• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

New 2014 iMacs referenced in OS X 10.9.4 - June 2014 release?

Eug

Eug

Lifer
http://pikeralpha.wordpress.com/2014/05/28/os-x-mavericks-10-9-4-build-13e9-seeded/

The most interesting part is the addition of three new resources (plist) files for power management:

Mac-81E3E92DD6088272.plist / iMac15,1 (IGPU only)
Mac-42FD25EABCABB274.plist / iMac15,n (IGPU/GFX0/Apple display with id 0xAE03)
Mac-FA842E06C61E91C5.plist / iMac15,n (IGPU/GFX0/Apple display with id 0xAE03)

The EDID data for the display is set to a screen size of 60 x 34 CM but the resolution data is blank.

The iMac15,x models currently don't exist. It should also be noted that 60 x 34 cm = 27" diagonal, so to my disappointment (although not surprisingly), it looks like they're keeping the screen sizes the same, and I'm guessing the same resolutions. I'd love to see something like a 24" Retina 4K model instead: Retina, with nice large text sizes, and an ergonomically more appropriate height.
 
Eug said:
http://pikeralpha.wordpress.com/2014/05/28/os-x-mavericks-10-9-4-build-13e9-seeded/

The most interesting part is the addition of three new resources (plist) files for power management:

Mac-81E3E92DD6088272.plist / iMac15,1 (IGPU only)
Mac-42FD25EABCABB274.plist / iMac15,n (IGPU/GFX0/Apple display with id 0xAE03)
Mac-FA842E06C61E91C5.plist / iMac15,n (IGPU/GFX0/Apple display with id 0xAE03)

The EDID data for the display is set to a screen size of 60 x 34 CM but the resolution data is blank.

The iMac15,x models currently don't exist. It should also be noted that 60 x 34 cm = 27" diagonal, so to my disappointment (although not surprisingly), it looks like they're keeping the screen sizes the same, and I'm guessing the same resolutions. I'd love to see something like a 24" Retina 4K model instead: Retina, with nice large text sizes, and an ergonomically more appropriate height.
Click to expand...

Just another minor update(Haswell refresh and possibly a price cut). The major redesign and switch to 4k probably won't happen until Skylake launches next year.
 
Wreckem said:
Just another minor update(Haswell refresh and possibly a price cut). The major redesign and switch to 4k probably won't happen until Skylake launches next year.
Click to expand...
Why specifically Skylake? What integrated GPU is necessary for 4K? Haswell does support 4K, but it seems it's a bit iffy so far.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7007/intels-haswell-an-htpc-perspective/7

Note though, the higher end iMac models will likely get discrete GPUs anyway, and I suspect that initially only the higher end iMacs will get Retina (assuming they actually do get Retina in the foreseeable future).
 
64GB SSD + 1TB "Fusion" drive would be nice for the base model....

And/or lower the 128GB SSD + 1TB "Fusion" option, from the ridiculous $180 up-charge...
 
jaydee said:
64GB SSD + 1TB "Fusion" drive would be nice for the base model....

And/or lower the 128GB SSD + 1TB "Fusion" option, from the ridiculous $180 up-charge...
Click to expand...

Why is Fusion in quotes?

Anyway, when they first rolled it out, the $180 wasn't quite as ridiculous an upcharge as it is now.

I was trying to see how much Dell and HP charged to change the HDDs in their AIOs... except you can't. They ship with 1TB drives, or 1TB+32GB, and that's that.
 
I have been waiting for this but I will only purchase a new iMac if Apple makes them thinner while making all the external ports more difficult to access. 🙂

-KeithP
 
KeithP said:
I have been waiting for this but I will only purchase a new iMac if Apple makes them thinner while making all the external ports more difficult to access. 🙂

-KeithP
Click to expand...
I'm sure it will be thinner and the ports more difficult to use. It is what you are paying for!

Actually, I am surprised the proprietary nature of Apple doesn't include a Lightning port for Apple fans. You know, make them feel special so they can more easily connect their i[any overly priced Apple non-computer product] products and feel more part of the Apple family.
 
Eug said:
Why specifically Skylake? What integrated GPU is necessary for 4K? Haswell does support 4K, but it seems it's a bit iffy so far.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7007/intels-haswell-an-htpc-perspective/7

Note though, the higher end iMac models will likely get discrete GPUs anyway, and I suspect that initially only the higher end iMacs will get Retina (assuming they actually do get Retina in the foreseeable future).
Click to expand...

Its just total speculation on my part. 4k would almost certainly require a redesign of the iMac because the panel sizes would be different. The current Imac design is 18-20 months old depending on model. Skylake is about a year away. Meaning ~30-32 months between redesign.

The biggest issue though is price. At this time I am not sure how they can keep the iMac affordable with a reasonably high quality 4k screen. The cost of 4k screens should continue to plummet over the next year. I also believe we will likely see a stand alone 4k Apple Cinema Display before we see a 4k iMac.
 
Last edited:
I WISH Apple would release a 24" iMac again. 27" is great, but for how my desk setup is, it simple wouldn't accomodate a 27". I really want the 24" iMac to come back.
 
batmang said:
I WISH Apple would release a 24" iMac again. 27" is great, but for how my desk setup is, it simple wouldn't accomodate a 27". I really want the 24" iMac to come back.
Click to expand...

