or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Supply of Apple's 27" iMac drying up as Ivy Bridge upgrade awaits
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Supply of Apple's 27" iMac drying up as Ivy Bridge upgrade awaits

post #1 of 77
Thread Starter 
With the last iMac update having arrived more than a year ago, third-party resellers are now starting to see limited availability of Apple's big-screen 27-inch desktop Mac.

As of Wednesday, AppleInsider noticed stock-outs of the 3.7-gigahertz 27-inch iMac at Best Buy and J&R, while only a handful of units remain available at Amazon, where it is advertised that more are on the way (Update: Amazon's listing no longer indicates limited stock). In addition, MacMall is currently sold out of the 27-inch iMac with a 2.7 gigahertz processor.

The lack of availability at Best Buy is particularly noteworthy as the retailer's website simply states the all-in-one computer is "not available" both online and in store, with no indication of a restock. In contrast, Apple's newly released MacBook Pro with Retina display is advertised as "backordered," with new orders expected to ship between 7 and 30 days from Best Buy.

Limited availability at Mac resellers is often one of the first signs that Apple is drawing down inventory ahead of a product update. And the iMac line is due for an update, with the most recent refresh released over a year ago, in early May of 2011.

However, it should also be noted that Apple's iMac desktops are a popular choice for education institutions. Last month, Apple kicked off its annual back to school promotion, offering a $100 iTunes gift card with the purchase of a new Mac, which could explain limited availability of the 27-inch iMac.

Patent 2


Just this week, a new report out of the Far East claimed that Apple's supply chain is currently gearing up to begin production of the next-generation iMac. However, that report suggested the updated all-in-one desktop won't become available until October.

The new iMacs are expected to feature Intel's latest-generation Ivy Bridge processors. Apple's MacBook Pro and MacBook Air lineups were upgraded to Ivy Bridge with a product refresh last month.

It remains unclear whether the next-generation iMacs will feature Retina displays like Apple's new MacBook Pro. Reports from earlier this year suggested the new iMacs would in fact have new high-resolution displays, though more recently doubt has been cast that the addition will make the cut for Apple's 2012 models.

Other rumors from this year claimed that the 2012 iMac refresh will feature new anti-reflective glass displays. That would be a first for the iMac, as Apple has until now only offered anti-reflective solutions as build-to-order options on its MacBook family of notebooks.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #2 of 77
With the last iMac update having arrived more than a year ago, third-party resellers are now starting to see limited availability of Apple's big-screen 27-inch desktop Mac.

As of Wednesday, AppleInsider noticed stock-outs of the 3.7-gigahertz 27-inch iMac at Best Buy and J&R, while only a handful of units remain available at Amazon, where it is advertised that more are on the way. In addition, MacMall is currently sold out of the 27-inch iMac with a 2.7 gigahertz processor.

The lack of availability at Best Buy is particularly noteworthy as the retailer's website simply states the all-in-one computer is "not available" both online and in store, with no indication of a restock. In contrast, Apple's newly released MacBook Pro with Retina display is advertised as "backordered," with new orders expected to ship between 7 and 30 days from Best Buy.

Limited availability at Mac resellers is often one of the first signs that Apple is drawing down inventory ahead of a product update. And the iMac line is due for an update, with the most recent refresh released over a year ago, in early May of 2011.

However, it should also be noted that Apple's iMac desktops are a popular choice for education institutions. Last month, Apple kicked off its annual back to school promotion, offering a $100 iTunes gift card with the purchase of a new Mac, which could explain limited availability of the 27-inch iMac.

Patent 2


Just this week, a new report out of the Far East claimed that Apple's supply chain is currently gearing up to begin production of the next-generation iMac. However, that report suggested the updated all-in-one desktop won't become available until October.

The new iMacs are expected to feature Intel's latest-generation Ivy Bridge processors. Apple's MacBook Pro and MacBook Air lineups were upgraded to Ivy Bridge with a product refresh last month.

It remains unclear whether the next-generation iMacs will feature Retina displays like Apple's new MacBook Pro. Reports from earlier this year suggested the new iMacs would in fact have new high-resolution displays, though more recently doubt has been cast that the addition will make the cut for Apple's 2012 models.

Other rumors from this year claimed that the 2012 iMac refresh will feature new anti-reflective glass displays. That would be a first for the iMac, as Apple has until now only offered anti-reflective solutions as build-to-order options on its MacBook family of notebooks.
post #3 of 77
I'm holding out for a Retina iMac but I think 2012 is too soon for that to happen.

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

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

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

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #4 of 77

I want a 33" iMac/TV with a 7" iPad/iPod remote.  But what OS would it run?  Is M$ on to something with the dual OS or should iOS run OSX styles apps with a keyboard and mouse also?

post #5 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by granolapunk View Post

I want a 33" Imac/TV with a 7" iPad/iPod remote.  But what OS would it run?  Is M$ on to something with the dual OS or should iOS run OSX styles apps with a keyboard and mouse also?

I don't think MS are onto something but they are certainly on something up in Redmond.

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

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

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

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #6 of 77
Sadly no mention of the Mini. It is however about time, Apple has been dragging feet for rear to long now
post #7 of 77

One thing is having a retina display 9.7" iPad and a retina 15" Macbook, but I don't think that huge sized displays with retina is something that is coming out anytime soon. 

post #8 of 77

I think the resolution is fine on the iMacs for now.  Would love to see a spec bump of course.  Faster RAM, CPU, GPU etc.  It's a solid machine.  Not sure if Apple can put much WOW factor in it.  I don't need it to be any thinner.  Most people sit further away from a desktop monitor then a laptop screen.  At least I do.  Therefore, a higher resolution screen won't do as much for me in a desktop environment as it would a laptop.    

post #9 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by juggernaut30 View Post

I think the resolution is fine on the iMacs for now.  Would love to see a spec bump of course.  Faster RAM, CPU, GPU etc.  It's a solid machine.  Not sure if Apple can put much WOW factor in it.  I don't need it to be any thinner.  Most people sit further away from a desktop monitor then a laptop screen.  At least I do.  Therefore, a higher resolution screen won't do as much for me in a desktop environment as it would a laptop.    

I agree that it's fine at 2560x1440 for a 27", but that doesn't mean it can't be improved. Keep in mind that at the distance you view an iMac, it doesn't have to be all that much greater than it is now to meet the definition of 'retina display'. I haven't done the math, but something like 3200x2000 might easily be enough.
"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 #10 of 77

I'm waiting until Mountain Lion comes out before buying. I'm inclined to believe we'll see a spec bump sooner rather than later and don't expect to see a retina iMac until this time next year.

post #11 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I agree that it's fine at 2560x1440 for a 27", but that doesn't mean it can't be improved. Keep in mind that at the distance you view an iMac, it doesn't have to be all that much greater than it is now to meet the definition of 'retina display'. I haven't done the math, but something like 3200x2000 might easily be enough.

The math is easy. Just plug in the values and let Google calculate it for you. Would you say that 2' is about the average one sits from a desktop monitor?

3438 * (1/24") = 143 PPI

The PPI is currently 102 and 109 for the 21.5" and 27" iMacs, respectively. Doubling the PPI to 205 and 218 would mean you could sit a little more than one foot away and someone with 20/20 (6/6) vision couldn't discern the pixels.

3438 * (1/205 PPI) = 16 3/4"
3438 * (1/218 PPI) = 15 3/4"

That's overkill but I wonder if Apple's OS can scale well by going only 50% resolution increase instead of doubling and if even then the GPU can handle the increased load well.

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

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

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

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #12 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


I agree that it's fine at 2560x1440 for a 27", but that doesn't mean it can't be improved. Keep in mind that at the distance you view an iMac, it doesn't have to be all that much greater than it is now to meet the definition of 'retina display'. I haven't done the math, but something like 3200x2000 might easily be enough.

The iMac will have to be doubled, meaning 5120 x 2880. That's exactly what Apple has done with their two existing retina devices so far.

post #13 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Other rumors from this year claimed that the 2012 iMac refresh will feature new anti-reflective glass displays. That would be a first for the iMac, as Apple has until now only offered anti-reflective solutions as build-to-order options on its MacBook family of notebooks.

I thought the current BTO option for MBP was a matte surface. Anti-reflective treatment is not matte.
post #14 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

The math is easy. Just plug in the values and let Google calculate it for you. Would you say that 2' is about the average one sits from a desktop monitor?
3438 * (1/24") = 143 PPI
The PPI is currently 102 and 109 for the 21.5" and 27" iMacs, respectively. Doubling the PPI to 205 and 218 would mean you could sit a little more than one foot away and someone with 20/20 (6/6) vision couldn't discern the pixels.
3438 * (1/205 PPI) = 16 3/4"
3438 * (1/218 PPI) = 15 3/4"
That's overkill but I wonder if Apple's OS can scale well by going only 50% resolution increase instead of doubling and if even then the GPU can handle the increased load well.


That's a bit closer to a foot an a half than a foot. That's a realistic distance for many desks these days.
post #15 of 77
Quote:
The iMac will have to be doubled, meaning 5120 x 2880. That's exactly what Apple has done with their two existing retina devices so far.

 

Retina is about pixel-density, and means pixel-doubled really. So they wouldn't have to double the resolution of the current iMac... they'd have to double *some* acceptable resolution. (Like the new Retina MBP has a working resolution of 1440x900 or whatever it was.)

 

When looking at the current 27 inch iMac I've found myself wondering if there isn't actually too much screen real-estate. I could imagine a lower working resolution than the current 2560x1440 being quite acceptable. At that point getting a panel and a gfx card to drive it isn't completely beyond the realm of possibility...

 

Just a thought.

post #16 of 77

If not a retina display, I would like to see a 16:10 aspect ratio with 2560x1600 on a 27" model. The room is there on the front if you are willing to shrink the Apple logo. I'm very attached to my current 27" iMac, but the extra vertical space would prompt me to get a new one.

post #17 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by JollyPaul View Post

If not a retina display, I would like to see a 16:10 aspect ratio with 2560x1600 on a 27" model. The room is there on the front if you are willing to shrink the Apple logo. I'm very attached to my current 27" iMac, but the extra vertical space would prompt me to get a new one.

I'm fine with 16:9 on a desktop because the display is large enough to allow for a wider display. On a 15" or smaller notebook... not so much. That's why I could never get the 11" MBA. The 12" PB was great because it was 4:3 which allowed for display height close to the 13" MB/MBA/MBPs.

As we move into larger iMac displays I'd actually like them to get widescreenier more widescreen. A 2.35 aspect ratio 32" iMac would be nice... at least for me.

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

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

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

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #18 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

As we move into larger iMac displays I'd actually like them to get widescreenier more widescreen. A 2.35 aspect ratio 32" iMac would be nice... at least for me.

I'd like to see an Apple tv at that ratio.

 

16:9 is not good for movies, it's made for tv shows, you still get black bars.

post #19 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by drdaz View Post

Retina is about pixel-density, and means pixel-doubled really. So they wouldn't have to double the resolution of the current iMac... they'd have to double *some* acceptable resolution. (Like the new Retina MBP has a working resolution of 1440x900 or whatever it was.)

When looking at the current 27 inch iMac I've found myself wondering if there isn't actually too much screen real-estate. I could imagine a lower working resolution than the current 2560x1440 being quite acceptable. At that point getting a panel and a gfx card to drive it isn't completely beyond the realm of possibility...

What was wrong with the 21" iMac? I agree that not everyone needs the 27" model, but I'm glad it's there. That said, a good part of my need for the bigger display might go away with retina, my screen-intensive work being largely vector graphics. A 21" screen at 3840 x 2160 might serve pretty well.
post #20 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by drdaz View Post

 

Retina is about pixel-density, and means pixel-doubled really. So they wouldn't have to double the resolution of the current iMac... they'd have to double *some* acceptable resolution. (Like the new Retina MBP has a working resolution of 1440x900 or whatever it was.)

 

When looking at the current 27 inch iMac I've found myself wondering if there isn't actually too much screen real-estate. I could imagine a lower working resolution than the current 2560x1440 being quite acceptable. At that point getting a panel and a gfx card to drive it isn't completely beyond the realm of possibility...

 

Just a thought.

If they don't double the 2560x1400 res, then I think that it would be a doubling of 1920x1080, which would put the retina iMac at 3840 x 2160.

post #21 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

What was wrong with the 21" iMac? I agree that not everyone needs the 27" model, but I'm glad it's there. That said, a good part of my need for the bigger display might go away with retina, my screen-intensive work being largely vector graphics. A 21" screen at 3840 x 2160 might serve pretty well.

If they updated the 21.5" and 27" iMacs today and only the smaller model got a Retina display do the several reasons why a smaller display would come first I'd settle for the smaller iMac without hesitation.

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

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

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

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #22 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

If they don't double the 2560x1400 res, then I think that it would be a doubling of 1920x1080, which would put the retina iMac at 3840 x 2160.

 

Right!

 

I'm not up to date with what's being produced in the far-east, but that seems like a feasible resolution - both for production and driving by a current-gen gfx card. Games will hurt on a mobile gfx chip at native res, but oh well.

 

If they just double the current 2560x1440, I'll soil myself. And then spend the rest of my life saving for the damn machine :-(.

post #23 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


What was wrong with the 21" iMac? I agree that not everyone needs the 27" model, but I'm glad it's there. That said, a good part of my need for the bigger display might go away with retina, my screen-intensive work being largely vector graphics. A 21" screen at 3840 x 2160 might serve pretty well.

Oh nothing! I've just been waiting for the 27 incher to be released for a few months now, and have decided that nobody elses desires are interesting :-p

 

The same reasoning should apply if the 21 incher is a challenge for the same reasons the 27 incher is.

post #24 of 77
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the new iMac will be announced before July 24. I am not superstitious, so I can't say for sure if it will be on a Tuesday.
post #25 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

No retina this time, but I'm hoping for a redesign that would allow for desktop GPUs. That way when Haswell comes out next year, the cooling can be rerouted from the CPU to the GPU, we can be given a better one, and then the retina display will have hardware that can handle it.
EDIT: Oh, for heaven's sake. lol.gif

 

I get the desire to be the first to post...  but how did you get yours before the article?  Post #2 is the best I've ever seen!

"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #26 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I'm holding out for a Retina iMac but I think 2012 is too soon for that to happen.

 

I think that it could happen this year but it won't be across the whole line up. Same as with the MBP it will be a top line item and might not even be in stores but something they custom build. And only as an option on the 27 inch. 

 

As for the rest, I think they could be timing an iMac and Mac Mini update to hit with the Mountain Lion release (or shortly after that release). Will it be Ivy Bridge? It seems likely. Will it also have 8GB of Ram? Probably at least in the 27 inch (the 21s might stay with 4GB). Will they offer a larger SSD, pull the ODD etc. Perhaps. Like the MBP it might happen, but only with that high end model. 

 

What I really want to see is a new Cinema Display line up. Give me a 40 inch model, Retina quality with a nice high refresh rate that can compete with any tv set. Put in HDMI etc so I can hook my blu-ray, the roommate's Xbox, my apple tv or whatever. Make it slim enough I can mount it on the wall even. 

post #27 of 77
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

I get the desire to be the first to post...  but how did you get yours before the article?  Post #2 is the best I've ever seen!

AI seems to be glitching up as of late and posts articles a bunch of times. I had commented on another copy of this story from before this one was even posted, apparently. I wanted to just merge the posts to a single thread, but of course the forum orders them by time posted.

Edit: Seems the bot doesn't like being upstaged. lol.gif
Edited by Tallest Skil - 7/4/12 at 1:26pm

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #28 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

One thing is having a retina display 9.7" iPad and a retina 15" Macbook, but I don't think that huge sized displays with retina is something that is coming out anytime soon. 

 

Why not. By Apple's math its only a 12-15% increase in the resolution. That isn't so hard to do. If they were to yank out the ODD they could probably add a separate/second graphics card to power things

post #29 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

The iMac will have to be doubled, meaning 5120 x 2880. That's exactly what Apple has done with their two existing retina devices so far.

 

They did it with the other devices because the math used showed that doubling was needed. The same is not true for the iMac. 

post #30 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by granolapunk View Post

I want a 33" iMac/TV with a 7" iPad/iPod remote.  But what OS would it run?  Is M$ on to something with the dual OS or should iOS run OSX styles apps with a keyboard and mouse also?

 

There is nothing you'd want to do on a TV screen or a remote that requires OS X.  However, if you want a single device that is both a TV and a Mac, then OS is the obvious choice!  If you want the ability to run iOS apps on this device, you can already do that with the iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch simulator -- and you don't need a touch screen!  

 

All apple need do is separate the simulator from the Developer Kit and allow you to invoke it (and the app) by double clicking on the app or invoking it from Launchpad -- I suspect that this is already implemented.

 

One of the hidden benefits to OS X and iOS sharing a common base is that something developed for one can be migrated to the other.  Several things developed for iOS have migrated back to the mothership... Location Services, Core Animation to name a couple.

"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #31 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Other rumors from this year claimed that the 2012 iMac refresh will feature new anti-reflective glass displays. That would be a first for the iMac, as Apple has until now only offered anti-reflective solutions as build-to-order options on its MacBook family of notebooks.

They might not be able to do the same thing as you have to take the display out to get to the parts in the iMac, which would involve sticking suckers onto the glass fused to the panel.

300

Of course, if they move the hard drive to the bottom, there's no reason to take the screen out anyway and this way they can make it thinner without leaving less room inside and the optical removal will leave extra room. If they fuse the glass, it also means you can't get any dirt on the inside of the glass or a damaged panel from a repair.

Assuming no expensive additions, the optical removal should drop the price by $100 too. Not quite enough to get to the $999 price point but maybe in an educational model.
post #32 of 77
I'd say that 2 feet is the minimum distance one has to be from a 27 inches screen. Anyone can do what they want, but I don't think less is reasonable.

Anyway, iWant. Also, a redesign please. Slimmer with a design similar to the thunderbold display would be perfect!
post #33 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

The iMac will have to be doubled, meaning 5120 x 2880. That's exactly what Apple has done with their two existing retina devices so far.

 

First. there are four existing retina devices:

 

-- iPhone 4/4S

-- iPod Touch

-- New iPad

-- MBP Retina

 

Second, the iOS devices have a single fixed-size window that contains the entire app display.  

 

Macs (OS X devices) have multiple, resizable, overlapping windows that the user or application can position at will.  While "nice-to-have",  there is little need to double the pixel resolution to preserve the size of variable windows.


Edited by Dick Applebaum - 7/4/12 at 1:40pm
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #34 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by DogCowabunga View Post

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the new iMac will be announced before July 24. I am not superstitious, so I can't say for sure if it will be on a Tuesday.

 

Apple will release earnings on July 24. OS X 10.8 and new iMacs should be released a few days later, in my opinion.

post #35 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by DogCowabunga View Post

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the new iMac will be announced before July 24. I am not superstitious, so I can't say for sure if it will be on a Tuesday.

 

Ha!  Your name made me laugh bittersweet tears...

 

My late wife Lucy, who managed our computer stores, called Guy Kawasaki (then working for Apple and later Acius) "Guy Kawabunga"... several times to his face.

"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #36 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


A 21" screen at 3840 x 2160 might serve pretty well.

Agreed.  It would basically be a 4 x 1080p display (instead of the current 4 x 720p).  Not sure if resolution doubling is necessary or how the OS would handle it, but it would be nice.  

post #37 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

 

Why not. By Apple's math its only a 12-15% increase in the resolution. That isn't so hard to do. If they were to yank out the ODD they could probably add a separate/second graphics card to power things

The current iMac is already at 2560, if we do a 15% increase, that brings us to 2944. Is that really going to make any big difference? 

 

And the native resolution of retina displays seems to be half, so half of 2944 = 1472, and that's a pretty pathetic resolution to have on a 27" display.

post #38 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

 

First. there are four existing retina devices:

 

-- iPhone 4/4S

-- iPod Touch

-- New iPad

-- MBP Retina

 

That is of course true. I totally forgot about iPhones and iPod Touches.

post #39 of 77

3.7 ghz? Wow!! I should have got that one instead of the 27" iMac I bought at the end of last year. Sorry to say but the fastest one you can buy is 3.16ghz.

post #40 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemyNX View Post

I'd say that 2 feet is the minimum distance one has to be from a 27 inches screen. Anyone can do what they want, but I don't think less is reasonable.
Anyway, iWant. Also, a redesign please. Slimmer with a design similar to the thunderbold display would be perfect!


Would you like a kickstand to go with that too? lol.gif

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Supply of Apple's 27" iMac drying up as Ivy Bridge upgrade awaits