iMac lifespan

[clasqm]

One way to go about things would be to get the mac mini and pair that with a decent 24 inch IPS monitor which are already quite cheap. You can then upgrade the screen when a quality 27 inch 4K retina monitor comes out.

It's all very easy for us to say "retina". Has anyone done the math? The 13" MBPRet is struggling to keep up with the screen, according to recent reviews. The 15" MBPRet only manages it by running 2, count them, two GPUs. And now we casually talk about a 27" retina screen?

Let's take that 15 incher. It runs 2880-by-1800 native resolution at 220 pixels per inch. Which my calculator tells me equals 5 184 000 pixels.

Now, the iMac. Intuitively, you might think that 27 is less than twice 15 so that must be around 8 million pixels.

Not so. The current iMac runs at 2560 x 1440 at a miserable 109 ppi so to double that to 218 ppi (close enough to 220 to make no nevermind) would mean 5120 x 2880. Hmm, back to calculator ... 14 745 600

So, my technically-inclined friends, is there an actual graphics card that could handle such an insane number of pixels? No, not the water-cooled once-off they developed at JPL to render Hubble photos, but one with a consumer-priced GPU? I'm seriously asking, it's been a long time since I worried my head about these things.

Considering that they throw away a screen if even a single pixel is dead, what kind of yield would the factories get? Could it actually be produced at a price that mere mortals could afford? Yes, I know that 4K TVs already exist. I also know you have to sell a few relatives into slavery to buy one.

All these are technical problems. I'm sure they are working on them. No doubt most of us will live to see retina iMacs. But I don't see it happening so soon that you should be paralyzed and prevented from buying something you need now. That's tech, after all: there's always something better coming around the bend.

 

[Zyzzyva]

It's all very easy for us to say "retina". Has anyone done the math? The 13" MBPRet is struggling to keep up with the screen, according to recent reviews. The 15" MBPRet only manages it by running 2, count them, two GPUs. And now we casually talk about a 27" retina screen?

Let's take that 15 incher. It runs 2880-by-1800 native resolution at 220 pixels per inch. Which my calculator tells me equals 5 184 000 pixels.

Now, the iMac. Intuitively, you might think that 27 is less than twice 15 so that must be around 8 million pixels.

Not so. The current iMac runs at 2560 x 1440 at a miserable 109 ppi so to double that to 218 ppi (close enough to 220 to make no nevermind) would mean 5120 x 2880. Hmm, back to calculator ... 14 745 600

So, my technically-inclined friends, is there an actual graphics card that could handle such an insane number of pixels? No, not the water-cooled once-off they developed at JPL to render Hubble photos, but one with a consumer-priced GPU? I'm seriously asking, it's been a long time since I worried my head about these things.

Considering that they throw away a screen if even a single pixel is dead, what kind of yield would the factories get? Could it actually be produced at a price that mere mortals could afford? Yes, I know that 4K TVs already exist. I also know you have to sell a few relatives into slavery to buy one.

All these are technical problems. I'm sure they are working on them. No doubt most of us will live to see retina iMacs. But I don't see it happening so soon that you should be paralyzed and prevented from buying something you need now. That's tech, after all: there's always something better coming around the bend.

You sit further away so the dpi doesnt need to be that high. In the same batch of IGZO displays announced by sharp quite some time ago, which is believed to be the likely screen tech we will see in the next ipad, sharp showed off a near 4K 32 inch panel. I figure retina will happen within the next 2 or so revisions. But ja, waiting wouldnt be worth it if you need a mac now. But if you are sitting pretty without much reason to upgrade it's definitely something to consider. My 27 inch imac is running flawlessly and does everything i want it to, so i'll wait.

 

[Guantanamo]

If you get one with a Fusion Drive and upgrade the RAM to 16GB you won't need another desktop for 4 or 5 years minimum.

 

[Space_Chief]

It's all very easy for us to say "retina". Has anyone done the math? The 13" MBPRet is struggling to keep up with the screen, according to recent reviews. The 15" MBPRet only manages it by running 2, count them, two GPUs. And now we casually talk about a 27" retina screen?

This is false unless you speak of higher end games. The default 2D display at Retina Optimal setting or per pixel setting - everything is tiny, is run by default on the HD4000 integrated chipset. Only if you launch Final Cut, an OpenGL game or Photoshop will the Kepler based NVIDIA GPU kick in. The 4000 IGP is more than adequate to browse the web or watch 1080p video.

 

[clasqm]

You sit further away so the dpi doesnt need to be that high.

We've let them get away with that argument twice now. Once when the iPad 3 didn't quite match up to the iPhone4, then again when the MBPRet didn't quite have the same ppi as either. Apple could just save themselves the trouble at this rate and declare the current iMac to be already "retina"

 

[macboer]

No use waiting for retina. You will wait for 5 years.