ghz quad core i7 iMac with a 256gb SSD & 1tb HDD, added 16gb of ram for a total of 24gb, and bumped the GPU memory to 2gb, and this machine has been an absolute dream. Everything is snappy and fluid. FCPX editing is smooth as silk, 75mb RAW images from my D800 in both aperture and PS CS6 may as well be 1mb jpgs. This machine has yet to make me wait for anything I ask it to do.
I sym-linked my iTunes, iPhoto, and Aperture libraries from the HDD to the home folder on the SSD for the sake of simplicity when saving files from those apps, so with the OS and Apps on the SSD accessing the HDD for files, the system is ridiculously responsive.
I highly recommend an SSD. It really makes all the difference.
I sym-linked my iTunes, iPhoto, and Aperture libraries from the HDD to the home folder on the SSD for the sake of simplicity when saving files from those apps, so with the OS and Apps on the SSD accessing the HDD for files, the system is ridiculously responsive.
I highly recommend an SSD. It really makes all the difference.
Agree. Resistance to forthcoming technology for whatever reasons, are always to be expected. It always reminds me of when people were so hesitant to jump off DVD and upgrade to blu-ray and high def media because they thought the change would be so insignificant to them. If the technology is available and can be sold at a practical price, then Apple should deliver to the consumer. If not right now, then we wait until the time is ready, but I'm sure as hell will welcome a retina iMac once they finally hit the market.
A retina-display iMac doesn't need to be 5120x2880, either, to be considered a retina display. At normal viewing distances, it's already hugely sharper than the 1440x900 in the MacBook Pro that got bumped to 2880x1800. Something in between 2560x1440 and 5120x2880 would be perfect.
I'm sorry, but do we really need a retina iMac now? I hope nobody sits close enough to distinguish individual pixels. Maybe a 20-30% pixel boost would be perfect (although scaling would be an issue), with more attention to desktop performance internals, rather than borrowing from the mobile lineup. Make my iMac fatter
30% would be about enough to bring it up to retina, but that would require a new scaling solution from Apple. Doubling the res in each direction is more likely as although it brings other problems, OS X is now set up for it.
Just playing the "what-if" game, can we roughly guess if the new Retina MBP could power a retina Thunderbolt display if/when it came out? Since it can drive three separate displays, I would think that it could push the pixels, but has someone done the math?
Maybe I need to do some googling and break out a calculator.
Maybe I need to do some googling and break out a calculator.
Why do we need 5k resolution on a 27 inch display? What for and who is going to pay for all of that? No No No.
Release an Imac and include SSD as standard for fast boot up. Upgrade Ram and Upgrade CPU to compete with new MBP. Call it a day. Maybe drop some price...
Release an Imac and include SSD as standard for fast boot up. Upgrade Ram and Upgrade CPU to compete with new MBP. Call it a day. Maybe drop some price...
So that you can't see your reflection in it. That's how much better it needs to be (at the very least)
Wrong. The 15 in was 77% retina. The 15 in high res was 79% retina. The imac 21" is ~75% and the 27" is ~80% retina. So the leap would be as big as on the 15" RMBP.
Apple holding back features once again
Because asus haven't implemented retina in their computers, they also hold back.
Copy and paste for all OEMs in existence
What is an appropriate distance? I can't see too much difference in viewing distance from an iMac screen to a MBP screen. Maybe a TV is "retina" in FullHD/2560px but not a desktop monitor which sits much nearer from the user's eyes.
Have you seen these new displays in person? I was a matte only person too. But now I have no complaints with these new glossy screens on the RMBP.
Sure, since it'll be so incredibly thin it'll overheat as soon as you do something more demanding than posting how cool your new iMac is on facebook.
Apple have shown they are going for retina. Anything that isn't now seems like old tech with a limited lifespan. Apple need to move over more of their lines quickly.
I can understand people wanting the matte option. Sounds useful to all the folks with bright work spaces. Retina sounds like total overkill. My 2011 iMac i7 got delivered yesterday. I'm a little afraid of what issues are going to come with the latest refresh. My iPhone 4S didn't work so hot the first couple of months. I went for the tried and proven iMac. i7 with 16GB RAM from OWC sounds more worth it to me than retina. Have fun waiting for your iMac.
Yes, but I have to believe it's cheaper and easier for the next year or two to code scaling solutions than pack a miracle display in millions of iMacs at the same price point. Sure, I'd love my D800 photos to view in full resolution (or close), but it's highly unlikely this year.
I agree 100%. And if the iMac refresh doesn't include something being done about the extremely glossy screen, I'll be forced to go for the Retina MBP with a Dell U2711.