Hype? What hype? I've longed for non-pixelated displays since I was 12 (10 years ago, and this was with a 17" CRT at 1600x1200).
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.
[POLL] who wants a retina iMac?
- Thread starter adildacoolset
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Hype? What hype? I've longed for non-pixelated displays since I was 12 (10 years ago, and this was with a 17" CRT at 1600x1200).
glad to know im not the only one crazy
----------
isnt that self-explanatory? you like seeing pixels?
Nobody is stating the obvious reason why higher resolution displays are going to be awesome.
Think about what made VHS popular....
Think about what made VHS popular....
Sit more than 5 inches from your Mac then. lol. I think my 24" iMac is fine from where i sit. There are better things we could get than "retina" with the 2012 iMacs.
I don't get it, why is there so much resistance to retina display? As long as there isn't any major performance drawbacks it just seems like it would be an awesome bonus. Who doesn't want increased resolution? It's ridiculous that anybody would try to imply that the iMac is regressing because it is attaining more pixels and a clearer display. We can complain about alot, but surely this isn't worthy of condemnation.
Beacuse as it stands there will be major performance drawbacks, GPUs in the mobile space or even desktop space haven't grown 4 times as powerfull this past year, you can't render 3D in the full resolution of the display at any tolerable speed, how could anything do it at 4x the pixels? you would need desktop SLI to have close to 30fps at twice the current resolution (4x pixels) in 3d rendering
And atleast for me personaly i have troubles seeing pixels on my iMac at the distance i regularly use it.
The display panel will be much more expensive, and the GPUs won't be able to push the pixels around fast enough.
I want an iMac with a Retina display.. next time. 2015 or so. Not this time.
The benefit of higher resolution displays is that you get a wider field of view. Check out Charles Poynton's book where he makes this point -- he's an expert in video, color, resolution, etc. (http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Video-Second-Edition-Algorithms/dp/0123919266/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1337907844&sr=8-1)
I sit about 10" away from my screen, and while I realize not everyone does that, there a LOT of people who do (particularly around 15-30 year olds). I'm sure you can see the benefit for this group of the population.
----------
Because I don't like looking at this all the time:
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
A lot of people do? I work in the tech industry and have never seen anyone sit that close. They would probably be laughed out of the office. Why do you do it?
I would take a larger display over retina. Retina would require a much faster video card, so even with the rumored video cards due to come out we would still be struggling to drive that monitor, especially for gaming. The resolution we have now for the 27" is just perfect, though it would be nice if the 21" saw a bump, aside from size that was the other reason why I did not bite on the 21" model.
Perhaps they'll offer it as an BTO option and not make it mandatory. I would bite on a 30" or 32" if that was offered.
Perhaps they'll offer it as an BTO option and not make it mandatory. I would bite on a 30" or 32" if that was offered.
By the way if the 27" iMac and Cinema Display get a resolution of 3840x2160 it would be classed as a "Retina Display" at the distance of 21"
Now I don't know about you but I sit around 24" to 28" away from my iMac
Also as a note the current 27" iMac can be classed as a "Retina Display" if you sit 32" away from it
Now I don't know about you but I sit around 24" to 28" away from my iMac
Also as a note the current 27" iMac can be classed as a "Retina Display" if you sit 32" away from it
No one's ever laughed at the way I sit at a computer. That's an odd comment -- I'm not really sure what to make of it.
Perhaps you are thinking 10 inches is shorter than it actually is. Pull out a ruler and measure that distance perpendicular to the center of your screen. I'm guessing you will find it is further than you thought.
(I just measured in fact. I'm sitting 11 inches from my screen at the moment.)
I only want it if it will leave the system working properly and not laggy. If the system is very much slower because of the retina display, it isn't ready to meet the world of computers.
lol
----------
The current iMac screen is 2560 by 1440 pixels. I don't know about you, but I can't see any pixels on the screen unless I put my face inches away. I sit about 30" away from my monitor and "retina" will not make much of a difference. I'd rather have my extra $$ go to something else, like cheaper SSDs.
I've never used the 27", but on the 21" I can definitely see pixels at my normal viewing distance. I'd adore a retina screen; the iPhone and iPad have spoiled me, and I want a computer where test looks that good, too. (I'd obviously expect games and graphics-intensive stuff to run at a lower resolution: it's the Internet, word processing, things like that which make the retina screen appealing to me.)
Because the best way to deal with technical specs is to make them so good, i.e. exceed human perception, that nobody cares what they are. Every time someone asks "what's the resolution of display XYZ?" they're really asking "is it not bad enough as to be annoying?" Faced with dealing with technical specifications, customers decide (via rational or flippant means) what minimums they're willing to put up with; a smart manufacturer will create a product good enough to not make a product users merely put up with, but instead cannot be disappointed with. "2048x1280" is one standard; "resolution is irrelevant" is a whole different level.
Of course, driving fast enough response times out of that becomes an issue, but that too should become a matter of engineering, and not something users have to fuss over.
or in the other room...
This is silly. It's like telling someone to sit far enough away from their TI-84 so they can't see the pixels. The point of adding more is so you don't HAVE to do that.
I recognize a lot of you like to sit 3 feet away from your monitor, but a lot of people don't.
(So quit making fun of me dagnabit)
