No Retina Display in Next-Generation iMac?

[iBug2]

Are you implying that correlation implies causation ? Maybe people don't stick with older versions of OS X precisely because Apple drops support ?

Maybe enterprise customers don't want to migrate off because of application/hardware support, a hurdle Apple doesn't quite face in light of poor enterprise support ?

First of all, unless your hardware does not support the new OS, there's no reason not to migrate with Apple. I don't remember any OS X releases which actually ran worse than the old one on supported hardware. On the contrary, until Leopard, each new OS X ran faster on the same hardware compared to the older one. So there was a huge motivation to migrate immediately simply because one was getting a faster computer for 129$.

Second, many popular apps drop support for old OS X's very fast on the mac side, so people have to migrate if they are using those apps. There isn't many professional apps out there which run on Tiger anymore unless you want to stick to the old versions. And that has nothing to do with lack of security updates. Look at Photoshop, one of the most popular mac apps ever, it doesn't even support Leopard. 10.6.8 or later only. But the same version supports XP on the win side. Maya is 10.7 or later only already and supports XP on the win side, again.

So if you are a user of many popular professional apps, you have to migrate at least to the second latest OS X for that reason alone or keep using the old versions of your apps.

 

[Metal Dice]

Might be. Have you seen the high res MBP vs the Retina MBP to say it really is though or are you basing all of this off some chart ?

So you don't think that a 5120 x 2880 display in 2012 would be both costly and overkill?

There is really no point in upgrading the display this year, when you can't discern the pixels on the current 27" iMac when viewing from an appropriate distance.

 

[Randomoneh]

So you don't think that a 5120 x 2880 display in 2012 would be both costly and overkill?

Might be costly, sure wouldn't be overkill.

 

[iBug2]

So you don't think that a 5120 x 2880 display in 2012 would be both costly and overkill?

There is really no point in upgrading the display this year, when you can't discern the pixels on the current 27" iMac when viewing from an appropriate distance.

You can, very easily even, unless your typical viewing distance is 1.5 times greater than mine.

 

[SirHaakon]

Actually, yes it is, when you take the viewing distance into consideration.
Take a look at this chart.

I hate these kinds of posts. They assume everyone views their displays from the same distance and has the same quality of eyesight. We went through this several years ago when people said that 720p was the max resolution you needed on a < 42" HDTV because "the chart says" that no one can tell the difference between it and 1080p at normal viewing distances. I'm glad there's one document that determines what's optimal for the entire population.

Besides the obvious benefits of oversampling that a higher resolution display brings (regardless of if you can "see the pixels"), there is clearly a segment of people who can tell the difference and appreciate the quality of panel that these high resolution screens bring. For instance, I can still see pixels (though it is getting to my limits) on the massive PPI of the iPhone 4 screen. Nothing that has been produced yet is "overkill," and a 'retina' capable iMac would be fantastic for a lot of people. If you think it's too much, then you better isolate yourself from the outside world from here on out because realistic availability of 4K displays at standard TV sizes are just around the corner...

----------

You can, very easily even, unless your typical viewing distance is 1.5 times greater than mine.

Don't worry, iBug... Metal Dice clearly meant to say "I" and not "you."

 

[faroZ06]

T
To be honest, I'm not sure that you know much about Java.

Java apps are architecture-independent intermediate code ("byte-code") streams. If the byte-code stream from the website is compatible with your old JVM, it will run. The website doesn't download a new JVM to your system (unless it prompts and you say yes).

It doesn't matter if your JVM is out-of-date - if the malware is compatible with your JVM it will run.

Just because you don't download and run "porn" that's delivered in .EXE files doesn't mean that you are safe. Or maybe you do watch porn from .EXE files....

That's the idea of Java, but it doesn't exactly work that way. Try using an outdated version of Java, and a lot of things won't work properly in it (if at all). I know from experience of dealing with Minecraft, which is unfortunately programmed in Java. Certain things will only work in the latest version.

Apparently, they actually add features in the new JVMs, not just bug-fixes. I think it's stupid, but that's what they do.

And in case you're wondering, I don't download porn no matter what the extension is on the file.

 

[KnightWRX]

So you don't think that a 5120 x 2880 display in 2012 would be both costly and overkill?

I haven't yet seen the MBPR first hand so I'll reserve judgment on overkill vs not, though it starts with a big plus already being able to do 1920x1200 for screen real-estate.

