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.
OS X Yosemite Designed for Retina Screens?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Notification Center improvements, continuity and the slew of developer stuff that will impact the app store on the Mac in slow but meaningful way.
Personally, the UI bling looks great except for Mission Control... needs more container separators.
Of course it was. Helvetica is a horrible choice for a display face. The apertures of the e and c will make both letters look too similar, on a non retina screen at least. It'll only look good on a retina screen. I hope Apple realizes this and either releases it's own sans serif, as rumors have stated, or go back to lucida grande.
Slow? SLOW? No, if they had added even *ONE* more model, it would be "slow".
"Apple has neglected to extend Retina screens to the rest of their lineup."
"Apple has not yet extended Retina screens to the rest of their lineup."
"Apple has refrained from extending Retina screens to the rest of their lineup."
Slow implies that there is a pace. There isn't. A single data point (MacBook Pro) isn't a pace.
If you had separated the 15" from the 13" in your analysis, it might have made sense to use "slow" or "slowed to a halt since..."
#GrammerPedantry
Umm, yeah. Retina is the future, but Apple shouldn't ignore the present. I have a 2011 Macbook Pro and I imagine that the thin icons and fonts will look terrible and be hard to read, but I may be wrong.
Frilly design should not come above usability. Even on a "retina" screen, tiny thin fonts will be difficult to use (especially on the rumored retina iMacs), even if they do look nice on a keynote slide.
Frilly design should not come above usability. Even on a "retina" screen, tiny thin fonts will be difficult to use (especially on the rumored retina iMacs), even if they do look nice on a keynote slide.
To be fair, iOS 7 looks downright ugly on non-retina screens (iPad 2 and first generation iPad mini). I'm not a huge fan of it on iPhones and iPod touches (which at this point are all retina) and it's so-so on the retina mini, but on the iPad Air, it looks stunning. In a similar vein, I'd imagine that it'll look so-so on non-retina Macs, but amazing on retina Macs; side-effect of such a flat design, I guess.
Yes, but it is substantially uglier on those displays, which I think was the point they were trying to make.
Look at iOS 7 on an iPad 2. Then look at it on either a fourth generation iPad or an iPad Air. My guess is that you'll see a similar disparity in terms of looks.
Of course it was.
The downside is it looks awful on non-retina displays, especially 21.5" 1080p monitors.
Planned obsolesce like this is fine with me, as long as there are comparable products on the market to upgrade to. Currently, there isn't a DAMN thing out there for my Mac mini other than 1080p displays.....
No Mac mini with 4K output.....and no 4K displays at the 21.5" size.
The downside is it looks awful on non-retina displays, especially 21.5" 1080p monitors.
Planned obsolesce like this is fine with me, as long as there are comparable products on the market to upgrade to. Currently, there isn't a DAMN thing out there for my Mac mini other than 1080p displays.....
No Mac mini with 4K output.....and no 4K displays at the 21.5" size.
People keep saying transparent, but it's more translucent than anything. Transparent would be annoying and distracting.
I think it makes it easier to locate stuff hidden behind your current window. It's a great useable feature.
You know that was a reference to the Mac Pro looking like a trash can, right? Watch the keynote video again and you'll pick up on that.
----------
If you look at photos over the ages, you'll discover that the more visual detail packed into a photo adds more realism to it, which directly translates to a visual orgasm for the brain.
----------
No, will run on Macs as old as 8 years old (mid-2007 MacBoo Pros).
Indeed, and it often looks cr@ppy on those (poor text rendering etc). You get used to it but it's still cr@p. That better not be the case when running this new OS on non-retina machines.
I wish... but I've been convinced from much reading and podcast-listening that a true retina display at 27–30" is not currently possible.
However, UHD (4k 3840x2160) is retina/high-DPI... if viewed around 24". (28" UHD displays are cheaper, but not "retina"--the pixels are too big at normal use distances. And they have poor color and viewing angles.)
The only 24" UHD display seems to be Dell's UP2414Q--which also has good color/angles, and semi-Apple-like design with aluminum trim. So if you want a retina desktop Mac now, it looks like that's the only option, and not a bad option at that. $750–$950 street price. So I've ordered one. No more waiting for Apple's version.
Too bad I will miss the Facetime camera, mic and speakers Apple will eventually include in their version, but I will console myself with the portrait rotation offered by the Dell. I guess that's something?
Fat pixels should be a no-no everywhere! We're getting there slowly.
"Retina" is based on viewing distance, so on a big device that you sit a bit farther from, pixels can be a little bigger and still not be seen. There is no need for iPhone- or iPad-size pixels on a desktop or laptop screen. But there IS a need for desktop retina screens. Look at a MacBook Pro's retina screen and you will know why!
The old wire-basket trashcan had "detail."
The new one has "glow."
But yeah, the new font doesn't look as good as the old font on the same screen. I imagine both will look great on a 4K screen.
I have a 2011 MBP with anti-glare high-resolution screen (1680 x 1050). I will not buy a glossy Retina MBP, if I am not forced to by the obsolescence of my current machine. I originally opted for the high-resolution version of the MBP, because the number of screen elements with a 1440 x 900 screen is considerably smaller. Going to the current Retina resolution of 2880 x 1800 is not going to gain me anything in that department, only higher definition. I sure hope, there will be a MBP with a resolution of 3360 x 2100 pixels in a year or so.
That's been built into OS X with Aqua UI for a while now. Same with most UNIX based OS.
Hmm, I wonder if this will be a moment where Apple puts its display technology at the same premium level as its computer hardware. How many of those high end Dell screens will get sold? What if Apple is confident it can sell 10 times that number because Apple has captured the high end market? Does that mean they can have an even better screen? Because the economy of scale is there and the customers are ready to pay a premium?
The question for me is can a modern iMac run that screen under normal circumstances. And then, can it run it for gaming. I suspect that an iMac will not be able to handle gaming at that level of resolution. But the Mac Pro probably can (and is very unlikely to be used for gaming), so maybe it will come out as screen just for the Mac Pro.
