FWIW, the only other 5k monitor I can find is from Dell. It's also $2500.[1]
In other words, buy a Retina Cinema Display, get the computer to power it for free.
[1]: http://www.maximumpc.com/dells_5k_monitor_pre_reviewed_2014
In other words, buy a Retina Cinema Display, get the computer to power it for free.
[1]: http://www.maximumpc.com/dells_5k_monitor_pre_reviewed_2014
I can understand why Apple is not in a hurry to sell this just as a display. This display could likely not be driven at all by all of their most popular Macs: all the MacBooks and the Mac mini. Maybe it would work with the Mac Pro, but that’s it. And that Mac Pro is probably not the best selling Mac, by a large margin. So they would basically sell this display that only works with a Mac Pro.
I can understand how that might seem like a wasted effort until at least a couple more widely selling Macs support the display. Maybe when the MacBook Pros can do it they will start selling just the display.
With the iMac the advantage is that Apple is delivering it with a computer that definitely can push those pixels, so you dodge all compatibility woes that will plague these high-res displays for a couple more years. It seems like the still had to get in there and do some weird custom stuff and maybe that’s just hard or impossible to do if you have to do it in a display that is hooked up to some random GPU from Apple’s past Macs.
This was very nice when the view connection was DVI, but the current ThunderBolt connections limit it to other systems with ThunderBolt and the appropriate drivers. This limits it to pretty much using the display with other Macs.
My quick review of the Apple's tech spec for the new iMac doesn't say if it has this feature.
DP1.2 however only supports 4k resolutions.
Not sure about having to be an Apple keyboard- probably works with any keyboard as long as you know which key is mapped to command. (Usually the "OS" key).
"The new Retina iMac does not work as an external display."
It has a lot of compatibility problems, and is hacky as hell. I doubt Apple would adopt this as an official/first-class solution to anything.
Solving "compatibility problems" is what Apple do best by requiring you have an Apple Mac Pro and an Apple Cinema Display and not supporting any other configuration
I was really against buying the glossy screen but the matte looks washed out compared to the glossy. If your display is around 60% or above brightness then you really dont have a glare issue.
The annoying thing is that it's nearly impossible to find a glossy screen on the market.
An artist friend of mine has what is essentially a white cotton muslin curtain that goes around their work area which keeps reflections down to near zero (without being in the dark) and only uses glossy displays. It would drive me nuts but I see the attraction.
And if you're using a laptop outside of a home/personal office environment (which laptops are presumably built for), you don't have control over lighting either.
For tablets and mobile devices which generally aren't used for working at long stretches, I guess I can see the appeal. But it's really strange to me that glossy is popular on machines people do use for long-stretch work -- and often in high-glare overhead lighting open-plan offices.
(And not only popular, but increasingly the only available option.)
AR coatings on touch screens are problematic because skin oils make visible marks, but on non-touch glossy screens they should be standard. Indeed, back in the CRT era, it was routine for high-end CRTs to be coated.
I have noticed that Apple is using a coated screen for at least one model of MacBook Air, but for some reason they don't seem to have fully embraced coated screens.
When I made an exception and bought a notebook with glossy display I regretted that a short time later. Glossy display? Never again!
Funny thing, it was also the case for the first 27" imac
Update: it works in 60Hz @ 4K.