Totally agree. And also think part of the pro-summer market, which the retina MB Pro just released also targets, would prefer the Imac refresh even without a retina display (me included) over a notebook, because the retina iPad is the best mobility option in most cases. So a new iMac during the critical launch of a new category definer product is something Apple would not do.
So a new iMac during the critical launch of a new category definer product is something Apple would not do.
"During"? I think it's quite evident the iPad doesn't have any of the spotlight right now, given that they're going ahead and releasing other products with retina displays.
I'm actually in the 2013 camp. I hope it's not released before Mountain Lion comes out, as then we can start thinking about why that would be the case (hey, I just said why…).
The numbers assume a certain distance. At 18-24", I often see the gaps between the pixels on desktop monitors..
That may be. Perhaps you have exceptional vision. Or perhaps the current iMac isn't that close to retina display.
However, I think the point remains valid - the current iMac isn't that far from being a retina display. In contrast, the older MacBook Pro was a long way from retina. So, if you're going to update things, you'll usually focus on the things that benefit the most from the update.
It also points out a fallacy in the arguments being presented. Since the current iMac isn't far from retina today, it doesn't need a doubling of resolution (or 4x the pixel density) to get there. Even a modest resolution increase (perhaps 3200x2800 on the 27" or something like that) would be sufficient. I don't think it's that big a stretch to get that density - it's considerably lower than the pixel density and resolution of the iPad and they're managing to get millions of screens for the iPad.
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.
Let's get the definitions straight.
Resolution can be expressed in a number of ways. The most common (by far) is in pixels per inch. Because the denominator is 'inch' it's a linear measurement, so you're talking about linear resolution. So going from 1600x900 to 3200x1800 without changing the screen size is a doubling of resolution.
Pixel density is almost always expressed in pixels per square inch. The denominator is 'square inch', so it's an area measurement - and going from 1600x900 to 3200x1800 (on the same screen size) is a quadrupling of pixel density.
If people would simply use units (or pay attention to the units already provided), it's not complicated.
That may be. Perhaps you have exceptional vision. Or perhaps the current iMac isn't that close to retina display.
However, I think the point remains valid - the current iMac isn't that far from being a retina display. In contrast, the older MacBook Pro was a long way from retina. So, if you're going to update things, you'll usually focus on the things that benefit the most from the update.
It also points out a fallacy in the arguments being presented. Since the current iMac isn't far from retina today, it doesn't need a doubling of resolution (or 4x the pixel density) to get there. Even a modest resolution increase (perhaps 3200x2800 on the 27" or something like that) would be sufficient. I don't think it's that big a stretch to get that density - it's considerably lower than the pixel density and resolution of the iPad and they're managing to get millions of screens for the iPad.
The old MacBook Pros were ~77% of Retina for the standard model and ~90% of Retina for the high-res model. The iMac 24" is ~75% of Retina and the 27" is ~89% of Retina. How isn't this comparable? It seems to me Apple didn't need to go 4x to achieve it on the MBP but they did anyway. I don't see why it would be any different for the iMac. So it seems the iMacs are in just as much need of a bump as the MBPs were. The only reason not to go 4x for them might be because of the demands required on the GPU or screen manufacturers.
Let's get the definitions straight.
Resolution can be expressed in a number of ways. The most common (by far) is in pixels per inch..
No, it's not. pixels per inch represent the number of pixels per inch. It's that simple! A statement of 1920x1080 is not 1920pixels by 1080pixels per inch. It's the total number of pixels along x and y axes. It's that simple! Resolution also states the aspect ratio. Pixels per inch does not, all it states is the density of the pixels per inch. It's that simple!
No given resolution indicates pixel per inch. You need to know any one axis or the diagonal in order to determine the density of the pixels per inch. The fact that you need this other metric is more proof that a given resolution doe not indicate pixels per inch.