As for costly, the 2880x1800 panel in the 15" MBPR should be costly too right ? Go and price an equivalent non-retina 15". Same specs. 8 GB, 256 GB SSD, and come back here to tell us how "costly" the 2880x1800 panel is.

There is really no point in upgrading the display this year, when you can't discern the pixels on the current 27" iMac when viewing from an appropriate distance.

Again, have you seen it on the 15" MBP ? You claim the 1680x1050 MBP is pretty much equivalent at normal viewing distance. Why don't you try it before you knock it ? Why the hurry in saying things like "overkill" ?

----------

That's the idea of Java, but it doesn't exactly work that way. Try using an outdated version of Java, and a lot of things won't work properly in it (if at all). I know from experience of dealing with Minecraft, which is unfortunately programmed in Java. Certain things will only work in the latest version.

If you target 1.4.2 of the J2SE, everything should be dandy and work fine accross versions. Your experience with Minecraft is moot, Minecraft probably targets new APIs available in the more recent J2SEs.

Java bytecode is Java bytecode. If the APIs are there (and with 1.4.2, you've got a good compromise of a decent set of APIs and a wide range of JVMs that support them as an installed base) you're all set.

A malware author doesn't have to target J2SE 6 or J2SE 5.

Apparently, they actually add features in the new JVMs, not just bug-fixes. I think it's stupid, but that's what they do.

Just like it's stupid for Apple to add new APIs to OS X and iOS with new versions ? What are you on about ? It's now "stupid" to enhance software with newer versions ?

And in case you're wondering, I don't download porn no matter what the extension is on the file.

If you're a guy, you watch porn on the Internet. I don't care what you say about it. Just admit it, much less of an hassle. We know anyway.

 

[DVD9]

I haven't yet seen the MBPR first hand so I'll reserve judgment on overkill vs not, though it starts with a big plus already being able to do 1920x1200 for screen real-estate.

As for costly, the 2880x1800 panel in the 15" MBPR should be costly too right ? Go and price an equivalent non-retina 15". Same specs. 8 GB, 256 GB SSD, and come back here to tell us how "costly" the 2880x1800 panel is.

.

The "classic" MBP is egregiously overpriced.

Find another argument.

 

[iBug2]

If you're a guy, you watch porn on the Internet. I don't care what you say about it. Just admit it, much less of an hassle. We know anyway.

Very off topic but a friend of mine (really a friend, I wouldn't be able to pull this off) started on a porn diet like 5 months ago and he's still porn free to this day.

----------

The "classic" MBP is egregiously overpriced.

Find another argument.

That's irrelevant. Then you aren't really saying that the retina screen is overpriced, but rather macs are overpriced, which everyone here already knows. Find "an" argument.

 

[Fraaaa]

The "classic" MBP is egregiously overpriced.

Find another argument.

Most laptop are made of plastic and not aluminium unibody.
iCloud is free.
I don't have to have an antivirus that slow down my pc.
If I take my mac to the Apple store if something is wrong with it they at least have a look at it for free.
Highest resell value.
Best trackpad on the market.

These are my argument, whether are valid or not. Some stuff is just priceless.

 

[russofris]

I can't believe, after we've all seen side-by-side comparisons of the iPhone, iPad and MBP, that people are suggesting that there's little difference between retina and non-retina, or that retina isn't worth the cost, at any usable distance from the display device. I'm stupefied even. How could anyone possibly dismiss the retina display as ineffective when you can go to a store, hold two nearly identical devices in hand, and compare the screens right then and there? You can even hold the devices at different distances to see if it matters in the slightest.

There is a clear difference between retina and classic displays at any reasonably sane viewing distance, whether it's 11 inches, or 35 inches. Whether or not it matches some qualitative measurement of image quality versus an analog medium is completely arbitrary. Retina displays produce sharper images, better color, finer details, and clearer text. Most graphics professionals would "soak cork" for a 5k/pix 27" screen.

High density displays look better at any distance. It's a better display. While it may not happen in 2012, for a lot of us, it needs to happen.

F

 

[AidenShaw]

If you're a guy, you watch porn on the Internet. I don't care what you say about it. Just admit it, much less of an hassle. We know anyway.

Perhaps (s)he considers what (s)he downloads to be "erotic art", not "porn".

 

[MattInOz]

Might be costly, sure wouldn't be overkill.

28inch (~710mm) is too big a distance of the iMac.

A normal desk is 23inch (600mm) deep, then allow for wrist rest and good ergonomic setup then the common worker eyes are maybe 28 inch from the back edge of their desk. The iMac stand is 8.15 deep with the screen maybe half an inch back from the leading edge of the stand. Sure deeper desks are common but not common enough to base the expected viewing distance that will cover 50+% of the population.

So pushed to the back of the back of a normal desk and the user sitting as far off the front of the desk as comfortable we are talking 20-21inch viewing distance maximum.

 

[KnightWRX]

The "classic" MBP is egregiously overpriced.

Find another argument.

So when you don't have any arguments, dismiss those of others ?

The status of the price of the "classic" MBP is not in question. The comparison is between Retina and non-Retina Macs. Comparing prices on the Retina and non-Retina MBP is perfectly valid and could indicate what the pricing would be for a Retina iMac (ie, not "costly" or "more expensive" vs the "classic" iMac).

 

[sshambles]

As someone who has recently sold their 2008 20" iMac off, I'm looking to buy a new one in the very near future. If the Retina one comes out, it'll be that. If not, I'll probably hold off until it does arrive.

The last few months I had the iMac, trying to read things off it, as I generally would on a large screened device, was starting to really become unsettling for my eyes to the point that enlarging the text was the only way that helped. I sat the recommended distance and height from it. The new iPad however, I've had since I've sold the iMac, and there's been no problems at all. So crisp and beautiful.

Any debate about the use or need of a Retina screen is purely individual. I would happily look forward to it becoming the new benchmark for screens, as Apple are slowly transitioning themselves towards. Whether that comes this year for the iMac, or next, remains to be seen. With the doubling down on secrecy, nobody will know for sure pretty much until it drops. The price, like the RMBP would probably be a little more, but compensated for with higher hardware specs. (Judging on what they've done already).

 

[Zaphodsplanet]

Bummer but I'd prefer to see

Bummer but what I'd love to see is a stinking display that wasn't practically a mirror. I love my 21.5" iMac and want to pump it up to a 27" but I'm waiting to see if we finally get something that doesn't drive my eyes batty in a little daylight. These screen are great, but when you spend the majority of the day in front of one doing web work or graphics it can make you go cross eyed if you don't kill every light in the room.

 

[iMac2012June]

Hi, will my new iMac with this specs of quad core i7 2.8ghz paired with 16gb memory last for another 4 years of continuously update OS?

 

[eucsstamticc]

Something is telling me that the iMac will be released with what Apple refers to as "retina". Lets not forget that all "retina" means to Apple is that you can not discern between pixels.

If you re-watch the WWDC12 video you will see that quite a few of the main apps for photography and video editing have been updated to take advantage of the "retina". I am referring to apps such as: Aperture, FCP, and Adobe to name a few.

I find it hard to believe that they are going to make the changes to these programs to allow "retina" to be integrated and only used on the one 15" rMBP. Then give you 2 thunderbolt, USB3.0, and HDMI ports so you can plug it into a lower resolution content larger screen?! Sorry I don't buy that.

We have had "all hands meetings" prior to each product release this year, and each product released has included a "retina" display. Perhaps this is why the order from Sharp was bumped up, not only in size but in quantity as well.

What if the rumor mill churned up 2012 iMac w/o Retina first, and this rumor came out second? Which would you believe to be more valid then?

Just because "retina" has not been done on an iMac yet doesn't mean it won't be. It wasn't on a laptop/notebook and now it is. So why not the iMac.

Look at the progression of resolution within the product line. In this order: iPhone, iPad, Macbook/laptop, and now the only thing left to update with "retina" is the iMac/Cinema display.

If the only reason why people think it won't happen, is because it hasn't yet....well its Apple.. so who knows!

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

If you're a guy, you watch porn on the Internet. I don't care what you say about it. Just admit it, much less of an hassle. We know anyway.

Notice he said he doesn't download porn. It doesn't mean he doesn't stream porn

 

[ghettochris]

Might be costly, sure wouldn't be overkill.

While I agree with you that there would be an image improvement doubling apple's "retina" resolutions, I think that's a ways off, and the framerate or hz of the monitors is a bigger issue for me now.

