or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Rumor: Apple's 2012 iMac refresh won't have Retina display
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rumor: Apple's 2012 iMac refresh won't have Retina display

post #1 of 95
Thread Starter 
Instapaper developer Marco Arment reportedly received word on Friday that Apple won't be releasing a Retina display-equipped iMac model in 2012 and will instead wait until 2013 to bring the high-resolution screen to more of its computers.

According to "multiple sources" who contacted Arment through his blog, Apple will debut an iMac refresh later this year, possibly in the fall, but the new all-in-ones will be missing a screen comparable to the recently-released MacBook Pro with Retina display. The report is contrary to persistent rumors that say Apple will unveil Retina display iMac in 2012.

The sources reached out to Arment after the developer posited Apple would be releasing Ivy Bridge-powered Retina display iMacs in October or November. He guessed that Apple would be able to gather enough large Retina display panels to fill the relatively lower demand seen by the iMac and offset the new technology's price with the computer's already high margins. It is likely that a standalone high-resolution monitor will come following an iMac refresh. While the cost of a large 21.5-inch or 27-inch high-dpi panel is unknown, Apple is rumored to be paying at least $150 for the part found in the new 15.4-inch MacBook Pro with Retina display.

Arment explained why he believes Apple didn't launch new desktop models at WWDC 2012 in June despite having access to the necessary CPU and graphics bumps usually seen in a minor refresh.

"My core theory: Apple believes that Retina displays are the only way to go from this point forward, and they?re waiting to update each family until it can be Retina-equipped," Arment writes.

iMac


He goes on to say that the MacBook Pro was the only laptop to get the Retina display treatment because the popular MacBook Air and Pro models can't support the high pixel density screens without raising the price for the hot-selling units. Apple couldn't wait for the tech to come down in price before the lucrative summer season so it pushed out incremental changes ahead of a Retina display refresh. Arment also pointed out that the high-resolution panels Apple uses are in short supply and there simply aren't enough to go around save for a single high-end Mac model.
post #2 of 95
It certainly doesn't seem like a consumer display with about 14 million pixels was going to be feasible in 2012. I certainly hope it comes along sooner rather than later now that I'm holding out for an iMac but even 2013 seems a big iffy for a 27" Retina Display.
Edited by SolipsismX - 6/22/12 at 6:10pm

"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 #3 of 95

I think there's massive pent up demand for a new iMac. IF Apple were able to pull this rabbit out of its hat, it would be mind blowing. I know many people, myself included, just dying for an iMac upgrade. The Retina display would make that a pre-order event.

 

Without the retina display....I'm going to hold out. I suspect a sizable chunk of iMac devotees will do the same.

 

I'll continue to use my iPad for web browsing and my iMac for.....what the hell do I use it for again?

post #4 of 95

Just go for the Ivy Bridge desktop processors, decent graphics, and SATA III SSDs.

post #5 of 95
I would rather the MBA's get them first. But I'm selfish.
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #6 of 95

I don't think you'll see anything this big until yields look really really good. You could still see a smaller one, but it's a problem with Apple's taste for anorexic hardware. They have everyone trained to think that thicker = ugly even though it sits on your desk and is viewed dead on.

post #7 of 95

Are there even panels available at a high enough pixel density at 21.5 and 27 inches to qualify as a Retina display based on the typical placement of the display? 

post #8 of 95

I don't see why it has to be 27". I still use a 20" monitor and I couldn't imagine what I would do with anything bigger. I just care about increasing the screen resolution; the size of the screen doesn't have to be any bigger.

post #9 of 95
Interesting article. However I just can't see what would make Apple wait until fall. It is kinda un Apple like in that they usually have new hardware available for back to school. A retina panel would be worth the wait, but if they aren't coming then what else could be the hold up?

So I don't doubt that Retina isn't ready. But if that is so why the wait?
post #10 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by aplnub View Post

I would rather the MBA's get them first. But I'm selfish.

That's certainly possible form a technical standpoint when looking at only the display and I bet it's also possible from a yield standpoint, too, but I question whether it's feasible for both the Intel 4000 GPU and battery life for a single charge to double the resolution on those machines.

