I have a mid 2006 20" iMac, and the only thing holding me up from buying a new iMac is the belief that there will be a newer model out fairly soon; it's been about 13 months since the last refresh/upgrade.
I couldn't care less if Apple offers a retina display with one, and if they do as an extra cost option, I'll pass on it. I do expect a faster CPU and a faster graphics card than the current models, and hope for USB 3.
I'll opt for a 21.5" monitor (assuming that they don't change monitor sizes), the base hard drive, and an SSD. I'll add more RAM myself; Apple's RAM is too expensive.
Does anybody know what the refresh rate is for the iMac screens and the Mac Book screens? I've been looking for that information and don't see it in any of the specifications on the Apple web site.
I've seen 60 Hz monitors like mine (Dell and Gateway) and compared them to the 120 Hz monitors. 120 Hz is better. That speed really makes a difference in the quality of fast motion images. There are even 240 Hz monitors out there. I haven't seen one in person yet.
Assuming the retina iMac follows the other retina products and doubles the resolution, that would give the 27" iMac a resolution of 5120x2880. 4k monitors, the few of them that currently exist run at 3840x2160 and cost €8000.
They just aren't ready for mass production yet, so I'd be surprised if we see a retina iMac next year or even the year after. Personally I don't see the reason for one, as at normal desktop viewing distances current 1080p monitors are virtually 'retina' already.
Does anybody know what the refresh rate is for the iMac screens and the Mac Book screens? I've been looking for that information and don't see it in any of the specifications on the Apple web site.
I've seen 60 Hz monitors like mine (Dell and Gateway) and compared them to the 120 Hz monitors. 120 Hz is better. That speed really makes a difference in the quality of fast motion images. There are even 240 Hz monitors out there. I haven't seen one in person yet.
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.
Are there even panels available at a high enough pixel density at 21.5 and 27 inches to qualify as a Retina display based on the typical placement of the display?
27" no. 21.5" not exactly but close. Samsung has the T220 at 22" with 204 ppi. I don't see why they couldn't produce a 21". In what yields I don't know.
Interesting article. However I just can't see what would make Apple wait until fall. It is kinda un Apple like in that they usually have new hardware available for back to school. A retina panel would be worth the wait, but if they aren't coming then what else could be the hold up?
So I don't doubt that Retina isn't ready. But if that is so why the wait?
The 27 inch would only have to go up from the current 109 ppi to 122 ppi to be Retina and yes it is possible that such a display could be very possible. We haven't seen it perhaps because Apple, in typical fashion, secured all the resources and rights to the first units while they were still in R&D. So the announcement that such a display is exists will be when Apple announces the new iMac.
it's also worth nothing that Arment believes, not that he has any sources. His beliefs could be very wrong
But going only to 122 ppi won't work with their current scaling system, it requires going 4x on the resolution no?
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.
I'll need to be slaughtered! So far as I understand things, for a rather substantial portion of our computing tasks, the HD is the bottleneck. SSDs represent a huge leap forward. The only downsides right now are costs and size of the disks, which really is simply a cost issue. It's just a matter of time until the entire line moves into SSDs, I don't understand what's bad about that.
The main thing that a lot of people seem to be getting wrong at this point is the assumption that Retina = twice the resolution (4x the pixels). While that has been the case so far with the iPhone/iPad/MBP, it won't hold true for the iMac because of the typical viewing distance. This is probably a good thing, since it may be very difficult to get decent yields on 27" panels at 5k x 3k.
True they don't need to go 4x to achieve Retina on the iMac line, but right now it seems the only system they have in place is the 4x route. They didn't need to go 4x on the RMBPs either, they only needed to increase by ~20%, yet they went 4x anyway, and the results are not disapointing.
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...
Blatantly false. I have a RMBP and on light usage the system is the coolest computer I've ever had or worked on. For light usage, like web-browsing and movies, it gets no warmer than my iPad, and it is just as silent and has just as much battery life. Do you even own one of these machines, or have you even worked on them, or are you just trolling here?
