or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple's next iMacs also rumored to receive Retina display upgrade
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's next iMacs also rumored to receive Retina display upgrade - Page 2

post #41 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by kpluck View Post

I am guessing that for the desktop, Apple will target 4K displays for resolution. Then the marketing department will just spin the definition of "retina" display to something that includes viewing distance and perceived resolution.

They do seem to be heading to a resolution independent OS

https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/UserExperience/Conceptual/HiDPIOverview/Introduction/Introduction.html

-kpluck

Dream on. Eizo recently announced a 4K display. The first in the world. It will cost around 36.000 $.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/21/eizo-industrial-monitor-does-4k-resolution-at-36-inches-start-s/
post #42 of 82

This will be nice... Especially when the iMac gets overly warm doing say video compression, heats up and permanently yellows the new high res screen.

post #43 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacMichiel View Post

Can i have my new Mac Pro first please ???

I feel your pain. Hang on, I am sure it is coming soon..  Hopefully, it will be worth the wait.  Apple might have to come out with a monitor to handle 4K for the Red camera crowd as that crowd is growing.

post #44 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

With no ODD and SSD instead of HD, that's two motors gone. I wonder if, on a model with integrated graphics only, they could make a fanless design?

 

The HD Graphics 4000 can push up to 2560x1600 I believe, enough for Retina on a small screen.

 

It would be completely absurd to make such  compromises for a desktop machine, as if there's one place where power trumps EVERYTHING, it's on the desktop.   Desktops are work horses, they need to run Photoshop, Maya, Zbrush,  and a plethora of other high end apps, and for that they need a massive amount of storage and huge CPU power. Optical drives are also useful if for nothing else than to install drivers, look at people's portfolio CDs, ripp CDs and DVDs, and generally maintain back compatibility. 

post #45 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Except your retina is in your eye, so with a brand name like that, it's not really spin (or any kind of late addition) to include viewing distance.

 

Your right a retina can be found in my eye. However, the definition of what constitutes a "retina display" is entirely up to Apple's marketing department.

 

-kpluck

Do you use MagicJack?

The default settings will automatically charge your credit card each year for service renewal. You will not be notified or warned in anyway. You can turn auto renewal off.

Reply

Do you use MagicJack?

The default settings will automatically charge your credit card each year for service renewal. You will not be notified or warned in anyway. You can turn auto renewal off.

Reply
post #46 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by kpluck View Post

Your right a retina can be found in my eye. However, the definition of what constitutes a "retina display" is entirely up to Apple's marketing department.

-kpluck
And they defined it years ago by saying that it's the inability for someone with the accepted "normal" vision to distinguish individual pixels while holding a "normal" distance from their eyes. There is nothing sneaky about how they marketed the term.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #47 of 82

I think Apple pushes rumors so that their competitors get scared and spend money on impossible tasks. The magic of Apple is sometimes just misdirection.

post #48 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


The PPI in and of itself has no barring on if it's a Retina Display or not. You have to also include the distance the eyes are from the display.
Here is a chart that shows that the larger the display the closer we have been to having Retina quality displays.
300
As you say, there are no tech that can feasibly double the current iMac displays which is why it will be a double of the smaller resolution noted already. This means that the elements on the screen will be slightly larger because they will have a 1x PPI that is smaller (even though it's unbelievably more crisp). Personally I prefer that which is why I never bought a HiRes MBP in the past as it just made the elements too small for my liking.

Several current Macs are very close to "Retina" now. My guess would be Apple going to 4K displays on the larger iMacs (3800'ish horizontal) and at least 144 dpi on the portables. They could then go back to a 72 DPI (x2) default display resolution and get back to WYSIWYG. Right now with a screen at about 109 DPI I usually view documents at 150%. A 144 DPI display I could view at 2X for the same size document text, but much clearer text, and larger interface features. People who want to cram as much info as possible as possible on the screen can view documents at 75%, 50% etc.

post #49 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by waldobushman View Post

I think Apple pushes rumors so that their competitors get scared and spend money on impossible tasks. The magic of Apple is sometimes just misdirection.

That is certainly a tactic companies at the top can do to help maintain their lead. However, historically we've seen that happen by touting vaporware products that never comes to fruition but scares competitors into trying and keeps saucer-eyed users waiting for the next big thing. If Apple is doing that they are doing it in a new way by keeping everything close to the chest and only leaking rumours that may or may not be true.

