They put the "Retina" display in the iMac. This means people will buy it. Higher volume means whoever (LG, I think?) is manufacturing the screens will have to produce more, driving the cost down. That means they will sell variants. Then their competition will also sell competitive options because nobody will want 1080p on a computer screen anymore.
Monitor technology has been stalled for years. This is going to be a gigantic kick in the pants to the industry!
Now I just need to wait for the consumer version of the rift.
Dell's 4K screens came up here yesterday. Here's what I had to say about those: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8459298
I like DP better than HDMI politically, but if you have a screen with HDMI 2.0 support that's a much safer bet than DisplayPort 1.2 is.
I imagine any HDMI 2.0 4k screens to not use it, and even if they are still on DP 1.2, they would start showing a single display.
Starting with the Samsung U28D590D[1], many 4k displays use single stream transport on DP 1.2.
Also, for 5k, you actually have to wait for DisplayPort 1.3 (if you want 60hz), because there's not enough bandwidth, multi stream transport or not. There's a neat bandwidth calculator at [2].
4k is 11.94 GBit/s without overhead, 5k is 21.23 GBit/s. DisplayPort 1.2 and 1.3 are 17.28 Gbit/s and 25.92 Gbit/s respectively.
This unfortunately means no 120hz 5k displays on even DP 1.3 without compression (which is supported).
[1] http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Displays/Video-Perspective-Sams...
Which makes this announcement quite strange. If this iMac doesn't support Thunderbolt 3 (or whatever standard Apple is planning), it'll never be usable as an external monitor.
IMO, it would have been more Apple-y to launch this and refreshed Mac Pros simultaneously with TB 3, allowing Mac Pros to drive two (or more) 5k displays while the rest of the PC world is still tripping over 4k. But I guess this segment isn't a priority for them any more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbolt_%28interface%29#Thu...
With DisplayPort 1.3 now released, I'd be pretty surprised if manufacturers messed around with dual DP 1.2 inputs for displays like Dell's upcoming 5k. Such things are tolerated when there is no alternative, but when it's just a matter of requiring a new video card for a tenth the price of the high end display, that's the only sensible option. This is extreme early adopter tech after all. 5k is yesterday's 4k.
And needless to say, if I'm speculating it's too messy for Dell, Apple won't touch it with a ten foot pole :)
Still, stranger things have happened. If the demand turns out to be there, the products will follow - it's certainly technically possible.
But if DP 1.3 is around the corner, and dual TB would be an ugly hack that is mutually exclusive with the new standard, I could see them steering clear from that.
not true. It has one DVI connector, albeit a dual-link one (the DVI connector supports two concurrent channels).
Source: Me looking at the machine my 30" cinema display is connected to.
In principle, Apple could do something similar again, with an adaptor for two Thunderbolt 2 connectors (from separate buses!) In practice, they'll probably just wait for Displayport 1.3, tho.
[0]: http://www.maximumpc.com/dells_5k_monitor_pre_reviewed_2014
1. http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00KG5LWM4 - eq278c, 27"@2880x1620 = 122ppi, $765
2. http://www.amazon.com/AURIA-EQ308C-30-2880-1620/dp/B00KG5LSB... - eq308c, 30"@2880x1620 = 110ppi, $1075
3. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00JR6GCZA - LG 34UM95, 34"@3440x1440 = 110ppi, $999
EDIT: 4k on ~30" is too high resolution. 4k on ~40" is too big/wide.
Also, for the same price, you can get the same 28" 4k Samsung monitor from Amazon (search for samsung u28d590d).
What?
You mean Windows. KDE is iffy (but I use it just fine and was able to scale my fonts / frames up enough on my 150 DPI notebook), but Gnome in its latest release has fantastic high dpi support.
It is an unmentioned consequence of Windows being a piece of shit in regards to DPI that holds back the desktop display industry, whereas Androids inherent scalability let smartphones race for big pixels.
*disclaimer: MS employee who is just enthusiastic about "viva la resolution."
I'm in the market for a retina iMac but expect to turn down the virtual resolution a few notches to make the UI a bit more readable. I find the system text on the non retina 27" machines a bit small, but scaling it up on those panels makes it look crap due to scaling artefacts that just shouldn't happen on a retina panel.
Just to clarify: the scaling artefacts are still there; they're just half the size (and one quarter the area).
Apple is very unlikely to go through the trouble of implementing "pixel tripling" just to accommodate people like you and me, but wouldn't it be sweet? :)
[1]: A rectangle 1706 pixels by 960 pixels contains .93 as many pixels as one 1680 by 1050 contains.
I really don't need Retina-level resolution, though it'd be pleasant. Maybe in a year or two.
But having a single monitor this wide is really a treat, as I never could stand a dual-monitor setup. One of them is going to be your main monitor, facing you, and one of them will be on one side or the other, somewhat ruining the effect of the combined width.
-------
* ---
/ \
*
---
/
*
I would prefer to have one wide monitor, but with a curve.
I'm not sure. I have a 30" widescreen at work I primarily use in isolation (the laptop next to it is pretty puny by comparison), and dualies in a laptop-monitor-monitor arrangement as in Example 2 at home.
The single monitor is wide and requires much scanning, but I think I prefer the experience to multi-monitor window management. I just end up not using the far right screen except in the most necessary situations (design + code + browser)
27" 1440p IPS 120Hz. $450.
Given that Dell's 5k 27" screen is priced similarly to these iMacs, I think the economies of scale could help push some prices down.
Walk through any best buy and that res will far and away be most common.
I for one welcome our new high-DPI overlords.
I've been using them for years for inexpensive yet high quality cables, I thought their reputation was pretty well established. Maybe I missed a scandal out there somewhere.
which i believe is true as they have in my experience the best return policy anywhere.
In the cheapest LCD monitors, the brightness control just changes pixel values and doesn't affect the backlight. Hope this one's better, since the claimed brightness of 350 cd/m^2 is far too bright (you should have less than 120 cd/m^2 in a dark room) and is probably bad for your health.
I'd guess they've fixed it, but there's no way you could tell from their "tech specs", which just list the same huge numbers (1.07 billion colors!) as every other manufacturer's LCD.
It's a little worrying to see a Contrast control, too, since that makes no physical sense.
But OK, ask me again when I will have been using these resolution monsters for a week :-). If ever, I wish :-).
Many of these new monitors use PWM for brightness which gives headaches
I understand this is a big + for monitors. I have used Dell ultra-sharp 32" @ 3840x2160 with display port and it's fantastic. Larger workspace, better gaming, better multitasking!
I care a lot about text, because that's what I consume almost exclusively day in day out at work and in my spare time when I sit in front of a screen. And nothing profits more from high contrast and high pixel density than text rendering.
I just inherited a Dell XPS 13 with a really nice Full HD screen from a coworker who quit. I've got running Ubuntu on it with a scaling factor of 1.5. Not quite Retina, but pretty sweet nonetheless. I was going to use it with an external screen, but after getting used to this laptop I couldn't stand looking at the external screen anymore and got rid of it. Work (programming and writing) is a lot more fun with this setup.
My spouse just got a 13 inch Retina MBP. She's pretty stoked as well. Even her half blind mom can see the difference.
High resolution screens are great and as sooner they become standard the better.