or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple's OS X 10.10 Yosemite beta hints at Retina display iMacs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's OS X 10.10 Yosemite beta hints at Retina display iMacs

post #1 of 78
Thread Starter 
Rumors of Retina iMacs have been floating since the iPhone 4 with Retina display launched in 2010, but newly discovered code in Apple's latest OS X 10.10 Yosemite beta suggests the anticipated all-in-ones may be close to market.

iMac


Rooting around in the recently released Yosemite developer preview's system library, a member of French forum MacBidouille uncovered a string of code pointing to scaled display resolutions of what could be a Retina-toting iMac.

A file covering display device scaling settings shows a number of high-resolution options for an unknown computer that go far beyond Apple's current offerings. The highest resolution is shown as 6,400-by-3,600 pixels, which would likely be scaled down to 3,200-by-1,800 pixels for a Retina panel. Product identifiers associated with the file were previously referenced in a recent beta build of OS X 10.9.4 Mavericks and tied to an as-yet-unannounced iMac model.

The first of these resolutions indicates hexa "00001900 00000e10" is therefore a resolution scaling of ... 6400 x 3600 (probably 3200x1800 HiDPI).
Continues and is 5760x3240 (2880x1620 HiDPI) 4096x2304 (2048x1152 HiDPI), etc..
(There are other resolutions, just make the conversion from hex)


While scaled resolutions can be deduced from the code string, the forum user notes a native display resolution is more difficult to pin down. It can be speculated that Apple will treat the Retina iMac much the same as it does the MacBook Pro with Retina display, meaning system graphics are generated at high resolutions then scaled down to sharpen the image.

Apple has long been rumored to field a Retina display iMac, but the company has only deployed the high-resolution hardware in products up to the MacBook Pro. In April, KGI Securities analyst Ming-Chi Kuo predicted Apple would release a low-cost iMac as well as a Retina MacBook Air by the end of 2014.
post #2 of 78

Leave it to Apple not to pussyfoot around. Only increasing the resolution to 4k? Fugeddabadit!

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 #3 of 78
Be still my beating heart...

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #4 of 78
That blows 4K out of the water, if it refers to a real unreleased product.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #5 of 78
Bet they have plans for a kickass GPU to power that.
post #6 of 78
So 4k resolution is really 4000 x something and this is hinting at 6400 ?
post #7 of 78
23 megapixels. I hope it is true. It won't stop the trolls who will post cheap shots about FUD: Fear, Uncertainty, and Dre.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #8 of 78
Originally Posted by tkrunner1738 View Post
So 4k resolution is really 4000 x something and this is hinting at 6400 ?

 

4K is 3840 x 2160.

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 #9 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post
 

The first of these resolutions indicates hexa "00001900 00000e10" is therefore a resolution scaling of ... 6400 x 3600 (probably 3200x1800 HiDPI).

I don't understand this reference to HiDPI. I thought the scaling only applied to the icons and user interface items which are double their normal pixel dimensions to account for the Retina resolution. I'm thinking that it really is 6400 x 3600 in terms of the total number of pixels on the screen being 24,040,000. 3200 x 1800 isn't even 4K.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #10 of 78
Please hurry Apple. I'm in desperate need of an iMac upgrade. But I won't do it until the refresh. I was hoping for an announcement this week. 1frown.gif
FEAR GOOGLE
Reply
FEAR GOOGLE
Reply
post #11 of 78

Count me in. My Late 2009 iMac with 20 GB RAM is showing its age in CS6.

post #12 of 78

I hope this will become reality. I've been holding off upgrading my iMac for a better display (not that I think the current display is bad by any means). 

post #13 of 78
I need

One thought he was invincible... the other thought he could fly.

They were both wrong.

Reply

One thought he was invincible... the other thought he could fly.

They were both wrong.

Reply
post #14 of 78
After what I felt was a disappointing WWDC, I am giddy about this. 1smoking.gif
post #15 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by tkrunner1738 View Post

So 4k resolution is really 4000 x something and this is hinting at 6400 ?
Yes, 4k is around 4000 by 2000(usually) and ultra HD 4k is 3840 by 2160, and this is showing even a 6 1/2 k display.
post #16 of 78
Easily see a $1500 4k IMac and $1000 4k thunderbolt 2 display this year.
post #17 of 78

Any sign of ID's for updated Mac Mini's? We want Haswell Mini's with stonking performance. Please, Apple, feed us.

post #18 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Leave it to Apple not to pussyfoot around. Only increasing the resolution to 4k? Fugeddabadit!

They only needed to go to 4K. This is just showing off. 1wink.gif

Nobody's even going to run these displays at 3200, the UI would be far too small on 27".
post #19 of 78

Interesting. Retina Thunderbolt Displays must be getting closer as well then.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winter View Post

After what I felt was a disappointing WWDC, I am giddy about this. 1smoking.gif

 

I'm not a developer, however I'm quite giddy over what was presented in the WWDC keynote. Extremely exciting times ahead for both Mac and the iOS platforms.

"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #20 of 78

Presumably this would also lead to the same specs on an upgraded stand-alone Thunderbolt display?

post #21 of 78

Is it clear if this is for an internal or external display?

post #22 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

After what I felt was a disappointing WWDC, I am giddy about this. 1smoking.gif
Considering this is the WWDC, what do you find disappointing, pray tell?
post #23 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post


Considering this is the WWDC, what do you find disappointing, pray tell?

 

Yes, I'd like to know as well. WWDC is about developers and for once it was 2hrs of nothing but great stuff for developers. If you expecting hardware announcements, they can come at any time. Apple doesn't always have to release hardware at WWDC.

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 #24 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloodshotrollin'red View Post
 

Any sign of ID's for updated Mac Mini's? We want Haswell Mini's with stonking performance. Please, Apple, feed us.

 

I would almost wait for the next rev of chips now as long as they're not going to be months and months away. If so, just release it with the current Haswell chips and then later on upgrade to Broadwell. I would like to see Iris Pro graphics on at least the $799 version, but I'm not holding my breath. 

 

I'm thinking the Mac mini is under going a major overhaul, with an even smaller design, maybe the size of the superdrive as far as how large the square is. It might be as tall as the current Mac mini, but I'm thinking it will be smaller. It doesn't really need to be the size it is. I think with Broadwell, they could make it smaller easily as it doesn't need the cooling, or the power the current one does. 

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 #25 of 78
If they can make a retina iMac, then they can make a retina 17" laptop.
post #26 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

If they can make a retina iMac, then they can make a retina 17" laptop.

"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 #27 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

If they can make a retina iMac, then they can make a retina 17" laptop.

 

Incredibly unlikely that they'll do it, but I'd love one of those!

"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #28 of 78

Imagine how many full HD clips (at full res) you could have on screen in final cut pro.... :wow: or 4K video with timeline & then some, it makes sense, not to watch movies on, but as a productive computer.

post #29 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloodshotrollin'red View Post
 

Any sign of ID's for updated Mac Mini's? We want Haswell Mini's with stonking performance. Please, Apple, feed us.

 

Broadwell was originally scheduled for Q2 and I think the delay to Q4 has upset the intended Mini release date. 

post #30 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by boredumb View Post
 

Presumably this would also lead to the same specs on an upgraded stand-alone Thunderbolt display?

Can Thunderbolt 2 carry a 6400 x 3600 display?

post #31 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

If they can make a retina iMac, then they can make a retina 17" laptop.

What is your point?

 

They already make a Retina 15" notebook, they can make a 17" one if they wanted.

 

Or to be more specific, how much do you think Apple cares about your opinion about their ability to make a 17" Retina MacBook when they are perfectly aware of the availability of components for such a device? Moreover, Apple knows exactly how many of the the 17" MacBook they manufactured and sold when they deliberately discontinued that model.

 

Your "dream" Apple product line is irrelevant.

 

Apple is not your mom cooking you your favorite breakfast.

post #32 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Can Thunderbolt 2 carry a 6400 x 3600 display?

With DisplayPort 1.2 I believe the max is 17.28 Gibps. DP 1.3 doubles that output and can handle 8K UHD but my calculation of the bandwidth 8K well over the limit for DP 1.3. However, since it's supported and 8K is 4x the number of pixels 4K and yet only double the bandwidth I have to assume that DP 1.2's 17.28 Gibps is enough. Perhaps they do some compression, which would make sense.

If ti's not possible could they add 2x TB2 controllers for a dual connection where each runs have the screen? I think DL-DVI did that.

"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 #33 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post
 

Can Thunderbolt 2 carry a 6400 x 3600 display?

 

The Mini DisplayPort part of Thunderbolt can't do 6400 x 3600, but data to drive an external GPU could run over TB2. Maybe something like the Matrox "double head to go" or "triple head to go" could present itself as a ~6400 x 3200 monitor to the Mac, so a only a single TB2 connector on the Mac drives a multi-monitor setup. Or maybe new TB monitors will have integrated GPU, so multiple monitor setup is via daisy-chaining the monitors, again, off of a single TB connection. Theoretically, the e-GPU concept could enable even GPU challenged MacBooks to power multi-monitor rigs, couldn't it? It's fun to speculate.

"Inspirational phrase here." - Person you never heard of here.

Reply

"Inspirational phrase here." - Person you never heard of here.

Reply
post #34 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

If ti's not possible could they add 2x TB2 controllers for a dual connection where each runs have the screen? I think DL-DVI did that.

That's what I was thinking they might do, the Mac Pro has enough Thunderbolt controllers. I was able to get 4K@60Hz output from a 2012 Macbook Pro Retina, which theoretically should only be able to do 30Hz, by using a dual connection, one from the HDMI and one from a Thunderbolt 1 port. OS X is already reasonably usable in this kind of mode.

post #35 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoundaboutNow View Post
 

 

The Mini DisplayPort part of Thunderbolt can't do 6400 x 3600, but data to drive an external GPU could run over TB2. Maybe something like the Matrox "double head to go" or "triple head to go" could present itself as a ~6400 x 3200 monitor to the Mac, so a only a single TB2 connector on the Mac drives a multi-monitor setup. Or maybe new TB monitors will have integrated GPU, so multiple monitor setup is via daisy-chaining the monitors, again, off of a single TB connection. Theoretically, the e-GPU concept could enable even GPU challenged MacBooks to power multi-monitor rigs, couldn't it? It's fun to speculate.

I'd be surprised if that was the solution, the Mac Pro already has 2 GPUs! But I like your lateral thinking.

post #36 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post
 

That's what I was thinking they might do, the Mac Pro has enough Thunderbolt controllers. I was able to get 4K@60Hz output from a 2012 Macbook Pro Retina, which theoretically should only be able to do 30Hz, by using a dual connection, one from the HDMI and one from a Thunderbolt 1 port. OS X is already reasonably usable in this kind of mode.

 

Interesting. How did you do get 4K@60Hz using a dual connection? Some sort of MST interface? What monitor?

"Inspirational phrase here." - Person you never heard of here.

Reply

"Inspirational phrase here." - Person you never heard of here.

Reply
post #37 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoundaboutNow View Post
 

 

Interesting. How did you do get 4K@60Hz using a dual connection? Some sort of MST interface? What monitor?

I made a thread about it here. Basically the monitor had support for doing each side of the screen with a different port.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/180471/samsung-u28d590d-28in-4k-monitor

post #38 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post
 

I made a thread about it here. Basically the monitor had support for doing each side of the screen with a different port.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/180471/samsung-u28d590d-28in-4k-monitor

 

I could not put up with the niggles you described, but very nice of you to post the results of your experiment. Thanks! :) 

"Inspirational phrase here." - Person you never heard of here.

Reply

"Inspirational phrase here." - Person you never heard of here.

Reply
post #39 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I'm thinking that it really is 6400 x 3600 in terms of the total number of pixels on the screen being 24,040,000.

Microsoft Excel math? 1wink.gif
23,040,000

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #40 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by chazwatson View Post

Is it clear if this is for an internal or external display?

Well no one knows yet, but this is Apple we're talking about.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple's OS X 10.10 Yosemite beta hints at Retina display iMacs