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

[Roller]

Well I thought the quip another customer made in store summed it up perfectly for me - he simply said this is 'the Emperors New Clothes' all over again.

If people are convinced they can see an appreciable difference then fine spend the extra cash. As I've said before eyesight is unique to the individual.

Even if it was a no cost option it really wouldn't bother me which model Apple dispatched. The standard screen blows me away as it is.

I have no quarrel with your statement that eyesight varies. But saying that the "emperor's new clothes" quip sums it up perfectly for you suggests that you think that any perceived improvement isn't real. That's demonstrably false. Put a Retina iMac next to an older, non-Retina display and zoom in on some text. The difference is plain to see, even to someone with aging eyes, and it's been obvious to everyone I've shown it to since acquiring my Retina iMac.

Now, whether that improvement is worth it to you is something only you can decide. In my case, I'm thrilled with the result. But implying I'm being convinced that I'm seeing something that really isn't there is wrong and frankly somewhat insulting.

 

[leenak]

At the end of the day I have been using MS Office since Windows 3.1. For letters and reports they looked good then and on my mid-2011 iMac they still look good now.

I don't do any video editing and only take family snaps which I rarely re-tweak. I don't use my computer for watching films or TV. That just leaves web browsing and emails.

There is no way on earth I would pay any extra for the above, the benefits would be minimal. Even if it was a no cost option I would not be fussed if I had one or not. For me this is a case of 'The Emperors New Clothes'. Remember all the hype over 3D, where is it now?

I get it I really do. You have spent/spending the cash you want to justify your purchase.

I have far more going on in my life than the amount of pixels on a screen. I am of an age where I can remember monochrome TV so I'm sure some of you older ones will know where I'm coming from.

I don't embrace things like Twitter or Facebook, I have a 'real' circle of friends. I'm more interested in my current project of restoring my classic motorcycle, my collection of orchids or landscaping my garden.

Life is all about perspective and making an image on the screen marginally sharper really doesn't do it for me.

Uhh what?

I can tell you that I initially ordered the regular non-retina iMac. I really figured I didn't need retina. I've been using a rMBP for 2 years though and talking about my options to someone else and telling them that I find my other monitor I use and my work laptop to be 'fuzzy'. They told me it might be because I'm so used to retina on my own laptop. Could be? Anyway, I got a better processor and the new screen for the $300 difference from the non-retina iMac I initially ordered then cancelled. I can't tell you that I can see a difference from the non-retina iMacs because I haven't got one of those, I haven't been to a store to compare, I can just say that I know I can tell a difference from other computer screens. If someone says they can tell the difference, just because you can't doesn't mean they are lying.

And although I still don't quite get twitter, I like Facebook, since I live far away from many family and some friends, it is a great way to keep in touch with people I can only see a few times per year. My parents (nearing their 70s) love Facebook more than anyone I know for similar reasons. My grandmother isn't on it but my 90+ yr old great aunt is and she is amazing on Facebook. She will post pictures of various places she goes with my great uncle and posts pictures of family get togethers. People I know that use these technological tools tend to be people who have rich lives and those things aren't their only lives.

I too remember fondly some of the days that aren't now, I wish I could relive the 80s as an adult, that'd be fun I think but now is now. I don't understand touch screen computers, tablets - yes, computers - no. Twitter, instagram, pinterest are all not my cup of tea. I remember having an 8 bit system where the graphics were crap but I also can't go back to that. Some people can play 8 bit games, but I can't. Civ 3 ruined Civ 2 for me (which was my favorite game for many years). and Retina screens have ruined regular screens for me.

 

[Lankyman]

I have no quarrel with your statement that eyesight varies. But saying that the "emperor's new clothes" quip sums it up perfectly for you suggests that you think that any perceived improvement isn't real. That's demonstrably false. Put a Retina iMac next to an older, non-Retina display and zoom in on some text. The difference is plain to see, even to someone with aging eyes, and it's been obvious to everyone I've shown it to since acquiring my Retina iMac.

Now, whether that improvement is worth it to you is something only you can decide. In my case, I'm thrilled with the result. But implying I'm being convinced that I'm seeing something that really isn't there is wrong and frankly somewhat insulting.

The fact that you are having to zoom in on text to demonstrate a difference confirms my view that the gain is indeed marginal. A number of other posters have alluded to the fact that from a normal working distance it's not easy to see a difference whilst someone else posted that people don't realise there's a difference unless they are told.

I'd love to see a blind test of the two options to see how many people would actually spot the difference if they didn't know about retina.

