Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'iMac' started by animatedude, Jun 4, 2014.
Thinner iMac with Retina display and all SSD storage.
when? this year or next year? how much?
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.
No single GPU can push that many pixels for demanding tasks so yeah that would be a very big issue.
Honestly if they go retina on the iMac they would have to seriously consider dual GPU solutions... They probably won't but they should.
I really just want the Thunderbolt Display version of retina, much better idea then buying a retina display win a built in computer that can't really handle that many pixels.
Yellow screen issue!
With talk of a 'low-cost' iMac - maybe a non-retina, coloured-polycarbonate shell would be an interesting product line.. 5C (or 6C) blue iMac..
A retina iMac will surely come with a price tag!
I don't think they will push resolution that high to be honest...in a way I hope they won't...
As far as the OP question goes, why do you want an even thinner iMac?
I MAY understand a thinner and lighter laptop (but you can't really go any thinner, for now) but a desktop? Why?
In terms of SSD I hope they would make their Fusion drive standard, even if a USB 3 or TB external is very easy to handle in a desktop.
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
Please Apple, do away with that awfully wide section of bezel that looks like part of a high tech toilet seat.
No worries Its an absolutely awesome resolution if they can pull it off, the screens of the rMBP are enviable and IMO desktop users are deprived of that experience.
does that indicate the display size will continue to be 27''?
All it does is increase heat problems and fabrication cost, while reducing usability.
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.
Personally, I think this fall will feature a budget iMac and slight upgrades to the existing models. MAYBE a redesign.
Because Apple likes thin.
I hope they make the bezel super thin, even at the expense of making the design thicker overall. That may still fit with Apples standards, if they make the back look sleek regardless of thickness.
it seems that they're going to branch off the line into a low end, multi-colored cheap iMac (like the ones from the late 90's) and then a high end "iMac with Retina Display" with that crazy high-res as referenced from 10.10, hopefully they at least put 800 series nvidia cards in it but i'd LOVE an SLI option for the high end
Right? Soon we are going to need to wear chainmail gloves while handling Apple products to keep from cutting our hands off.
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 screen Now 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
From my perspective as a user, I can't tell if the iMac is thin, thick, or something in between. Although a thinner computer looks better from the side, I'd be fine with an iMac that's thicker throughout if that allowed for better internal hardware or other improvements.
As for ports, it's always a balance of form vs. function. I wouldn't be in favor of moving them to the bottom edge (assuming that's what you mean by "bottom of the screen"), since they're hard to see and use in that position. The side edge is a bit better if you don't mind cables off to the side (I do). The back is actually OK for ports that you don't access often. Maybe Apple could consider putting just the card slot and one USB port on the bottom front. But as the need for frequently-accessed ports like USB decreases because of wireless alternatives, it'll make more sense to keep the others (like TB) at the back.
Regarding internal storage, it's probably premature to go all SSD, so I agree that offering a Fusion drive at the low end is a good idea. If Apple releases a low cost iMac, though, it'll be tough to do cost-effectively.
I'm guessing the retina imac will look just about exactly like the current imac does and other than retina, have a few speed bumps and TB2 likely unless it bleeds into next year maybe TB3.
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.
Eh, that'd only work if Apple uses lightweight tablet-bound Broadwell chips (which is highly unlikely), which are the only Broadwell chips shipping in 2014 - the laptop and desktop variants are shipping in Q1 and Q2 2015 respectively unless something changes.
We could get a Retina iMac with refreshed Haswell chips, though.
you mean like the nMP that starts with just 256?
The nMP starts with 256 because its intended market (media professionals) store all their files on external drives.