60-75 hz is a joke, just move your mouse fast, you see 1-2" gap between the arrows on your screen, doesn't look real at all. The only reason 24 fps movies work is because of motion blur. I make driving timelapses, I shoot 30 fps and speed it up 10x. I output a 60 fps movie, the best most things can play at this time and the scenery close by/cars passing move 10 feet per frame. I can see that when watching. If I could have a 300 fps movie it would look amazing, and the cars would still move 2 ft per frame and not be perfect blurs. Studies show that 500 hz or more is needed to seem perfect. 120 hz monitors would be a good start though.

Lol randomoneh, I just looked at the apple television thread where I got that graph from to put it in this thread and saw it was in fact you who posted it. Didn't realize that till now.

 

[ghettochris]

So you don't think that a 5120 x 2880 display in 2012 would be both costly and overkill?

There is really no point in upgrading the display this year, when you can't discern the pixels on the current 27" iMac when viewing from an appropriate distance.

I'm hoping apple makes it an even 4k (4096x2304 not lame 2160p which is only 3840x2160) and releases a 4k video camera to give it a use, but i don't think the processor power and graphics needed to work with that kind of footage in imovie is there yet.

And as others have said, just because you can't pick out pixels now doesn't mean you won't notice a huge difference if there are 4x as many of them. The only reason to not upgrade the imac would be graphics power and the cost of the display since making them that huge might not be easy yet.

 

[theluggage]

Advantages and disadvantages of design decisions are not the same.

iMac doesn't need additional space for a bigger battery. Saving weight isn't particularly important, and neither is less thickness.

I wasn't suggesting that they'd make the exact same design changes as for the rMBP. However, switching to all-SSD has speed, heat an noise advantages as well as size - and it might make practical sense for Apple to use the same blades as the rMBP.

For a product which sells parltly on style and appearence, size is important (drop the 'chin' maybe?) - the original Mac Mini was "small enough" but they continued to make it smaller and dropped the optical drive. Additionally, saving space inside the box makes for better cooling for (e.g.) more powerful processors and GPUs.

...and a retina 21" (or whatever bigger-than-15" panel is available in 'retina') sounds more feasible than a retina 27"...









the general principle of stripping out parts that Apple sees as 'legacy' (Optical drive, Firewire) might apply, as would switching to all-SSD storage (which has speed & heat advantages as well as size).

 

[theluggage]

See the difference? It's 16 times faster because it can use 16 simultaneous connections or "lanes" while thunderbolt has only 1 up and 1 down. Connecting a PCIe card thru Thunderbolt is the same as a 1X PCIe slot. But wait…

True, but the question is how many PCIe cards actually use/need all those lanes?

Look inside many PCs and you'll only see 1 or 2 16-lane slots, one of which is usually occupied by the graphics card, the second is primarily there for dual-GPU setups.

The rest of the PCIe slots are usually the smaller, (4 lane?) connectors.

The Mac Pro has multiple 16-lane connectors but even there, ISTR, not all of them can actually use all 16 lanes all the time.

I'm skeptical of the idea of putting high-end graphics cards into these enclosures, but I doubt many other cards use more than 1-4 lanes, or actually need more than 1.

 

[Randomoneh]

28inch (~710mm) is too big a distance of the iMac.

Can you give me your average viewing distance (on the closer side) for all of those products in chart?

While I agree with you that there would be an image improvement doubling apple's "retina" resolutions, I think that's a ways off, and the framerate or hz of the monitors is a bigger issue for me now.

Yeah, most of the improvement happens from doubling "Retina" density. Studies suggests you could benefit from density [or angular resolution] that's 5 times "Retina", however, improvement isn't as high as it is when you're going from let's say 60 to 120 pixels per degree.

Will we get to that point in a few years? I don't know, I doubt it.
However, I have no doubt that it will eventually happen.

60-75 hz is a joke

Agreed.

Lol randomoneh, I just looked at the apple television thread where I got that graph from to put it in this thread and saw it was in fact you who posted it. Didn't realize that till now.

Is that a good or a bad thing?

 

[mutatio]

Um...

I'm not sure what this person is smoking. Each iteration of the retina display has been a less dense pixel count due to the distance at which the device is used. Such a high pixel density for an iMac that you sit at least a foot and a half from, if not 2-3 feet away, really is unnecessary. Basically a bump to a 2160p resolution would be more than adequate for a 27" screen. Heck, I'm excited about even larger HDTV screens (of 40" plus) getting to the 2160p mark for the prospect of being able to work in the living room.