 

[Lankyman]

In response to leenak, I am in the UK but I have a sister along with nephews and nieces in Australia. I use FaceTime and email to contact them regularly. My children now live in various parts of the UK and again FaceTime and emails are in regular use. All our contact is private which is how it should be. Why people want to put their lives online with all the risks that entails is beyond me.

The less personal information about me there is out there the happier I am. There are some trade offs I'm simply not prepared to make.

 

[leenak]

In response to leenak, I am in the UK but I have a sister along with nephews and nieces in Australia. I use FaceTime and email to contact them regularly. My children now live in various parts of the UK and again FaceTime and emails are in regular use. All our contact is private which is how it should be. Why people want to put their lives online with all the risks that entails is beyond me.

The less personal information about me there is out there the happier I am. There are some trade offs I'm simply not prepared to make.

But just because that works for you, doesn't mean that is how it works for other people. I have over 100 cousins. I have many of them on FB along with other family members. Sometimes some family members will email to dozens of people to discuss specific things but it is much easier for my family to communicate on Facebook.

 

[Windowsrefugee]

From the horse's mouth:

http://i.imgur.com/r02s0.png

Ok, but my trigonometry is a bit rusty. Is there a chart somewhere that shows "retina resolution" as a function of distance? I suspect that I normally sit >30-32 I niches from my 27" TB display. So I might not be able to see too much difference in normal use...

I also suspect that the advantages of a retina display diminish as vision does. So some of those posting here may perceive more of a difference since there vision is better...

 

[Lankyman]

But just because that works for you, doesn't mean that is how it works for other people. I have over 100 cousins. I have many of them on FB along with other family members. Sometimes some family members will email to dozens of people to discuss specific things but it is much easier for my family to communicate on Facebook.

I did say at the outset it wasn't for 'me'.

 

[Roman2K~]

The fact that you are having to zoom in on text to demonstrate a difference confirms my view that the gain is indeed marginal.

Zooming in doesn't emphasize the advantages of the 5K model. Actually, the difference is way more obvious with no zoom, or better: zoomed out. Smaller details are (very much) clearer on a retina display, no need to zoom in to make them out. That's the whole point to me. Meanwhile, bigger/regular-sized details/text look eye-soothingly crystal clear where they would look fuzzy/blurry-edged/headache-inducing on a non-retina display.

A number of other posters have alluded to the fact that from a normal working distance it's not easy to see a difference whilst someone else posted that people don't realise there's a difference unless they are told.

These people shouldn't spend the extra cash then, as simple as that. Though if even I can see an obvious difference with my normal vision (10 out of 10, or rather 20), I'm sure plenty, if not the vast majority of people would see it too. Most definitely warrants spending the cash to me. In fact, it didn't cross my mind that it would be a subject for debate before seeing all these posts justifying the money saved buying the old model.

 

[dandrewk]

I'd love to see a blind test of the two options to see how many people would actually spot the difference if they didn't know about retina.

I'd love to see this as well. You want to wager on the outcome?

 

[dandrewk]

I did say at the outset it wasn't for 'me'.

Fair enough. And yet you continue to come into this thread with insults at those who DO say it IS for them. Based on what, your own (apparently failing) eyesight?

You haven't found much agreement, not here or -anywhere-. There have been plenty of media reviews on the new screen, some from reviewers who love to bash Apple. Where is there a negative review? Where is one that indicates the retina screen rates a "meh"? In fact, I can't recall seeing a review that did not mention outright the incredible new display.

Wall Street Journal: The Screen That Makes Desktops Relevant Again

Techcrunch: Apple’s newest iMac has the best display ever on a computing device. Let’s just get that out the way right at the start: You won’t find a better screen anywhere else, period. The 27-inch, 5120×2880 screen has a PPI of 218, or roughly equivalent to that of the MacBook Pro with Retina display, but the specs on paper, while impressive in their own right, can’t convey the experience of actually using the thing. Apple’s price of admission for 5K goodness is steep, with prices starting at $2,499 (plus additional fees for custom configurations) but it’s worth every penny.

It's a bit more than blind fan boys wanting the latest/greatest, no matter how you want to spin it. You're entitled to your opinion, just don't expect much agreement. So please, stop posting this nonsense and quit while you're behind.

 

[petvas]

These kind of threads are really pointless. If there was no non retina iMac for sale, everybody would be saying how amazing the new display is.

There is a very big difference. The more you sit in front of the screen, the more you appreciate it.
People saying the opposite are one of two things:

• blind
• trying to convince themselves subconsciously that there is no difference so that they justify their decision not to buy one

It is as simple as that. Some people do see the difference but don't care.
I wonder what all these people would say if the Retina iMac costed 1500$..

