Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I think everyone was expecting this. I'm surprised it took so long though; 4K displays are much more available than 5K right now.
 
Intel has only released two desktop-class Broadwell chips and does not plan to release additional desktop chips.

If Broadwell is already done, does that mean the very next release from Intel will be Skylake? MBP with Skylake is coming soon?
 
That res does't make sense for 21.5"

If you want your retina display to be ideal, you want to double that size display's normal pixel count.

The proposed size is higher than 4k UHD (3840x2160). UHD is reasonable for a 24" display and would be fine at 21.5" too. But higher? The text would either be too small or non-native scaled. Why bother?

I can see the proposed size making sense for an iMac around 24" maybe... or a 4k pro display! (I know, they'll probably go right to 5k, but I want a 4k one! My Mac Pro can handle that size well, and my current Dell screen has been trouble-prone.)


Not sure what you mean. The text would be marginally smaller than 1080p and there's no reason that it wouldn't be non-natively scaled. The resolution would be 2048x1152 but pixel doubled. There's nothing non-native about it. The text would be the same size as the 27 inch 5k, which is perfectly fine.
 
That res does't make sense for 21.5"

If you want your retina display to be ideal, you want to double that size display's normal pixel count.

The proposed size is higher than 4k UHD (3840x2160). UHD is reasonable for a 24" display and would be fine at 21.5" too. But higher? The text would either be too small or non-native scaled. Why bother?

I can see the proposed size making sense for an iMac around 24" maybe... or a 4k pro display! (I know, they'll probably go right to 5k, but I want a 4k one! My Mac Pro can handle that size well, and my current Dell screen has been trouble-prone.)

It will give a slightly bigger working area than the current 21.5". The value only refers to a screen resolution. It might be a bigger physical size. The iMac has got bigger screens over time. The jump to retina is a good opportunity to increase again.
 
My wife and daughter are both waiting for new iMacs. Theirs are 24" models from early 2008. I bought the upgraded processors, which give some extra time before upgrading is required. But I'm amazed at how well these models have held up for most computing tasks. While my wife mostly uses hers for more basic things, including watching video and playing games, my daughter has a degree in fashion and advertising photography, and her iMac no longer works well for that, but she has a Retina 15" Macbook Pro she uses instead.

I'm waiting for Skylake. I really don't see a point in getting what I consider to be an interim design. Skylake, from what Intel is saying, will be worth the wait. and it's possible that Apple is waiting for that to make some larger changes in the iMac designs. Thunderbolt 3 and USB 3.1 among them.
 
23-24" would be just enough (27" is too big for me); but wonderful news if that is the case. I'll continue to hope my 2010 21.5" chugs along until the 2nd gen of this smaller retina model is released. Makes sense for me to stick with the model I've used for many years now, especially given the appliance nature of Apple's computers these days.

Shows you how people are different. 30" is too big for me, but 27" is just right.
 
My wife and daughter are both waiting for new iMacs. Theirs are 24" models from early 2008. I bought the upgraded processors, which give some extra time before upgrading is required. But I'm amazed at how well these models have held up for most computing tasks. While my wife mostly uses hers for more basic things, including watching video and playing games, my daughter has a degree in fashion and advertising photography, and her iMac no longer works well for that, but she has a Retina 15" Macbook Pro she uses instead.

I'm waiting for Skylake. I really don't see a point in getting what I consider to be an interim design. Skylake, from what Intel is saying, will be worth the wait. and it's possible that Apple is waiting for that to make some larger changes in the iMac designs. Thunderbolt 3 and USB 3.1 among them.

Apple isn't redesigning the iMac. They maintained the same design when going to retina, that shows me they're sticking with the same design for years to come.
 
I'm totally confused with the iMac. Don't know whether to buy now, wait for new Broadwell models or wait for Skylake models. Used to be so simple with Intel now I'm lost.
The reason why you are confused is because either you don't need it or don't know what you want...
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    299.7 KB · Views: 248
  • Like
Reactions: tuxon86 and t0mat0
Lose the 21" iMac, 27" QHD iMac, MBA's, and Apple has an all retina lineup. Wonder if they'll keep an intro non-retina iMac around (Only $200 difference between the 27" 5k and QHD, just like the non-retina 13" MBP & retina 13" MBP). Come Skylake, they could update the Mac Mini, MBAs & eventually MBPs. Must be a paint ot have had Intel get delayed so much, on what might have been a quicker refresh across the Mac lineups.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.