Sidebar Sidebar
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?

SSD and Anti glare screen

Those are the two features i want (SSD as default option, shrink the HDD size to 2.5" and make it accessible for replacement and slim down the iMac profile).

do not care much about retina display ...

and of course beefier GPU always welcome.

these are given
Ivy Bridge CPU
USB 3.0
 
Fraaaa said:
Retina MBP 15" is the only retina will have this, and probably next year. Then will start to apply to 13". iMacs will join the party very late.
Click to expand...

History suggests 13" retina pro's will land sometime this fall.
 
Bahamut Eos said:
I feel like updated iMacs will be more powerful than available mac pros.
Click to expand...

Mac Pros are a different issue completely. There are certain things where nothing else made by Apple will work in an acceptable manner (literally). For those guys, they eat the cost of it. Some people who use them would be better served by imacs, but they could really improve serviceability there.

Enigmanaut said:
The screen on the current generation of iMacs is already stunning... how much better does it need to be?
Click to expand...

If it wasn't so reflective, I'd say it's the nicest AIO display out there without spending a fortune (hp dreamcolor). There are better independent displays. They just don't tend to be mass market items, so fewer people are familiar with them.
 
I grew up with PC's. I built several of my own while going through high school and college. I had a crush on the Aqua interface, even trying to replicate it on my PC. Finally, I became a Mac user with my first laptop, a 2005 12" Powerbook G4. I figured a laptop would be a good place to start with the Apple world (along side my iPod of course). I now use a 2010 13" Macbook Pro, Apple TV 3, iPhone 4, and a donated 2006 Mac Mini. I put a 750GB HD in my MBP, but I am still running out of space.

Long story short, I want a desktop again. I want it to be the home of all my data (additional Thunderbolt drives may be needed but iMacs don't move, so you don't really notice extra external drives), AppleTV/Music server, desk computer, and processing powerhouse. The MacPro's remind me of what building PC's was like, but they are very expensive and probably overkill for me.

Regardless of a Retina display, a new, powerful iMac sounds great!

So...

shut_up_and_take_my_money_borderlands.jpg
 
CitizenKoehn said:
If you're sitting at an apporpriate distance from a 27" iMac, you can't see the pixels. Why on earth would people want a Retina display for that size
Click to expand...

I agree with this but it also made me think:

Doesn't this mean the iMac, by definition, already has a retina display? The pixel density on a retina iPad is less than on a retina iPhone (I think?) but the reason they call them both 'retina' is because you can't notice the pixels from 'regular viewing distance'. See what I mean?
 
Unsurprising. I'd imagine getting retina pixels onto 27" of glass wouldn't be a walk in the park.
 
Last edited:
Droid13 said:
As someone who has been saved up and is ready to purchase a 27" iMac, I am not interested in Retina as such - it is overkill and not really necessary. I just don't like the idea of buying an older model if a new one is round the corner.

For me, the things I would like to see are better colour reproduction, current generation processors, current generation graphics and current generation inputs.

I may wait until the baseline OS in the systems is 10.8.3 or thereabouts, depending on how Mountain Lion is received.
Click to expand...

I agree. Retina on the 27" isn't really necessary yet. I would love it if were re-designed based on the ideas used to create the MBP Retina:

Thinner
All flash / SSD storage
Minimum 8GB of RAM
Ivy Bridge processors
Nvidia Kepler GPU
improved speakers and mic
Thunderbolt & USB 3.0 ports
No DVD Drive

I can definitely live with the 2560x1440 resolution screen.

----------
rovex said:
History suggests 13" retina pro's will land sometime this fall.
Click to expand...

What history are you basing this on?
 
JohnDoe98 said:
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.
Click to expand...

How do you rate matte vs retina glossy in terms of colour accuracy? I got a matte MBP last year because I didn't want the glossy screen to reflect everything, and I also didn't want it to give colours more saturation that they really had. Is the retina MBP screen good for that too?
 
First of all the most important update for iMac would be some form of standard SSD (or SSD caching system), we know that USB 3 is a given with Ivy Bridge.

I would love better graphics, and a 27" matching the display resolution of the 15" Retina MBP would be fine...
I already have difficulty seeing pixels, but it would make sense for apps adaptation and ease of development, ensuring that the capacity wouldn't be wasted waiting for devs to adapt to the various retinas.
 
Scale

You have to think of it. How many pixels would have to be represented to make a 27" screen? About the size of a 50" HDTV? An actual 4K iMac? The processors could probably handle it, but that's a very expensive screen there. iMac Pro?
 
I think "Retina" and 27" iMac doesn't really make sense.

BUT

High Density does make sense. (i.e.: give me more resolution, but unhook the size of UI elements from that resolution.)

We're at 2560 x 1440 on the 27" iMac's today, and that's a pretty solid resolution. I think we could get up to 4096 x 2304 on 27" and have an incredible display. Just keep the UI elements from shrinking too small.

It would be nice to run my iPad emulator in retina mode without it being too big for my 27" monitor. Right now I need to scale it down, so I can only do "pixel perfect" testing on an actual device.
 
What I hope is that Apple doesn't pull a 17" Macbook Pro and try to "replace" the 27" iMac with a Retina 21" or 24".

That would p*ss me off further and significantly delay me from replacing anything. I'm sure others feel the same way...

Bigger is better...;)
 
I think the next iMac will be 4K resolution, so 4096x2160 or 4096x2304 in resolution, so we can edit and monitor video from cameras such as, RED, Sony FS-700, F65, Canon C 500 etc. FCP X supports 4K too.
 
Fall? Fall? Surely not. If no retina, nothing to hold the refresh that long. I don't care about retina. Just want SSD as standard, better GPU and ivy bridge. On my wish list they can launch in 3 weeks. Unless rMBP selling so well that SSD component is in short supply
 
Nooooooooooooo
Actually, I didn't expect it to happen. Does anyone else even have retina displays on their PCs at all?
 
RoboCop001 said:
How do you rate matte vs retina glossy in terms of colour accuracy? I got a matte MBP last year because I didn't want the glossy screen to reflect everything, and I also didn't want it to give colours more saturation that they really had. Is the retina MBP screen good for that too?
Click to expand...

I'm not competent to judge color accuracy, but it looks fantastic to me, and in my work environment I don't see reflections. You'd have to go judge for yourself in person.

----------
BRLawyer said:
Apple's definition of a "retina" display is that you're not supposed to notice pixels on the screen from a normal viewing distance.

Bottom line: the current iMac is ALREADY retina. There is no need to double or quadruple the current pixel count.
Click to expand...

No its not.

http://www.tuaw.com/2012/03/01/retina-display-macs-ipads-and-hidpi-doing-the-math/
 
Screw Retina. I would be overjoyed if Apple brought back the anti-glare display.

And is it asking too much for the iMac designers to make it possible to easily adjust the height of the computer? I know they can do it: the G4 iMac was the most ergonomic computer every made. The current iMac is among the worst.

I'll be replacing my 2006 24" iMac with a refreshed Mac Mini.
 
CitizenKoehn said:
If you're sitting at an apporpriate distance from a 27" iMac, you can't see the pixels.
Click to expand...

I'd suggest an eye exam. It's easy to discern them from an average distance. We calculated the required PPI for an iMac 27 to become retina, and it's around 190 PPI. iMac is at 109 PPI.
 
faroZ06 said:
Does anyone else even have retina displays on their PCs at all?
Click to expand...
There are some specialty displays that are Retina, yes. The T220 and T221, which have a PPI of 204 on a 22'' Panel.

They can be a bit hard to find, however.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back