There is reference to a Retina iMac in Yosemite with a crazy native resolution of 6400x3600 which is 3200x1800 in HiDPI mode. My only concern with such a crazy resolution is 'if' it will taxing on the system.
There is reference to a Retina iMac in Yosemite with a crazy native resolution of 6400x3600 which is 3200x1800 in HiDPI mode. My only concern with such a crazy resolution is 'if' it will taxing on the system.
There is reference to a Retina iMac in Yosemite with a crazy native resolution of 6400x3600 which is 3200x1800 in HiDPI mode. My only concern with such a crazy resolution is 'if' it will taxing on the system.
You misinterpreted the report somewhat. It would not be 6400x3600 native, that is merely one of the supported virtual resolutions of the machine. The article implies that a native resolution of 5120x2880 can be discerned from the virtual resolution intervals since there is a void between 5760x3240 and 4096x2304.
My bad. Thanks Kwijbo for the clarification. Its a lot of pixels still
There is reference to a Retina iMac in Yosemite with a crazy native resolution of 6400x3600 which is 3200x1800 in HiDPI mode. My only concern with such a crazy resolution is 'if' it will taxing on the system.
Thinner iMac with Retina display and all SSD storage.
when? this year or next year? how much?
![]()
Because Apple likes thin.Thinner why?
All it does is increase heat problems and fabrication cost, while reducing usability.
Because Apple likes thin.
Thinner why?
All it does is increase heat problems and fabrication cost, while reducing usability.
I even prefer the previous iMac design, what they did with the current iMac (making razor-sharp edges while having a big bulge in the middle) is not honest design. It's fooling with people's minds, it forced moving the SD-cardereader to the back and the curve itself is just... wrong.
About the thickness:
I'd prefer Apple makes the sides a bit thicker again while flatten (or eliminating??) the curve/bulge on the back. If the sides were given the thickness of the MBP you could integrate USB-ports and the SD-cardreader in the sides (bottom of the screen to keep them out of view). That would solve the ever-present hassle of reaching USB-ports and the SD-cardreader (current design had it moved to the back... seriously?). Just put it on the bottom and add 2 USB3 ports along as well.
About the SSD:
About the "all SSD storage", I would say no. I would prefer kicking the "only HDD"-options, making an 1TB Fusion Drive standard, while having 3TB Fusion, 512GB SSD and 1TB SSD as options.
About the display:
The display should be at least as good as the rMBP in terms of performance. The iMac as a concept is just a big screen housing a computer. The display was (and should still be) the selling point and core of the system. Since the rMBP, it was no more. The rMBP has better blacks, higher contrast, better color accuracy and has a panel worthy of it's title "IPS" (and with that last statement I underline the fact that iMac's display suffers from loss of blacks and contrast when looking at an angle). Finally, when all of that is taken care of, add the HiDPI screenNow I don't like the rumors of those resolutions, I'd prefer a 4K display (Maybe the 21,5" model will be bumped to 24" 4K and the leaked resolutions are for the 27" (28"??) iMac??). Why 4K instead of the leaked Retina resolutions? It's able to show HD videos native (and therefore sharper, 2x2 pixels can represent 1), watch 4K native fullscreen, it's cheaper and it's easier to drive by the GPU!
Well, that's my opinion![]()
anyone here think the iMac with retina display will come out this year or am i being optimistic?
Q4 of 2014 would be the most optimistic figure, when Intel Broadwell is released, because only then, Apple will incorporate NVIDIA Maxwell into it.
I don't think they can make SSD the default unless they want to cut default storage to 256gb. Which is totally unrealistic for a desktop machine.
you mean like the nMP that starts with just 256?