@Slurpy, sadly someone quoted you and the ignore feature failed. You must be leading a very sad life indeed to have replaced religion with a half bitten apple on an aluminium casing and to view anyone not 100% aligned in their requests with apple with the hatred of a fundamentalist. And you are talking bullshit as well, go read my first 1000 posts on apple or so to see what I am saying about them and read the praise, and next time before the ad hominems you might want to make a case for the actual technological issues I am pointing out.
I'll need to be slaughtered! So far as I understand things, for a rather substantial portion of our computing tasks, the HD is the bottleneck. SSDs represent a huge leap forward. The only downsides right now are costs and size of the disks, which really is simply a cost issue. It's just a matter of time until the entire line moves into SSDs, I don't understand what's bad about that.
I wasn't referring to ssds in general which are indeed a huge leap forward, I was referring to them putting flash with a custom port on the mobo, which will be a huge step backward in terms of upgreadabilty on a desktop device. That and doing completely away with the hd which offers very high amounts of storage very cheaply. Because there simply isn't a point to take that away from a desktop any time within the next 3-5 years because of these advantages, and not everything has to be sitting on an ssd all sorts of archives and collections of files should be on the hard drive unless someone is some sort of billionaire who can afford 1tb of ssds along with the main ssd on their computer. In addition there are hybrid ssds that are receiving great reviews around the web, which is an option we aren't going to see with apple, ever. At least if they allow the user to use standard sata 3 ports they ll have the option to opt for one themselves.
Of course their purpose is to sell more and if a hard drive won't fit there (because we all know the whole world is waiting for a millimetre thinner iMac....) on purpose and they go ssd only (and custom port ssd) the vast majority of people won't be able to afford anything higher than 512gb, Ther ll be no ssd at 256gb plus an ample 2.5" he at 1tb say scenarios, and via controlling storage people will have to pay more to apple for their second rate ssds (not my opinion, the tests show the are much behind the class leaders) and will have to upgrade sooner for more internal storage.
As an aside I wouldn't think they d be that shameless to stick the ram on the mobo as in the MacBook pro. Problem is and they are keenly aware of that that even if they do this, some people on fan sites will defend them and make sure to attack others who are reasonable. But there's so much one can push their luck,many they d be pushing it with that at an unprecedented level.
Blatantly false. I have a RMBP and on light usage the system is the coolest computer I've ever had or worked on. For light usage, like web-browsing and movies, it gets no warmer than my iPad, and it is just as silent and has just as much battery life. Do you even own one of these machines, or have you even worked on them, or are you just trolling here?
It's not blatantly false that the obsession on thinness is marring heat dissipation, ask any air user, esp. Gen one or two. I don't know you might be using your pro in Alaska, very review I v read said it does et warm on rudimentary tasks. Read what they say and/or find me one were it says it is as warm as the iPad, not two, just one.
It's not blatantly false that the obsession on thinness is marring heat dissipation, ask any air user, esp. Gen one or two. I don't know you might be using your pro in Alaska, very review I v read said it does et warm on rudimentary tasks. Read what they say and/or find me one were it says it is as warm as the iPad, not two, just one.
I'm not in Alaska . I'm in Canada though, and it's been a pretty hot week, and I don't have an AC. Anyway, why do I need to find an external review when I can write my own? Are my reports less valid than the tech gurus at these websites you are frequenting?
Regarding the prior post, that seemed sensible to me, thanks for explaining your perspective regarding SSDs.
I'm not in Alaska . I'm in Canada though, and it's been a pretty hot week, and I don't have an AC. Anyway, why do I need to find an external review when I can write my own? Are my reports less valid than the tech gurus at these websites you are frequenting?
Regarding the prior post, that seemed sensible to me, thanks for explaining your perspective regarding SSDs.
It's good to hear it doesn't run warm for you. I am in the market for one and a users perspective is always appreciated, maybe more so than the dime a dozen reviews. Heat is a tricky thing and what with these device being that thin and compact, a slightly better application of the thermal paste or some other component or architecture micro detail on a per device level might make a difference.