No, it's not. pixels per inch represent the number of pixels per inch. It's that simple! A statement of 1920x1080 is not 1920pixels by 1080pixels per inch. It's the total number of pixels along x and y axes. It's that simple! Resolution also states the aspect ratio. Pixels per inch does not, all it states is the density of the pixels per inch. It's that simple!
No given resolution indicates pixel per inch. You need to know any one axis or the diagonal in order to determine the density of the pixels per inch. The fact that you need this other metric is more proof that a given resolution doe not indicate pixels per inch.
Not even close.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resolution
"a measure of the sharpness of an image or of the fineness with which a device (as a video display, printer, or scanner) can produce or record such an image usually expressed as the total number or density of pixels in the image <a resolution of 1200 dots per inch>"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/resolution
"the ability of a television or film image to reproduce fine detail"
{Again, this would be a function of pixels per inch, not total pixels in the image}
Those are the top definitions when you search for 'definition resolution'
What you are referring to is more appropriately called "Screen resolution".
Not even close. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resolution
"a measure of the sharpness of an image or of the fineness with which a device (as a video display, printer, or scanner) can produce or record such an image usually expressed as the total number or density of pixels in the image
A measurement of length by width. The number of pixels for an inch tell you absolutely nothing about the width, height or aspect ratio.
Apple quotes the RMBP correctly as:
Retina display: 15.4-inch (diagonal) LED-backlit display with IPS technology; 2880-by-1800 resolution at 220 pixels per inch with support for millions of colors
Supported resolutions: 2880 by 1800 pixels (Retina); scaled resolutions: 1920 by 1200, 1680 by 1050, 1280 by 800, and 1024 by 640 pixels
Each time Apple has introduced a new Retina device they have kept the previous non-Retina device on sale, presumably so they can keep the "from" price as low as possible in their advertising.
If they follow that logic maybe they will speed bump the current iMacs and introduce a new SSD only Retina model at the same time - hopefully with a new design and reduced screen glare. A sort of iMac Pro.
I d like to see them trying to pull some custom flash shit on the iMac line, if anyone here stands and defends them should they do this they ll need slaughtering.
Anyway, I want a retina imac very very much, it's the only reason I am holding out these past few months and not switching to windows, what with my failing eyesight and the nice clear type they have as well as their dpi/resolution independence settings. Of course I am not happy that even with retina I will have to go with apple's "solution" of less real estate for larger ui elements. But at least that will be something...
Also as someone else said I really don't like and odn't get the obsesion with ever increasing screen sizes (i get it from a financial standpoint not a usability one) I 've always found that a screen at about 22" to 23" (or even 24") pretty much regardless of the aspect ratio is far more relaxing to use. For example in my 24" imacs there's just far too much screen there (for my uses of course) and what with the screen and the poor (well, non existent pretty much) ergonomics and the huge chin you strain to use one.
Something that's not being mentioned enough if they don't release a properly ergonomic imac finally they should at least provide vesa support for the 21.5" or whatever their smaller one is. It's such a huge sham currently (another one of apple's recent f. u's to the pro or business users, or at least the more discerning/demanding ones) that the smaller models currently dont have vesa support and you have to lift the whole thing up with the foot with a workaround, which anyway defies the whole point, that of being able to lower the monitor to proper eye level, a monitor that's already high enough with the foot and the chin.
Oh and of course there's the glare issue, finally treated glass should appear. The aesthetics came first and for so long the imacs have in that respect too been glare nightmares unlike anything we 'd seen before. And it's not about matte, it's about sticking that damn glass to make them look expensive and shinny. They could have well opted for a nice semi gloss coating a la air, the one already on the screen. Hence many campuses and businesses are barring them due to glare usability issues. The current imac to me is just a shit mainstream product, period, they better hurry up and update: retina screens so os x can finally get some larger ui elements and not have the ridiculously small font as seen on the 27" imac, some proper ergonomics in height adjustability or vesa mountable across the board, and finally some treated glass that's either part or very tightly fused to the screen.
