or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by sunspot42

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple releases a 7" tablet...and brands it as an iPod Touch, not as an iPad.   That would instantly devalue all of the 7" iPad competitors in the market.
IBM might buy them, for the network and not the hardware (which let's face it, is worthless).
Maybe they'll move to hybrid drives as standard equipment.  64GB of flash, another half TB of physical drive space.    Or, given their relationship with flash manufacturers, maybe Apple will incorporate 64 or even 128GB of flash on the motherboard as standard equipment on all their machines, and give users the option of augmenting that with either a physical drive or a larger SSD.  
Dell's the next to go down the drain.  I give it about another year before people start to realize they're equally doomed. Like RIM, their business model is totally outdated.  They're being crushed by Apple from above in the consumer PC business, and by HP and Lenovo from below.  And with overall PC spending stagnant at best as business and consumers rush to buy mobile devices - where Dell has zero presence - all they have left is their patchy services organization....
Dell was the king of the mailorder clonemakers, and benefited from *not* having a retail presence back when computers cost around $2,000.  Shipping was fairly cheap, and you didn't have to pay 5-10% sales tax, which added another $100-$200 to the price of a store bought Compaq, IBM, HP, Apple, Sony or Packard Bell (remember them?) computer.  And since Dell was build-to-order, you weren't running the risk of getting yesterday's (or yesteryear's) technology, like you did...
OK, so I ran the math for a few display sizes and resolutions, based on the 3438 x 1/n = formula posted above.   The current 27" iMac already looks to be a retina display, at a viewing distance of only 2.6 feet at least, which seems pretty reasonable for a 27" display.  It sports a PPI of 109.   But maybe Apple will define the viewing distance as 2 feet or 2.5 feet.  Or maybe they'll release a 32" iMac.   At WQHD resolutions - double the current 1080p standard -...
  You're leaving out the expected viewing distance.  Any display is "retina" if you're far enough away from it.  Apple's definition of a "retina" display appears to be, "you can't differentiate individual pixels from the normal viewing distance".  Not sure if a 27" 1080p display qualifies as retina from 2-3' away (what I'd assume to be a normal viewing distance for a monitor that size), but it's probably pretty close.  Double that resolution - which quadruples the pixel...
The current 27" iMac runs at double 720p HD resolution (known as WQHD - Wide Quad High Definition, 2560x1440 - quad because there are 4 times as many pixels as 720p HD).   I'm guessing the new iMac might be larger (possibly 32"), and will run at double 1080p HD resolution (QFHD - Quad Full High Definition), which is 3840x2160.  I know several manufacturers have been demonstrating QFHD panels in the past six months, and since it's a straight doubling of the existing,...
  The 27" iMac's resolution is based on doubling 720P HD resolution though, isn't it?   I wonder if the "retina" iMac will double 1080P HD resolution, and run at 3840 x 2160.  That's well within the capabilities of most high-end graphics cards, and in theory it should be easier for them to get display panels manufactured in a double-HD resolution.
Fire up your photocopiers, Meg.  Apple's releasing new laptops and desktops this year!   Of course, if your copiers work as poorly your printers do these days, you'll have to replace all 12 $50 inkjet cartridges 3 or 4 times before you can get a page to print, and then it'll jam in the feed on the way out...
New Posts  All Forums: