It's odd how people complained Apple's products were woefully inferior because their resolutions were slightly below other vendors but as soon as Apple updates them with 2x resolutions so the scaling and elements can increase the user experience and ease for developers all of a sudden it's not needed and "just marketing." :sigh
It's odd how people complained Apple's products were woefully inferior because their resolutions were slightly below other vendors but as soon as Apple updates them with 2x resolutions so the scaling and elements can increase the user experience and ease for developers all of a sudden it's not needed and "just marketing." :sigh
Why is the need for Retina not that big of a deal? It's certainly closer to already being Retina but it's certainly not Retina at this time.
I hadn't considered the ease for developers there. That's a good point. I didn't like nitpicking display resolutions either way. I mentioned 1920x1200 having been an available option in another thread as an example that PC makers did not just leave things at the same resolution numbers we had 5 years ago on notebooks. If you removed all of the branding and showed both the 1920x1200 and Apple's 1680x1050, I'm not convinced that users would immediately feel that one looks much blockier. Given a few minutes with each individually, it's unlikely that either would prove unusable relative to the other. It's difficult to make an objective comparison given the way the brain interprets visual media. As to the rMBP. It looks quite nice. I'm still not buying something that difficult to repair unless the reliability proves to be well above average. If that's the case I may look at the second generation later.
By the way, with product thickness, I've never been a fan of the thin as possible mentality. In the case of the mini, it becomes quite noisy under load. This isn't a common problem with stationary form factors. I see it as an unnecessary compromise in such a device.
I don't think there's any requirement that they do 4x - like I said, that's what they've done so far, but that was for hardware with much closer viewing distances (and the pixel density has been going down with each iteration). What they're doing on the Retina MBP isn't as simple as doubling everything - if that was all they were doing, there wouldn't be five options in the Displays prefpane.
What they're actually doing is drawing the display at twice the 'apparent' resolution (that is, on the lowest-res setting, they're drawing at 2048x1200; at the highest, 3840x2400) then scaling that down to 2880x1800. So, in theory, they could spec a 2880xWhatever display (or 3200xWhatever, to match the ML wallpapers) and offer the same sort of options in the prefpane - anything from an 'apparent' 1280x720 to 2560x1440 (rendered off-screen at 2560x1440 to 5120x2880) then scaled to the actual resolution of the screen to smooth everything out.
My ideal for a thinner, more-efficient iMac would combine 256-512GB of on-board flash storage with a 7200rpm 1TB 2.5" drive, but I don't know if Apple will go that route - I suspect they would prefer to be all-flash for internal storage, with Thunderbolt/USB3 for anybody that needs more than the internal. Eliminating the 3.5" internal drive would definitely allow them to go thinner on the case (something that eliminating the ODD really wouldn't do - those drives are already very thin) - switching to a 2.5" drive would allow the same packaging benefits, but who knows what direction they will decide (or have already decided) to go.
Yeah on board flash would be ideal, I really like to pay 3 times the price of storage to apple for no benefit whatsoever and not be able to upgrade my storage in the coming years with larger, better, faster and more robust (as well as much much cheaper) standard ssds. Boy how ideal this would be.
There's also the added benefit that one can never install hybrid hdd at a fraction of the price but with very comparable benefits to ssds...come to think of it and seeing how greedy and obese apple have become, there's no way they will release this with retina and standard sata 3...
And while they are at it they are at it they should do whatever they can to do away even with a 2.5" hard drive, because how can you fit one on a desktop without making it fat and ugly, and anyway it's very aesthetically pleasing to have of external storage attached to the back of your mac, it's also great for desk space, all that trouble to make this an all in one just to have a little turd sticking out at the back. Might as well get a tower and stick it under the table, a screen will be much thinner on its own... I have one in mind, a mac pro, it's overpriced, bulky, with no thunderbolt, not even USB 3, it carries last centuries design and two year old tech, it's for "fast thinkers" only though.
My family was kidnapped and I'll never see them again unless I buy every single Apple product ever made, regardless of the intended audience of said device. I also refuse to educate myself about these computers that I'm forced to buy, thereby allowing myself to complain about them online.
Yep, quoting system works fine. I'm not sure how much longer we'll let you do this.
be my guests and ban me if you want to, I won't be joining the praise apple for the sun coming up in the east every morning apple crowd any time soon, if I like something I ll say so, if I don't I ll say so. I can't be a good boy and say oh ios 6 sounds so exciting no live notifications on apps, no widgets, the lock screen still looks like a glorified watch, there's a facebook everywhere so I can always opt to have my privacy invaded. And btw if fast thinkers don't like to read me, they can put me on ignore, as I have with them for no other reason of course other than the fact that I can't think at such dizzying speeds.
be my guests and ban me if you want to, I won't be joining the praise apple for the sun coming up in the east every morning apple crowd any time soon, if I like something I ll say so, if I don't I ll say so. I can't be a good boy and say oh ios 6 sounds so exciting no live notifications on apps, no widgets, the lock screen still looks like a glorified watch, there's a facebook everywhere so I can always opt to have my privacy invaded.
You know as well as we do that this isn't the point.
I really do dislike the term "retina" in Apple marketing. That article was pretty cool. Apple's marketing (and really any product marketing as they've all been going this route) dumbs things down significantly. DPI isn't the greatest way to define it, and they aren't accounting for pixel pitch. Overall they're nice displays. That is what matters. I just find it annoying when everyone on these sites now believes they understand optics because Apple posted a simplified algebraic equation on the matter.
They will double the res on the iMac. Even though it's not needed to reach Steve's definition of Retina, if you look at the software APIs on the new MBP, everything is set up for 2x.
I really do dislike the term "retina" in Apple marketing.
What don't you like about it. It's a huge step leap forward in consumer products and Apple has been far ahead of the pack here. This might hurt competitors who can't compete but it also pushes them to improve faster than they otherwise would have.
Anything that can help market something brilliant is a good for consumers. Just look at the what the iPhone did for the handset market. Remember how that market was "saturated" before the Apple jumped in?
There are plenty of brilliant innovations that have failed to become popular and thus benefit society because they were poorly marketed or something else had better marketing. Unfortunately the best doesn't win out but the Retina Display looks promising for us all.
I just find it annoying when everyone on these sites now believes they understand optics because Apple posted a simplified algebraic equation on the matter.
First of all, Apple's equations is trigonometric and therefore quire complex for most readers compared to the simple, purely algebraic formula I've used on this forum many times. tan(a/2) = s/2d v. 3438 * (1/x) = n, where x can be either the PPI or the distance in inches from your face.
Secondly, you don't have to understand optics to be able to understand a threshold of discerning something or not discerning something. The argument in that article that because there are is a small percentage of the population that have good enough vision to technically be able to discern pixels from normal viewing distance means that it shouldn't use that marketing term is silly and pointless.
Again, it's a marketing term and it's breakthrough that benefits all users. I can't imagine and rational adult thinking that the colloquial desigantion of 20/20(6/6) vision to mean perfect vision actuall means better than 20/20 is imperfect or not possible. The same argument goes for the other half of the equation which is distance between the eye and the display. There are certainly common distances we hold certain devices but no one distance applies to all users or any single user at all times.
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.
I think you're nit-picking. And resolution is NOT the sme as pixel density. One refers to a expression pertaining to the physical amount of pixels on the display, whereas th other is an expression of the an average number of pixels per unit of measure, in this case being the square inch. Dimension vs. area are two different things.
I think you're nit-picking. And resolution is NOT the sme as pixel density. One refers to a expression pertaining to the physical amount of pixels on the display, whereas th other is an expression of the an average number of pixels per unit of measure, in this case being the square inch. Dimention vs. area are two different things.
You're nitpicking. I simply said the values are the same. 2x is 2x regardless if you're looking at resolution or PPI doubling as they are both using 2 axes for the measure. I never stated that PPI and resolution are defined the same.
Ok so if no Retina- why must we have to wait to Oct/Nov for new innards?
Could a new body be forthcoming?
A matte screen option at last- finally? It's now been proven by Schiller's own words that a non-retina display has 75% more glare as he certified why all of us who held out against the iMac glossy glare monsters were right to begin with. In other words- Glare is an issue with the current screen. And the larger the display the more glare. Add to that the lack of positioning options with the current armature and it is worth waiting yet another year.
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.
236ppi s 2x 163ppi, so the density doubled. Yes the actual number of pixels did only go up by 1.52x from HD. So what's your point? I was using my laptop's screen resolution and ppi for comparison, since he industry stand follows my machine over Apple's previous standard display resolution. I think we're both thinking on the same wavelengths, but from differing perspectives and levels of explanation. My angle is solid, And My math is on, minus rounding simplification. And I still don't understand how anything of what i've stated is "off". You might want to clarify what YOU thought the premise of my post was?