I'm inclined to think that is as likely as Apple leaking actual plans so they can gauge the reaction of the media and internet posters to see if this product will b a hit since they don't do standard focus groups.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #50 of 82
I don't care too much about the details but I am waiting for the model refresh to get a new iMac. A screen resolution upgrade sounds like a great improvement to me. For my kind of use I don't really care (much) if it's faster than my old one, ya that's nice but kind of expected too. Apple knows if your going to sell an all-in-one it better have a great looking screen and good sound too. Can't wait but I gotta save up just a little more $$ too…
post #51 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by wally626 View Post

Several current Macs are very close to "Retina" now. My guess would be Apple going to 4K displays on the larger iMacs (3800'ish horizontal) and at least 144 dpi on the portables. They could then go back to a 72 DPI (x2) default display resolution and get back to WYSIWYG. Right now with a screen at about 109 DPI I usually view documents at 150%. A 144 DPI display I could view at 2X for the same size document text, but much clearer text, and larger interface features. People who want to cram as much info as possible as possible on the screen can view documents at 75%, 50% etc.

As noted on the first page, i think 168 PPI (3840x240), thus going back to the 84 PPI (19201200) representation for screen elements, makes the most sense to me for the 27" iMac.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #52 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacMichiel View Post

Can i have my new Mac Pro first please ???

We probably won't see them till Ivy Bridge Socket 2011 chips are available if ever. I somehow doubt they'll use the E3 since it's exactly the same as an i7 with ECC support.

 

As for "Retina" screen's on an iMac, that might be the only incentive, to use an iMac over everything but the Macmini and Mac Pro, but only if they don't make it as a separate monitor. I'd rather buy the monitor once and have it last as long as possible.

 

My beef with HiDPI screens (I had a 1920x1200 15" laptop with the worst nVidia chip ever in it) is that the underlying graphics chip is woefully underpowered, and either you run it at native resolution and scale up the UI, or the graphics adapter (or monitor hardware) will stretch it in ways that look terrible.

post #53 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Misa View Post
We probably won't see them till Ivy Bridge Socket 2011 chips are available if ever.

 

Ivy Bridge Xeons won't be out until next year. Sandy Bridge Xeons just came out, so they're next for the update.

post #54 of 82

At the proper usable distance of an iMac it wouldn't take much of a boost to get it into the "retina display" range.

 

Personally I don't think it needs it. I need to update my 24" iMac anyway so anything is a bonus.

post #55 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

The display and required graphic power will drain the battery in half the time. So instead of getting 7 hrs of battery in a MBP, it'll be more like 3.5 hrs.

Very fuzzy math.  "Pixel doubling" as used in the new iPad is not required to reach "Retina" quality in the Mac lines as noted below, and the ODD will be gone in at least the notebooks.  With the new form factors, tho, not certain how much extra space (if any) will be available for batteries. However, as noted in the thread, batteries are improving (not as fast as other components unfortunately, but improving).

 

And I for one expect the ODD's to be gone in the AIO's as well - just as the floppies exited - since they're used by a shrinking minority of users.  In all things Apple, thin is in, even if 20-30% (including me) will own an external ODD for a few situations for a bit yet - e.g., to access some legacy content I have on them. 

 

But they are on the way out.  Thumb drives with the capacity of a DVD-R are now frequent giveaways at trade shows, i.e., they're getting really cheap, and the new "send a link" features in free online storage/sharing services like DropBox, and pure sending via sites like "Yousendit.com" are combining to "superannuate" the now ever-more-archaic CD and DVD-Rs altogether.  I'm now sending these links to friends all the time instead of burning discs and attaching files to emails.  Faster, simpler and FREE.

 

SSD's are, I believe, more power efficient than HDD's as well (speaking at least when they're "the drive" - not in terms of bits per watt or something like that).  I'm personally a little fuzzy myself on power efficiency gains in Ivy Bridge, but with Haswell being the "tock" cycle to Ivy's "tick," more power efficiency is on the way.  And then there's the cost of components to achieve all this "resolutionary" magic.  So the screens we're variously salivating over and complaining about here could still be a year away.  Or not.

 

But crisper displays at human eye friendly element sizes are inevitable.  And it looks as if Apple will be a, if not the, leader in this trend.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


The PPI in and of itself has no barring on if it's a Retina Display or not. You have to also include the distance the eyes are from the display.
Here is a chart that shows that the larger the display the closer we have been to having Retina quality displays.
300
As you say, there are no tech that can feasibly double the current iMac displays which is why it will be a double of the smaller resolution noted already. This means that the elements on the screen will be slightly larger because they will have a 1x PPI that is smaller (even though it's unbelievably more crisp). Personally I prefer that which is why I never bought a HiRes MBP in the past as it just made the elements too small for my liking.

There appears to be some confusion on many people's parts about the various terms being thrown about, e.g., "HiDpi," "Resolution Independent," Retina Display, Pixel Doubling, etc.  There's also manifest mis-info on "real estate" vs. "resolution."  A HiDpi display, though, will very likely not function in the same way as previous increases in Mac screen resolution which allowed more of said real estate though at smaller element sizes in a given screen size.  

 

I admittedly don't understand all that's involved either - but I think I grok that lots of re-engineering will be required at the OS level to avoid having to buy new "retinized" versions of all my previous software or else have to stare at lots of tiny elements.  OS X is based on decades old concepts of a computer OS.  I've read that at the moment there's a mix on test bed machines using the limited number of things, e.g., the new higher-res icons and other parts of what's displayed.  June (or a bit later) seems ambitious to pull all this together, but that's why I'm an amateur forum poster and not an Apple engineer.  

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

The graphics probably can't handle it on either the desktops or laptops… and the laptops will destroy their battery life!

 

We're JUST getting rid of the optical drive right now to make room for a bigger battery. Do we REALLY want super high-res displays to get rid of the benefits of that new battery?!

 

HASWELL. I just remembered. Haswell's supposed to give us 24 hours of battery life. What if instead we get 12 hours of battery life and HiDPI displays with Haswell?!

 

I'm liking that. It gives display manufacturers the time to actually MAKE these displays and it gives Apple time to get situated with their ODD-free computers with bigger batteries.

Discussed above - but if Apple can jump the gun - make a thinner, higher-res (with usable elements), faster pro at current price points with reasonable battery life, they almost certainly will.  But they might settle for the new form factor, processor family, 811ac (and who knows, maybe LTE), plus more tie-ins to an improved iCloud as the talking points (and add the rest of the wish list with Haswell and the next cat).  Also, whether "independent" or "hi" or not, I doubt they'll let Samsung and/or or Dell "out-res" them in the 15" model.  

Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

You don't have to run it in Retina mode.

See above, but actually if "Retina mode" comes to the Mac it will be the default, and while Macs have long had alternate display modes besides their "native mode," not sure how this will function in some new res-independent approach to screen display.  

Quote:
Originally Posted by kpluck View Post

 

I am guessing that for the desktop, Apple will target 4K displays for resolution. Then the marketing department will just spin the definition of "retina" display to something that includes viewing distance and perceived resolution.

 

They do seem to be heading to a resolution independent OS

 

https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/UserExperience/Conceptual/HiDPIOverview/Introduction/Introduction.html

 

-kpluck

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacMichiel View Post


Dream on. Eizo recently announced a 4K display. The first in the world. It will cost around 36.000 $.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/21/eizo-industrial-monitor-does-4k-resolution-at-36-inches-start-s/

 

Given the Eizo $36K price point and the cost of SSD storage, this could take a bit to become consumer mainstream.  However recent shows have been loaded with 4K cams as low as $2500 - down from $25,000 about two years ago, 4K does seem to be on the way.  Not just yet though....

Quote:
Originally Posted by wally626 View Post

Several current Macs are very close to "Retina" now. My guess would be Apple going to 4K displays on the larger iMacs (3800'ish horizontal) and at least 144 dpi on the portables. They could then go back to a 72 DPI (x2) default display resolution and get back to WYSIWYG. Right now with a screen at about 109 DPI I usually view documents at 150%. A 144 DPI display I could view at 2X for the same size document text, but much clearer text, and larger interface features. People who want to cram as much info as possible as possible on the screen can view documents at 75%, 50% etc.

Good point.  It is easy to blow up browser, doc and pic size elements on PC's.  And if Apple's already upsized the icons they're probably doing the same on other standard UI elements like menus, info balloons, etc.  And workarounds are already emerging:  http://www.macworld.com/article/1166811/automatically_zoom_safari_pages_on_launch.html

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacMichiel View Post

Can i have my new Mac Pro first please ???