I was just pointing out before, and I am certainly not the only one to point this out, that apple's obsession with thinness is impacting the thermals of their devices. Of course it's open to discussion if it's an obsession or not, they are pushing tech forward by opting for thinner, that's for sure. Would I want a mobile CPU instead of a desktop one on an iMac to make it even thinner? Not really, I d like it to be more powerful and get less warm, even if it is a few mils thicker.
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.
Comments
Also, thanks for doing that without managing to break any rules that I can see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
See, if I hit the thumb on the above, I'll be yelled at for not being impartial.
Also, thanks for doing that without managing to break any rules that I can see.
Hey, I'll take that as a compliment. It wasn't that easy.
I have a mid 2006 20" iMac, and the only thing holding me up from buying a new iMac is the belief that there will be a newer model out fairly soon; it's been about 13 months since the last refresh/upgrade.
I couldn't care less if Apple offers a retina display with one, and if they do as an extra cost option, I'll pass on it. I do expect a faster CPU and a faster graphics card than the current models, and hope for USB 3.
I'll opt for a 21.5" monitor (assuming that they don't change monitor sizes), the base hard drive, and an SSD. I'll add more RAM myself; Apple's RAM is too expensive.
Does anybody know what the refresh rate is for the iMac screens and the Mac Book screens? I've been looking for that information and don't see it in any of the specifications on the Apple web site.
I've seen 60 Hz monitors like mine (Dell and Gateway) and compared them to the 120 Hz monitors. 120 Hz is better. That speed really makes a difference in the quality of fast motion images. There are even 240 Hz monitors out there. I haven't seen one in person yet.
Assuming the retina iMac follows the other retina products and doubles the resolution, that would give the 27" iMac a resolution of 5120x2880. 4k monitors, the few of them that currently exist run at 3840x2160 and cost €8000.
They just aren't ready for mass production yet, so I'd be surprised if we see a retina iMac next year or even the year after. Personally I don't see the reason for one, as at normal desktop viewing distances current 1080p monitors are virtually 'retina' already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels
Does anybody know what the refresh rate is for the iMac screens and the Mac Book screens? I've been looking for that information and don't see it in any of the specifications on the Apple web site.
I've seen 60 Hz monitors like mine (Dell and Gateway) and compared them to the 120 Hz monitors. 120 Hz is better. That speed really makes a difference in the quality of fast motion images. There are even 240 Hz monitors out there. I haven't seen one in person yet.
I think running Windows reveals them to be 60 Hz.
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.
+1
Quote:
Originally Posted by eselqueso
Are there even panels available at a high enough pixel density at 21.5 and 27 inches to qualify as a Retina display based on the typical placement of the display?
27" no. 21.5" not exactly but close. Samsung has the T220 at 22" with 204 ppi. I don't see why they couldn't produce a 21". In what yields I don't know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Interesting article. However I just can't see what would make Apple wait until fall. It is kinda un Apple like in that they usually have new hardware available for back to school. A retina panel would be worth the wait, but if they aren't coming then what else could be the hold up?
So I don't doubt that Retina isn't ready. But if that is so why the wait?
Old inventory needs to be sold first?
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
The 27 inch would only have to go up from the current 109 ppi to 122 ppi to be Retina and yes it is possible that such a display could be very possible. We haven't seen it perhaps because Apple, in typical fashion, secured all the resources and rights to the first units while they were still in R&D. So the announcement that such a display is exists will be when Apple announces the new iMac.
it's also worth nothing that Arment believes, not that he has any sources. His beliefs could be very wrong
But going only to 122 ppi won't work with their current scaling system, it requires going 4x on the resolution no?
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.
I'll need to be slaughtered! So far as I understand things, for a rather substantial portion of our computing tasks, the HD is the bottleneck. SSDs represent a huge leap forward. The only downsides right now are costs and size of the disks, which really is simply a cost issue. It's just a matter of time until the entire line moves into SSDs, I don't understand what's bad about that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnb2
The main thing that a lot of people seem to be getting wrong at this point is the assumption that Retina = twice the resolution (4x the pixels). While that has been the case so far with the iPhone/iPad/MBP, it won't hold true for the iMac because of the typical viewing distance. This is probably a good thing, since it may be very difficult to get decent yields on 27" panels at 5k x 3k.
True they don't need to go 4x to achieve Retina on the iMac line, but right now it seems the only system they have in place is the 4x route. They didn't need to go 4x on the RMBPs either, they only needed to increase by ~20%, yet they went 4x anyway, and the results are not disapointing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove
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...
Blatantly false. I have a RMBP and on light usage the system is the coolest computer I've ever had or worked on. For light usage, like web-browsing and movies, it gets no warmer than my iPad, and it is just as silent and has just as much battery life. Do you even own one of these machines, or have you even worked on them, or are you just trolling here?
I wasn't referring to ssds in general which are indeed a huge leap forward, I was referring to them putting flash with a custom port on the mobo, which will be a huge step backward in terms of upgreadabilty on a desktop device. That and doing completely away with the hd which offers very high amounts of storage very cheaply. Because there simply isn't a point to take that away from a desktop any time within the next 3-5 years because of these advantages, and not everything has to be sitting on an ssd all sorts of archives and collections of files should be on the hard drive unless someone is some sort of billionaire who can afford 1tb of ssds along with the main ssd on their computer. In addition there are hybrid ssds that are receiving great reviews around the web, which is an option we aren't going to see with apple, ever. At least if they allow the user to use standard sata 3 ports they ll have the option to opt for one themselves.
Of course their purpose is to sell more and if a hard drive won't fit there (because we all know the whole world is waiting for a millimetre thinner iMac....) on purpose and they go ssd only (and custom port ssd) the vast majority of people won't be able to afford anything higher than 512gb, Ther ll be no ssd at 256gb plus an ample 2.5" he at 1tb say scenarios, and via controlling storage people will have to pay more to apple for their second rate ssds (not my opinion, the tests show the are much behind the class leaders) and will have to upgrade sooner for more internal storage.
As an aside I wouldn't think they d be that shameless to stick the ram on the mobo as in the MacBook pro. Problem is and they are keenly aware of that that even if they do this, some people on fan sites will defend them and make sure to attack others who are reasonable. But there's so much one can push their luck,many they d be pushing it with that at an unprecedented level.
It's not blatantly false that the obsession on thinness is marring heat dissipation, ask any air user, esp. Gen one or two. I don't know you might be using your pro in Alaska, very review I v read said it does et warm on rudimentary tasks. Read what they say and/or find me one were it says it is as warm as the iPad, not two, just one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove
It's not blatantly false that the obsession on thinness is marring heat dissipation, ask any air user, esp. Gen one or two. I don't know you might be using your pro in Alaska, very review I v read said it does et warm on rudimentary tasks. Read what they say and/or find me one were it says it is as warm as the iPad, not two, just one.
I'm not in Alaska
Regarding the prior post, that seemed sensible to me, thanks for explaining your perspective regarding SSDs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Apple won't be making a $100,000 TV. Apple very likely won't be making any sort of TV.
WRONG! There will be an Apple TV and it will be less than $100,000!!
Just go for the Ivy Bridge desktop processors, decent graphics, and SATA III SSDs.
It's good to hear it doesn't run warm for you. I am in the market for one and a users perspective is always appreciated, maybe more so than the dime a dozen reviews. Heat is a tricky thing and what with these device being that thin and compact, a slightly better application of the thermal paste or some other component or architecture micro detail on a per device level might make a difference.
I was just pointing out before, and I am certainly not the only one to point this out, that apple's obsession with thinness is impacting the thermals of their devices. Of course it's open to discussion if it's an obsession or not, they are pushing tech forward by opting for thinner, that's for sure. Would I want a mobile CPU instead of a desktop one on an iMac to make it even thinner? Not really, I d like it to be more powerful and get less warm, even if it is a few mils thicker.
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.