It is also possible that we may see only the 21.5 in iMac being updated with the retina display. The displays may have to be rolled out over time, with the volume being constrained until a later point. Let's face it, the displays are beautiful but hard to manufacture. That they are even out at all and provided without costing a fortune is quite impressive. Apple is going the extra mile to differentiate themselves from the competition.
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 believe everyone said that about the iPad 1 and 2, and then the 3 came out and now the 1 and 2 are considered almost unusable by some
Eizo 4K monitor costs $ 35.000, so yes, i'd pay $ 2.000 more for a 4K iMac in a blink of an eye. I guess they might do the same as they did with the MacBook Pro (retina and non-retina), give us an option for a regular iMac and a 4K iMac (Pro) both with updated Ivy Bridge of course.
Well listen here, boy. I reckon that I wasn't talkin' about this them thar release but was instead talkin' abou' yar makin' over-reachin' generalizations.
I would be happy if Scientology would really release the new iMac together with Mountain Lion, I'm waiting to switch from PC to Mac like many others here. A fall release wouldn't be the end of the world, but it seems rather late for an update, no?
This is nothing new. They've introduced stuff like this on expensive units in the past then moved it down. Expect it on the Air too. I kind of wondered if the Air would debut such a thing given that their displays don't exceed 13". The outdated thing happens either way though. Tock cycle, pretty bar graphs displaying igpu improvements, thunderbolt updates, etc. You're focusing on only one aspect of it. I also don't worry about resale value. The upgraded versions depreciate the most given that features tend to trickle down. If the 13" gets quad cpus or sees dramatic cpu improvements, fewer people will be interested in the old 15". Also $250 more for slightly higher clock speed doesn't hold up between generations most of the time, especially if you're purchasing a tick cycle machine.
With larger displays, uniformity and other things become much bigger issues. If the panel has a problem, it's much more costly to discard it.
Who's editing 4k video even on (what is assumed will be) an Ivy Bridge quad-core iMac?
I have the i7 and LOVE it, and while I can work in Premiere at 1080p and edit 2gb PSB files with 100+ layers without batting an eye, I doubt I would be able to work on 4k RED files without getting all the way frustrated.
What really makes sense, to me at least, is to create a 27" retina cinema display for editors who need a 4k space, and spec out the MacPro to match.
Leave the display in the iMac as it is for the Rest Of Us.
It would make more sense on a discrete display with fewer design restrictions. By that I mean one where it's okay for the display to be thick or have vents cut for passive cooling or whatever else hooked up to something like a mac pro. I will be impressed if they can smoothly turn a 4k display into a mass market device. I just don't see it happening this year. As to laptops having higher resolution, their dpi has been higher for some time. Look at the 1920x1080 windows displays and 1920x1200 (I think it was 1200) on the prior 17" macbook pro. Notebook displays surpassing the others in dpi is not a new concept.
You can buy a better monitor, with way more cpu gpu firepower as long as you are willing to go away from the all-in-one form factor.
You also have to give up OSX. So just don't go on the internet without your life preserver on!
Yes, it is. I said Apple's definition.
"the Retina display's pixel density is so high, your eye is unable to distinguish individual pixels."
Wow the truth gets negative 35 votes !
I was in the apple store today getting a repair for a 2010 mac mini.
the machine has 5 settings . my names for the five settings are:
1)oldest eyes
2)old eyes = my 55 year old double cataract surgery eyes .
at least the surgery was perfect for far and medium.
3) normal eyes = my eyes up til 40
4) teen age eyes= my eyes up til 25
5) kids eyes = my eyes til about 13
Due to the surgery I do most of my computer work on a 46 inch sony led from 10 feet away.
If there is a 13' retina later this year, it will probably be a new machine and it's not gonna "replace" the current 13'. It's gonna compare to the current 13 pro almost exactly like the 15 retina compares to the 15 mbp. The price should be in the 1499-1599 range, since the top 13 Air is already 1499 without retina display and with a slower processor. (the cpu in the 13 retina should be similar to the cpu in the 13 mbp, which is faster than the air) If there are 2 options like the 15, I believe the top model (2.9GHz, more SSD) should be in the 2099-2199 range.
So, if you want a 1200 notebook. The current 13 is a great option and it is brand new and updated (usb 3, etc) So, it's not like it's gonna be outdated anytime soon…
You are truncating Apple's definition. Schiller gave the same mathematical formula as the TUAW site used to evaluate the machines in one of the keynotes. It is on the basis of that formula that they determine whether or not your eye can distinguish pixels, not subjective experiences as you are relying on. A person with 20/20 can see indivual pixels on the iMac from a normal viewing distance, as the math formula proves, and which is scientifically based. You claiming otherwise just spreads factual innacuracies.
I would think Apple will release a Retina Thunderbolt Display before the iMac gets one if they are going that direction.
Possibly after the release of the Mac Pro in late 2013.
Possibly after the release of the Mac Pro in late 2013.
That's ridiculous. I'm not saying there aren't people like that, but I was very underwhelmed by the retina display on the iPad and just kept my iPad 2. To call the previous iPads "unusable" sounds insane to me, especially coming from people that were "using" the 1 and 2 before.
People actually expected a roll out of 200+ ppi on 27 in panels, already?
The Panel conglomerates will milk present solutions as long as they can before they roll out high density pixel panels.
The Panel conglomerates will milk present solutions as long as they can before they roll out high density pixel panels.