Dude, you make no sense. Switching to Windows is even a consideration? As someone who has been back to the Mac for less than a year, I could not imagine going back to Windows for the crappy user experience, let alone the multiple crashes every day. Wait for a 21.5 inch iMac with retina and you will be fine.
I still have my 24' iMac and I will wait until a retina display or a higher resolution display iMac is out there, I am aware that I might be waiting for a long time but I have waited the third version of the iPhone to buy one and for iPad 3 to buy one, I can wait another 2 or 3 years, saying that I hope one with retina display will be out there this year, they could even put it as an extra cost option.
Jusst because it is in writing in a dictionary doesn't mean you can trust it. In this case the dictionary is very much wrong. Thin about it a bit.
Ok now that you have thought about it if resolution is based on the total number of pixels in a image then a 4x6 print can have the same resolution as a billboard as long as it is printed with the same number of pixels.
Resolution is a physical measurement as such it mean nothing if a pixel count is not defined over a physical quantity. That can be pixels per millimeter, pixels per inch or pixels per dog tail. The fact of the matter is that where ever the term resolution is used it is in terms of something physical.
"a measure of the sharpness of an image or of the fineness with which a device (as a video display, printer, or scanner) can produce or record such an image usually expressed as the total number or density of pixels in the image "
Dude, you make no sense. Switching to Windows is even a consideration? As someone who has been back to the Mac for less than a year, I could not imagine going back to Windows for the crappy user experience, let alone the multiple crashes every day. Wait for a 21.5 inch iMac with retina and you will be fine.
If you have multiple crashes a day, you have hardware problems. A common source of these is using bad ram, but there are plenty of other things. Assuming you have appropriate hardware and don't download every file you see, your chances of such behavior are not measurably higher than what you experience under OSX. I bootcamp frequently enough. I don't see the problem aside from some animations that annoy me and a couple key mapping issues. I have Aero turned off. I only install whatever is necessary so as not to bloat the registry (not as big of an issue these days, but I really wish they would find a way to get rid of that thing). I take the same approach to OSX, as it still lacks perfect garbage collection when it comes to things like installed updates and cache files. A big problem seems to be that not everyone can differentiate between hardware problems and OS problems. Under Windows 7 today, crashes shouldn't even be a monthly occurrence.
Comments
Totally agree. And also think part of the pro-summer market, which the retina MB Pro just released also targets, would prefer the Imac refresh even without a retina display (me included) over a notebook, because the retina iPad is the best mobility option in most cases. So a new iMac during the critical launch of a new category definer product is something Apple would not do.
"During"? I think it's quite evident the iPad doesn't have any of the spotlight right now, given that they're going ahead and releasing other products with retina displays.
I'm actually in the 2013 camp. I hope it's not released before Mountain Lion comes out, as then we can start thinking about why that would be the case (hey, I just said why…).
That may be. Perhaps you have exceptional vision. Or perhaps the current iMac isn't that close to retina display.
However, I think the point remains valid - the current iMac isn't that far from being a retina display. In contrast, the older MacBook Pro was a long way from retina. So, if you're going to update things, you'll usually focus on the things that benefit the most from the update.
It also points out a fallacy in the arguments being presented. Since the current iMac isn't far from retina today, it doesn't need a doubling of resolution (or 4x the pixel density) to get there. Even a modest resolution increase (perhaps 3200x2800 on the 27" or something like that) would be sufficient. I don't think it's that big a stretch to get that density - it's considerably lower than the pixel density and resolution of the iPad and they're managing to get millions of screens for the iPad.
Let's get the definitions straight.
Resolution can be expressed in a number of ways. The most common (by far) is in pixels per inch. Because the denominator is 'inch' it's a linear measurement, so you're talking about linear resolution. So going from 1600x900 to 3200x1800 without changing the screen size is a doubling of resolution.