Even with "sugar on top" I kind of doubt it.  Still, even if Apple's phasing out of the "semi-truck" line it makes sense to release at least one more rev with TB to extend the working life among all the dedicated pros.  That one could extend the lifetime of the current long-in-the-tooth model for at least as long as it's been out because of the ability to upgrade various components via TB.  One thing I don't know is whether it's sensible to include a TB bus INSIDE the machine as well as in a port..  

 

One more factor is that Intel's announced that an all-optical upgrade is in the works and Apple might wait for that.

 

Or they might just exit the "workstation" business.  Doesn't make sense to me to not allow Mac users to make an upgrade to machines suitable for truly professional production work - which has long been part of their "aura" and abandon their "traditional base" when it seems like it could still be profitable, if a small component of their profits - but their bread and butter is now consumer electronics and they are a focused company.


Edited by bigpics - 5/15/12 at 12:44pm

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply
post #56 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigpics View Post

Good point.  It is easy to blow up browser, doc and pic size elements on PC's.  And if Apple's already upsized the icons they're probably doing the same on other standard UI elements like menus, info balloons, etc.

Only the bitmapped images will increase in size. Overall the OS barely grows in size once you remove these Retina images from the equation because most UI elements are drawn and coding the system to draw for 2x pixels instead of 1x pixel requires very little.

There were plenty of article and blogs gasping at how large Retina apps for the iPad (3) were becoming but that's an app, not the OS, and that's for a non-windowed system. OS X will see a much smaller growth percentage because of 2x images than an iOS app. One of the apps that was used to "prove" that the iPad (3) was bad for users was iMovie, but before the update it was only for the iPhone so they went from including code for the two form factors and 4 different image sizes, which is why it grew so much.
Edited by SolipsismX - 5/15/12 at 12:56pm

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #57 of 82

Does anyone else think that I'd rather keep the current screen resolutions and put the cost savings of not getting Retina Displays into performance boosting things like...SSD, More RAM, Better Graphics? It just doesn't make sense for me, I have horrible bandwidth already I am not even taking advantage of my iMac for its 1080P rez, when I do web design work the current screens take care of everything. The biggest factors for me are RAM/SSD. 

post #58 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by AandcMedia View Post
Does anyone else think that I'd rather keep the current screen resolutions and put the cost savings of not getting Retina Displays into performance boosting things like...SSD, More RAM, Better Graphics?

 

The prices aren't going to change anyway, so what's the difference?

 

Quote:
It just doesn't make sense for me, I have horrible bandwidth already I am not even taking advantage of my iMac for its 1080P rez, when I do web design work the current screens take care of everything. The biggest factors for me are RAM/SSD. 

 

So buy more RAM and get an SSD. Retina displays are to make what you're seeing that much sharper and more beautiful.

post #59 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


I agree. I also don't know of any mainstream graphics chips that will handle that resolution. Rumormongers ought to at least check on whether something is plausible.
ETA:
I may have been wrong about the graphics chips. Modern chips are getting close to being able to handle that resolution:
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/37253-three-screen-geforce-gtx-680-vs-radeon-hd-7970/
This is a three screen setup at 5760x1080. Not quite what TS was referring to, but it's closer than I thought - and suggests that it just might be possible with a high end video card.
They will, however, have to come up with some new initials for a screen that size:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphic_display_resolutions

http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/graphics/7000/7770/Pages/radeon-7770.aspx#2

 

 

Quote:
Cutting-edge integrated display support
  • DisplayPort 1.2
    • Max resolution: 4096x2160 per display
    • Multi-Stream Transport
    • 21.6 Gbps bandwidth
    • High bit-rate audio
    • Quad HD/4k video support
    • 1080p60 Stereoscopic 3D
  • HDMI® (With 4K, 3D, Deep Color and x.v.Color™)
    • Max resolution: 4096x2160
    • 2560x1600p60 Stereoscopic 3D
    • Quad HD/4k video support
  • Dual-link DVI with HDCP
    • Max resolution: 2560x1600
  • VGA
    • Max resolution: 2048x1536

 

The Current 27" Display is: 2560 by 1440 pixels

 

The AMD 7770M for Mobile format is as follows:

 

 

Quote:

Cutting-edge integrated display support

  • DisplayPort 1.2
    • Max resolution: 2560x1600 per display
    • Multi-Stream Transport
    • 21.6 Gbps bandwidth
    • High bit-rate audio
  • HDMI (with 3D, 4k, Deep Color, x.v.Color)
    • Max resolution: 4096x3112
    • 1080p60 Stereoscopic 3D
    • Quad HD/4k video support
  • Dual-link DVI with HDCP
    • Max resolution: 2560x1600
  • VGA
    • Max resolution: 2048x1536

 

If Apple wanted seeing as AMD Crossfire is an option they could put 2 7770M chips on-board to push through their Thunderbolt Output.

