"The flexibility offered by Apple’s handling of the Retina Display in OS X is unparalleled. What applications like Aperture, iPhoto, iMovie and Final Cut HD offer, is unbridled resolution independence. What Apple has done here is so much more difficult than what it pulled off in iOS with the Retina Display. It will take time for third party application developers to get on board, but with the power of the Mac app store and Apple’s growing install base of Mac users I suspect we will see incredibly quick adoption of support for the MacBook Pro’s Retina Display."
I can't wait until this gets to all Macs. Hopefully AnandTech's article will help some realize just what a technical feat this was on from a HW and SW level to pull off.
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.
I love my 27". If you'd own one, it would be very hard to go back to 21" or even 24".
I don't think they will use SATA SSDs, they seem to be moving more towards PCIe. With the rate that SSDs are speeding up, this is smarter than waiting for each new iteration of SATA. The top of the line SSDs (e.g. Revo) have always used PCIe.
Are you talking about the large PCIe SSD cards for servers and workstations?
The MBA and even netbooks before it use the mPCIe connector but it's still only connecting to the SATA host controller. It's electrically compatible with mPCIe but the signaling is in no compatible.
It's possible Apple could use an on-board SATA host controller or use a combined PCIe/SATA routing chip in their system so that a standard PCIe slot can be used but I wouldn't expect this to be used at all for the iMac.
I hope Apple continues to use a standard SATA3.0 controller and 2.5" drive (as well as a 3.5" SATA3.0 drive) but there does seem to be some great cost savings with eschewing the casing and using your custom (read: not proprietary) SSD design. The big thing I want and could make me not buy the RiMac is if they don't offer a 3.5" drive option. I know an external TB drive would be sufficient but I'd rather have it internal.
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...
Care to defend your ignorant, trollish position against Anand's thorough review of the RMBP.
I thought it was obvious but I've been saying for years now that the removal of the ODD would allow engineers to 1) design a system that didn't revolve the placement of the large drive that requires placement at an edge, and 2) the ability to design the logic board in a more rectangular than square shape which allows for A) more spacing between the CPU and GPU, and being able to place them closer in ways that facilitate better cooling. Add to to the assumed fact that Ivy Bridge's 22nm lithography would be appearing this year and the only position one could reasonably take is that it would run cooler.
Oops, maybe I should have put the post I made in another thread here. I don't believe the iMac will have a retina display for like the next year or so. The reason is that the desktop pictures in Mountain Lion only go to 3,200 x 2,000. Seeing as Apple went to that dimension in Lion & that was long before the MacBook Pro with Retina Display it doesn't make sense that Apple isn't similarly planning ahead if they indeed have the intention of releasing an iMac with retina display soon.
So yeah, the 15" MBP has a 2880x1800 (220ppi) screen and is roughly 2x the pixels from there vinous model. That's great, however, the previous MBP screen had about 30% fewer pixels than the competition...it had 1440x900 (108ppi). . My 2011 15" work Dell has a screen that's "HD", or industry standard at this point is 1920x1080 (141ppi ). So really the increase was more like 1.56x pixel increase compared to the competition, which is impressive regardless. I was always pretty shocked at how low the pixel density was on the previous MacBooks were compared to the competition. So it's really all relative marketing strategy here. Now i might also mention there was a hi resolution option to the previous 15" MBP of 1680x1050 (127ppi), which in essence would only have garnered a 173% increase in pixel density.
the fact that people here keep saying that each retina device gets at least a 2x pixel density increase is fine, but it is relative. The iPhone for instance had a very low pixel density screen as well. So did the iPad. That's how they kept costs down, but they were pretty passable at best at launch.
Additionally, has anyone also noticed that the pixel density of these "retina" devices has decreased as the screen size increased? That's not a coincidence. It's a direct ratio between the pixel density vs. the viewing distance from the screen. So I highly doubt the iMac with retina display will have the same 2x PPI increase, like the iPad or the iPhone.
Doing some very rough math, from the iPhone to the retina MBP, the pixel density seems to go down by a factor of 1.2 as the screen size increases. So based on that rough number, I'd assume the pixel density on a "retina" 21.5" iMac would go up to 3447x1940 (184ppi), and the 27" would have a res of 3576x2012 (152ppi). I'm not sure what the ratio that Apple uses but this constant +\-120% decrease as the screen increases seens to stay consistant, give or take a few %points. Even though the increase in screen size is not constant.
