Supply of Apple's 27" iMac drying up as Ivy Bridge upgrade awaits

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 78
    drdazdrdaz Posts: 9member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post


    If they don't double the 2560x1400 res, then I think that it would be a doubling of 1920x1080, which would put the retina iMac at 3840 x 2160.



     


    Right!


     


    I'm not up to date with what's being produced in the far-east, but that seems like a feasible resolution - both for production and driving by a current-gen gfx card. Games will hurt on a mobile gfx chip at native res, but oh well.


     


    If they just double the current 2560x1440, I'll soil myself. And then spend the rest of my life saving for the damn machine :-(.

  • Reply 22 of 78
    drdazdrdaz Posts: 9member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post





    What was wrong with the 21" iMac? I agree that not everyone needs the 27" model, but I'm glad it's there. That said, a good part of my need for the bigger display might go away with retina, my screen-intensive work being largely vector graphics. A 21" screen at 3840 x 2160 might serve pretty well.


    Oh nothing! I've just been waiting for the 27 incher to be released for a few months now, and have decided that nobody elses desires are interesting :-p


     


    The same reasoning should apply if the 21 incher is a challenge for the same reasons the 27 incher is.

  • Reply 23 of 78
    I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the new iMac will be announced before July 24. I am not superstitious, so I can't say for sure if it will be on a Tuesday.
  • Reply 24 of 78
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,527member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post



    No retina this time, but I'm hoping for a redesign that would allow for desktop GPUs. That way when Haswell comes out next year, the cooling can be rerouted from the CPU to the GPU, we can be given a better one, and then the retina display will have hardware that can handle it.

    EDIT: Oh, for heaven's sake. image


     


    I get the desire to be the first to post...  but how did you get yours before the article?  Post #2 is the best I've ever seen!

  • Reply 25 of 78
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,217member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post



    I'm holding out for a Retina iMac but I think 2012 is too soon for that to happen.


     


    I think that it could happen this year but it won't be across the whole line up. Same as with the MBP it will be a top line item and might not even be in stores but something they custom build. And only as an option on the 27 inch. 


     


    As for the rest, I think they could be timing an iMac and Mac Mini update to hit with the Mountain Lion release (or shortly after that release). Will it be Ivy Bridge? It seems likely. Will it also have 8GB of Ram? Probably at least in the 27 inch (the 21s might stay with 4GB). Will they offer a larger SSD, pull the ODD etc. Perhaps. Like the MBP it might happen, but only with that high end model. 


     


    What I really want to see is a new Cinema Display line up. Give me a 40 inch model, Retina quality with a nice high refresh rate that can compete with any tv set. Put in HDMI etc so I can hook my blu-ray, the roommate's Xbox, my apple tv or whatever. Make it slim enough I can mount it on the wall even. 

  • Reply 26 of 78
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    I get the desire to be the first to post...  but how did you get yours before the article?  Post #2 is the best I've ever seen!

    AI seems to be glitching up as of late and posts articles a bunch of times. I had commented on another copy of this story from before this one was even posted, apparently. I wanted to just merge the posts to a single thread, but of course the forum orders them by time posted.

    Edit: Seems the bot doesn't like being upstaged. :lol:
  • Reply 27 of 78
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,217member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post


    One thing is having a retina display 9.7" iPad and a retina 15" Macbook, but I don't think that huge sized displays with retina is something that is coming out anytime soon. 



     


    Why not. By Apple's math its only a 12-15% increase in the resolution. That isn't so hard to do. If they were to yank out the ODD they could probably add a separate/second graphics card to power things

  • Reply 28 of 78
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,217member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post


    The iMac will have to be doubled, meaning 5120 x 2880. That's exactly what Apple has done with their two existing retina devices so far.



     


    They did it with the other devices because the math used showed that doubling was needed. The same is not true for the iMac. 

  • Reply 29 of 78
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,527member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by granolapunk View Post


    I want a 33" iMac/TV with a 7" iPad/iPod remote.  But what OS would it run?  Is M$ on to something with the dual OS or should iOS run OSX styles apps with a keyboard and mouse also?



     


    There is nothing you'd want to do on a TV screen or a remote that requires OS X.  However, if you want a single device that is both a TV and a Mac, then OS is the obvious choice!  If you want the ability to run iOS apps on this device, you can already do that with the iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch simulator -- and you don't need a touch screen!  


     


    All apple need do is separate the simulator from the Developer Kit and allow you to invoke it (and the app) by double clicking on the app or invoking it from Launchpad -- I suspect that this is already implemented.


     


    One of the hidden benefits to OS X and iOS sharing a common base is that something developed for one can be migrated to the other.  Several things developed for iOS have migrated back to the mothership... Location Services, Core Animation to name a couple.

