Apple's OS X 10.10 Yosemite beta hints at Retina display iMacs

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 77
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,702member
    winter wrote: »
    After what I felt was a disappointing WWDC, I am giddy about this. :smokey:
    Considering this is the WWDC, what do you find disappointing, pray tell?
  • Reply 22 of 77
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 5,260member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paxman View Post





    Considering this is the WWDC, what do you find disappointing, pray tell?

     

    Yes, I'd like to know as well. WWDC is about developers and for once it was 2hrs of nothing but great stuff for developers. If you expecting hardware announcements, they can come at any time. Apple doesn't always have to release hardware at WWDC.

  • Reply 23 of 77
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 5,260member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bloodshotrollin'red View Post

     

    Any sign of ID's for updated Mac Mini's? We want Haswell Mini's with stonking performance. Please, Apple, feed us.


     

    I would almost wait for the next rev of chips now as long as they're not going to be months and months away. If so, just release it with the current Haswell chips and then later on upgrade to Broadwell. I would like to see Iris Pro graphics on at least the $799 version, but I'm not holding my breath. 

     

    I'm thinking the Mac mini is under going a major overhaul, with an even smaller design, maybe the size of the superdrive as far as how large the square is. It might be as tall as the current Mac mini, but I'm thinking it will be smaller. It doesn't really need to be the size it is. I think with Broadwell, they could make it smaller easily as it doesn't need the cooling, or the power the current one does. 

  • Reply 24 of 77
    ghostface147ghostface147 Posts: 1,629member
    If they can make a retina iMac, then they can make a retina 17" laptop.
  • Reply 25 of 77
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    If they can make a retina iMac, then they can make a retina 17" laptop.


    [VIDEO]
  • Reply 26 of 77
    sennensennen Posts: 1,469member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post



    If they can make a retina iMac, then they can make a retina 17" laptop.

     

    Incredibly unlikely that they'll do it, but I'd love one of those!

  • Reply 27 of 77
    zozmanzozman Posts: 393member

    Imagine how many full HD clips (at full res) you could have on screen in final cut pro.... :wow: or 4K video with timeline & then some, it makes sense, not to watch movies on, but as a productive computer.

  • Reply 28 of 77
    Quote:



    Originally Posted by Bloodshotrollin'red View Post

     

    Any sign of ID's for updated Mac Mini's? We want Haswell Mini's with stonking performance. Please, Apple, feed us.


     

    Broadwell was originally scheduled for Q2 and I think the delay to Q4 has upset the intended Mini release date. 

  • Reply 29 of 77
    asciiascii Posts: 5,941member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by boredumb View Post

     

    Presumably this would also lead to the same specs on an upgraded stand-alone Thunderbolt display?


    Can Thunderbolt 2 carry a 6400 x 3600 display?

  • Reply 30 of 77
    mpantonempantone Posts: 1,738member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post



    If they can make a retina iMac, then they can make a retina 17" laptop.

    What is your point?

     

    They already make a Retina 15" notebook, they can make a 17" one if they wanted.

     

    Or to be more specific, how much do you think Apple cares about your opinion about their ability to make a 17" Retina MacBook when they are perfectly aware of the availability of components for such a device? Moreover, Apple knows exactly how many of the the 17" MacBook they manufactured and sold when they deliberately discontinued that model.

     

    Your "dream" Apple product line is irrelevant.

     

    Apple is not your mom cooking you your favorite breakfast.

  • Reply 31 of 77
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    ascii wrote: »
    Can Thunderbolt 2 carry a 6400 x 3600 display?

    With DisplayPort 1.2 I believe the max is 17.28 Gibps. DP 1.3 doubles that output and can handle 8K UHD but my calculation of the bandwidth 8K well over the limit for DP 1.3. However, since it's supported and 8K is 4x the number of pixels 4K and yet only double the bandwidth I have to assume that DP 1.2's 17.28 Gibps is enough. Perhaps they do some compression, which would make sense.

    If ti's not possible could they add 2x TB2 controllers for a dual connection where each runs have the screen? I think DL-DVI did that.
  • Reply 32 of 77
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ascii View Post

     

    Can Thunderbolt 2 carry a 6400 x 3600 display?


     

    The Mini DisplayPort part of Thunderbolt can't do 6400 x 3600, but data to drive an external GPU could run over TB2. Maybe something like the Matrox "double head to go" or "triple head to go" could present itself as a ~6400 x 3200 monitor to the Mac, so a only a single TB2 connector on the Mac drives a multi-monitor setup. Or maybe new TB monitors will have integrated GPU, so multiple monitor setup is via daisy-chaining the monitors, again, off of a single TB connection. Theoretically, the e-GPU concept could enable even GPU challenged MacBooks to power multi-monitor rigs, couldn't it? It's fun to speculate.

  • Reply 33 of 77
    asciiascii Posts: 5,941member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post



    If ti's not possible could they add 2x TB2 controllers for a dual connection where each runs have the screen? I think DL-DVI did that.

    That's what I was thinking they might do, the Mac Pro has enough Thunderbolt controllers. I was able to get [email protected] output from a 2012 Macbook Pro Retina, which theoretically should only be able to do 30Hz, by using a dual connection, one from the HDMI and one from a Thunderbolt 1 port. OS X is already reasonably usable in this kind of mode.

  • Reply 34 of 77
    asciiascii Posts: 5,941member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RoundaboutNow View Post

     

     

    The Mini DisplayPort part of Thunderbolt can't do 6400 x 3600, but data to drive an external GPU could run over TB2. Maybe something like the Matrox "double head to go" or "triple head to go" could present itself as a ~6400 x 3200 monitor to the Mac, so a only a single TB2 connector on the Mac drives a multi-monitor setup. Or maybe new TB monitors will have integrated GPU, so multiple monitor setup is via daisy-chaining the monitors, again, off of a single TB connection. Theoretically, the e-GPU concept could enable even GPU challenged MacBooks to power multi-monitor rigs, couldn't it? It's fun to speculate.


    I'd be surprised if that was the solution, the Mac Pro already has 2 GPUs! But I like your lateral thinking.

  • Reply 35 of 77
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ascii View Post

     

    That's what I was thinking they might do, the Mac Pro has enough Thunderbolt controllers. I was able to get [email protected] output from a 2012 Macbook Pro Retina, which theoretically should only be able to do 30Hz, by using a dual connection, one from the HDMI and one from a Thunderbolt 1 port. OS X is already reasonably usable in this kind of mode.


     

    Interesting. How did you do get [email protected] using a dual connection? Some sort of MST interface? What monitor?

  • Reply 36 of 77
    asciiascii Posts: 5,941member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RoundaboutNow View Post

     

     

    Interesting. How did you do get [email protected] using a dual connection? Some sort of MST interface? What monitor?


    I made a thread about it here. Basically the monitor had support for doing each side of the screen with a different port.

    http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/180471/samsung-u28d590d-28in-4k-monitor

  • Reply 37 of 77
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ascii View Post

     

    I made a thread about it here. Basically the monitor had support for doing each side of the screen with a different port.

    http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/180471/samsung-u28d590d-28in-4k-monitor


     

    I could not put up with the niggles you described, but very nice of you to post the results of your experiment. Thanks! :) 

  • Reply 38 of 77
    suddenly newtonsuddenly newton Posts: 13,808member
    mstone wrote: »
    I'm thinking that it really is 6400 x 3600 in terms of the total number of pixels on the screen being 24,040,000.

    Microsoft Excel math? ;)
    23,040,000
  • Reply 39 of 77
    suddenly newtonsuddenly newton Posts: 13,808member
    chazwatson wrote: »
    Is it clear if this is for an internal or external display?

    Well no one knows yet, but this is Apple we're talking about.
  • Reply 40 of 77
    suddenly newtonsuddenly newton Posts: 13,808member
    If they can make a retina iMac, then they can make a retina 17" laptop.

    Well we have neither.
Sign In or Register to comment.