So that's my take, should the iMacs get the retina treatment. Now I too hope the MBA is next for the retina treatment, but I highly doubt it since it appears that battery life will compromise the form actor, which is tolerable since those screens already have a better screen res compared to the current MBP 13". But the pros lower res has the advantage of better quality images for photographers and graphic artists, so I guess even Apple compromises in places as well.
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.
I've been thinking the same for quite some time. He sounds like a typical Samsung-payrolled troll to me—pansy-assed Username and all... I mean.... "Myapplelove"?! Pfff, c'mon dude, you can be less obvious than that - that name just reeks of K-pop boy band English
So yeah, the 15" MBP has a 2880x1800 (220ppi) screen and is roughly 2x the pixels from there vinous model. That's great, however, the previous MBP screen had about 30% fewer pixels than the competition...it had 1440x900 (108ppi). . My 2011 15" work Dell has a screen that's "HD", or industry standard at this point is 1920x1080 (141ppi ). So really the increase was more like 1.56x pixel increase compared to the competition...
1) The entire premise of your post is off. It's 2x the resolution which is 4x the number of pixels. Remember that resolution is a measurement along two axes. Your calculations are so far off that even the iPad is a 1.52x pixel increase over 1080p. The RMBP is a 2.5x pixel increase over 1080p. That's 5,184,000px v. 2,073,600px.
2) There is a reason why PPI has been stagnant for a very, very long time on PCs even as GPU performance has followed Moore's Law. Without an OS that can handle the scaling of elements well going to a higher PPI just doesn't look good. Apple could have gone from the 110 PPI average to 140 PPI of your 15" Dell but note that Dell et al. only used that because 1080p was popular due to HDTV interest.
One way you can tell people are suckling the teat of HDTV marketing in when in year's past they complained about the iMac and MBA having 1920x1200 and 1366x768 resolutions, respectively, instead of Apple going with 1080p and 720p resolutions. Pretty silly, eh? h
Apple has had their HiRes displays for a long time but the elements were too small to be useful to many which is why they never caught on. I seem to recall Apple first saying RI would appear with 10.4 Tiger but that was silently and quickly removed from subsequent betas. RI just isn't feasible for the resolutions we're talking about; a hybrid solution was needed and that is what Apple has done with these displays. It's not just using an exceptionally better display but a shitload of work with the OS to get it to work right. Even then it'll be some time before most apps are updated to take full advantage.
The result isn't making the elements on the display smaller but to make the user experience better by making the pixels smaller but keeping the elements the same. It's a good thing!
PS: Your rough math for the iMac I can't even figure out how you can double an integer value and end up with an odd number.
I've been thinking the same for quite some time. He sounds like a typical Samsung-payrolled troll to me—pansy-assed Username and all... I mean.... "Myapplelove"?! Pfff, c'mon dude, you can be less obvious than that - that name just reeks of K-pop boy band English
Perhaps when your usernames keep getting banned you run out of ideas.
I still say that the reason; no new iMacs, is because they're still waiting until they're ready to release them as the re-imagined iMac (so called) "iTV" The next step for the iMac.
I've been thinking the same for quite some time. He sounds like a typical Samsung-payrolled troll to me—pansy-assed Username and all... I mean.... "Myapplelove"?! Pfff, c'mon dude, you can be less obvious than that - that name just reeks of K-pop boy band English
lol, you gotta love paranoids! Chek under your rug mate, there might be a samsung hologram there about to steal your mac!
I don't think they will use SATA SSDs, they seem to be moving more towards PCIe. With the rate that SSDs are speeding up, this is smarter than waiting for each new iteration of SATA. The top of the line SSDs (e.g. Revo) have always used PCIe.
Yeah well, but apple's flash isn't revo quality, it's not even flagship ocz quality, let alone intel quality.
Correct me if I am wrong but isnt something like 95% of current ssds as well as the ones in the two year pipeline perfectly fine and nowhere near bottlenecking with sata 3?
What's apple trying to do, future proof their devices via whatever on board proprietory connector they use so mac users won't be able to upgrade their machines in say 3 years with a much cheaper, larger, quicker and robust sata ssd and they will instead have to look to the small expensive market of proprietory apple compatible flash storage (some of dubious quality) where they might go eff it, it's not worth upgrading anyway at this price, might as well...buy a new mac (checkmate apple ).
