Retina iMac make sure you view it in person before buying!

[petvas]

One other thing I simply must mention is screen real estate. I have seen a number of posts claiming one of the advantages of the new screens is that one can put more apps on to the screen at the same time i.e. The extra resolution allows for more resizing.

TBH the only time I ever see people doing this is at a computer sales pitch.

I only ever work on the one programme at a time and in the case of MS Word I set that at 150% minimum sometimes 180%. The larger the better, I like the screen to be filled. I do exactly the same when browsing.

What is the point of having a nice screen and not filling it. I work in an office with 60 other people and as far as I see when walking round we all do the same.

Screen real estate is the same as with the non retina iMac when using the best for retina setting (which shows the full benefits of Retina). People that are planning to use higher resolutions and already have an iMac shouldn't consider an upgrade...
The benefits of Retina can be seen only in the best for Retina setting.

 

[tillsbury]

Screen real estate is the same as with the non retina iMac when using the best for retina setting (which shows the full benefits of Retina). People that are planning to use higher resolutions and already have an iMac shouldn't consider an upgrade...
The benefits of Retina can be seen only in the best for Retina setting.

Nonsense. Retina at "best for retina" is just like an old iMac, but prettier. Screen real estate isn't measured just in inches. If you're like the poster above (or my wife, or many other people), and just use maximised windows then there's no point in retina really, nor a really high resolution screen. If you use a computer for many applications, and have half a dozen or more applications on the go at a time, then retina (particularly at 3200 or native resolution) is superb. Screen real estate is about having lots of windows open, each with lots of information in them, and clear. That's what this screen is for.

I remember showing a colleague Windows 3.0 running on a 20" monitor, with several applications on the go. Her comment was "...now I see the point of Windows..."

 

[petvas]

Nonsense. Retina at "best for retina" is just like an old iMac, but prettier. Screen real estate isn't measured just in inches. If you're like the poster above (or my wife, or many other people), and just use maximised windows then there's no point in retina really, nor a really high resolution screen. If you use a computer for many applications, and have half a dozen or more applications on the go at a time, then retina (particularly at 3200 or native resolution) is superb. Screen real estate is about having lots of windows open, each with lots of information in them, and clear. That's what this screen is for.

I remember showing a colleague Windows 3.0 running on a 20" monitor, with several applications on the go. Her comment was "...now I see the point of Windows..."

I am sorry but this is not accurate. Retina is exactly what I described. Having a bigger real estate isn't retina. The display wouldn't use 4 pixels per virtual point.

 

[tillsbury]

I am sorry but this is not accurate. Retina is exactly what I described. Having a bigger real estate isn't retina. The display wouldn't use 4 pixels per virtual point.

Well, at 5k it isn't, no. But to be fair the pixels are still small enough to look fine.

3200 is still retina, I that its still rendered at 6400x whatever before scaling down to 5k. The retina feature is still there, but not at 2x2. Retina is scaling pixels up, not exclusively doing it at double resolution. The iPhone 6 now uses 3x, I believe, as do the lower scaled resolutions. In all of them images and video are rendered at the pixel level.

 

[leenak]

One other thing I simply must mention is screen real estate. I have seen a number of posts claiming one of the advantages of the new screens is that one can put more apps on to the screen at the same time i.e. The extra resolution allows for more resizing.

TBH the only time I ever see people doing this is at a computer sales pitch.

I only ever work on the one programme at a time and in the case of MS Word I set that at 150% minimum sometimes 180%. The larger the better, I like the screen to be filled. I do exactly the same when browsing.

What is the point of having a nice screen and not filling it. I work in an office with 60 other people and as far as I see when walking round we all do the same.

I never maximize the size of the app I'm using, never. At work, I often am viewing 2 excel spreadsheets at a time while monitoring email, IM and perhaps looking at a PDF. At home, doing my personal and school projects, it is lovely to be able to have my code on one side of the screen while looking at a PDF, other code or something else on the other side of the screen. I've never seen anyone do what you are indicating, but maybe it is a UK/US difference or just the type of work you do. But it has already been indicated that you don't get more screen real estate. Maybe if you adjust settings you do. I use the standard setting which gives me the same amount of real estate as a regular iMac.

 

[Lankyman]

I remember showing a colleague Windows 3.0 running on a 20" monitor, with several applications on the go. Her comment was "...now I see the point of Windows..."

That may well be true and I wouldn't argue with that analysis. However, as said previously it isn't how I work. I spend most of my day at work writing reports, emails etc. etc. I only work on maximised screen at 150%. I find that far more comfortable on my eyes then trying to squint at a smaller Window and simply end up giving myself a headache.

This has to be a horses for courses decision and for me Retina really would be wasted. For MS Word emails browsing etc. the 'standard' iMac screen more than meets my requirements and expectations. Let's be honest here, the screen is very very good in its own right.

 

[colodane]

Different strokes for different folks.