 

 

Quote:
As of January 2012, the latest HD 7000 series graphics cards - along with a dual-link DVI connector and a HDMI connector - feature support for two Mini DisplayPorts 1.2, allowing daisy-chaining up to six monitors, up to 4096x2160 (4K resolution) or 2560x1600p60 Stereoscopic 3D per display and high bit-rate audio from the same connector, optionally behaving like a single large display. A DisplayPort hub containing three dual-link DVI connectors is also available.

 

HiDPI doesn't mean an automatic doubling of Pixels on a display.  With each 7770M putting out 55W TDP having a mere 110W TDP supporting HiDPI that Apple depicts for upcoming Displays they sell which don't need to be this mythical 5120x2880 display will invariably drive Panel ppi for large screens forward and people readdressing the meaning of Retina and having to be reminded the difference between a 3.5" screen to a 10" screen to a 27" screen.

 
post #60 of 82

The point i'm making is instead of having some super high-res screen as standard I'd rather have an SSD & more RAM standard. Say the current screens cost $200 and the newer screens cost $400, I'd rather apple take the $200 keep the original screens now and throw that towards an SSD in place of a stand HDD. 

post #61 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by AandcMedia View Post
The point i'm making is instead of having some super high-res screen as standard I'd rather have an SSD & more RAM standard. Say the current screens cost $200 and the newer screens cost $400, I'd rather apple take the $200 keep the original screens now and throw that towards an SSD in place of a stand HDD. 

 

Point taken, but they're not gonna give us more RAM or an SSD standard. Sure, we could see 4GB in the 11" and 13" MacBook, but I don't think we'll see 8GB standard in anything but the 17" MacBook, and even that's pushing it.

post #62 of 82

How about an option of Apple selling it with no RAM or Drives so we don't have to pay their rip of prices which for RAM currently stand at around a 700% premium compared to what you can buy elsewhere. 2 Drive slots one for a SSD the other for a 2TB drive.

post #63 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odysseus1923 View Post
How about an option of Apple selling it with no RAM or Drives so we don't have to pay their rip of prices which for RAM currently stand at around a 700% premium compared to what you can buy elsewhere. 2 Drive slots one for a SSD the other for a 2TB drive.

 

You realize that you don't have to buy their upgrades if you don't want to.


You realize there's absolutely no sense to what you've said.

post #64 of 82

Re: You realize there's absolutely no sense to what you've said.

 

Why, because it won't happen sure but I would be happy if they did it and sold it cheaper. Makes perfect sense financially when Apple in the UK sell iMac with 16GB for an additional £480 which I can buy from crucial for less than £70 and having to dump Apples 2x2GB RAM. Apple's pricing for such stuff is a compete rip off. On the Apple store 2x4GB costs £160 yet 4x4GB doesn't cost £320 but another £160. What's their excuse cost of labour !!!!

post #65 of 82

I want Apple to make a Retina projector. I'm getting tired of my 100" screen generated by my 1080p projector. :D

(Mid-2012) 15.4" MacBook Pro w/ IPS Retina Display | Quad Core i7-3720QM 2.6GHz / 3.6GHz Max. Turbo | 16GB DDR3-1600MHz RAM | 256GB Samsung 830 SSD-based NAND Flash ETA 9/5

Reply

(Mid-2012) 15.4" MacBook Pro w/ IPS Retina Display | Quad Core i7-3720QM 2.6GHz / 3.6GHz Max. Turbo | 16GB DDR3-1600MHz RAM | 256GB Samsung 830 SSD-based NAND Flash ETA 9/5

Reply
post #66 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odysseus1923 View Post

Why, because it won't happen sure but I would be happy if they did it and sold it cheaper. Makes perfect sense financially when Apple in the UK sell iMac with 16GB for an additional £480 which I can buy from crucial for less than £70 and having to dump Apples 2x2GB RAM. Apple's pricing for such stuff is a compete rip off. On the Apple store 2x4GB costs £160 yet 4x4GB doesn't cost £320 but another £160. What's their excuse cost of labour !!!!

