Quote:
Originally Posted by
Marvin 
That's not a prediction, it's just what the guy wants to see Apple do. Every analyst says the same things - Apple should just make everything cheaper to drive demand. Under $1300 puts it just $100 over the current entry model with a 256GB SSD, retina display and possibly/likely a dedicated GPU. They will be taking out the optical but the $400 increase that is seen in the 15" is likely so $1599, maybe $1499 as the volume is higher and 13" displays cheaper but that will have the CPU of the entry $1199 model.
I expect them to keep the same resolution this year but I don't see how it would be so hard. At the viewing distances the iMac is at, they could probably get away with 2880 x 1620, although I'd prefer a move back to 16:10 and have the exact same resolution as the 15" MBP. That would qualify as retina at iMac viewing distance. Obviously people will immediately stick their faces right up to it and claim they can see the pixels.
The lamination will reduce the yields because there have to be no defects between the glass sheet and the panel - no smudges, no hairs, no cracks. That's on top of the possible defects on the panel itself. This also means they can't have the same design because the glass sheet is currently held in by magnets and they couldn't do that with the panel. They will have to screw it in the bottom so no chin. The Cinema Display design is nice and it could easily go that way without the optical drive wasting space.
Also, Retina MBP shipping times are now listed as 'in stock' so the backlog must be clear. An update for the iMac/Mini could even happen this week sometime.
I agree with you more than usual today, but I disagree on the addition of dedicated graphics and ssd sizing. If you have a 256GB ssd in a $2200 model, it's very possible you'd see a 128 here, although the costs in producing these may involve more than the NAND. I don't see them going back to 16:10. Newer panels keep trending toward 16:9. If they are going with something entirely custom rather than modifying an existing reference panel design, it could happen. I just doubt it. As to the gpu, I don't personally expect to see a 13" until these things can run in a stable manner via integrated graphics. The problem isn't solely one of pixels. The entirety of their notebook line can drive 2560x1600 on the thunderbolt display. It may have some issues in programming. The use of hardware blending within the ui via pixel shading or whatever they're using likely complicates the matter, especially when combined with scaling. I see this as something that will likely require another hardware generation from intel to be truly ready. As to the analysts, I regard many of their words more as musings. If they are so sure of this, they could bet on options :P.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
wizard69
Another way to look at this is that 4k displays are just around the corner. I don't know what Apple will put in the iMac and I don't really care, however I won't say Retina is impossible this year.
I'd give it five years or so before these start to look remotely mainstream. Some of Apple's other devices have sort of resurrected prior engineering problems that were overcome at lower resolutions. Image persistence comes to mind here. It's likely very difficult to design something that can be manufactured within a reasonable fault tolerance at such a resolution, and with something really new it's difficult to know how it will work when manufacturing goes beyond the point of kicking out prototypes to manufacturing millions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kotatsu
Measure the distance between your eye balls and the screen of your 27" iMac. Is it more than 80cm? If it is, then unless you have super human eyes, then you're already looking at a 'retina' display.
If the resolution was doubled, then by all means feel free to sit 40cm away from the screen, just to soak in all the detail. I suspect you might find that rather uncomfortable after a while though.
This has come up before, but that math was just to the point where you would no longer perceive the presence of pixels. It doesn't mean there's no advantage beyond that point in terms of perceived realism given that perception of gradation in a repetitive at lower frequencies isn't an all or nothing kind of thing, but I get what you were pointing out. The person you responded to was making a mindless statement based on their acceptance of corporate marketing tools.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Marvin
Remind me where the Mac Pro is on this page:
http://www.apple.com/displays/
I think they will at least match the 27" to the rMBP resolution - they might be able to mirror things properly that way even with the rMBP scaling e.g 2880 x 1800 mirrored to both but it is scaled down to 1080p on the rMBP so the mouse tracking is the same.
There's nothing inherently aligned with the mac pro. Some users will buy an Apple display to accompany their mac pro, but that is one of many options, and not always the best one. Their take on displays overall has been switching over to more of a docking station kind of design. The idea being plug in one cable and you have access to your stationary devices, which include a large display. I've mentioned that it doesn't work for everyone and some of the other flaws with the idea. If you're not mixing in too many non Apple things and you are served by what is offered there, it works reasonably well.