You might be inferring that I agree with using HDTV resolution as computer industry standard but I don't. I was merely pointing out that Apples standard laptop displays have been, for a while, lower resolution than industry standard. Yes maybe the rest of the industry has hopped on the HD marketing bus (or just trying to outdo Apple) but that isn't really the point of my original post.
Personally, I think it's pretty stupid to hop on HD band wagon. Historically, computer displays have always been much higher resolution. I think the computer industry's marketing was never really successful at illustrating that. And when the TV industry finally caught up, they sort of just converged the thinking to make it look like the 1080p 21" widescreen was improved from the 20" 1600x1200 standard aspect model, when in actuality they were nearly the same ppi.
My point was that I think it's unrealistic to simply assume Apple's desktops and larger-than-laptop displays will be 2x ppi. I was trying to illustrate this by showing how the ppi of Apple's retina devices has decreased as the screen size increased. So with the 21.5" iMac, it's unrealistic to assume a retina version would simply be 4x the pixels and 2x the pixel density (204ppi) of the previous version, Because that would be overkill when viewed at normal distances. Now I'm one who likes to lean close to my screen so maybe it would benefit me but not to the average person with average computer posture. And after doing a basic eye test on myself, I can say pretty confidently that my vision is better than 20/20 ( (probably closer to 20/10...meaning @ 20' away i can make out letters 10mm high) and after holding the iPhone about 8" from my eyes, I still could make out individual pixels.
Now this is all from the standpoint of visible acuity. Not what's technically feasible from a software development perspective or anything else. Maybe I wasn't clear about that.
I don't seem to be nit-picking anything, just clarifying since you didn't seem to understand my posts.
Are you talking about the large PCIe SSD cards for servers and workstations?
That is where most cards go these days. The good news is that chipsets to make cheaper PCI-E SSDs are to become available this year. That would remove one obstacle to such cards.
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.
I think you mean mechanically 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.
Well leave a slot for a conventional drive. Shipping iMacs with SSDs would be awesome though.
As to cost you eliminate a bunch of mechanical parts going the PCB route. Combine that with a PCI-Express interface and you minimize waste while upping performance.
As a side note, early last year the industry was apparently trying to standardize on PCB based storage modules. That is a card format that would effectively replaced the hard drive form factors. I'm surprised that I've seen nothing about this lately. This was supposedly an effort at something totally mew and NOT the mSATA effort. The industry could really use such a format so hopefully the effort wasn't abandoned.
Ok so if no Retina- why must we have to wait to Oct/Nov for new innards?
Could a new body be forthcoming?
Good questions! Forcing people to wait until Oct/Nov would be rather anti consummer of Apple. Let's face it Ivy Bridge brings a lot to the table for iMac and even Mini users, and honestly I believe most potential buyers understand this. So I really suspect new models before then.
As to a new body that should have happened a long time ago. It didn't but really a case shouldn't hold up delivery of an iMac.
A matte screen option at last- finally? It's now been proven by Schiller's own words that a non-retina display has 75% more glare as he certified why all of us who held out against the iMac glossy glare monsters were right to begin with. In other words- Glare is an issue with the current screen.
It is an issue with any screen including matte screens which do have glare and do wash out in strong light. What people fail to grasp is that matte screens have a significantly negative impact on image quality thus the preference for non matte screens.
And the larger the display the more glare. Add to that the lack of positioning options with the current armature and it is worth waiting yet another year.
Well if I buy anything right now I would likely be a Mini and then only an a nicely revved Mini. I would not buy nor recommend an iMac unless the case was addressed. IMac in its current form is just to compromising.
Don't be fooled by that article. It makes it's evaluations on the basis of science conducted in 1946, that calculated the limits of human vision to discriminate two separate points at around 0.3 Arc Minutes and appeals to some of Dr. Soneira claims, who made calculations with the assumption of 0.5 Arc Minutes. But that has proven to be wrong. See this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/25/retina_display_claims_upheld/
Here is the most important part, and the CultofMac calculations are plagued with the same fundamental problem as Dr. Soneira:
except written by: Bryan Jones, Neuroscientist
Dr. Soneira's claims are based upon a retinal calculation of .5 arcminutes which to my reading of the literature is too low. According to a relatively recent, but authoritative study of photoreceptor density in the human retina (Curcio, C.A., K.R. Sloan, R.E. Kalina and A.E. Hendrickson 1990 Human photoreceptor topography. J. Comp. Neurol. 292:497-523.), peak cone density in the human averages 199,000 cones/mm2 with a range of 100,000 to 324,000. Dr. Curcio et. al. calculated 77 cycles/degree or .78 arcminutes/cycle of *retinal* resolution. However, this does not take into account the optics of the system which degrade image quality somewhat giving a commonly accepted resolution of 1 arcminute/cycle.
Apple turns over their inventory so quickly, I don't think that's a problem. Being a just-in-time production system and having a one week turnover, they can plan the switch whenever they choose.
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
The numbers assume a certain distance. At 18-24", I often see the gaps between the pixels on desktop monitors.
@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.
As opposed to your fundamentalist religion of getting in a dig against Apple in almost *every* post? There's a difference between participating and deliberately shitting all over the boards. Everybody here disagrees with Apple at some point in time.
I don't think there's a reason to fear losing to SSD sticks on iMacs. I think you're just looking for an argument.
Comments
Why is the need for Retina not that big of a deal? It's certainly closer to already being Retina but it's certainly not Retina at this time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
It's odd how people complained Apple's products were woefully inferior because their resolutions were slightly below other vendors but as soon as Apple updates them with 2x resolutions so the scaling and elements can increase the user experience and ease for developers all of a sudden it's not needed and "just marketing." :sigh
Why is the need for Retina not that big of a deal? It's certainly closer to already being Retina but it's certainly not Retina at this time.
I hadn't considered the ease for developers there. That's a good point. I didn't like nitpicking display resolutions either way. I mentioned 1920x1200 having been an available option in another thread as an example that PC makers did not just leave things at the same resolution numbers we had 5 years ago on notebooks. If you removed all of the branding and showed both the 1920x1200 and Apple's 1680x1050, I'm not convinced that users would immediately feel that one looks much blockier. Given a few minutes with each individually, it's unlikely that either would prove unusable relative to the other. It's difficult to make an objective comparison given the way the brain interprets visual media. As to the rMBP. It looks quite nice. I'm still not buying something that difficult to repair unless the reliability proves to be well above average. If that's the case I may look at the second generation later.
By the way, with product thickness, I've never been a fan of the thin as possible mentality. In the case of the mini, it becomes quite noisy under load. This isn't a common problem with stationary form factors. I see it as an unnecessary compromise in such a device.
I don't think there's any requirement that they do 4x - like I said, that's what they've done so far, but that was for hardware with much closer viewing distances (and the pixel density has been going down with each iteration). What they're doing on the Retina MBP isn't as simple as doubling everything - if that was all they were doing, there wouldn't be five options in the Displays prefpane.
What they're actually doing is drawing the display at twice the 'apparent' resolution (that is, on the lowest-res setting, they're drawing at 2048x1200; at the highest, 3840x2400) then scaling that down to 2880x1800. So, in theory, they could spec a 2880xWhatever display (or 3200xWhatever, to match the ML wallpapers) and offer the same sort of options in the prefpane - anything from an 'apparent' 1280x720 to 2560x1440 (rendered off-screen at 2560x1440 to 5120x2880) then scaled to the actual resolution of the screen to smooth everything out.
My ideal for a thinner, more-efficient iMac would combine 256-512GB of on-board flash storage with a 7200rpm 1TB 2.5" drive, but I don't know if Apple will go that route - I suspect they would prefer to be all-flash for internal storage, with Thunderbolt/USB3 for anybody that needs more than the internal. Eliminating the 3.5" internal drive would definitely allow them to go thinner on the case (something that eliminating the ODD really wouldn't do - those drives are already very thin) - switching to a 2.5" drive would allow the same packaging benefits, but who knows what direction they will decide (or have already decided) to go.
There's also the added benefit that one can never install hybrid hdd at a fraction of the price but with very comparable benefits to ssds...come to think of it and seeing how greedy and obese apple have become, there's no way they will release this with retina and standard sata 3...
And while they are at it they are at it they should do whatever they can to do away even with a 2.5" hard drive, because how can you fit one on a desktop without making it fat and ugly, and anyway it's very aesthetically pleasing to have of external storage attached to the back of your mac, it's also great for desk space, all that trouble to make this an all in one just to have a little turd sticking out at the back. Might as well get a tower and stick it under the table, a screen will be much thinner on its own... I have one in mind, a mac pro, it's overpriced, bulky, with no thunderbolt, not even USB 3, it carries last centuries design and two year old tech, it's for "fast thinkers" only though.
Yep, quoting system works fine. I'm not sure how much longer we'll let you do this.
Wow, I wrote that second sentence above before even seeing your post. Great minds, as they say…
be my guests and ban me if you want to, I won't be joining the praise apple for the sun coming up in the east every morning apple crowd any time soon, if I like something I ll say so, if I don't I ll say so. I can't be a good boy and say oh ios 6 sounds so exciting no live notifications on apps, no widgets, the lock screen still looks like a glorified watch, there's a facebook everywhere so I can always opt to have my privacy invaded. And btw if fast thinkers don't like to read me, they can put me on ignore, as I have with them for no other reason of course other than the fact that I can't think at such dizzying speeds.
You know as well as we do that this isn't the point.
Anyway, I buy CultofMac's thoughts on why pixel quadrupling isn't for what we should be aiming. Dunno if anyone else has read it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
You know as well as we do that this isn't the point.
Anyway, I buy CultofMac's thoughts on why pixel quadrupling isn't for what we should be aiming. Dunno if anyone else has read it.
I really do dislike the term "retina" in Apple marketing. That article was pretty cool. Apple's marketing (and really any product marketing as they've all been going this route) dumbs things down significantly. DPI isn't the greatest way to define it, and they aren't accounting for pixel pitch. Overall they're nice displays. That is what matters. I just find it annoying when everyone on these sites now believes they understand optics because Apple posted a simplified algebraic equation on the matter.
They will double the res on the iMac. Even though it's not needed to reach Steve's definition of Retina, if you look at the software APIs on the new MBP, everything is set up for 2x.
What don't you like about it. It's a huge step leap forward in consumer products and Apple has been far ahead of the pack here. This might hurt competitors who can't compete but it also pushes them to improve faster than they otherwise would have.
Anything that can help market something brilliant is a good for consumers. Just look at the what the iPhone did for the handset market. Remember how that market was "saturated" before the Apple jumped in?
There are plenty of brilliant innovations that have failed to become popular and thus benefit society because they were poorly marketed or something else had better marketing. Unfortunately the best doesn't win out but the Retina Display looks promising for us all.
First of all, Apple's equations is trigonometric and therefore quire complex for most readers compared to the simple, purely algebraic formula I've used on this forum many times. tan(a/2) = s/2d v. 3438 * (1/x) = n, where x can be either the PPI or the distance in inches from your face.
Secondly, you don't have to understand optics to be able to understand a threshold of discerning something or not discerning something. The argument in that article that because there are is a small percentage of the population that have good enough vision to technically be able to discern pixels from normal viewing distance means that it shouldn't use that marketing term is silly and pointless.
Again, it's a marketing term and it's breakthrough that benefits all users. I can't imagine and rational adult thinking that the colloquial desigantion of 20/20(6/6) vision to mean perfect vision actuall means better than 20/20 is imperfect or not possible. The same argument goes for the other half of the equation which is distance between the eye and the display. There are certainly common distances we hold certain devices but no one distance applies to all users or any single user at all times.
I think you're nit-picking. And resolution is NOT the sme as pixel density. One refers to a expression pertaining to the physical amount of pixels on the display, whereas th other is an expression of the an average number of pixels per unit of measure, in this case being the square inch. Dimension vs. area are two different things.
You're nitpicking. I simply said the values are the same. 2x is 2x regardless if you're looking at resolution or PPI doubling as they are both using 2 axes for the measure. I never stated that PPI and resolution are defined the same.
Ok so if no Retina- why must we have to wait to Oct/Nov for new innards?
Could a new body be forthcoming?
A matte screen option at last- finally? It's now been proven by Schiller's own words that a non-retina display has 75% more glare as he certified why all of us who held out against the iMac glossy glare monsters were right to begin with. In other words- Glare is an issue with the current screen. And the larger the display the more glare. Add to that the lack of positioning options with the current armature and it is worth waiting yet another year.
236ppi s 2x 163ppi, so the density doubled. Yes the actual number of pixels did only go up by 1.52x from HD. So what's your point? I was using my laptop's screen resolution and ppi for comparison, since he industry stand follows my machine over Apple's previous standard display resolution. I think we're both thinking on the same wavelengths, but from differing perspectives and levels of explanation. My angle is solid, And My math is on, minus rounding simplification. And I still don't understand how anything of what i've stated is "off". You might want to clarify what YOU thought the premise of my post was?
You might be inferring that I agree with using HDTV resolution as computer industry standard but I don't. I was merely pointing out that Apples standard laptop displays have been, for a while, lower resolution than industry standard. Yes maybe the rest of the industry has hopped on the HD marketing bus (or just trying to outdo Apple) but that isn't really the point of my original post.
Personally, I think it's pretty stupid to hop on HD band wagon. Historically, computer displays have always been much higher resolution. I think the computer industry's marketing was never really successful at illustrating that. And when the TV industry finally caught up, they sort of just converged the thinking to make it look like the 1080p 21" widescreen was improved from the 20" 1600x1200 standard aspect model, when in actuality they were nearly the same ppi.
My point was that I think it's unrealistic to simply assume Apple's desktops and larger-than-laptop displays will be 2x ppi. I was trying to illustrate this by showing how the ppi of Apple's retina devices has decreased as the screen size increased. So with the 21.5" iMac, it's unrealistic to assume a retina version would simply be 4x the pixels and 2x the pixel density (204ppi) of the previous version, Because that would be overkill when viewed at normal distances. Now I'm one who likes to lean close to my screen so maybe it would benefit me but not to the average person with average computer posture. And after doing a basic eye test on myself, I can say pretty confidently that my vision is better than 20/20 ( (probably closer to 20/10...meaning @ 20' away i can make out letters 10mm high) and after holding the iPhone about 8" from my eyes, I still could make out individual pixels.
Now this is all from the standpoint of visible acuity. Not what's technically feasible from a software development perspective or anything else. Maybe I wasn't clear about that.
I don't seem to be nit-picking anything, just clarifying since you didn't seem to understand my posts.
As to cost you eliminate a bunch of mechanical parts going the PCB route. Combine that with a PCI-Express interface and you minimize waste while upping performance.
As a side note, early last year the industry was apparently trying to standardize on PCB based storage modules. That is a card format that would effectively replaced the hard drive form factors. I'm surprised that I've seen nothing about this lately. This was supposedly an effort at something totally mew and NOT the mSATA effort. The industry could really use such a format so hopefully the effort wasn't abandoned.
As to a new body that should have happened a long time ago. It didn't but really a case shouldn't hold up delivery of an iMac. It is an issue with any screen including matte screens which do have glare and do wash out in strong light. What people fail to grasp is that matte screens have a significantly negative impact on image quality thus the preference for non matte screens.
Well if I buy anything right now I would likely be a Mini and then only an a nicely revved Mini. I would not buy nor recommend an iMac unless the case was addressed. IMac in its current form is just to compromising.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
You know as well as we do that this isn't the point.
Anyway, I buy CultofMac's thoughts on why pixel quadrupling isn't for what we should be aiming. Dunno if anyone else has read it.
Don't be fooled by that article. It makes it's evaluations on the basis of science conducted in 1946, that calculated the limits of human vision to discriminate two separate points at around 0.3 Arc Minutes and appeals to some of Dr. Soneira claims, who made calculations with the assumption of 0.5 Arc Minutes. But that has proven to be wrong. See this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/25/retina_display_claims_upheld/
Here is the most important part, and the CultofMac calculations are plagued with the same fundamental problem as Dr. Soneira:
except written by: Bryan Jones, Neuroscientist
Dr. Soneira's claims are based upon a retinal calculation of .5 arcminutes which to my reading of the literature is too low. According to a relatively recent, but authoritative study of photoreceptor density in the human retina (Curcio, C.A., K.R. Sloan, R.E. Kalina and A.E. Hendrickson 1990 Human photoreceptor topography. J. Comp. Neurol. 292:497-523.), peak cone density in the human averages 199,000 cones/mm2 with a range of 100,000 to 324,000. Dr. Curcio et. al. calculated 77 cycles/degree or .78 arcminutes/cycle of *retinal* resolution. However, this does not take into account the optics of the system which degrade image quality somewhat giving a commonly accepted resolution of 1 arcminute/cycle.
Apple turns over their inventory so quickly, I don't think that's a problem. Being a just-in-time production system and having a one week turnover, they can plan the switch whenever they choose.
The numbers assume a certain distance. At 18-24", I often see the gaps between the pixels on desktop monitors.
As opposed to your fundamentalist religion of getting in a dig against Apple in almost *every* post? There's a difference between participating and deliberately shitting all over the boards. Everybody here disagrees with Apple at some point in time.
I don't think there's a reason to fear losing to SSD sticks on iMacs. I think you're just looking for an argument.
And USB 3. Or "Super Duper Speed" or whatever the F the USB consortium calls it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove
lol, you gotta love paranoids! Chek under your rug mate, there might be a samsung hologram there about to steal your mac!
Maybe if you changed your name to myapplewhinge your rants wouldn't seem quite so bizarre...