"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 #11 of 95

The other reason they could be waiting is they are determined to stop using spinning disks, and are waiting for the price of 1GB SSDs to fall.

 

I agree with the 27" comment. My ideal iMac would be 24" with 3840x2400 (1920x1200 point) display. But I know Apple has stopped making 24" and prefers wide (1920x1080) resolutions.

post #12 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by eselqueso View Post

Are there even panels available at a high enough pixel density at 21.5 and 27 inches to qualify as a Retina display based on the typical placement of the display? 

 

The 27 inch would only have to go up from the current 109 ppi to 122 ppi to be Retina and yes it is possible that such a display could be very possible. We haven't seen it perhaps because Apple, in typical fashion, secured all the resources and rights to the first units while they were still in R&D. So the announcement that such a display is exists will be when Apple announces the new iMac. 

 

it's also worth nothing that Arment believes, not that he has any sources. His beliefs could be very wrong

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #13 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Interesting article. However I just can't see what would make Apple wait until fall. It is kinda un Apple like in that they usually have new hardware available for back to school. 

 

The Back to School promo is only for college students and they typically get notebooks not desktops. 

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #14 of 95

If retina display's are indeed constrained...and the Apple TV will very likely be retina...then a fair argument could be made to launch the Apple TV before a 27" retina iMac.

 

Or perhaps...Apple offers the 27" retina iMac upgrade with an option to be configurable as an entry level Apple TV...!

That's my:

 

 2 cents.jpg

__________________________________________________ _
"You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus." (Mark Twain)
Reply
__________________________________________________ _
"You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus." (Mark Twain)
Reply
post #15 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandyf View Post

...and the Apple TV will very likely be retina...

Apple won't be making a $100,000 TV. Apple very likely won't be making any sort of TV.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #16 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

The other reason they could be waiting is they are determined to stop using spinning disks, and are waiting for the price of 1GB SSDs to fall.

I agree with the 27" comment. My ideal iMac would be 24" with 3840x2400 (1920x1200 point) display. But I know Apple has stopped making 24" and prefers wide (1920x1080) resolutions.

I d like to see them trying to pull some custom flash shit on the iMac line, if anyone here stands and defends them should they do this they ll need slaughtering.

Anyway, I want a retina imac very very much, it's the only reason I am holding out these past few months and not switching to windows, what with my failing eyesight and the nice clear type they have as well as their dpi/resolution independence settings. Of course I am not happy that even with retina I will have to go with apple's "solution" of less real estate for larger ui elements. But at least that will be something...

Also as someone else said I really don't like and odn't get the obsesion with ever increasing screen sizes (i get it from a financial standpoint not a usability one) I 've always found that a screen at about 22" to 23" (or even 24") pretty much regardless of the aspect ratio is far more relaxing to use. For example in my 24" imacs there's just far too much screen there (for my uses of course) and what with the screen and the poor (well, non existent pretty much) ergonomics and the huge chin you strain to use one.

Something that's not being mentioned enough if they don't release a properly ergonomic imac finally they should at least provide vesa support for the 21.5" or whatever their smaller one is. It's such a huge sham currently (another one of apple's recent f. u's to the pro or business users, or at least the more discerning/demanding ones) that the smaller models currently dont have vesa support and you have to lift the whole thing up with the foot with a workaround, which anyway defies the whole point, that of being able to lower the monitor to proper eye level, a monitor that's already high enough with the foot and the chin.

Oh and of course there's the glare issue, finally treated glass should appear. The aesthetics came first and for so long the imacs have in that respect too been glare nightmares unlike anything we 'd seen before. And it's not about matte, it's about sticking that damn glass to make them look expensive and shinny. They could have well opted for a nice semi gloss coating a la air, the one already on the screen. Hence many campuses and businesses are barring them due to glare usability issues. The current imac to me is just a shit mainstream product, period, they better hurry up and update: retina screens so os x can finally get some larger ui elements and not have the ridiculously small font as seen on the 27" imac, some proper ergonomics in height adjustability or vesa mountable across the board, and finally some treated glass that's either part or very tightly fused to the screen.
Edited by myapplelove - 6/22/12 at 8:58pm
post #17 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by bugsnw View Post

I think there's massive pent up demand for a new iMac. IF Apple were able to pull this rabbit out of its hat, it would be mind blowing. I know many people, myself included, just dying for an iMac upgrade. The Retina display would make that a pre-order event.

Without the retina display....I'm going to hold out. I suspect a sizable chunk of iMac devotees will do the same.

I'll continue to use my iPad for web browsing and my iMac for.....what the hell do I use it for again?

I use my iMac every day, the screen maybe once a week. I call mine home base. All my files are on there or mirrored on there. It runs 24/7 and never complains.
Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
post #18 of 95

I'm not sure that I even buy that 'Retina' is worth the bother on the desktop displays - even at the numbers quoted above (122dpi vs. current 109), it doesn't seem that worthwhile for a gain of just over 10% in resolution. Interestingly, though, this would put it in the neighborhood of the Retina MBP resolution (for the 27"), so maybe they go to a 2880x1620 screen for both the 27" iMac and the Thunderbolt display (or 2880x1800 if they go back to 16x10), which would make some sense for Retina MBP owners who now take a resolution hit when using an external display.

 

The main thing that a lot of people seem to be getting wrong at this point is the assumption that Retina = twice the resolution (4x the pixels). While that has been the case so far with the iPhone/iPad/MBP, it won't hold true for the iMac because of the typical viewing distance. This is probably a good thing, since it may be very difficult to get decent yields on 27" panels at 5k x 3k.

 

I'm really hoping that the next iMac is fairly ambitious, but it may not be anything more than an Ivy Bridge + GPU refresh, with the larger change coming next year. I'm wondering if Apple may do something similar to the MBP with the iMac when they are ready to release the 'future-facing' update, and keep the current version on the market (with CPU/GPU refreshes) for a year or two as well. This might give them the freedom to do a very thin Retina iMac with all-flash storage (from 512GB to 1TB+) - they might be able to keep the optical drive (as they shouldn't be space-constrained), though may get rid of it on principle, and it may also do away with upgradable RAM (though again, they wouldn't have the same space-constrained reason for doing so as on the MBP).

 

I have a 2009 i7 27" iMac, and it's still a fantastic machine - I'm leaning toward having an SSD installed in the optical bay in the near future (I've been booting from a FW800 SSD since I got the machine) to tide me over for another year or two. I'd really like to see a MUCH more efficient, cooler-running iMac when I'm ready to upgrade. Lacking that, I may end up going with a high-end mini with Thunderbolt Display instead. I'm a professional photographer, and seeing the writing on the wall over the last year, I've switched from the ridiculously expensive and heavy Canon equipment I was carrying to the smaller, less expensive, but no less capable Olympus OM-D (two of them, actually). When I see what I can do with these small cameras and the 'new' iPad, the iMac starts to feel like an awful lot of expense, size, and weight for an incremental (but important) increase in capability. Lighter (if not much smaller - once you get used to the 27" screen, it's hard to go back, though maybe a Retina 21" would work) and more efficient feels like the future to me - I honestly don't need anything much faster than what I currently have, but I'd like to see the same performance with less heat, lower power usage, and less weight.

post #19 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnb2 View Post

I'm not sure that I even buy that 'Retina' is worth the bother on the desktop displays - even at the numbers quoted above (122dpi vs. current 109), it doesn't seem that worthwhile for a gain of just over 10% in resolution. Interestingly, though, this would put it in the neighborhood of the Retina MBP resolution (for the 27"), so maybe they go to a 2880x1620 screen for both the 27" iMac and the Thunderbolt display (or 2880x1800 if they go back to 16x10), which would make some sense for Retina MBP owners who now take a resolution hit when using an external display.

Where are getting a 10% gain for Retina when so far Apple has does a 400% gain in pixels for the iPhone, iPod Touch, iPad and MacBook Pro?

"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 #20 of 95

good luck with that less heat thing, apple is going for slimmer they don't give a crap about less heat apparently, look at the thermals of the new retina pro, gets warm even on light usage...

post #21 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove View Post

good luck with that less heat thing, apple is going for slimmer they don't give a crap about less heat apparently, look at the thermals of the new retina pro, gets warm even on light usage...

 

In your 1,500 posts here, I have yet to read a single post of yours where you mention a single positive thing about Apple or its products. You have such vitriolic hatred and viciousness towards everything the company does, to the extent of making such an effort into twisting positives into negatives, like thinness. I've read quite a few reviews on the MBP, and not a single one mentioned that heat was an issue. My question is why the hell are you here, if you despise Apple so much? I've seen you go on frothing, rambling, hate-filled rampages on even the tiniest, most insignificant stories, and not once have I read a word of positivity from you towards Apple. Theres a million other options, but instead you choose to troll here and somehow you get away with it, maybe because of your username. Apple isn't making computers with matte screens, get the **** over yourself and your petty little vendetta. To you, every single thing Apple does is a sham and every single product a scam. You manage to shit up every thread I've seen. You must lead an incredibly unhappy life to insist on chronically posting on a fansite for a company you despise. 

post #22 of 95
See, if I hit the thumb on the above, I'll be yelled at for not being impartial. lol.gif

Also, thanks for doing that without managing to break any rules that I can see.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #23 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

See, if I hit the thumb on the above, I'll be yelled at for not being impartial. lol.gif
Also, thanks for doing that without managing to break any rules that I can see.

 

Hey, I'll take that as a compliment. It wasn't that easy. 

post #24 of 95

I have a mid 2006 20" iMac, and the only thing holding me up from buying a new iMac is the belief that there will be a newer model out fairly soon; it's been about 13 months since the last refresh/upgrade.

 

I couldn't care less if Apple offers a retina display with one, and if they do as an extra cost option, I'll pass on it.  I do expect a faster CPU and a faster graphics card than the current models, and hope for USB 3.

 

I'll opt for a 21.5" monitor (assuming that they don't change monitor sizes), the base hard drive, and an SSD.  I'll add more RAM myself; Apple's RAM is too expensive.

post #25 of 95

Does anybody know what the refresh rate is for the iMac screens and the Mac Book screens? I've been looking for that information and don't see it in any of the specifications on the Apple web site.

 

I've seen 60 Hz monitors like mine (Dell and Gateway) and compared them to the 120 Hz monitors. 120 Hz is better. That speed really makes a difference in the quality of fast motion images. There are even 240 Hz monitors out there. I haven't seen one in person yet.

post #26 of 95

Assuming the retina iMac follows the other retina products and doubles the resolution, that would give the 27" iMac a resolution of 5120x2880.  4k monitors, the few of them that currently exist run at 3840x2160 and cost €8000.  

 

They just aren't ready for mass production yet, so I'd be surprised if we see a retina iMac next year or even the year after. Personally I don't see the reason for one, as at normal desktop viewing distances current 1080p monitors are virtually 'retina' already.

post #27 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post

Does anybody know what the refresh rate is for the iMac screens and the Mac Book screens? I've been looking for that information and don't see it in any of the specifications on the Apple web site.

 

I've seen 60 Hz monitors like mine (Dell and Gateway) and compared them to the 120 Hz monitors. 120 Hz is better. That speed really makes a difference in the quality of fast motion images. There are even 240 Hz monitors out there. I haven't seen one in person yet.

 

I think running Windows reveals them to be 60 Hz.

post #28 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

 

In your 1,500 posts here, I have yet to read a single post of yours where you mention a single positive thing about Apple or its products. You have such vitriolic hatred and viciousness towards everything the company does, to the extent of making such an effort into twisting positives into negatives, like thinness. I've read quite a few reviews on the MBP, and not a single one mentioned that heat was an issue. My question is why the hell are you here, if you despise Apple so much? I've seen you go on frothing, rambling, hate-filled rampages on even the tiniest, most insignificant stories, and not once have I read a word of positivity from you towards Apple. Theres a million other options, but instead you choose to troll here and somehow you get away with it, maybe because of your username. Apple isn't making computers with matte screens, get the **** over yourself and your petty little vendetta. To you, every single thing Apple does is a sham and every single product a scam. You manage to shit up every thread I've seen. You must lead an incredibly unhappy life to insist on chronically posting on a fansite for a company you despise. 

 

+1

post #29 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by eselqueso View Post

Are there even panels available at a high enough pixel density at 21.5 and 27 inches to qualify as a Retina display based on the typical placement of the display? 

 

27" no. 21.5" not exactly but close. Samsung has the T220 at 22" with 204 ppi. I don't see why they couldn't produce a 21". In what yields I don't know.

post #30 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Interesting article. However I just can't see what would make Apple wait until fall. It is kinda un Apple like in that they usually have new hardware available for back to school. A retina panel would be worth the wait, but if they aren't coming then what else could be the hold up?
So I don't doubt that Retina isn't ready. But if that is so why the wait?

Old inventory needs to be sold first?

post #31 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

 

The 27 inch would only have to go up from the current 109 ppi to 122 ppi to be Retina and yes it is possible that such a display could be very possible. We haven't seen it perhaps because Apple, in typical fashion, secured all the resources and rights to the first units while they were still in R&D. So the announcement that such a display is exists will be when Apple announces the new iMac. 

 

it's also worth nothing that Arment believes, not that he has any sources. His beliefs could be very wrong

 

But going only to 122 ppi won't work with their current scaling system, it requires going 4x on the resolution no?

post #32 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove View Post


I d like to see them trying to pull some custom flash shit on the iMac line, if anyone here stands and defends them should they do this they ll need slaughtering.

 

I'll need to be slaughtered! So far as I understand things, for a rather substantial portion of our computing tasks, the HD is the bottleneck. SSDs represent a huge leap forward. The only downsides right now are costs and size of the disks, which really is simply a cost issue. It's just a matter of time until the entire line moves into SSDs, I don't understand what's bad about that.

post #33 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnb2 View Post

The main thing that a lot of people seem to be getting wrong at this point is the assumption that Retina = twice the resolution (4x the pixels). While that has been the case so far with the iPhone/iPad/MBP, it won't hold true for the iMac because of the typical viewing distance. This is probably a good thing, since it may be very difficult to get decent yields on 27" panels at 5k x 3k.

 

True they don't need to go 4x to achieve Retina on the iMac line, but right now it seems the only system they have in place is the 4x route. They didn't need to go 4x on the RMBPs either, they only needed to increase by ~20%, yet they went 4x anyway, and the results are not disapointing.

post #34 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove View Post

good luck with that less heat thing, apple is going for slimmer they don't give a crap about less heat apparently, look at the thermals of the new retina pro, gets warm even on light usage...

 

Blatantly false. I have a RMBP and on light usage the system is the coolest computer I've ever had or worked on. For light usage, like web-browsing and movies, it gets no warmer than my iPad, and it is just as silent and has just as much battery life. Do you even own one of these machines, or have you even worked on them, or are you just trolling here?

post #35 of 95
@Slurpy, sadly someone quoted you and the ignore feature failed. You must be leading a very sad life indeed to have replaced religion with a half bitten apple on an aluminium casing and to view anyone not 100% aligned in their requests with apple with the hatred of a fundamentalist. And you are talking bullshit as well, go read my first 1000 posts on apple or so to see what I am saying about them and read the praise, and next time before the ad hominems you might want to make a case for the actual technological issues I am pointing out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98 View Post

I'll need to be slaughtered! So far as I understand things, for a rather substantial portion of our computing tasks, the HD is the bottleneck. SSDs represent a huge leap forward. The only downsides right now are costs and size of the disks, which really is simply a cost issue. It's just a matter of time until the entire line moves into SSDs, I don't understand what's bad about that.

I wasn't referring to ssds in general which are indeed a huge leap forward, I was referring to them putting flash with a custom port on the mobo, which will be a huge step backward in terms of upgreadabilty on a desktop device. That and doing completely away with the hd which offers very high amounts of storage very cheaply. Because there simply isn't a point to take that away from a desktop any time within the next 3-5 years because of these advantages, and not everything has to be sitting on an ssd all sorts of archives and collections of files should be on the hard drive unless someone is some sort of billionaire who can afford 1tb of ssds along with the main ssd on their computer. In addition there are hybrid ssds that are receiving great reviews around the web, which is an option we aren't going to see with apple, ever. At least if they allow the user to use standard sata 3 ports they ll have the option to opt for one themselves.

Of course their purpose is to sell more and if a hard drive won't fit there (because we all know the whole world is waiting for a millimetre thinner iMac....) on purpose and they go ssd only (and custom port ssd) the vast majority of people won't be able to afford anything higher than 512gb, Ther ll be no ssd at 256gb plus an ample 2.5" he at 1tb say scenarios, and via controlling storage people will have to pay more to apple for their second rate ssds (not my opinion, the tests show the are much behind the class leaders) and will have to upgrade sooner for more internal storage.

As an aside I wouldn't think they d be that shameless to stick the ram on the mobo as in the MacBook pro. Problem is and they are keenly aware of that that even if they do this, some people on fan sites will defend them and make sure to attack others who are reasonable. But there's so much one can push their luck,many they d be pushing it with that at an unprecedented level.
post #36 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98 View Post

Blatantly false. I have a RMBP and on light usage the system is the coolest computer I've ever had or worked on. For light usage, like web-browsing and movies, it gets no warmer than my iPad, and it is just as silent and has just as much battery life. Do you even own one of these machines, or have you even worked on them, or are you just trolling here?

It's not blatantly false that the obsession on thinness is marring heat dissipation, ask any air user, esp. Gen one or two. I don't know you might be using your pro in Alaska, very review I v read said it does et warm on rudimentary tasks. Read what they say and/or find me one were it says it is as warm as the iPad, not two, just one.
post #37 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove View Post


It's not blatantly false that the obsession on thinness is marring heat dissipation, ask any air user, esp. Gen one or two. I don't know you might be using your pro in Alaska, very review I v read said it does et warm on rudimentary tasks. Read what they say and/or find me one were it says it is as warm as the iPad, not two, just one.

 

I'm not in Alaska ;). I'm in Canada though, and it's been a pretty hot week, and I don't have an AC. Anyway, why do I need to find an external review when I can write my own? Are my reports less valid than the tech gurus at these websites you are frequenting?

 

Regarding the prior post, that seemed sensible to me, thanks for explaining your perspective regarding SSDs.

post #38 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


Apple won't be making a $100,000 TV. Apple very likely won't be making any sort of TV.

 

WRONG! There will be an Apple TV and it will be less than $100,000!!

John McLaughlin.jpg

__________________________________________________ _
"You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus." (Mark Twain)
Reply
__________________________________________________ _
"You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus." (Mark Twain)
Reply
post #39 of 95

Just go for the Ivy Bridge desktop processors, decent graphics, and SATA III SSDs.
 

post #40 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98 View Post

I'm not in Alaska 1wink.gif. I'm in Canada though, and it's been a pretty hot week, and I don't have an AC. Anyway, why do I need to find an external review when I can write my own? Are my reports less valid than the tech gurus at these websites you are frequenting?

Regarding the prior post, that seemed sensible to me, thanks for explaining your perspective regarding SSDs.

It's good to hear it doesn't run warm for you. I am in the market for one and a users perspective is always appreciated, maybe more so than the dime a dozen reviews. Heat is a tricky thing and what with these device being that thin and compact, a slightly better application of the thermal paste or some other component or architecture micro detail on a per device level might make a difference.

I was just pointing out before, and I am certainly not the only one to point this out, that apple's obsession with thinness is impacting the thermals of their devices. Of course it's open to discussion if it's an obsession or not, they are pushing tech forward by opting for thinner, that's for sure. Would I want a mobile CPU instead of a desktop one on an iMac to make it even thinner? Not really, I d like it to be more powerful and get less warm, even if it is a few mils thicker.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Rumor: Apple's 2012 iMac refresh won't have Retina display