Pixel density is almost always expressed in pixels per square inch. The denominator is 'square inch', so it's an area measurement - and going from 1600x900 to 3200x1800 (on the same screen size) is a quadrupling of pixel density.
If people would simply use units (or pay attention to the units already provided), it's not complicated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
That may be. Perhaps you have exceptional vision. Or perhaps the current iMac isn't that close to retina display.
However, I think the point remains valid - the current iMac isn't that far from being a retina display. In contrast, the older MacBook Pro was a long way from retina. So, if you're going to update things, you'll usually focus on the things that benefit the most from the update.
It also points out a fallacy in the arguments being presented. Since the current iMac isn't far from retina today, it doesn't need a doubling of resolution (or 4x the pixel density) to get there. Even a modest resolution increase (perhaps 3200x2800 on the 27" or something like that) would be sufficient. I don't think it's that big a stretch to get that density - it's considerably lower than the pixel density and resolution of the iPad and they're managing to get millions of screens for the iPad.
The old MacBook Pros were ~77% of Retina for the standard model and ~90% of Retina for the high-res model. The iMac 24" is ~75% of Retina and the 27" is ~89% of Retina. How isn't this comparable? It seems to me Apple didn't need to go 4x to achieve it on the MBP but they did anyway. I don't see why it would be any different for the iMac. So it seems the iMacs are in just as much need of a bump as the MBPs were. The only reason not to go 4x for them might be because of the demands required on the GPU or screen manufacturers.
No, it's not. pixels per inch represent the number of pixels per inch. It's that simple! A statement of 1920x1080 is not 1920pixels by 1080pixels per inch. It's the total number of pixels along x and y axes. It's that simple! Resolution also states the aspect ratio. Pixels per inch does not, all it states is the density of the pixels per inch. It's that simple!
No given resolution indicates pixel per inch. You need to know any one axis or the diagonal in order to determine the density of the pixels per inch. The fact that you need this other metric is more proof that a given resolution doe not indicate pixels per inch.
Not even close.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resolution
"a measure of the sharpness of an image or of the fineness with which a device (as a video display, printer, or scanner) can produce or record such an image usually expressed as the total number or density of pixels in the image <a resolution of 1200 dots per inch>"
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/resolution
"The fineness of detail that can be distinguished in an image, as on a video display terminal."
{Note: this would be related to pixels per inch, not total number of pixels as you claim}
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/resolution
"the ability of a television or film image to reproduce fine detail"
{Again, this would be a function of pixels per inch, not total pixels in the image}
Those are the top definitions when you search for 'definition resolution'
What you are referring to is more appropriately called "Screen resolution".
A measurement of length by width. The number of pixels for an inch tell you absolutely nothing about the width, height or aspect ratio.
Apple quotes the RMBP correctly as:
They do not say 220 resolution.
For those who understand.
Link to full resolution here.
Each time Apple has introduced a new Retina device they have kept the previous non-Retina device on sale, presumably so they can keep the "from" price as low as possible in their advertising.
If they follow that logic maybe they will speed bump the current iMacs and introduce a new SSD only Retina model at the same time - hopefully with a new design and reduced screen glare. A sort of iMac Pro.
Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove
I d like to see them trying to pull some custom flash shit on the iMac line, if anyone here stands and defends them should they do this they ll need slaughtering.
Anyway, I want a retina imac very very much, it's the only reason I am holding out these past few months and not switching to windows, what with my failing eyesight and the nice clear type they have as well as their dpi/resolution independence settings. Of course I am not happy that even with retina I will have to go with apple's "solution" of less real estate for larger ui elements. But at least that will be something...
Also as someone else said I really don't like and odn't get the obsesion with ever increasing screen sizes (i get it from a financial standpoint not a usability one) I 've always found that a screen at about 22" to 23" (or even 24") pretty much regardless of the aspect ratio is far more relaxing to use. For example in my 24" imacs there's just far too much screen there (for my uses of course) and what with the screen and the poor (well, non existent pretty much) ergonomics and the huge chin you strain to use one.