 

[Gary Irwin]

These kind of threads are really pointless. If there was no non retina iMac for sale, everybody would be saying how amazing the new display is.

There is a very big difference. The more you sit in front of the screen, the more you appreciate it.
People saying the opposite are one of two things:

• blind
• trying to convince themselves subconsciously that there is no difference so that they justify their decision not to buy one

It is as simple as that. Some people do see the difference but don't care.
I wonder what all these people would say if the Retina iMac costed 1500$..

Exactly. There are very, very few computer users that wouldn't immediately notice the difference a retina display makes. Whether it really impresses them or not is another question.

For me, and I suspect most iMac consumers, retina his huge. In fact I fully expect the only way you will be able to buy a non-retina iMac in three years will be from refurbished stock. Retina models will become standard very quickly. Remember: Apple prides itself on being one-step ahead of the rest of the market...if only to justify its premium prices.

 

[Windowsrefugee]

These kind of threads are really pointless. If there was no non retina iMac for sale, everybody would be saying how amazing the new display is.

There is a very big difference. The more you sit in front of the screen, the more you appreciate it.
People saying the opposite are one of two things:

• blind
• trying to convince themselves subconsciously that there is no difference so that they justify their decision not to buy one

It is as simple as that. Some people do see the difference but don't care.
I wonder what all these people would say if the Retina iMac costed 1500$..

I do not think you are really being fair or perhaps you are being pedantic... I am not blind and I am fully prepared to buy a new riMac to replace my 7 year old iMac-- in fact I have put off buying one for at least a year hoping it would be here before my old one died. I went in to the Apple store a couple of weeks ago and saw the side by side comparison. From where I was standing, the difference was barely perceptible. I could see the difference, but it did not seem dramatic to me-- bit, to be fair, I do not know how far I was from the two screens compared to my normal working distance. I now need to check my typical viewing distance to see if I normally sit close enough to the screen to be able to perceive the difference. My wife sits 30" away which seems to be just close enough she might be able to notice the difference.

So, please do not impune the motives or integrity of people who cannot see a major difference-- maybe they just sit father away from the screen than you do.

 

[tillsbury]

I do not think you are really being fair or perhaps you are being pedantic... I am not blind and I am fully prepared to buy a new riMac to replace my 7 year old iMac-- in fact I have put off buying one for at least a year hoping it would be here before my old one died. I went in to the Apple store a couple of weeks ago and saw the side by side comparison. From where I was standing, the difference was barely perceptible. I could see the difference, but it did not seem dramatic to me-- bit, to be fair, I do not know how far I was from the two screens compared to my normal working distance. I now need to check my typical viewing distance to see if I normally sit close enough to the screen to be able to perceive the difference. My wife sits 30" away which seems to be just close enough she might be able to notice the difference.

So, please do not impune the motives or integrity of people who cannot see a major difference-- maybe they just sit father away from the screen than you do.

I note that most of these posts are from people looking at screens at the store. I wonder how far away they are from the screens. Do they actually sit down as if to use them?

People might well sit 30" away from a non-retina screen -- there's little point in sitting any closer as you won't see any more. There is still an immense difference from that far away, though. But the retina screen allows you to sit significantly closer to the machine, giving you a far wider field of view on the display. And it's well worth it. I wouldn't be surprised if people do sit perhaps a foot nearer a retina display than an old-style display. It's because they can.

 

[Roller]

The fact that you are having to zoom in on text to demonstrate a difference confirms my view that the gain is indeed marginal. A number of other posters have alluded to the fact that from a normal working distance it's not easy to see a difference whilst someone else posted that people don't realise there's a difference unless they are told.

I'd love to see a blind test of the two options to see how many people would actually spot the difference if they didn't know about retina.

The fact that I see a difference when I zoom in does not equate to a marginal gain. Because of my eyesight, I have to zoom in from time to time to do my work. When I do so on my older iMac, the advantage of text magnification is rapidly offset by decreased sharpness as the characters grow. The change in sharpness is much less evident on the Retina iMac, which makes it easier to see what I'm doing. So, for me, it's a real gain that translates into less eyestrain. Whilst the advantage may not be worth it to you, it is to me.

 

[dandrewk]

I do not think you are really being fair or perhaps you are being pedantic... I am not blind and I am fully prepared to buy a new riMac to replace my 7 year old iMac-- in fact I have put off buying one for at least a year hoping it would be here before my old one died. I went in to the Apple store a couple of weeks ago and saw the side by side comparison. From where I was standing, the difference was barely perceptible. I could see the difference, but it did not seem dramatic to me-- bit, to be fair, I do not know how far I was from the two screens compared to my normal working distance. I now need to check my typical viewing distance to see if I normally sit close enough to the screen to be able to perceive the difference. My wife sits 30" away which seems to be just close enough she might be able to notice the difference.

So, please do not impune the motives or integrity of people who cannot see a major difference-- maybe they just sit father away from the screen than you do.

I don't think anyone is impugning those who choose not to buy the RiMac. However, some folks in this thread can't seem to understand why anyone would WANT to buy an RiMac, to the point of being insulting.

From a distance, sure, you won't see much improvement with a 5k screen. But what's the point? Would you buy a 65" HD screen HD flat screen and judge quality by standing at the opposite side of the store?

I sit about 22" from the screen, both on my older iMac and the RiMac. From that distance (and I HAVE done it side by side), the difference is profound. With all sincerity, and at the risk of offending some posters, you would indeed have serious eyesight issues if the difference wasn't obvious.

And, as others have said, it may not be worth the extra money to go with the better display. To each his own.

 

[Windowsrefugee]

When someone says anyone who does not see a difference is either "blind or
trying to convince themselves subconsciously that there is no difference so that they justify their decision not to buy one", it is either insulting or impugning people's motives.

We can all agree that the value of the retina iMac screen is in the eye and mind of the beholder.

 

[dandrewk]

Now who's being pedantic?

If someone can't see a difference between the two panels at normal viewing distance, they INDEED have vision problems. That's not an "insult", that's reality. And there are posters to this forum whose only intent is to stir the pot.

Now, if a person can see the difference, but does not need or want the value of that improvement, that's an -entirely different story-. I get that. But to say there is -little or no difference- is patently absurd.

 

[Lankyman]

I'd love to see this as well. You want to wager on the outcome?

With normal consumers or Apple consumers - two very different animals. I would certainly wager on 'normal consumers' not having the first clue.

 

[Lankyman]

When someone says anyone who does not see a difference is either "blind or
trying to convince themselves subconsciously that there is no difference so that they justify their decision not to buy one", it is either insulting or impugning people's motives.

We can all agree that the value of the retina iMac screen is in the eye and mind of the beholder.

Absolutely correct.

I note yet again the mention of fuzzy and sharp text - fuzzy being what was lauded only a few short months ago to be an imperious screen by many - the standard 27" model - sharp the new 27" retina.

I have been reading such stories since the introduction of the retina iPad. I own an iPad 2 my daughter has the retina Air. I can see the Air screen is brighter but that about does it for me. I genuinely don't see fuzzy text on my iPad 2. As I've said time and again it may well be an age thing or simply our unique vision. Whatever it is it is certainly saving me plenty of money.

It is also a fact that you get used to what you are using and it is also a fact that the brain tricks our vision ergo what I see is genuine to me and what others see is genuine to them.

----------

Now who's being pedantic?

If someone can't see a difference between the two panels at normal viewing distance, they INDEED have vision problems. That's not an "insult", that's reality. And there are posters to this forum whose only intent is to stir the pot.

Now, if a person can see the difference, but does not need or want the value of that improvement, that's an -entirely different story-. I get that. But to say there is -little or no difference- is patently absurd.

I think if anyone is being insulting and dogmatic it is you. Because you can see a difference and others can't then they must be certifiably blind is what you allude to. Your dogma flies in the face of science my friend.

 

[5iMacs]

The Retina iMac, at its modest price premium over the regular iMac, is a great value if you don't want to scroll as much and want to arrange a lot of content on the screen. The screen is effectively larger. Not everyone can get to 16 inches from the screen because of physical/furniture limitations but if you can then you can see more than on a non-Retina screen:

 

[dandrewk]

I think if anyone is being insulting and dogmatic it is you. Because you can see a difference and others can't then they must be certifiably blind is what you allude to. Your dogma flies in the face of science my friend.

How does one quote a post and then deliberately misquote said post in his comment? Enter the straw man. I never said "blind", I said "vision problems". Big difference, and I stand by that statement.

As to who is insulting, the answer is clear from reading above. You lashed out at my initial post, which wasn't even directed at you, lacing it with overt, personal insults. Let's add "hypocrisy" to "straw man".

 

[petvas]

I forgot to add a third category of people who don't see a difference. There are many people who just don't care about technology that much. Throw them a monitor that looks good somehow and they are satisfied.
So, yes, there are people who don't see a difference. These people shouldn't be getting an iMac in the first place though.
People who care about technology do see a difference.

So yes, I understand if people are saying the difference isn't that big.
If you understand quality then you want the Retina iMac.

 

[Lankyman]

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.

 

[bushman4]

Once more 4K content is available, you'll be able to appreciate the 5K retina screen more. Be patient it won't be long