Also Tallest has a sense of that I don't think many people pick up.
I pick up on nonsense very easily, as many people do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
You realize that we get all reports, right?
Der, really?
I've moderated plenty of forums. I knew you would receive it. To put in simple words for you, I intended for you to see it.
Quote:
And to top it all off, YOU were banned from there, too.
Sorry, that is false information.
I have never been banned from there and my account is still in good standing. To put in simple words for you again, "Zedd" is not my username there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
Add Ivy Bridge, USB 3.0, add Blu Ray (kidding) and make flash storage standard.
Are you serious? A $2000 display AND flash storage? Would you really buy a $5000 AIO desktop?
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcusj0015
Yes, I know resolution doesn't = DPI, but the fact that they're JUST coming out with 4K panels, should tell you a thing or two about when to expect such a monitor.
They are "just" coming out with 4K displays for two reasons: There is zero 4K content and there is little hardware powerful enough to drive it besides a full-blown PC.
2 out of 3 current game consoles can barely put out 1080p. Don't expect a 4K capable home game console like Toshiba used for their 4k demo screen until 2020 at the very earliest.
The only real use for a 4K screen over the next 1-3 years is to display 4 HDTV streams. They won't be much good as PC or workstation monitors because, as mentioned before, they will all be 36"+. 27" is already over the top for a consumer desktop. Personally, they should have left well enough alone with the 24" screen.
I pick up on nonsense very easily, as many people do.
Der, really?
I've moderated plenty of forums. I knew you would receive it. To put in simple words for you, I intended for you to see it.
Sorry, that is false information.
I have never been banned from there and my account is still in good standing. To put in simple words for you again, "Zedd" is not my username there.
Are you serious? A $2000 display AND flash storage? Would you really buy a $5000 AIO desktop?
They are "just" coming out with 4K displays for two reasons: There is zero 4K content and there is little hardware powerful enough to drive it besides a full-blown PC.
2 out of 3 current game consoles can barely put out 1080p. Don't expect a 4K capable home game console like Toshiba used for their 4k demo screen until 2020 at the very earliest.
The only real use for a 4K screen over the next 1-3 years is to display 4 HDTV streams. They won't be much good as PC or workstation monitors because, as mentioned before, they will all be 36"+. 27" is already over the top for a consumer desktop. Personally, they should have left well enough alone with the 24" screen.
There is no $2,000 consumer display, even those expensive ass Sony TVs, the panels are only $100 tops.
At a normal viewing distance a 100ppi desktop display isn't far off 'retina' anyway, so I don't see any real pressing need to up the resolution. It would place a huge burden on the GPU, cause heat issues, and massively increase the price. So why bother?
Just give the iMac better specs and lower the price.
Ahhhh...No 27" Retina iMac??? Can we get the 27" Thunderbolt and/or LED Cinema display(s) with 4K resolution to hold us over? 4K wouldn't make it Retina technically, but I could deal with that. (north of 200ppi) lol
I would totally pay $2k for a 4K 27" display, although ideally, it would have a resolution in the neighborhood of 5120x2880.
My favorite killer combo remains a MacBook Pro plus a 27" Thunderbolt or "LED Cinema" display to get both the iMac and MacBook Pro experience.
There s good news if you don't like the glossy display: ASUS is coming out with a 27" 2560x1440 (same res. as 27" iMac/Thunderbolt display) monitor with a gorgeous matte display with IPS. It's certainly nice to see that Apple is virtually forcing the "PC industry" to increase the quality of their products, while always staying ahead of the pack.
At a normal viewing distance a 100ppi desktop display isn't far off 'retina' anyway, so I don't see any real pressing need to up the resolution. It would place a huge burden on the GPU, cause heat issues, and massively increase the price. So why bother?
Just give the iMac better specs and lower the price.
I just wanted to say the same thing.. and add:
What part of "Retina" DON'T (most of) you people understand?
It is: a high enough pixel density that the human eye is unable to notice pixelation at a typical viewing distance.
Exactly how close are you people sitting to a 27" iMac may I ask?
I just wanted to say the same thing.. and add:
What part of "Retina" DON'T (most of) you people understand?
It is: a high enough pixel density that the human eye is unable to notice pixelation at a typical viewing distance.
Exactly how close are you people sitting to a 27" iMac may I ask?
If anyone would know- the pixel doc would. :-)
The people (See Tallest Skil) who think you HAVE to double the resolution to be classified as "retina" obviously have no idea how to classify retina.
Ahhhh...No 27" Retina iMac??? Can we get the 27" Thunderbolt and/or LED Cinema display(s) with 4K resolution to hold us over? 4K wouldn't make it Retina technically, but I could deal with that. (north of 200ppi) lol
I would totally pay $2k for a 4K 27" display, although ideally, it would have a resolution in the neighborhood of 5120x2880.
My favorite killer combo remains a MacBook Pro plus a 27" Thunderbolt or "LED Cinema" display to get both the iMac and MacBook Pro experience.
There s good news if you don't like the glossy display: ASUS is coming out with a 27" 2560x1440 (same res. as 27" iMac/Thunderbolt display) monitor with a gorgeous matte display with IPS. It's certainly nice to see that Apple is virtually forcing the "PC industry" to increase the quality of their products, while always staying ahead of the pack.
Measure the distance between your eye balls and the screen of your 27" iMac. Is it more than 80cm? If it is, then unless you have super human eyes, then you're already looking at a 'retina' display.
If the resolution was doubled, then by all means feel free to sit 40cm away from the screen, just to soak in all the detail. I suspect you might find that rather uncomfortable after a while though.
I don't think the new iMacs will be retina, but what is Apple doing that is taking so long?
What is going to happen with the i7 in the 27" since Apple's usual selection from the processor line-up is the 3770 which is clocked at the same 3.4 GHZ as the current Sandy Bridge i7 in the 27" iMac.
Is Apple working with Intel to get a new i7 in the line-up for the high end? Will Apple use the 3770k (unlocked) @ 3.5 GHZ or higher? Or will the just ship the 3.4 GHZ 3770 Ivy Bridge.
While clock speed doesn't mean everything in CPU performance, Intel and OEMs spent decades focusing on clock speed, so it counts significantly to Joe Public.
Apple, can we at least get 2TB HD standard on the high end 27" iMacs? The 1TB to 2TB up-sell fells a little insulting on a $2000 computer in 2012.
On other news: Mac mini will be without Retina display too /
Had to laugh at this one. However it might be the case that an ACD in retina comes first. That wold solve the expense issue and the volume issue. However I wouldn't expect to see such a screen until the Mac Pros replacement is released.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme
Retina will come in time, when it becomes practical. (A higher-res conventional—non 2x—display would be awful: tiny print!)
Wouldn't be if OS X handled resolution scaling properly...
EDIT: And a 3840*2160 resolution in a 21.5" screen is just stupidly overkill.
I need one Tuesday, that is September, right? What do you think my odds are?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pinkunicorn
Also Tallest has a sense of that I don't think many people pick up.
I pick up on nonsense very easily, as many people do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
You realize that we get all reports, right?
Der, really?
I've moderated plenty of forums. I knew you would receive it. To put in simple words for you, I intended for you to see it.
Quote:
And to top it all off, YOU were banned from there, too.
Sorry, that is false information.
I have never been banned from there and my account is still in good standing. To put in simple words for you again, "Zedd" is not my username there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
Add Ivy Bridge, USB 3.0, add Blu Ray (kidding) and make flash storage standard.
Are you serious? A $2000 display AND flash storage? Would you really buy a $5000 AIO desktop?
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcusj0015
Yes, I know resolution doesn't = DPI, but the fact that they're JUST coming out with 4K panels, should tell you a thing or two about when to expect such a monitor.
They are "just" coming out with 4K displays for two reasons: There is zero 4K content and there is little hardware powerful enough to drive it besides a full-blown PC.
2 out of 3 current game consoles can barely put out 1080p. Don't expect a 4K capable home game console like Toshiba used for their 4k demo screen until 2020 at the very earliest.
The only real use for a 4K screen over the next 1-3 years is to display 4 HDTV streams. They won't be much good as PC or workstation monitors because, as mentioned before, they will all be 36"+. 27" is already over the top for a consumer desktop. Personally, they should have left well enough alone with the 24" screen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zedd
I pick up on nonsense very easily, as many people do.
Der, really?
I've moderated plenty of forums. I knew you would receive it. To put in simple words for you, I intended for you to see it.
Sorry, that is false information.
I have never been banned from there and my account is still in good standing. To put in simple words for you again, "Zedd" is not my username there.
Are you serious? A $2000 display AND flash storage? Would you really buy a $5000 AIO desktop?
They are "just" coming out with 4K displays for two reasons: There is zero 4K content and there is little hardware powerful enough to drive it besides a full-blown PC.
2 out of 3 current game consoles can barely put out 1080p. Don't expect a 4K capable home game console like Toshiba used for their 4k demo screen until 2020 at the very earliest.
The only real use for a 4K screen over the next 1-3 years is to display 4 HDTV streams. They won't be much good as PC or workstation monitors because, as mentioned before, they will all be 36"+. 27" is already over the top for a consumer desktop. Personally, they should have left well enough alone with the 24" screen.
There is no $2,000 consumer display, even those expensive ass Sony TVs, the panels are only $100 tops.
At a normal viewing distance a 100ppi desktop display isn't far off 'retina' anyway, so I don't see any real pressing need to up the resolution. It would place a huge burden on the GPU, cause heat issues, and massively increase the price. So why bother?
Just give the iMac better specs and lower the price.
This!
I would totally pay $2k for a 4K 27" display, although ideally, it would have a resolution in the neighborhood of 5120x2880.
My favorite killer combo remains a MacBook Pro plus a 27" Thunderbolt or "LED Cinema" display to get both the iMac and MacBook Pro experience.
There s good news if you don't like the glossy display: ASUS is coming out with a 27" 2560x1440 (same res. as 27" iMac/Thunderbolt display) monitor with a gorgeous matte display with IPS. It's certainly nice to see that Apple is virtually forcing the "PC industry" to increase the quality of their products, while always staying ahead of the pack.
On other news: Mac mini will be without Retina display too /s
1 example of a $2,000+ display: http://www.necdisplay.com/p/pa301w-bk
(yes, it's professional, but retina moves into professional realm IMO).
What part of "Retina" DON'T (most of) you people understand?
It is: a high enough pixel density that the human eye is unable to notice pixelation at a typical viewing distance.
Exactly how close are you people sitting to a 27" iMac may I ask?
The people (See Tallest Skil) who think you HAVE to double the resolution to be classified as "retina" obviously have no idea how to classify retina.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crunch
Ahhhh...No 27" Retina iMac??? Can we get the 27" Thunderbolt and/or LED Cinema display(s) with 4K resolution to hold us over? 4K wouldn't make it Retina technically, but I could deal with that. (north of 200ppi) lol
I would totally pay $2k for a 4K 27" display, although ideally, it would have a resolution in the neighborhood of 5120x2880.
My favorite killer combo remains a MacBook Pro plus a 27" Thunderbolt or "LED Cinema" display to get both the iMac and MacBook Pro experience.
There s good news if you don't like the glossy display: ASUS is coming out with a 27" 2560x1440 (same res. as 27" iMac/Thunderbolt display) monitor with a gorgeous matte display with IPS. It's certainly nice to see that Apple is virtually forcing the "PC industry" to increase the quality of their products, while always staying ahead of the pack.
Measure the distance between your eye balls and the screen of your 27" iMac. Is it more than 80cm? If it is, then unless you have super human eyes, then you're already looking at a 'retina' display.
If the resolution was doubled, then by all means feel free to sit 40cm away from the screen, just to soak in all the detail. I suspect you might find that rather uncomfortable after a while though.
Sorry. After seeing the Macbook Pro retina...the 27 inch iMac display/resolution pales.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Originally Posted by Andysol
The people (See Tallest Skil) who think you HAVE to double the resolution to be classified as "retina" obviously have no idea how to classify retina.
Nope. Never said that.
What is going to happen with the i7 in the 27" since Apple's usual selection from the processor line-up is the 3770 which is clocked at the same 3.4 GHZ as the current Sandy Bridge i7 in the 27" iMac.
Is Apple working with Intel to get a new i7 in the line-up for the high end? Will Apple use the 3770k (unlocked) @ 3.5 GHZ or higher? Or will the just ship the 3.4 GHZ 3770 Ivy Bridge.
While clock speed doesn't mean everything in CPU performance, Intel and OEMs spent decades focusing on clock speed, so it counts significantly to Joe Public.
Apple, can we at least get 2TB HD standard on the high end 27" iMacs?
The 1TB to 2TB up-sell fells a little insulting on a $2000 computer in 2012.
Maybe it will be like the old days, with the drastic changes from iMac G3 to G4 to G5.
If the 13" Retina Pro is 1,300> I will certainly be getting it.
I guess it's the new lamination process that is holding the iMac up. Yields on the 27 inch could be that bit more tricky to begin with...
Again, Apple pushing the tech' boundaries.
That would explain why they haven't just thrown Ivy into the current design. It's a new design to dry run the lamination process, I guess.
The 'retina' will probably come next year at some point.
We can expect the iMac to be thinner then and lose the optical.
Hmm. Ok.
I'd rather wait for Haswell and Retina. ...and a decent GPU to drive it. ...and 8 gigs of ram as standard...and cheaper SSD drives.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
Maybe it will be like the old days, with the drastic changes from iMac G3 to G4 to G5.
Yes. The next few iterations of the iMac will be quiet, evolving revolution.
From slimmer, to the lamination screen process, to Haswell, to Retina. ...and SSD...with 8 gigs of ram? With a more powerful GPU?
There's a moving target there of one to two years. I know where I'm hopping on.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Had to laugh at this one. However it might be the case that an ACD in retina comes first. That wold solve the expense issue and the volume issue. However I wouldn't expect to see such a screen until the Mac Pros replacement is released.