In the 3 years I've had my Mac, I've only had one app on the screen at a time - always maximized - Other than when using Finder and bringing up files for editing.

The apps I use 90% of the time (Mail, Safari, Calendar, iTunes) each have their own full screen desktops that I swipe between. Right now, for example, I have MacRumors displayed full screen on a Safari tab.

Apple designed OSX this way so people could use it like this if they want. I want.

That may explain why many people - such as me - are VERY happy with a 21.5 inch iMac ;>)

 

[petvas]

I don't think anybody said that the non retina iMacs aren't good. It's just that after you work with a Retina iMac for an hour, you don't want to go back. Could you do it? Of course you could continue ignoring this gorgeous screen, but that doesn't change the fact that the Retina iMac is the better computer for everybody, no matter if they even see it or not..

 

[kendrickhphoto]

Hey oh yeah totally with you. I wasn't trying to exclude you folk with decent SLR's... I guess it really depends no the lens and how sharp the resolved image turns out to be.



To put another way. If you had a camera that shot photos at exactly the same resolution as the iMac 14.7MP - viewing photos 1:1 wouldn't necessarily mean you see human hairs that are 1 pixel wide (for example). This is due to the fact that the lens always has some degree of blur, and better lenses have less of that blur.



To get that really fine detail, you would need something a bit higher than 14.7MP to get stuff that looks super sharp when viewed at 14.7MP.



Yeah I really struggle to put this into words that make sense ahah sorry.



But yes - definitely your camera would have no problem showcasing the beauty of this screen

I only shoot primes and even with a $150 50 1.8 on my D800/810 it still resolves out to 22 P-MPix which is much higher than the 14.7 MP of the screen. I can tell you this screen has made a huge difference for me in terms of workflow.

Here's a link that might help you put what you were trying to say into words.

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Best...no-advance-over-D800E/Best-Primes-on-the-D810

 

[tillsbury]

That may well be true and I wouldn't argue with that analysis. However, as said previously it isn't how I work. I spend most of my day at work writing reports, emails etc. etc. I only work on maximised screen at 150%. I find that far more comfortable on my eyes then trying to squint at a smaller Window and simply end up giving myself a headache.

This has to be a horses for courses decision and for me Retina really would be wasted. For MS Word emails browsing etc. the 'standard' iMac screen more than meets my requirements and expectations. Let's be honest here, the screen is very very good in its own right.

Absolutely. If you work full-screen on a document on a 27" screen, then you can be much further away and you really won't get a significant amount of improvement from retina displays. But that's effectively the same as using a 15" retina Macbook pro from half the distance. And I'm sure that works for some people too.

Although OSX's implementation of Retina is way better than Windows' (and would be expected to be, as they've been doing it far longer), the biggest thing about the retina imac is the display resolution. Even though I've come down in screen size, something I thought I'd never do, it is still the resolution that means everything to me. Although I work with the same number of windows open as I used to, I can see so much more in each one. At the moment I'm rendering a timelapse in one corner (keeping track of where it is and making adjustments here and there), I also have a Windows XP machine which runs accounts and certain other business issues (which I need access to at a second's notice if I'm on the phone), but I can still happily work on FCPX, have my emails visible, and browse the net at the same time. Bliss. Now all we need is a bigger one -- when they bring out 8k at 32+" I'll be the first to order...

 

[Lankyman]

Different strokes for different folks.

In the 3 years I've had my Mac, I've only had one app on the screen at a time - always maximized - Other than when using Finder and bringing up files for editing.

The apps I use 90% of the time (Mail, Safari, Calendar, iTunes) each have their own full screen desktops that I swipe between. Right now, for example, I have MacRumors displayed full screen on a Safari tab.

Apple designed OSX this way so people could use it like this if they want. I want.

That may explain why many people - such as me - are VERY happy with a 21.5 inch iMac ;>)

Ditto me. #

 

[nrubenstein]

Different strokes for different folks.

In the 3 years I've had my Mac, I've only had one app on the screen at a time - always maximized - Other than when using Finder and bringing up files for editing.

The apps I use 90% of the time (Mail, Safari, Calendar, iTunes) each have their own full screen desktops that I swipe between. Right now, for example, I have MacRumors displayed full screen on a Safari tab.

Apple designed OSX this way so people could use it like this if they want. I want.

That may explain why many people - such as me - are VERY happy with a 21.5 inch iMac ;>)

My eyes would get tired having to move around that much. I hate it when i have to read all the way across a largish screen.

One of the most annoying things about the 21" iMac (and similar resolution displays) is that it's hard to get two really useful windows on screen simultaneously. The 27" screen is big enough that I can have four fully usable windows up simultaneously without cramping.

 

[colodane]

Yes, this topic is really about personal preferences.

Not really a "right" or "wrong" answer.

But for me, multi-tasking and cluttered displays have no appeal.