  • Reply 30 of 78
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,670moderator
    Other rumors from this year claimed that the 2012 iMac refresh will feature new <a href="http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/04/02/apples_redesigned_2012_imacs_rumored_to_feature_anti_reflective_glass_displays.html">anti-reflective</a> glass displays. That would be a first for the iMac, as Apple has until now only offered anti-reflective solutions as build-to-order options on its MacBook family of notebooks.

    They might not be able to do the same thing as you have to take the display out to get to the parts in the iMac, which would involve sticking suckers onto the glass fused to the panel.

    300

    Of course, if they move the hard drive to the bottom, there's no reason to take the screen out anyway and this way they can make it thinner without leaving less room inside and the optical removal will leave extra room. If they fuse the glass, it also means you can't get any dirt on the inside of the glass or a damaged panel from a repair.

    Assuming no expensive additions, the optical removal should drop the price by $100 too. Not quite enough to get to the $999 price point but maybe in an educational model.
  • Reply 31 of 78
    clemynxclemynx Posts: 1,512member
    I'd say that 2 feet is the minimum distance one has to be from a 27 inches screen. Anyone can do what they want, but I don't think less is reasonable.

    Anyway, iWant. Also, a redesign please. Slimmer with a design similar to the thunderbold display would be perfect!
  • Reply 32 of 78
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,527member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post


    The iMac will have to be doubled, meaning 5120 x 2880. That's exactly what Apple has done with their two existing retina devices so far.



     


    First. there are four existing retina devices:


     


    -- iPhone 4/4S


    -- iPod Touch


    -- New iPad


    -- MBP Retina


     


    Second, the iOS devices have a single fixed-size window that contains the entire app display.  


     


    Macs (OS X devices) have multiple, resizable, overlapping windows that the user or application can position at will.  While "nice-to-have",  there is little need to double the pixel resolution to preserve the size of variable windows.

  • Reply 33 of 78
    dcj001dcj001 Posts: 301member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DogCowabunga View Post



    I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the new iMac will be announced before July 24. I am not superstitious, so I can't say for sure if it will be on a Tuesday.


     


    Apple will release earnings on July 24. OS X 10.8 and new iMacs should be released a few days later, in my opinion.

  • Reply 34 of 78
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,527member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DogCowabunga View Post



    I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the new iMac will be announced before July 24. I am not superstitious, so I can't say for sure if it will be on a Tuesday.


     


    Ha!  Your name made me laugh bittersweet tears...


     


    My late wife Lucy, who managed our computer stores, called Guy Kawasaki (then working for Apple and later Acius) "Guy Kawabunga"... several times to his face.

  • Reply 35 of 78
    eriamjheriamjh Posts: 1,351member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post





    A 21" screen at 3840 x 2160 might serve pretty well.


    Agreed.  It would basically be a 4 x 1080p display (instead of the current 4 x 720p).  Not sure if resolution doubling is necessary or how the OS would handle it, but it would be nice.  

  • Reply 36 of 78
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


     


    Why not. By Apple's math its only a 12-15% increase in the resolution. That isn't so hard to do. If they were to yank out the ODD they could probably add a separate/second graphics card to power things



    The current iMac is already at 2560, if we do a 15% increase, that brings us to 2944. Is that really going to make any big difference? 


     


    And the native resolution of retina displays seems to be half, so half of 2944 = 1472, and that's a pretty pathetic resolution to have on a 27" display.

  • Reply 37 of 78
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


     


    First. there are four existing retina devices:


     


    -- iPhone 4/4S


    -- iPod Touch


    -- New iPad


    -- MBP Retina


     



    That is of course true. I totally forgot about iPhones and iPod Touches.

  • Reply 38 of 78
    visualzonevisualzone Posts: 294member


    3.7 ghz? Wow!! I should have got that one instead of the 27" iMac I bought at the end of last year. Sorry to say but the fastest one you can buy is 3.16ghz.

  • Reply 39 of 78
    visualzonevisualzone Posts: 294member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ClemyNX View Post



    I'd say that 2 feet is the minimum distance one has to be from a 27 inches screen. Anyone can do what they want, but I don't think less is reasonable.

    Anyway, iWant. Also, a redesign please. Slimmer with a design similar to the thunderbold display would be perfect!




    Would you like a kickstand to go with that too? image

  • Reply 40 of 78
    johndoe98johndoe98 Posts: 278member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    Macs (OS X devices) have multiple, resizable, overlapping windows that the user or application can position at will.  While "nice-to-have",  there is little need to double the pixel resolution to preserve the size of variable windows.



     


    Yet none but one size have Retina quality, the one that is doubled in pixel resolution. All the other options are noticeably inferior even if they are better than prior generation screens. I'd love to use a higher screen real estate on my RMBP, but the other options are terrible in comparison. If next year they release a version with Retina at 1680x1050 (or 3360x2100), I'll probably upgrade my machine.

Sign In or Register to comment.