1) Can you point me to the page that has 16GB RAM for £70 that's for an iMac.

2) You want Apple to ship a full PC that doesn't actually work. Can you show me were on Sony, Dell, Lenovo, etc. websites where they offer such silly services?

3) You want a Mac and want Apple to warranty it but you don't want to pay Apple for the components that are required for it to work. Why exactly would Apple or any PC maker want you as a customer?

4) I know you see these great guarantees on components from unknown vendors with low prices but you have to realize they typically don't test their components as much or have comparatively loose variances to premium vendors. This is why they aren't premium vendors! They also offer these great warranties that they don't deal with well, hope you can't find your receipt, or don't bother to sending in the component on your dime. This isn't how PC vendors operate so when they charge for a component are also charging for service. You can say they are trying to get a profit from you, and yes they are, but so are the cheap vendors by not offering customer service. There is a reason why there are more than the single, unbelievably low price on Crucial for what you would consider as the exact same component.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #67 of 82
Quote: bigpics

 

Or they might just exit the "workstation" business.  Doesn't make sense to me to not allow Mac users to make an upgrade to machines suitable for truly professional production work - which has long been part of their "aura" and abandon their "traditional base" when it seems like it could still be profitable, if a small component of their profits - but their bread and butter is now consumer electronics and they are a focused company.

 

 

Then your focus here above is right on the money; there's no way Apple will abandon the Pro market.

 

Consumers almost always buy the consumer brand of a product, BUT consumers often also know the brand name of the Pro category of the product they're seeking to buy. So if consumer electronics is Apple's bread and butter, then having a Pro category, even if it's a low profit niche, is smart business from a marketing perspective. The "halo effect" goes both ways in this regard. It's a metric worth having by Apple, to consumer's, and Pros alike.

 

It's a win, win, win, all around. If you & I can see the advantages, then I'm sure Apple has crunched the numbers and we'll be seeing a new Mac Pro solution to blow us away sooner than not at all.


Edited by ljocampo - 5/15/12 at 7:14pm
post #68 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odysseus1923 View Post
Why, because it won't happen sure but I would be happy if they did it and sold it cheaper. Makes perfect sense financially when Apple in the UK sell iMac with 16GB for an additional £480 which I can buy from crucial for less than £70 and having to dump Apples 2x2GB RAM. Apple's pricing for such stuff is a compete rip off. On the Apple store 2x4GB costs £160 yet 4x4GB doesn't cost £320 but another £160. What's their excuse cost of labour !!!!

 

So don't buy RAM from Apple. Do you REALLY think they're charging you this much for the RAM that already comes with the machine?

post #69 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Odysseus1923 View Post
How about an option of Apple selling it with no RAM or Drives so we don't have to pay their rip of prices which for RAM currently stand at around a 700% premium compared to what you can buy elsewhere. 2 Drive slots one for a SSD the other for a 2TB drive.

 

You realize that you don't have to buy their upgrades if you don't want to.


You realize there's absolutely no sense to what you've said.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Odysseus1923 View Post

Why, because it won't happen sure but I would be happy if they did it and sold it cheaper. Makes perfect sense financially when Apple in the UK sell iMac with 16GB for an additional £480 which I can buy from crucial for less than £70 and having to dump Apples 2x2GB RAM. Apple's pricing for such stuff is a compete rip off. On the Apple store 2x4GB costs £160 yet 4x4GB doesn't cost £320 but another £160. What's their excuse cost of labour !!!!

1) Can you point me to the page that has 16GB RAM for £70 that's for an iMac.

2) You want Apple to ship a full PC that doesn't actually work. Can you show me were on Sony, Dell, Lenovo, etc. websites where they offer such silly services?

3) You want a Mac and want Apple to warranty it but you don't want to pay Apple for the components that are required for it to work. Why exactly would Apple or any PC maker want you as a customer?

4) I know you see these great guarantees on components from unknown vendors with low prices but you have to realize they typically don't test their components as much or have comparatively loose variances to premium vendors. This is why they aren't premium vendors! They also offer these great warranties that they don't deal with well, hope you can't find your receipt, or don't bother to sending in the component on your dime. This isn't how PC vendors operate so when they charge for a component are also charging for service. You can say they are trying to get a profit from you, and yes they are, but so are the cheap vendors by not offering customer service. There is a reason why there are more than the single, unbelievably low price on Crucial for what you would consider as the exact same component.

 

A flagrantly ignorant poster (Ody boy) need not be encouraged to waste more bandwidth. ;) I'd rather stand in a corner facing the wall than trying to convince someone like that of anything. Pretty soon, he'll argue things like "The sky is blue." 

(Mid-2012) 15.4" MacBook Pro w/ IPS Retina Display | Quad Core i7-3720QM 2.6GHz / 3.6GHz Max. Turbo | 16GB DDR3-1600MHz RAM | 256GB Samsung 830 SSD-based NAND Flash ETA 9/5

Reply

(Mid-2012) 15.4" MacBook Pro w/ IPS Retina Display | Quad Core i7-3720QM 2.6GHz / 3.6GHz Max. Turbo | 16GB DDR3-1600MHz RAM | 256GB Samsung 830 SSD-based NAND Flash ETA 9/5

Reply
post #70 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crunch View Post
A flagrantly ignorant poster (Ody boy) need not be encouraged to waste more bandwidth. ;) I'd rather stand in a corner facing the wall than trying to convince someone like that of anything. Pretty soon, he'll argue things like "The sky is blue." 


"The sky should be sold to me with no color so that I can paint in whatever one I want."

post #71 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Point taken, but they're not gonna give us more RAM or an SSD standard. Sure, we could see 4GB in the 11" and 13" MacBook, but I don't think we'll see 8GB standard in anything but the 17" MacBook, and even that's pushing it.

I'd settle for 8 GB optional in the MBA. That's the main thing that makes me hesitate about buying one.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #72 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

With no ODD and SSD instead of HD, that's two motors gone. I wonder if, on a model with integrated graphics only, they could make a fanless design?

The HD Graphics 4000 can push up to 2560x1600 I believe, enough for Retina on a small screen.

I tried that after installing a SSD PCIe card and taking all HDD's out, but the PSU makes the case still too warm. In order to get rid of the humming and disk spinning noise, which I can't stand, I drilled a hole in the wall and put the Mac in the adjoining room - LOL. Nice 'n quite now. Going to hang the ACD on the wall to cover the hole - LOL
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
post #73 of 82

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, widely adopted 1080p standard there's going to be strong demand for these panels going forward.  You're going to see them widely adopted in high-end televisions and as computer monitors.

 

I'm too lazy to do the math and see if Apple can claim a QFHD monitor is a "retina" display at normal viewing distances, but they wouldn't even have to promote such a panel as a retina display.  They could simply claim it offers twice the resolution of the best HD television (or, 4 times as many pixels).  Either would make great marketing copy.

 

The WQHD panel in the current 27" iMac is somewhat of an oddball - that standard has never really caught on and not many panels are made, which makes the 27" iMac costly to produce.  My guess is QFHD will prove far more popular in the marketplace, and that fairly soon a QFHD-panel equipped iMac will be cheaper to produce than today's model.

post #74 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
300
 

 

Where is this graph from? 50" screen from 6 feet? The recommended distance is 11-13 feet. And I'm not sure about 22 inches for a laptop... I'm on a MBP 13" right now and I'm about 14-16 inches from the display with it on my lap.

post #75 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by jowie74 View Post

Where is this graph from? 50" screen from 6 feet? The recommended distance is 11-13 feet. And I'm not sure about 22 inches for a laptop... I'm on a MBP 13" right now and I'm about 14-16 inches from the display with it on my lap.

The image is hyperlinked to the source.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #76 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

The PPI in and of itself has no barring on if it's a Retina Display or not. You have to also include the distance the eyes are from the display.
Here is a chart that shows that the larger the display the closer we have been to having Retina quality displays.
300
As you say, there are no tech that can feasibly double the current iMac displays which is why it will be a double of the smaller resolution noted already. This means that the elements on the screen will be slightly larger because they will have a 1x PPI that is smaller (even though it's unbelievably more crisp). Personally I prefer that which is why I never bought a HiRes MBP in the past as it just made the elements too small for my liking.


