Retina iMac Mockup

[GermanyChris]

I kinda agree with you there. They should reserve the "i" for mobile devices: iPhone, iPad, iPod etc.

I think the Mac line up should like this:

Mac
- previously iMac. This is the epitome of Apple design: simplicity, ergonomic, house-friendly, user-friendly, simplified operation, simplified form factor. I think this form factor can even further reduced to iPad level thinness. If you want more graphic power, you should get...

Mac Mini
- Mac Pro no more, the Mac Mini will be powerful enough to match the best of Mac Pro, look at the current MBPr with its Geekbench score of 12,000. That is Mac Pro level kind of performance in a very compact chassis.

MacBook Air (just the tiny 11" version)

MacBook (13" & 15" thin retina design)
- Lose the PRO moniker. Those who know Mac doesn't need to be told they have a pro-level machine in their possession.

2012 Mac Pro Intel Xeon X5675 3070 MHz (12 cores) 22291 that 12,000 score is close..and this is on 2 yo. tech..a 13 Mac Pro should hit 45-70,000 with 16 cores depending on the chosen processor. (Intel Xeon E5-2670 2599 16 Windows 64-bit 35247) that's one processor the MP would use 2.

Where are you going to put the graphics card or 2? How about the 2 optical drives? The 4 HDD's? The 128GB of RAM?

 

[SpiderDude]

Sw-eeet

Pretty cool.

Makes me sad for the NVIDIA never becoming true...
Putting a laptop's GPU in a 2000$ desktop seems like a distasteful joke...
I know, heat problems and all that, but, you now...

Mac'on

 

[DarekBarquero]

Hey guys , I just did a quick little mockup of what I would like the new iMac to look like .

Image

Also full size version :

http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/2269/imacretina.jpg

Tell me what you guys think

this reminds me of a theory i had lol check it out
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1387150/

 

[Pompiliu]

Mac Mini
- Mac Pro no more, the Mac Mini will be powerful enough to match the best of Mac Pro, look at the current MBPr with its Geekbench score of 12,000. That is Mac Pro level kind of performance in a very compact chassis.

How the hell am i supposed to put 2 CPUs in a Mac Mini? Or 8 sticks of RAM? Or 4 HDDs? Or 2 graphic cars? Or a RAID Card? Or Fibre Channel card?

I'll stop it right here. You obviously use your computer just for youtube, browsing and iphoto and you think an iPad can replace a notebook and a mac mini a mac pro.

You're funny and, how do i put this delicately, naive.

doublefacepalm.jpg.

 

[Oracle1729]

The 27" iMac is 106 dpi which becomes retina (1.2 arcmins between pixel centres) at 26.5". So it pretty much is retina already.

 

[hleewell]

How the hell am i supposed to put 2 CPUs in a Mac Mini? Or 8 sticks of RAM? Or 4 HDDs? Or 2 graphic cars? Or a RAID Card? Or Fibre Channel card?

I'll stop it right here. You obviously use your computer just for youtube, browsing and iphoto and you think an iPad can replace a notebook and a mac mini a mac pro.

You're funny and, how do i put this delicately, naive.

doublefacepalm.jpg.

Mac Pro no more. Apple is not interested in this market anymore. The Mac Mini will be significantly more powerful than even the iMac but I would think it will not be as powerful as a gazillion-core Mac Pro which nobody uses anymore. Even NASA doesn't require that kind of firepower. The future Mac Mini will be divided into 2 lines: the current form factor, and a larger chassis with more processing power, swappable HDD & RAM, desktop GPU, SSD hybrid system. A non-profitable Mac Pro line-up will be retired.

Think different much?

The new Mac Mini PRO

 

[MythicFrost]

The 27" iMac is 106 dpi which becomes retina (1.2 arcmins between pixel centres) at 26.5". So it pretty much is retina already.

With 20/20 vision it's 31 inches, but visual acuity and viewing distance vary from person to person, so higher is better. And for the scaling to work the resolution has to be doubled in each dimension. So 2560x1440 needs to be 5120x2880, and 1920x1080 needs to be 3840x2160. Apple could opt for a lower resolution, say 1680x1050x2 for the 21.5 inch model, but I hope not.

 

[GermanyChris]

Mac Pro no more. Apple is not interested in this market anymore. The Mac Mini will be significantly more powerful than even the iMac but I would think it will not be as powerful as a gazillion-core Mac Pro which nobody uses anymore. Even NASA doesn't require that kind of firepower. The future Mac Mini will be divided into 2 lines: the current form factor, and a larger chassis with more processing power, swappable HDD & RAM, desktop GPU, SSD hybrid system. A non-profitable Mac Pro line-up will be retired.

