or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Apple issues second OS X 10.9.3 beta to developers with focus on graphics and audio
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple issues second OS X 10.9.3 beta to developers with focus on graphics and audio

post #1 of 21
Thread Starter 
Exactly one week after Apple seeded the first OS X 10.9.3 beta, which included new 4K monitor support, the company on Thursday issued a second beta asking developers to concentrate on graphics drivers and audio.

13D17


According to people familiar with Apple's OS X Mavericks 10.9.3 beta seed 13D17, the company is requesting testers focus on graphics drivers and audio. These are the same focus areas were when the first beta rolled out last week.

It was later discovered that the first pre-release version of OS X 10.9.3 enabled a so-called "Retina" output mode for those connecting late-2013 MacBook Pro with Retina display models to external 4K screens. The feature is actually a new pixel-doubling scaling option that can display a desktop at native "Retina" levels over HDMI.

The current OS X 10.9.2 released in late February does not support pixel-doubling, leaving Retina MacBook Pro owners limited to a max scaled output resolution of 4,096 pixels-by-2,160 pixels at 24Hz.

With the new scaling options, Retina MacBook Pros can also output to a 4K display at 60Hz. Currently, the refresh rate is capped at 30Hz, making animations choppy and nearly unusable.

Developers can download the latest OS X 10.9.3 beta version via Apple's Developer Center.
post #2 of 21
has anybody tried a 4K display with the 2012 retina MBP's? do they work OK [say, the 24" Dell 4K display], and which resolutions/frequencies work, and does pixel doubling work with this beta?

thx
post #3 of 21
I'm wondering if they're trying to get this release out ASAP for a product they want to release. Seems like 10.9.3 beta is going faster than normal.

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #4 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

I'm wondering if they're trying to get this release out ASAP for a product they want to release. Seems like 10.9.3 beta is going faster than normal.

Considering that 10.9.3 is only focused on audio & graphic drivers, it shouldn't take as along as 10.9.2.

post #5 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanukStorm View Post
 

Considering that 10.9.3 is only focused on audio & graphic drivers, it shouldn't take as along as 10.9.2.

 

I think you're right, but I still think they're getting this ready to possibly release a new product (or update an existing one). Seems weird they'd solely focus an update on simply graphics and audio mostly. 

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #6 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post
 

 

I think you're right, but I still think they're getting this ready to possibly release a new product (or update an existing one). Seems weird they'd solely focus an update on simply graphics and audio mostly. 

Only thing that comes to mind is a 4K Thunderbolt Display and / or 4K iMac.

post #7 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanukStorm View Post
 

Only thing that comes to mind is a 4K Thunderbolt Display and / or 4K iMac.

 

This is kind of that I was thinking too. 

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #8 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanukStorm View Post
 

Only thing that comes to mind is a 4K Thunderbolt Display and / or 4K iMac.

 

Yes please :) Oh wait, I doubt my early 2011 MBP would know what to do with a 4K display...

post #9 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by djames4242 View Post
 

 

Yes please :) Oh wait, I doubt my early 2011 MBP would know what to do with a 4K display...


Unfortunately, you're probably right.

post #10 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatisgoingon View Post

has anybody tried a 4K display with the 2012 retina MBP's? do they work OK [say, the 24" Dell 4K display], and which resolutions/frequencies work, and does pixel doubling work with this beta?

thx

The 2012 MBPs only contain TB1 so official 4K support from Apple is highly unlikely.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CanukStorm View Post

Considering that 10.9.3 is only focused on audio & graphic drivers, it shouldn't take as along as 10.9.2.

Perhaps, but they could add more focus points as the betas continue.

"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 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanukStorm View Post
 

... or 4K iMac.

 

 

If this pans out, it is my next Mac!!

post #12 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by BestKeptSecret View Post
 

 

 

If this pans out, it is my next Mac!!

 

I'm just wondering how they'll be able to do this without making the iMac cost $2800-$3000 or something like that. I imagine a 27" 4K panel isn't cheap. Yes, you can buy cheap 4K displays from places like Dell, but Apple doesn't exactly use bottom of the line parts. 

 

Also, while it might be cool and everything, really for the average consumer, what benefit would it really bring other than more crisp icons and text? The only real thing I can think of is someone who is doing editing and cannot afford a MacPro with some kind of 4K display (Apple nor non-Apple). But on the other hand, this is Apple and it would be a great selling point and pushing technology forward which is one thing I think Apple does better than almost anyone out there. 

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #13 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

I'm just wondering how they'll be able to do this without making the iMac cost $2800-$3000 or something like that. I imagine a 27" 4K panel isn't cheap. Yes, you can buy cheap 4K displays from places like Dell, but Apple doesn't exactly use bottom of the line parts. 

Also, while it might be cool and everything, really for the average consumer, what benefit would it really bring other than more crisp icons and text? The only real thing I can think of is someone who is doing editing and cannot afford a MacPro with some kind of 4K display (Apple nor non-Apple). But on the other hand, this is Apple and it would be a great selling point and pushing technology forward which is one thing I think Apple does better than almost anyone out there. 

Perhaps they do it as an BTO option, this way the entry price is still low and those users that want 4K can get it.

"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 #14 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post
 

 

I'm just wondering how they'll be able to do this without making the iMac cost $2800-$3000 or something like that. I imagine a 27" 4K panel isn't cheap. Yes, you can buy cheap 4K displays from places like Dell, but Apple doesn't exactly use bottom of the line parts. 

 

Also, while it might be cool and everything, really for the average consumer, what benefit would it really bring other than more crisp icons and text? The only real thing I can think of is someone who is doing editing and cannot afford a MacPro with some kind of 4K display (Apple nor non-Apple). But on the other hand, this is Apple and it would be a great selling point and pushing technology forward which is one thing I think Apple does better than almost anyone out there. 


You're right, a 4K iMac won't be cheap.  As SolipsismX noted above, Apple could do a BTO option.  The current 2560x1440 screen is pretty nice & I don't see it going away this year.

post #15 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Perhaps they do it as an BTO option, this way the entry price is still low and those users that want 4K can get it.

 

I too think they'd have to do a BTO option for now until 4K panel prices come down.

 

Then down the road when prices do fall they can have another event with the iMac with updated specs and claim victory again saying its now standard across the lineup.

 

Like CanukStorm said, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the panel offerings of today. They're awesome panels in both 21.5 and 27". 

 

I do wonder if they did go 4K across the line if they'd keep using the 21.5" display, or something like a 23-24" display on the low end. 

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #16 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

I do wonder if they did go 4K across the line if they'd keep using the 21.5" display, or something like a 23-24" display on the low end. 

Personally, I want Apple to start using much larger displays (on the diagonal) because I'd like large desktop displays move to an aspect ratio closer to CinemaScope.

"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 #17 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Personally, I want Apple to start using much larger displays (on the diagonal) because I'd like large desktop displays move to an aspect ratio closer to CinemaScope.

 

I've always been a fan of 16x9 displays. I never really like the fact that Apple used 16x10, especially now days when everything seems to be 16x9. 

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #18 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

I've always been a fan of 16x9 displays. I never really like the fact that Apple used 16x10, especially now days when everything seems to be 16x9. 

On a 15" of less notebook I would much rather have 16:10 than 16:9 for the increased display height.

Coincidently, an article by Jarred Walton on AnandTech recently mentioned the 16:10/16:9 differences.

Quote:
As is often the case, the new XPS 15 with Haswell is both better and worse than Apple's latest MacBook Pro Retina – and that's just looking at the paper specifications. The display is higher resolution than the Retina, with a 3200x1800 panel compared to Apple's 2880x1800 resolution display. Apple has been one of the few companies to continue to buck the trend towards 16:9 aspect ratio displays, sticking with a 16:10 AR – a choice I wholeheartedly approve of. The 3200x1800 panel is the 16:9 alternative to the rMBP 15's panel, and while Dell technically has more pixels, I still would prefer the “taller” screen that Apple uses.

"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 #19 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


On a 15" of less notebook I would much rather have 16:10 than 16:9 for the increased display height.

Coincidently, an article by Jarred Walton on AnandTech recently mentioned the 16:10/16:9 differences.

 

 

I agree with that...I was thinking like the iMacs and external displays for 16x9. 

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #20 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post


I agree with that...I was thinking like the iMacs and external displays for 16x9. 

The 20-30" range I'd go with 16:9, but beyond that I think you get more benefit from additional width than additional height which is why I'd love to see something like 34" UltraWide 4K monitor.



edit: LG has had a 29" 21:9 model for awhile but that makes the height of the display too short, IMO.


Edited by SolipsismX - 3/14/14 at 9:51am

"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 #21 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Personally, I want Apple to start using much larger displays (on the diagonal) because I'd like large desktop displays move to an aspect ratio closer to CinemaScope.

I'd like a square 30" display.
Post from mstone to Benjamin Frost - "Perhaps that explains your lack of mental capacity. If I was your brother, I probably would have repeatedly smashed the side of your head with a cricket bat."
Reply
Post from mstone to Benjamin Frost - "Perhaps that explains your lack of mental capacity. If I was your brother, I probably would have repeatedly smashed the side of your head with a cricket bat."
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Apple issues second OS X 10.9.3 beta to developers with focus on graphics and audio