Some of those numbers are surprising. DVD is only 17 PPI on a 50" screen and only 36% of the way to retina? I guess I could do the math, but I'm tired.

For starters, I watch my 50" TV from a lot more than 6 feet - more like twice that, so I guess that makes it 72% of the way to retina. Close enough that it reaffirms my views that BR may be our last resolution improvement for a while. If you assume 12 feet for watching BR, that's 180% of retina - so further improvements just don't matter. I've been saying for quite a way that there's no real need for better resolution than BR for most people and this confirms it.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #77 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Some of those numbers are surprising. DVD is only 17 PPI on a 50" screen and only 36% of the way to retina? I guess I could do the math, but I'm tired.

For starters, I watch my 50" TV from a lot more than 6 feet - more like twice that, so I guess that makes it 72% of the way to retina. Close enough that it reaffirms my views that BR may be our last resolution improvement for a while. If you assume 12 feet for watching BR, that's 180% of retina - so further improvements just don't matter. I've been saying for quite a way that there's no real need for better resolution than BR for most people and this confirms it.

1) 17.31 PPI is correct for a DVD on a 50" display. At that point the actual resolution of the TV is inconsequential so long as it's equal to or higher than DVD resolution at 720x480. This is the site I use for many of calculations:

2) Sure, as the display size gets larger and less mobile the viewing distance alter more significantly. You can figure out what your device relative closeness to "Retina" are with this formula:

3438 x 1/n =

...where n is either the number of inches your eyes are from the display to get the minimum PPI needed, or n can be the PPI as determined by the site above to get the minimum distance in inches yours eyes must be from the display

For example: If your 50" HDTV has a resolution of 1920x1080 that is a PPI of 44.06. Plugging that into the equation — 3438 x 1/44.06 = 78 — means you need to be a minimum of 78" or 6.5' away from the set. If you do sit double the stated average distance of 72" or 6' then you only need a minimum PPI of 23.88 to achieve the same results which means with a 1920x1080 HDTV you can get a set up to 92" on the diagonal.

3) As for getting better than BR this is important as sets grow in size and people still want to sit as close to their sets as they do now. I want to be immersed by the display, by the story. This is why 1080p simply isn't going to cut for the future. We're already going past on computers which is how this trend has always happened. Text simply needs finer detain than a standard TV image. Did you ever try to plug a PC into your SDTV? If so, were you appalled by how bad it rendered but wowed by how great it looked on an HDTV? I sure was. I am excited for 4k systems arriving within the next 5 years. I'm excited for a wall of TV like in Fahrenheit 451.


* All values calculated using 20/20 vision as the base.
Edited by SolipsismX - 5/16/12 at 6:12pm

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #78 of 82

As a moderator you are an embarressment.

 

What Apple charges for some of it's components / products is obscene yet you take what was obviously a joke offensive in your defence. Hope your arse doesn't hurt too much as you clearly have an apple stuck up it.


Edited by Odysseus1923 - 5/16/12 at 6:35pm
post #79 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odysseus1923 View Post

As a moderator you are an embarressment.

Moderators are suppose to agree with your comments? Personally I'd rather these posters doing this our community a public service maintain the opinions and personalities they had prior to becoming unpaid moderators that clean up spam and overly hateful and inciteful comments.
Edited by SolipsismX - 5/16/12 at 6:56pm

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #80 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odysseus1923 View Post
What Apple charges for some of it's components / products is obscene…

 

A price which no one has to pay, and whose policy, as a result of the actions of consumers (I assume. There's no proof of it, but there's no explanation for the change otherwise), has changed dramatically from the turn of last decade.

 

I remember when laptop RAM prices were extortionate ALL the time. Now, whenever there is an iMac or MacBook family revision, the price Apple charges for RAM is competitive at launch. The fact that they do not lower or otherwise change prices of components or computers during the lifetime of the computer's run is a decision they made early and by which they have stuck since Steve's return. It has served them well, it seems.

 

Quote:
…yet you take what was obviously a joke offensive in your defense.

 

And I do apologize for not seeing it as such, but truly we have had more nonsensical thoughts than that presented here as actual opinions or passed off as fact. If you would, please forgive myself and any others for believing you'd earnestly suggest Apple ship a computer without RAM or HDD, as it's not the worst we've ever seen. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple's next iMacs also rumored to receive Retina display upgrade