You can buy a better monitor, with way more cpu gpu firepower as long as you are willing to go away from the all-in-one form factor.
You also have to give up OSX. So just don't go on the internet without your life preserver on!
I've been using Windows and built my own PCs for 15+ years. I know what they have to offer. I'm finding my Mac Mini with OS X to be a joy to use currently, however. When I need to do more intensive work, I push those jobs onto a cluster and let them run. I'd be happier having a nice retina MBP for most tasks, and then having the mini for home, etc. My days of building high-end gaming PCs and such are over, it really isn't necessary or where my interests lie anymore.
Retina on a 27" makes sense. They would be high density panels at the surface geometry for a 27" diagonal and at a standard Ergonomic depth you'll get the appropriate ``retina'' ppi for that size.
As others point out the availability will be difficult.
Uh ? The current Retina MBP can with the nVidia 650M. What are you on about ?
(and it's 4x btw, Retina is 2x2 pixels to 1 point. 2x2 is 4
).Is the technology even there to be able to deliver affordable high-PPI displays at these sizes? I haven't seen it in person, and maybe it's a non-issue, but the 15" Retina Display poses the potential problem of scaling if you want more desktop space than the equivalent of 1440x900. I don't want to have to worry about those issues in my desktop.
Personally I'll probably never get an iMac (if my computer has a monitor built in, it better be portable), but naturally the Apple Display will have to match whatever the top-end iMac has. I think that the current Apple Display was actually a step backwards as far as the panel is concerned. Sure it has higher PPI (which has it's pros and cons; con being having to place it closer to be readable), but they reduced the vertical resolution from 1600 (the 30" display) to 1440.
Right now I use a Dell U3011 (30" 2560x1600) which I absolutely love and I think it is the best monitor available for less than $1500. What would I want in a future display? More usable pixels, not higher PPI. I'd like to see larger displays with a higher pixel count. Maybe something like a 32" or larger display with the same PPI as the current 27" Apple Display so that we end up with more pixels and thus more desktop space. And I don't want the PPI to be so high that I need to use HiDPI mode at a lower equivalent than 2560x1NNN or scaling to resolutions that are not 1:1 to be able to use the display.
Personally I'll probably never get an iMac (if my computer has a monitor built in, it better be portable), but naturally the Apple Display will have to match whatever the top-end iMac has. I think that the current Apple Display was actually a step backwards as far as the panel is concerned. Sure it has higher PPI (which has it's pros and cons; con being having to place it closer to be readable), but they reduced the vertical resolution from 1600 (the 30" display) to 1440.
Right now I use a Dell U3011 (30" 2560x1600) which I absolutely love and I think it is the best monitor available for less than $1500. What would I want in a future display? More usable pixels, not higher PPI. I'd like to see larger displays with a higher pixel count. Maybe something like a 32" or larger display with the same PPI as the current 27" Apple Display so that we end up with more pixels and thus more desktop space. And I don't want the PPI to be so high that I need to use HiDPI mode at a lower equivalent than 2560x1NNN or scaling to resolutions that are not 1:1 to be able to use the display.
Last edited:
That's very true, but good luck there. Apple has always gone with simplicity. There are ways to improve display stability or match a required range for print graphics or video workflows. The typical solutions of LUT based systems, panel blocking to even out uniformity, compensation for display drift, etc. aren't areas where I would expect much from Apple. They basically sell the same thing to everyone, and only a small portion are probably demanding such things. Those that do demand them already buy other things that are better for this. You can buy displays with software made to manage multiple displays where they'll work to match the behavior of multiple units purchased at different times to an incredibly fine level. You can't do this by just picking up whatever $100-200 colorimeter, and calling it a day. I just don't see Apple catering to this.
That still doesn't make any sense. You pick up a lot of engineering problems when scaling up. You guys are way too stuck on the idea that it must be 27". The current 27" displays have displaced most of the available 30" models. They're basically an expansion of 25.5" displays (often marketed as 26") widened from 16:10 to 16:9. If you backtrack a bit further toward 16:9 24" displays, you'd be at a good starting point. The question is whether they can contain a whole computer behind that. You'd probably need to expand dimensions somewhere, and Apple hates doing that. For reference look at this.
It's a monochromatic display for medical use. They're quite expensive, but the tolerance in stability and manufacturing for that kind of equipment is much tighter than what Apple would most likely require. If you could do something like that only wider and in color, you'd have your display. These things have been available at reasonably high resolution for quite a few years. It matters what can be produced in high enough volume. Beyond that Apple has to be able to hit a certain price point while retaining their desired margins, which are quite high.
As to resolution independent ui elements, that makes a lot of sense, but fully vector based UIs don't seem to be available.
Last edited:
from the article said:
Sadly, a new Mac Pro only being held up in order to market it with a standalone Retina Display makes perfect sense in Apple logic. They really should retire standalone Apple displays to the dustbin of history as they did their printers*. Who as a pro uses one? They don't make financial sense, and have too many limitations (I assume the new ones will only have a Thunderbolt connector).
If the pro market is being denied a Mac Pro update simply because a new Cinema Display won't be ready for a year, there will be hell to pay!
(*) Actually, I wish Apple still made printers. Every third-party printer I've had was a piece of junk. The Apple printers I used were reliable and always great performers (except for the terrible inkjet StyleWriters, which were mostly rebadged HPs). Did you know the ImageWriter II was Apple's longest-running product? 1985-1996.