Think different much?

Image
The new Mac Mini PRO

I think you should head over to the MP section and tell them, they just don't need the power in the computers they didn't buy.

 

[12dylan34]

Mac Pro no more. Apple is not interested in this market anymore. The Mac Mini will be significantly more powerful than even the iMac but I would think it will not be as powerful as a gazillion-core Mac Pro which nobody uses anymore. Even NASA doesn't require that kind of firepower. The future Mac Mini will be divided into 2 lines: the current form factor, and a larger chassis with more processing power, swappable HDD & RAM, desktop GPU, SSD hybrid system. A non-profitable Mac Pro line-up will be retired.

Think different much?

Image
The new Mac Mini PRO

I don't think that you quite know what you're talking about. Do you see the attached image? It took about an half an hour to render on my 2008 MacBook Pro. The fastest 12 core Mac Pro is about 7.25x faster than my machine in raw processing power, which means that the image would take about 4 minutes and 7 seconds to render. Now imagine that it's a video with only 200 frames. That's about 14 hours and 45 minutes to render on a top end Mac Pro. Still a long time. People absolutely do need the power of the Mac Pro. Apple will either choose to fill this market, or not to. They can't and won't release something that's less powerful and market it as a professional machine.

 

[Acorn]

i like how the grey border on the bottom of the original post image is much thinner. it looks closer to a thunderbolt display and would better match it.

 

[eagandale4114]

I don't think that you quite know what you're talking about. Do you see the attached image? It took about an half an hour to render on my 2008 MacBook Pro. The fastest 12 core Mac Pro is about 7.25x faster than my machine in raw processing power, which means that the image would take about 4 minutes and 7 seconds to render. Now imagine that it's a video with only 200 frames. That's about 14 hours and 45 minutes to render on a top end Mac Pro. Still a long time. People absolutely do need the power of the Mac Pro. Apple will either choose to fill this market, or not to. They can't and won't release something that's less powerful and market it as a professional machine.

Nice render. What is it and what program?

 

[12dylan34]

Nice render. What is it and what program?

I don't really know what it is...Just some weird abstract thing that I made as a background for my MBP. I used Cinema 4D to make it.

 

[timtax]

Very nice design, I would personally go for smaller black edges though. The current ones are way too thick

 

[Oracle1729]

With 20/20 vision it's 31 inches, but visual acuity and viewing distance vary from person to person, so higher is better. And for the scaling to work the resolution has to be doubled in each dimension. So 2560x1440 needs to be 5120x2880, and 1920x1080 needs to be 3840x2160. Apple could opt for a lower resolution, say 1680x1050x2 for the 21.5 inch model, but I hope not.

How do you come up with your 31 inches number? 20/20 means the smallest optotype you can see is 5 arcminutes. But optotype is not the same distance between pixel centres on a display and is totally unrelated to screen resolution. The 1.2 arcminute figure I used is a theoretical limit for a human eye resolving power, so there's no reason to go beyond it, and much more precise for screens than dealing with optotypes.

Also, for a computer screen, why do you even want to do the silly doubling scheme that worked on iToys? You don't need apps for a single screen size on a computer. Just increase the resolution a couple of notches and have more screen real estate.

 

[MythicFrost]

How do you come up with your 31 inches number? 20/20 means the smallest optotype you can see is 5 arcminutes. But optotype is not the same distance between pixel centres on a display and is totally unrelated to screen resolution. The 1.2 arcminute figure I used is a theoretical limit for a human eye resolving power, so there's no reason to go beyond it, and much more precise for screens than dealing with optotypes.

This is what I use: http://bhtooefr.org/displaycalc.htm

However, Apple’s definition of a “Retina Display” is actually for 20/20 Vision (defined as 1 arc-minute visual acuity). 20/20 Vision is just the legal definition of “Normal Vision,” which is at the lower end of true normal vision.

Reference: link

"The resolution of the retina is in angular measure - it's 50 Cycles Per Degree," he wrote in an email. "A cycle is a line pair, which is two pixels, so the angular resolution of the eye is 0.6 arc minutes per pixel.

Reference: link

Also, for a computer screen, why do you even want to do the silly doubling scheme that worked on iToys? You don't need apps for a single screen size on a computer. Just increase the resolution a couple of notches and have more screen real estate.

Why? That way everything is just as easy to see as it is on a standard 1440x900 panel, but much sharper. And you can choose from other scaled resolutions too, such as 1680x1050 or 1920x1200, which gives you a less sharp picture (but still more than the standard panel) and more workspace. And you can use hacks to get the full resolution if you want it.

Best of all the worlds.