I hear ya. I am actually typing this on my 27" iMac, and while I love it, there's no getting around the fact that it's a beast. I would just as soon it were a bit smaller.
 
TreVader said:
Touch for nothing more than adobe illustrator and photoshop
Click to expand...
How would you use that though? I know some Photoshop/Illustrator jockeys, and they have no interest in touch for their iMacs either. Touch is for a tablet on the desk, as a peripheral for the iMac.

I could imagine you getting really tired quickly trying to hold your arm out in front of you for touch on the iMac.
 
MacBidouille (Google Translate): There will be a Retina iMac soon

The most interesting is inside the file ... It is primarily a "DisplayProductName = iMac" which confirms that it is an iMac.
Then, there is an array of "scaled-resolutions", the various resolutions that will appear in the preferences "Monitors"

First surprise: The structure of this table is identical to that of the Retina MacBookPro (and different from those of non-Retina displays)

The first of these resolutions indicates hexa "00001900 00000e10" is therefore a resolution scaling of ... 6400 x 3600 (probably 3200x1800 HiDPI).
Continues and is 5760x3240 (2880x1620 HiDPI) 4096x2304 (2048x1152 HiDPI), etc..
(There are other resolutions, just make the conversion from hex)

With this alone, it is not possible to guess the native resolution of the machine. This is a resolution that does not appear in the file, since it is native and does not have to be "scaled".
Knowing that there is a gap between the values ​​of 5760 and 4096, one can imagine something between these two (probably 5120x2880, 2560x1440 or in HiDPI), but this is speculation.

Original article (French): Il y aura un iMac Retina très bientôt
 
Last edited:
I wonder how much this thing is going to cost?!

Koing
 
TheStu said:
Why is Fusion in quotes?

Anyway, when they first rolled it out, the $180 wasn't quite as ridiculous an upcharge as it is now.

I was trying to see how much Dell and HP charged to change the HDDs in their AIOs... except you can't. They ship with 1TB drives, or 1TB+32GB, and that's that.
Click to expand...

Just not a fan of applying a new name to a technology that was already existing and being used by other manufacturers well before Apple. I know, it's a better implementation, but still...

I said $180, but I must have looked it up under the educational pricing. Normal pricing looks like $200 markup.

Is Apple using HP and Dell AIO's as benchmarks all of a sudden for what it should offer in it's iMac? If a very good Crucial MX100 can be had for $70/128GB and $110/256GB RETAIL, I'm hoping Apple could implement 128GB for I don't know... 100% markup instead of almost 200%? Yes, I do realize the good 128GB SSD's were about $90 last year when the most recent iMac w/"Fusion" came out.
 
I don't think Apple will be coming out with 4K displays this year. Decent panels are still pretty expensive in those sizes. Plus, there's still the 30hz problem. I'm not sure what Apple uses for the internal display connector. I'm guessing it's based on DisplayPort. I don't think 1.3 has been finalized yet to support 4K @ 60hz.

Most likely WQHD will be standardized across all models.
 
jaydee said:
Just not a fan of applying a new name to a technology that was already existing and being used by other manufacturers well before Apple. I know, it's a better implementation, but still...

I said $180, but I must have looked it up under the educational pricing. Normal pricing looks like $200 markup.

Is Apple using HP and Dell AIO's as benchmarks all of a sudden for what it should offer in it's iMac? If a very good Crucial MX100 can be had for $70/128GB and $110/256GB RETAIL, I'm hoping Apple could implement 128GB for I don't know... 100% markup instead of almost 200%? Yes, I do realize the good 128GB SSD's were about $90 last year when the most recent iMac w/"Fusion" came out.
Click to expand...

When complaining that something that an OEM does is "ridiculous", it makes sense, to me at least, to compare them against other OEMs.

Yes, I think it would make sense to either offer a 256GB SSD for the Fusion Drive at the current price, or to reduce the price if they are going to stick with the 128GB. But, considering they are the only one of the bigs that even lets you configure in a reasonably sized SSD into the system, (the others they don't get any bigger than 32GB 'cache' drives.) there isn't a whole lot of price pressure.
 
jaydee said:
Just not a fan of applying a new name to a technology that was already existing and being used by other manufacturers well before Apple. I know, it's a better implementation, but still...

I said $180, but I must have looked it up under the educational pricing. Normal pricing looks like $200 markup.

Is Apple using HP and Dell AIO's as benchmarks all of a sudden for what it should offer in it's iMac? If a very good Crucial MX100 can be had for $70/128GB and $110/256GB RETAIL, I'm hoping Apple could implement 128GB for I don't know... 100% markup instead of almost 200%? Yes, I do realize the good 128GB SSD's were about $90 last year when the most recent iMac w/"Fusion" came out.
Click to expand...

I felt stitched up when I had to pay £200 for an extra 256GB SSD and a 200MHz upgrade on my rMBP.

Koing
 
I would bet money that next Junes WWDC will have an appearance of a redesigned iMac retina. I really don't see it coming before next June. I also really think we will be seeing a standalone 4k/retina apple Cinema Display late this year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top