Cause this sounds like why they use firmware temperature sensors on the hard drives on the imac, that if you try to put another hard drive in your fans spin out of control. So you only buy the hard drive from apple and you cannot extend the lifecycle of your machine with a new drive after a while...
And there's still no succesful work around to that other via some half arsed software measures that might or might not work.
I love my late 2009 27" iMac. I see no need for upgrading (yet).
However....
Give me a 27" retina iMac with a 1TB SSD via MBA-style SSD cards, the thinness of the new rMBP and consider me sold. I really think that will be Apple's 2013 or 2014 model.
I love my late 2009 27" iMac. I see no need for upgrading (yet).
However....
Give me a 27" retina iMac with a 1TB SSD via MBA-style SSD cards, the thinness of the new rMBP and consider me sold. I really think that will be Apple's 2013 or 2014 model.
Why would the thickness matter in the imac? This is a serious question. What would you gain from it? You might lose a 1/4 of stand and the computer would run hotter. I'd rather see them improve the cooling including cooling related to the lcd panel. Apple displays in the past have shown issues that aren't common among other displays using similar panels. Why must everything look anorexic? I question why anyone in their right mind would consider this a buying factor in a machine that is not typically transported and viewed dead on.
1) The entire premise of your post is off. It's 2x the resolution which is 4x the number of pixels. Remember that resolution is a measurement along two axes. Your calculations are so far off that even the iPad is a 1.52x pixel increase over 1080p. The RMBP is a 2.5x pixel increase over 1080p. That's 5,184,000px v. 2,073,600px.
2) There is a reason why PPI has been stagnant for a very, very long time on PCs even as GPU performance has followed Moore's Law. Without an OS that can handle the scaling of elements well going to a higher PPI just doesn't look good. Apple could have gone from the 110 PPI average to 140 PPI of your 15" Dell but note that Dell et al. only used that because 1080p was popular due to HDTV interest.
One way you can tell people are suckling the teat of HDTV marketing in when in year's past they complained about the iMac and MBA having 1920x1200 and 1366x768 resolutions, respectively, instead of Apple going with 1080p and 720p resolutions. Pretty silly, eh? h
Apple has had their HiRes displays for a long time but the elements were too small to be useful to many which is why they never caught on. I seem to recall Apple first saying RI would appear with 10.4 Tiger but that was silently and quickly removed from subsequent betas. RI just isn't feasible for the resolutions we're talking about; a hybrid solution was needed and that is what Apple has done with these displays. It's not just using an exceptionally better display but a shitload of work with the OS to get it to work right. Even then it'll be some time before most apps are updated to take full advantage.
The result isn't making the elements on the display smaller but to make the user experience better by making the pixels smaller but keeping the elements the same. It's a good thing!
PS: Your rough math for the iMac I can't even figure out how you can double an integer value and end up with an odd number.
Perhaps when your usernames keep getting banned you run out of ideas.
Im not really sure what youre inferring with banned usernames...but For your info, I've never been baned, just a quick glance at my "joined" date would kind of hint at that. but I think yours has several times But I guess that's hard to do when you post at the rate you do, things just kind of slip...averaging 23 post per day. Wow, that's impressive, especially if you have a full time job.
I think you misunderstood my math and verbage. When I refer to doubling the pixel density, I'm referring to ppi. When I say the pixels doubled, I meant the density, not the actual number or pixel area L x W. The iPhone went from 163ppi, to 326ppi. That's double the density. Of course the number of actual pixels quadrupled; i wasnt citing that number. Without posting a scan of my math calcs, it's kind of pointless to try to explain. But, It's pretty simple high school algebra mixed with a little geometry. First, ppi can quickly be calc'd by dividing the hypotenuse pixels (using pythagarean equation) by the diagonal screen size. [=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_density][/]Then, I looked at the % increase between ppi of the iPhone to iPad, then iPad to MBPr. Using simple algebraic proportion equations, with quick rounding, was how I maded the iMac calcs:
MBPr: 220ppi / 120% = 183 1/3 ppi, which could be 21.5" iMac. 183 * 21.5 = 3941 2/3 pixels. Doing a proportional ratio you get a screen with 3435.3 (3435) x 1932.53 (1933)! I might have rounded differently in the last post. Like I said, it's a bit rough, there might be a slight rounding error.
Now I wasn't even looking at the OS X ramifications, that wasn't even my point, I was just looking at simply how the pixel density might change based on screen size, that's it. I think you were reading way too much not it. I was merely pointing out that retina ppi is more a factor of viewing distance to screen size. And using quick observations to demonstrate that point.
I love my late 2009 27" iMac. I see no need for upgrading (yet).
However....
Give me a 27" retina iMac with a 1TB SSD via MBA-style SSD cards, the thinness of the new rMBP and consider me sold. I really think that will be Apple's 2013 or 2014 model.
I think it's completely possible but I agree with hmm about it not being reasonable or necessary. One thing hmm touched on was cooling. When you have a mobile CPU you don't need as much cooling but you also don't get as much performance and yet you are paying more for that mobile CPU. You can put less RAM in it, it would likely have to be soldered in, which may happen on Apple's AIOs but hopefully not for a very long time.
What i can see happening is the ODD being removed from the iMac in the next case change so it can be thinner. That along with the smaller lithography and some advanced cooling options should allow some case shrinkage — perhaps they'll even so some sort of vertical wedge design reminiscent of the MBA — but I think the internal PSU which is much, much more powerful than the MBP's external PSU, the much larger and more powerful speakers, larger CPU and GPU, fans, chips for this and that, and the HW needed to support the stand (which I assume will still be supported in the back center) probably means the thinness won't be too extreme except perhaps on the edges if they bevel the back casing more, which i think could be possible with their advancements in curved milling and the structural benefits of this process.
Im not really sure what youre inferring with banned usernames...but For your info, I've never been baned, just a quick glance at my "joined" date would kind of hint at that. but I think yours has several times But I guess that's hard to do when you post at the rate you do, things just kind of slip...averaging 23 post per day. Wow, that's impressive, especially if you have a full time job.
1) That comment was directed at you as my post clearly shows I responded to radar's comment. So what exactly is hard to do?
2) I do work full time and can't post whilst working but I also read, comprehend, and think very fast which means I can reply very fast. My shortcoming on this forum is my proofreading. I tend to have more spelling errors than I'd like.
I think you misunderstood my math and verbage. When I refer to doubling the pixel density, I'm referring to ppi. When I say the pixels doubled, I meant the density, not the actual number or pixel area L x W.
I'd say that is not the proper way to refer to that since the term is per inch and is well known to reference a square inch. It's the same as resolution which is why it's only been doubled whilst the pixel count as quadrupled.
Comments
• http://www.anandtech.com/show/6023/the-nextgen-macbook-pro-with-retina-display-review/
I can't wait until this gets to all Macs. Hopefully AnandTech's article will help some realize just what a technical feat this was on from a HW and SW level to pull off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pik80
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.
I love my 27". If you'd own one, it would be very hard to go back to 21" or even 24".
Are you talking about the large PCIe SSD cards for servers and workstations?
The MBA and even netbooks before it use the mPCIe connector but it's still only connecting to the SATA host controller. It's electrically compatible with mPCIe but the signaling is in no compatible.
It's possible Apple could use an on-board SATA host controller or use a combined PCIe/SATA routing chip in their system so that a standard PCIe slot can be used but I wouldn't expect this to be used at all for the iMac.
I hope Apple continues to use a standard SATA3.0 controller and 2.5" drive (as well as a 3.5" SATA3.0 drive) but there does seem to be some great cost savings with eschewing the casing and using your custom (read: not proprietary) SSD design. The big thing I want and could make me not buy the RiMac is if they don't offer a 3.5" drive option. I know an external TB drive would be sufficient but I'd rather have it internal.
Vastly Improved Thermals
• http://www.anandtech.com/show/6023/the-nextgen-macbook-pro-with-retina-display-review/12
Care to defend your ignorant, trollish position against Anand's thorough review of the RMBP.
I thought it was obvious but I've been saying for years now that the removal of the ODD would allow engineers to 1) design a system that didn't revolve the placement of the large drive that requires placement at an edge, and 2) the ability to design the logic board in a more rectangular than square shape which allows for A) more spacing between the CPU and GPU, and being able to place them closer in ways that facilitate better cooling. Add to to the assumed fact that Ivy Bridge's 22nm lithography would be appearing this year and the only position one could reasonably take is that it would run cooler.
Oops, maybe I should have put the post I made in another thread here. I don't believe the iMac will have a retina display for like the next year or so. The reason is that the desktop pictures in Mountain Lion only go to 3,200 x 2,000. Seeing as Apple went to that dimension in Lion & that was long before the MacBook Pro with Retina Display it doesn't make sense that Apple isn't similarly planning ahead if they indeed have the intention of releasing an iMac with retina display soon.
the fact that people here keep saying that each retina device gets at least a 2x pixel density increase is fine, but it is relative. The iPhone for instance had a very low pixel density screen as well. So did the iPad. That's how they kept costs down, but they were pretty passable at best at launch.
Additionally, has anyone also noticed that the pixel density of these "retina" devices has decreased as the screen size increased? That's not a coincidence. It's a direct ratio between the pixel density vs. the viewing distance from the screen. So I highly doubt the iMac with retina display will have the same 2x PPI increase, like the iPad or the iPhone.
Doing some very rough math, from the iPhone to the retina MBP, the pixel density seems to go down by a factor of 1.2 as the screen size increases. So based on that rough number, I'd assume the pixel density on a "retina" 21.5" iMac would go up to 3447x1940 (184ppi), and the 27" would have a res of 3576x2012 (152ppi). I'm not sure what the ratio that Apple uses but this constant +\-120% decrease as the screen increases seens to stay consistant, give or take a few %points. Even though the increase in screen size is not constant.
So that's my take, should the iMacs get the retina treatment. Now I too hope the MBA is next for the retina treatment, but I highly doubt it since it appears that battery life will compromise the form actor, which is tolerable since those screens already have a better screen res compared to the current MBP 13". But the pros lower res has the advantage of better quality images for photographers and graphic artists, so I guess even Apple compromises in places as well.
!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
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.
I've been thinking the same for quite some time. He sounds like a typical Samsung-payrolled troll to me—pansy-assed Username and all... I mean.... "Myapplelove"?! Pfff, c'mon dude, you can be less obvious than that - that name just reeks of K-pop boy band English
The one thing I'm waiting for till I replace my iMac.
1) The entire premise of your post is off. It's 2x the resolution which is 4x the number of pixels. Remember that resolution is a measurement along two axes. Your calculations are so far off that even the iPad is a 1.52x pixel increase over 1080p. The RMBP is a 2.5x pixel increase over 1080p. That's 5,184,000px v. 2,073,600px.
2) There is a reason why PPI has been stagnant for a very, very long time on PCs even as GPU performance has followed Moore's Law. Without an OS that can handle the scaling of elements well going to a higher PPI just doesn't look good. Apple could have gone from the 110 PPI average to 140 PPI of your 15" Dell but note that Dell et al. only used that because 1080p was popular due to HDTV interest.
One way you can tell people are suckling the teat of HDTV marketing in when in year's past they complained about the iMac and MBA having 1920x1200 and 1366x768 resolutions, respectively, instead of Apple going with 1080p and 720p resolutions. Pretty silly, eh? h
Apple has had their HiRes displays for a long time but the elements were too small to be useful to many which is why they never caught on. I seem to recall Apple first saying RI would appear with 10.4 Tiger but that was silently and quickly removed from subsequent betas. RI just isn't feasible for the resolutions we're talking about; a hybrid solution was needed and that is what Apple has done with these displays. It's not just using an exceptionally better display but a shitload of work with the OS to get it to work right. Even then it'll be some time before most apps are updated to take full advantage.
The result isn't making the elements on the display smaller but to make the user experience better by making the pixels smaller but keeping the elements the same. It's a good thing!
PS: Your rough math for the iMac I can't even figure out how you can double an integer value and end up with an odd number.
Perhaps when your usernames keep getting banned you run out of ideas.
I still say that the reason; no new iMacs, is because they're still waiting until they're ready to release them as the re-imagined iMac (so called) "iTV" The next step for the iMac.
Yeah well, but apple's flash isn't revo quality, it's not even flagship ocz quality, let alone intel quality.
Correct me if I am wrong but isnt something like 95% of current ssds as well as the ones in the two year pipeline perfectly fine and nowhere near bottlenecking with sata 3?
What's apple trying to do, future proof their devices via whatever on board proprietory connector they use so mac users won't be able to upgrade their machines in say 3 years with a much cheaper, larger, quicker and robust sata ssd and they will instead have to look to the small expensive market of proprietory apple compatible flash storage (some of dubious quality) where they might go eff it, it's not worth upgrading anyway at this price, might as well...buy a new mac (checkmate apple
Cause this sounds like why they use firmware temperature sensors on the hard drives on the imac, that if you try to put another hard drive in your fans spin out of control. So you only buy the hard drive from apple and you cannot extend the lifecycle of your machine with a new drive after a while...
And there's still no succesful work around to that other via some half arsed software measures that might or might not work.
I love my late 2009 27" iMac. I see no need for upgrading (yet).
However....
Give me a 27" retina iMac with a 1TB SSD via MBA-style SSD cards, the thinness of the new rMBP and consider me sold. I really think that will be Apple's 2013 or 2014 model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
I love my late 2009 27" iMac. I see no need for upgrading (yet).
However....
Give me a 27" retina iMac with a 1TB SSD via MBA-style SSD cards, the thinness of the new rMBP and consider me sold. I really think that will be Apple's 2013 or 2014 model.
Why would the thickness matter in the imac? This is a serious question. What would you gain from it? You might lose a 1/4 of stand and the computer would run hotter. I'd rather see them improve the cooling including cooling related to the lcd panel. Apple displays in the past have shown issues that aren't common among other displays using similar panels. Why must everything look anorexic? I question why anyone in their right mind would consider this a buying factor in a machine that is not typically transported and viewed dead on.
Im not really sure what youre inferring with banned usernames...but For your info, I've never been baned, just a quick glance at my "joined" date would kind of hint at that. but I think yours has several times
I think you misunderstood my math and verbage. When I refer to doubling the pixel density, I'm referring to ppi. When I say the pixels doubled, I meant the density, not the actual number or pixel area L x W. The iPhone went from 163ppi, to 326ppi. That's double the density. Of course the number of actual pixels quadrupled; i wasnt citing that number. Without posting a scan of my math calcs, it's kind of pointless to try to explain. But, It's pretty simple high school algebra mixed with a little geometry. First, ppi can quickly be calc'd by dividing the hypotenuse pixels (using pythagarean equation) by the diagonal screen size. [=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_density][/]Then, I looked at the % increase between ppi of the iPhone to iPad, then iPad to MBPr. Using simple algebraic proportion equations, with quick rounding, was how I maded the iMac calcs:
MBPr: 220ppi / 120% = 183 1/3 ppi, which could be 21.5" iMac. 183 * 21.5 = 3941 2/3 pixels. Doing a proportional ratio you get a screen with 3435.3 (3435) x 1932.53 (1933)! I might have rounded differently in the last post. Like I said, it's a bit rough, there might be a slight rounding error.
Now I wasn't even looking at the OS X ramifications, that wasn't even my point, I was just looking at simply how the pixel density might change based on screen size, that's it. I think you were reading way too much not it. I was merely pointing out that retina ppi is more a factor of viewing distance to screen size. And using quick observations to demonstrate that point.
I think it's completely possible but I agree with hmm about it not being reasonable or necessary. One thing hmm touched on was cooling. When you have a mobile CPU you don't need as much cooling but you also don't get as much performance and yet you are paying more for that mobile CPU. You can put less RAM in it, it would likely have to be soldered in, which may happen on Apple's AIOs but hopefully not for a very long time.
What i can see happening is the ODD being removed from the iMac in the next case change so it can be thinner. That along with the smaller lithography and some advanced cooling options should allow some case shrinkage — perhaps they'll even so some sort of vertical wedge design reminiscent of the MBA — but I think the internal PSU which is much, much more powerful than the MBP's external PSU, the much larger and more powerful speakers, larger CPU and GPU, fans, chips for this and that, and the HW needed to support the stand (which I assume will still be supported in the back center) probably means the thinness won't be too extreme except perhaps on the edges if they bevel the back casing more, which i think could be possible with their advancements in curved milling and the structural benefits of this process.
2) I do work full time and can't post whilst working but I also read, comprehend, and think very fast which means I can reply very fast. My shortcoming on this forum is my proofreading. I tend to have more spelling errors than I'd like.
I'd say that is not the proper way to refer to that since the term is per inch and is well known to reference a square inch. It's the same as resolution which is why it's only been doubled whilst the pixel count as quadrupled.