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
It's not really "resistance" to it for me. I'm not really AGAINST retina, there are just other things i'd much prefer to retina. Any new upgrade is still an upgrade, don't get me wrong. I'd enjoy it completely. I'd just much prefer a larger screen, standard SSD's, dropping the ODD for a third hard drive, etc.
....i see ..the fact is,
in my opinion i mean..
retina would be ok
but not if means to "have"a Crap Gpu
collapsing under the hood ,
the same for the thinner design..
(which is not forcedly the only way to "reshape")
if they do that but the Gpu gets hanging for
that decision ..i'd rather buy a thunderbolt cinema display
(when thunderbolt will be available in all motherboards)
to have a REAL GPU working as i need.
There are limits in makin thin all..you can't compromize
the user's experience more than the acceptable and even so
not forever...Gpu are shrinking year by year ,Amd is 28nm today,
so no reasons to avoid using the "old " 27 display..
maybe its more acceptable to have the retina display as BTO..
don't you think?
in my opinion i mean..
retina would be ok
but not if means to "have"a Crap Gpu
collapsing under the hood ,
the same for the thinner design..
(which is not forcedly the only way to "reshape")
if they do that but the Gpu gets hanging for
that decision ..i'd rather buy a thunderbolt cinema display
(when thunderbolt will be available in all motherboards)
to have a REAL GPU working as i need.
There are limits in makin thin all..you can't compromize
the user's experience more than the acceptable and even so
not forever...Gpu are shrinking year by year ,Amd is 28nm today,
so no reasons to avoid using the "old " 27 display..
maybe its more acceptable to have the retina display as BTO..
don't you think?
Last edited:
...i don't know... I
feel as though I am stuck
in a horribly delimited paragraph
full of misplaced newlines
and stilted sentence structure
feel as though I am stuck
in a horribly delimited paragraph
full of misplaced newlines
and stilted sentence structure
This burns my eyes more than any non-retina display. I wont even read poetry that looks like this let alone your post.
what can i say..
maybe my english isn't good as your..
i really apologize
can you help me or are you just trolling?
by the way..
thanks!
ps.
i did some edits.,maybe your eyes are safer now
retina display doesn't seem important to me. for viewing distance like this, retina is not necessary. i prefer to spend more money on performance.
As I have said elsewhere, "Retina" is not a technology, it's a specification. And that specification defines the minimum pixels per inch (ppi) based on the normal viewing distance for the device. If you notice, they talk about different viewing distances for the iPhone and the iPad. This is why they can have a different ppi from each other and still both be Retina.
For those who want a Retina iMac, just sit further away from your display.
No, I mean why does it matter so much to not be able to see pixels? I couldn't give too hoots.
It's like saying you have been waiting for years and years to see beer with smaller bubbles. Who cares??? So long as it tastes good.
I have never, ever found myself looking at a screen and thinking, yeah that's ok but I wish the pixels were smaller. Any more than I wished the white was brighter. It's bright enough.
I would like the blacks blacker, but that's another story.
Of course I would not object to 19,250 x 12,190 resolution (or whatever) if it was free. But it is FAR from free. Very significant extra cost, either in terms of increased price or price reduction that you didn't get. Plus enormous system overhead, increased power consumption and a whole load of other undesirables like more dead pixels.
Basically, it's a complete waste of time at best, a backwards step at worst. The old saying "be careful what you wish for" may prove very relevant.
You know, for people who use photo editing apps, or HTML editing, they need to see the pixels to make sure every pixel is in the right place. I wonder how it is to edit pixels in Retinas...
..i want a retina display with pixel so dense
you won't ever been able to see them ...
with a magnifying glass
ps.
no i don't need retina display..
neither my pockets do..
and Apple knows it..
i suppose ..i wish ..we could have both
normal display as factory
retina display as Bto..
Does it make sense for you?
you won't ever been able to see them ...
with a magnifying glass
ps.
no i don't need retina display..
neither my pockets do..
and Apple knows it..
i suppose ..i wish ..we could have both
normal display as factory
retina display as Bto..
Does it make sense for you?
Ease on the eyes. As someone who works with text a lot, it's mildly uncomfortable looking at the slightly jagged text of conventional screens all day. The iPhone 4, and then the new iPad, were eye-opening, because looking at them is almost like looking at a piece of paper. Every standard display seems lackluster by comparison.
I don't care about retina for media or games. I want it for the everyday stuffweb browsing, word processing, readingto produce crystal clear text that looks as good as print.
Fair enough, although I have never found it to be much of a problem myself. I mean, how sharp is the text in the average newspaper or paperback book? Not razor sharp, is it? Maybe it is. Dunno.
There were plenty of people who were perfectly happy with their 1988 IBM machines, their 1952 black and white TVs, and their 1872 horse drawn buggies.
Don't worry, you will always be able to find outdated and crappy technology on ebay or at a garage sale. The rest of us want technology to keep moving forward.
10" from a 27" screen is stupidly close, you cant even have the whole screen in your vision.
I just tested and measured the distance from my eyeball to the screen and at 10" away I'd be blind before I'm 50 since I like max brightness and a bad neck because of straining to see the whole screen.
People can do what they want, but sitting that close is as stupid as headbutting a soft drink can to open it.
I just tested and measured the distance from my eyeball to the screen and at 10" away I'd be blind before I'm 50 since I like max brightness and a bad neck because of straining to see the whole screen.
People can do what they want, but sitting that close is as stupid as headbutting a soft drink can to open it.
Some people would argue that max brightness is stupid. It's all perspective really. I don't understand why you find it difficult to believe that there are people out there who perceive things differently than you, and that because they do, they are somehow "stupid" for it. Explain yourself.
From the distance I look at my 24inch external screen(1920x1200), about 30 inches. A retina display would be completely pointless and a waste of cpu and gpu power. Laptops make sense. iMacs Don't
I think you are confusing more pixels = necessarily better. I am all for improvement, I am just not sure more pixels is it.
I have about 8mm of tread on my car tyres. Would 20mm of tread be better?
I had a 1983 IBM XT with a 10mb hard drive, CGA card and 16 color monitor. Cost several thousand dollars. I upgraded computers frequently.
But, moving from a great 2560 x 1440 resolution on an IPS monitor to a slightly better resolution is not really a priority for me. I'm not entirely sure that there are GPUs that will run a higher resolution and be able to play games. As it is, you need to step down the resolution for most games. Most monitors max out using HDMI cables at 1920 x 1200 and people don't have a problem with it. It's just that they cannot afford IPS displays to see the difference. It's about $600 more for an IPS monitor, now add retina. Only a select few will be able to afford it.
If they throw it in for "free" I'd have no objections and might take the plunge.
If they sacrifice another upgrade then I'd be slightly perturbed and wait until 2013 updates like I was planning on.
If they sacrifice another upgrade then I'd be slightly perturbed and wait until 2013 updates like I was planning on.
Retina iMac, yes, but only if it has a video card with the OOOMPH to drive that resolution natively, and as apple rarely put decent video cards into anything but the most expensive iMacs, and then only as an optional extra, i think a retina display iMac would be very pretty for still images, but will struggle in video and gaming.
or, iMacs will have retina displays, video cards starting at 2gb and carry a price tag double what they do now.
id rather they kept the current resolutions, but put in Glasses free 3D display technology, that would be more "revolutionary" that just upping the Pixels Per Inch
or, iMacs will have retina displays, video cards starting at 2gb and carry a price tag double what they do now.
id rather they kept the current resolutions, but put in Glasses free 3D display technology, that would be more "revolutionary" that just upping the Pixels Per Inch
Last edited: