If they can make a retina iMac, then they can make a retina 17" laptop.
Of course they "can" make a retina 17" laptop. The question is should they, and will they? The answers are no and no, as they should be. That product does not deserve to exist. The addressable market is tiny. I don't know who the hell the 17" would be for. It's barely portable. If you really need more screen than the 15" retina, then just get an iMac. a 17" is the worst of both worlds. Which is why you barely see anyone with a 17" laptop, and barely see anyone making them.
I could not put up with the niggles you described, but very nice of you to post the results of your experiment. Thanks!
Yeah, it's really the same kind of niggles you'd get on any multi-monitor Mac setup.
I remember when Mavericks came out they were crowing about all the improvements they'd made to multi-monitor support. But the first time I go to use it, they haven't even implemented the naive/obvious multi-monitor mode, which is to just ignore all boundaries and treat all monitors as one big canvas. That is, with a menu bar across the top of the whole canvas, and a Dock centred on the whole canvas, and full screen apps that fill the whole canvas. That kind of mode would be perfect for this application. I think Ubuntu can do that.
I've tried a 4K monitor in retina mode and it's not a good experience. The effective resolution is only 1920x1080. 4K video looks great but it's a step down in terms of usable desktop space.
I don't see the interest in such an iMac model. It will be very expensive, well into the Mac Pro territory, and then what? You will have to throw away after 3-5 years maximum the machine together with a perfect 4K (or more) display? Or try to sell it? It will still be expensive because of the display while the rest of the computer will be obsolete. No matter how you look at it, it does not make sense today for an all-in-one computer.
That may mean a redesign too. I don't like the look of current iMacs. I don't like that round back and false thinness. I want to buy one new one in 2015 so hopefully !
I am afraid that it is way too early for this kind of change. Let's not forget that the current iMac design is not even two years old and for many months Apple had trouble to get out enough machines to meet demand.
I am afraid that it is way too early for this kind of change. Let's not forget that the current iMac design is not even two years old and for many months Apple had trouble to get out enough machines to meet demand.
And also with a resolution that high you would want the GPU to have lots of cooling headroom, so the round back will probably remain. Though, there is often clever unexpected ways to do cooling. And if it loses the hard-drive and goes pure SSD, well maybe they could make it even thinner?
I am afraid that it is way too early for this kind of change. Let's not forget that the current iMac design is not even two years old and for many months Apple had trouble to get out enough machines to meet demand.
Yes, but the 2007 iMac I own had a design used for one year only if I'm not mistaken (maybe 2 maximum) and then they went edge-to-edge glass.
I actually prefer squared iMacs. So something thinner but not rounded on the back. I doubt they'll do it however knowing that they can't do thinner than currently while making is squared. I would love a less rounded back though.
And also with a resolution that high you would want the GPU to have lots of cooling headroom, so the round back will probably remain. Though, there is often clever unexpected ways to do cooling. And if it loses the hard-drive and goes pure SSD, well maybe they could make it even thinner?
Yes, there is indeed this issue. Not sure what kind of GPU would be needed to push so many pixels at acceptable frame rates. The iMac has mobile GPU, which would be perhaps sufficient for general use, but what about games? Apple, and any other company for that matter, likes to show increased performance when updating a computer system.
On the other hand, many photo/video professionals use iMacs when they cannot afford or justify the expense for a Mac Pro. So, would not it be more reasonable to expect an iMac model with a 10-bit color display and unchanged resolution instead of a 4K one? For example I saw recently that LG has a very nice pivoting monitor of this kind at about 650 euros (retail price, 27" model). The standalone Apple display is much more expensive (1000 euros), more heavy and it has 8-bit color.
Could someone detail the value of an iMac pushing 6400 pixels over the standard 4K rez?
Because aside from inflating the cost of the GPU needed, I'm not sure I see the point.
Note that every single display that has gone Retina has doubled the resolution/quadrupled the number of pixels. For the 27" iMac to go 4K UHD that would be exactly 1.5x, not 2x. That means they would have to incorporate some other sort of scaling. Perhaps they want to keep the UI elements the same relative pixel height without using a default mode that negatively affects performance, as noted by using the non-Best options.
Unless we're talking about a larger display. If we cut the resolution in half we get 3200×1800.
Now if we take the 27" iMac is 2560×1440 we get a 108.79 PPI. To equal that PPI with a 3200×1800 resolution it would be a 33.75" display, but that has some leeway while still offering text that is in the same ballpark as the current iMac and ATD displays.
So is this a sign that Apple will be increasing the size?
Which is still wrong, though. 2560x1440 doubled is 5120x2880. 1920x1080 doubled is 3840x2160.
I made no mistake in my calculations. The reason why Apple doubles the resolution for Retina is so objects can sharper without altering their size. My calculations show that to keep everything at the exact same size the display would be 33.75" for the stated resolution. IOW, the Menu Bar between a 27" iMac and a 33.75" Retina iMac would be exactly the same height.
The reason why Apple doubles the resolution for Retina is so objects can sharper without altering their size. My calculations show that to keep everything at the exact same size the display would be 33.75" for the stated resolution.
Seems strange that every time they’ve 2x’d resolution so far the physical display size remains the same, but here it doesn’t…
Okay, Yosemite is BLURRING text when it changes, and my Menu Bar is constantly blurry. This is seriously hurting my eyes…
Seems strange that every time they’ve 2x’d resolution so far the physical display size remains the same, but here it doesn’t…
Okay, Yosemite is BLURRING text when it changes, and my Menu Bar is constantly blurry. This is seriously hurting my eyes…
But every time they've doubled the resolution and the evidence here they are going above it. My calculations are showing what the the display would be for objects to be the same size on both systems.
So we either have the 27" iMac going from about 109 PPI to a relative 135.98 PPI, which I think is a big difference, or we have Apple going with a larger display. I think the latter is more likely.
Comments
If they can make a retina iMac, then they can make a retina 17" laptop.
Of course they "can" make a retina 17" laptop. The question is should they, and will they? The answers are no and no, as they should be. That product does not deserve to exist. The addressable market is tiny. I don't know who the hell the 17" would be for. It's barely portable. If you really need more screen than the 15" retina, then just get an iMac. a 17" is the worst of both worlds. Which is why you barely see anyone with a 17" laptop, and barely see anyone making them.
Could someone detail the value of an iMac pushing 6400 pixels over the standard 4K rez?
Because aside from inflating the cost of the GPU needed, I'm not sure I see the point.
I could not put up with the niggles you described, but very nice of you to post the results of your experiment. Thanks!
Yeah, it's really the same kind of niggles you'd get on any multi-monitor Mac setup.
I remember when Mavericks came out they were crowing about all the improvements they'd made to multi-monitor support. But the first time I go to use it, they haven't even implemented the naive/obvious multi-monitor mode, which is to just ignore all boundaries and treat all monitors as one big canvas. That is, with a menu bar across the top of the whole canvas, and a Dock centred on the whole canvas, and full screen apps that fill the whole canvas. That kind of mode would be perfect for this application. I think Ubuntu can do that.
I've tried a 4K monitor in retina mode and it's not a good experience. The effective resolution is only 1920x1080. 4K video looks great but it's a step down in terms of usable desktop space.
6.5K will be much better.
I don't see the interest in such an iMac model. It will be very expensive, well into the Mac Pro territory, and then what? You will have to throw away after 3-5 years maximum the machine together with a perfect 4K (or more) display? Or try to sell it? It will still be expensive because of the display while the rest of the computer will be obsolete. No matter how you look at it, it does not make sense today for an all-in-one computer.
That may mean a redesign too.
I am afraid that it is way too early for this kind of change. Let's not forget that the current iMac design is not even two years old and for many months Apple had trouble to get out enough machines to meet demand.
I am afraid that it is way too early for this kind of change. Let's not forget that the current iMac design is not even two years old and for many months Apple had trouble to get out enough machines to meet demand.
And also with a resolution that high you would want the GPU to have lots of cooling headroom, so the round back will probably remain. Though, there is often clever unexpected ways to do cooling. And if it loses the hard-drive and goes pure SSD, well maybe they could make it even thinner?
I am afraid that it is way too early for this kind of change. Let's not forget that the current iMac design is not even two years old and for many months Apple had trouble to get out enough machines to meet demand.
Yes, but the 2007 iMac I own had a design used for one year only if I'm not mistaken (maybe 2 maximum) and then they went edge-to-edge glass.
I actually prefer squared iMacs. So something thinner but not rounded on the back. I doubt they'll do it however knowing that they can't do thinner than currently while making is squared. I would love a less rounded back though.
Well no one knows yet, but this is Apple we're talking about.
Actually we DO know.The original link says that the file specifically mentions iMacs.
And also with a resolution that high you would want the GPU to have lots of cooling headroom, so the round back will probably remain. Though, there is often clever unexpected ways to do cooling. And if it loses the hard-drive and goes pure SSD, well maybe they could make it even thinner?
Yes, there is indeed this issue. Not sure what kind of GPU would be needed to push so many pixels at acceptable frame rates. The iMac has mobile GPU, which would be perhaps sufficient for general use, but what about games? Apple, and any other company for that matter, likes to show increased performance when updating a computer system.
On the other hand, many photo/video professionals use iMacs when they cannot afford or justify the expense for a Mac Pro. So, would not it be more reasonable to expect an iMac model with a 10-bit color display and unchanged resolution instead of a 4K one? For example I saw recently that LG has a very nice pivoting monitor of this kind at about 650 euros (retail price, 27" model). The standalone Apple display is much more expensive (1000 euros), more heavy and it has 8-bit color.
Because aside from inflating the cost of the GPU needed, I'm not sure I see the point.
Retina display. Better UX.
Note that every single display that has gone Retina has doubled the resolution/quadrupled the number of pixels. For the 27" iMac to go 4K UHD that would be exactly 1.5x, not 2x. That means they would have to incorporate some other sort of scaling. Perhaps they want to keep the UI elements the same relative pixel height without using a default mode that negatively affects performance, as noted by using the non-Best options.
Of course, 6400x3600 is completely wrong, too.
Unless we're talking about a larger display. If we cut the resolution in half we get 3200×1800.
Now if we take the 27" iMac is 2560×1440 we get a 108.79 PPI. To equal that PPI with a 3200×1800 resolution it would be a 33.75" display, but that has some leeway while still offering text that is in the same ballpark as the current iMac and ATD displays.
So is this a sign that Apple will be increasing the size?
So is this a sign that Apple will be increasing the size?
If Apple is really going to increase the resolution, then I believe that a larger display (> 30") for the iMac is quite probable.
Which is still wrong, though. 2560x1440 doubled is 5120x2880. 1920x1080 doubled is 3840x2160.
I made no mistake in my calculations. The reason why Apple doubles the resolution for Retina is so objects can sharper without altering their size. My calculations show that to keep everything at the exact same size the display would be 33.75" for the stated resolution. IOW, the Menu Bar between a 27" iMac and a 33.75" Retina iMac would be exactly the same height.
Seems strange that every time they’ve 2x’d resolution so far the physical display size remains the same, but here it doesn’t…
Okay, Yosemite is BLURRING text when it changes, and my Menu Bar is constantly blurry. This is seriously hurting my eyes…
But every time they've doubled the resolution and the evidence here they are going above it. My calculations are showing what the the display would be for objects to be the same size on both systems.
So we either have the 27" iMac going from about 109 PPI to a relative 135.98 PPI, which I think is a big difference, or we have Apple going with a larger display. I think the latter is more likely.