Something that's not being mentioned enough if they don't release a properly ergonomic imac finally they should at least provide vesa support for the 21.5" or whatever their smaller one is. It's such a huge sham currently (another one of apple's recent f. u's to the pro or business users, or at least the more discerning/demanding ones) that the smaller models currently dont have vesa support and you have to lift the whole thing up with the foot with a workaround, which anyway defies the whole point, that of being able to lower the monitor to proper eye level, a monitor that's already high enough with the foot and the chin.
Oh and of course there's the glare issue, finally treated glass should appear. The aesthetics came first and for so long the imacs have in that respect too been glare nightmares unlike anything we 'd seen before. And it's not about matte, it's about sticking that damn glass to make them look expensive and shinny. They could have well opted for a nice semi gloss coating a la air, the one already on the screen. Hence many campuses and businesses are barring them due to glare usability issues. The current imac to me is just a shit mainstream product, period, they better hurry up and update: retina screens so os x can finally get some larger ui elements and not have the ridiculously small font as seen on the 27" imac, some proper ergonomics in height adjustability or vesa mountable across the board, and finally some treated glass that's either part or very tightly fused to the screen.
Dude, you make no sense. Switching to Windows is even a consideration? As someone who has been back to the Mac for less than a year, I could not imagine going back to Windows for the crappy user experience, let alone the multiple crashes every day. Wait for a 21.5 inch iMac with retina and you will be fine.
I still have my 24' iMac and I will wait until a retina display or a higher resolution display iMac is out there, I am aware that I might be waiting for a long time but I have waited the third version of the iPhone to buy one and for iPad 3 to buy one, I can wait another 2 or 3 years, saying that I hope one with retina display will be out there this year, they could even put it as an extra cost option.
Jusst because it is in writing in a dictionary doesn't mean you can trust it. In this case the dictionary is very much wrong. Thin about it a bit.
Ok now that you have thought about it if resolution is based on the total number of pixels in a image then a 4x6 print can have the same resolution as a billboard as long as it is printed with the same number of pixels.
Resolution is a physical measurement as such it mean nothing if a pixel count is not defined over a physical quantity. That can be pixels per millimeter, pixels per inch or pixels per dog tail. The fact of the matter is that where ever the term resolution is used it is in terms of something physical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Not even close.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resolution
"a measure of the sharpness of an image or of the fineness with which a device (as a video display, printer, or scanner) can produce or record such an image usually expressed as the total number or density of pixels in the image "
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/resolution
"The fineness of detail that can be distinguished in an image, as on a video display terminal."
{Note: this would be related to pixels per inch, not total number of pixels as you claim}
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/resolution
"the ability of a television or film image to reproduce fine detail"
{Again, this would be a function of pixels per inch, not total pixels in the image}
Those are the top definitions when you search for 'definition resolution'
What you are referring to is more appropriately called "Screen resolution".
Quote:
Originally Posted by skiball7
Dude, you make no sense. Switching to Windows is even a consideration? As someone who has been back to the Mac for less than a year, I could not imagine going back to Windows for the crappy user experience, let alone the multiple crashes every day. Wait for a 21.5 inch iMac with retina and you will be fine.
If you have multiple crashes a day, you have hardware problems. A common source of these is using bad ram, but there are plenty of other things. Assuming you have appropriate hardware and don't download every file you see, your chances of such behavior are not measurably higher than what you experience under OSX. I bootcamp frequently enough. I don't see the problem aside from some animations that annoy me and a couple key mapping issues. I have Aero turned off. I only install whatever is necessary so as not to bloat the registry (not as big of an issue these days, but I really wish they would find a way to get rid of that thing). I take the same approach to OSX, as it still lacks perfect garbage collection when it comes to things like installed updates and cache files. A big problem seems to be that not everyone can differentiate between hardware problems and OS problems. Under Windows 7 today, crashes shouldn't even be a monthly occurrence.