Unless you were standing less than 6 feet away there is no way you were noticing the pixels.
The average viewing distance is 7-10 feet.
At average viewing distances there is no perceptible difference between HD and 4k on a TV under 70 inches.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac Pro/OS X 4K Display Compatibility 'Like the Wild West', Some 4K Monitors Unsupported
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Unless you were standing less than 6 feet away there is no way you were noticing the pixels.
The average viewing distance is 7-10 feet.
At average viewing distances there is no perceptible difference between HD and 4k on a TV under 70 inches.
Yep, because how could you possible upgrade midtower Mac Pro, right?
Knew I should have put that "current" in there, since the mid-tower Mac Pro is no longer in Apple's line-up.
What do you want to have hanging off it? The max is 4x 5watt usb or 6x10 watt Thunderbolt. It's fully capable of that.
A PCIe port shares a machines bandwidth so while you may be ables to say copy some files at faster speed it will slow the machine down. Thunderbolt is on a separate controller.
Also while it's only 4x PCie over thunderbolt. In actual real world cases Cards such as the Red rocket only operate at 5% less speed in a Thunderbolt Chassis, Such is the overhead... and the fact your computer is doing other things at the same time. PCIe3 is a different matter of course, but even that at the moment that doesn't seem make much difference compared to PCIe2.
Of course it's not for everyone. But for small studios it's fantastic. Very powerful, possibility of having shared TB2 storage and PCie cards, no need to buy one for each machine. But what PCIe cards do you want to use?
So, despite the fact that you know that Apple will use panels from different suppliers for the same product, you conclude from your one sample of TB display and one sample of iMac that the iMac panels are clearly inferior? If there is panel variation within one product line, concluding anything from a very small sample is just rather meaningless. In particular since we have reports in this thread that say their iMac displays are fine. The only thing you can conclude is that there are variations but attributing that to the product lines based on your personal sample of at most a few devices while ignoring reports that tell the opposite is just cherry-picking the results that support your bias.
Of course I was standing less than 6 ft away in a big box store. But even still the clarity was stunning w/ 4K material vs 1080p sets. It was the most lifelike TV picture I've ever seen.
Another much ado about nothing filler article. I read the anandtech article and when taken out of context it appears apples fault. The fault really lies in the fact like Anand La Shimpi said the 4k standard is in its infancy and not completed. Therefore things are not done. Anyone heared of firmware updates? This is what there for to bring devices in computers up to the finished standard once there released.
Articles like this are complete rubbish. And are click bait at best.
Articles like this are complete rubbish. And are click bait at best.
Not really sure if you understood what I wrote. The poster I was responding to said Apple didn't know anything about making displays. I tried to refute him. I made no comparison of Mac to PC so not sure why you threw that in. Also I stated Cinema Display monitors, not iMacs. Again, not sure why you added that to the mix. Apple in the early LCD days had a reputation of making great displays and does have some experience in the area, even if they are not the leader anymore. That was my point.
----------
Because that is what leaders do... they don't do what is easy, but what pushes XYZ forward. In Apple's case technology. Of course they used 3rd party panels. I didn't suggest otherwise. Apple also uses 3rd party CPU and GPUs in its Macs. Point is Apple could have sold a ton more TN panels at a lower price point just like every other monitor company, but knew they were junk and pushed IPS panels into the consumer/prosumer market. Now they are far more commonplace than when Cinema Displays first came on the market in the late 90s.
But I did not say Apple IS a leader of displays, I said they were a leader at one time. Big difference.
Also your quoted hyperbole isn't mine. I think it's a bit disingenuous to use quotes as if I wrote it or anything to that position.
I did get the disambiguation there, and I had a fair amount of experience with those and others. They were popular, but nothing in that price range used a TN panel, which was why I commented on it. If you recall from that era, Apple's aluminum cinema displays started above $1000. The 20" started at $1300. They were probably one of the better ones in that price range, but not by much. Predominantly I had wanted to point out that few displays above $1000 used TN panels. I won't say none, because I'm not sure of that, especially in larger sizes. It's not really practical to compare Apple to the low end ones that cost half as much.
I'm just trying to say, that one expects consistent quality from products, marketed as being "premium" (with quite "premium" price too). Not the "if you're lucky to get Samsung panel in there" kind of quality.
If I'm buying Porsche, I don't expect windshield to crack the next day, because they've "had issues with the supplier, and we don't consider this an issue, you can still drive, right? so piss off" - there's quality control for that.
A good analogy is like a boat, sometimes you can't get the horses to run even if there's enough for everyone to eat at the table.
Hm, you don't say. The original NeXT Computer and the NeXTstation both came with a keyboard and mouse. In fact, they even came with a display.
Whether someone prefers to use another keyboard or mouse with the MP is irrelevant. A Mac should be always be usable out of the box, aside from the display. I don't think cost was the issue here; this is just some guy in marketing thinking the packaging should be tiny.
I disagree ....
Even if this were completely accurate, it really has nothing to do with this Mac Pro 4K monitor compatibility problem -- which is all about OS X not allowing users to select the native resolution of the display (combined possibly with that happening on purpose, because of limitations of bandwidth over the current cable connections they attach with?).
But yes, I've connected several different displays to the retina MBPro 15" and they've all looked just fine. Sometimes you need to take the time to do an advanced calibration on the display -- but that's nothing new.
Even if this were completely accurate, it really has nothing to do with this Mac Pro 4K monitor compatibility problem -- which is all about OS X not allowing users to select the native resolution of the display (combined possibly with that happening on purpose, because of limitations of bandwidth over the current cable connections they attach with?).
But yes, I've connected several different displays to the retina MBPro 15" and they've all looked just fine. Sometimes you need to take the time to do an advanced calibration on the display -- but that's nothing new.
Don't you dare tell me about "Apple Monitor".
I am typing this on an 27" iMac that has flickering screen and yellow tint and uneven lighting. Had to buy Apple Care just for this. Apple store says if they see screen flicker then they will replace it. So it happens randomly and can't reproduce the issue when needed. Waiting for a day when I can record it using my iPhone as proof and take it to them!
You're obviously not a pro user. Would you suggest I delay my business launch plans and lay people off while I wait for Tim Cook to pull his thumb out of his butt and do something? Yeah right. Go back to your iPad.
I'd have to see what it looks like but I personally suspect that I would like the native resolution and the screen real estate benefit much better.
I don't like for instance how retina displays look at their intended resolution. There is less space available than on the old hi res laptops. Most things in OS X look too big in my opinion. So 4K at native unscaled resolution may just be the thing for me.
I don't like for instance how retina displays look at their intended resolution. There is less space available than on the old hi res laptops. Most things in OS X look too big in my opinion. So 4K at native unscaled resolution may just be the thing for me.
And if you buy that one Porsche with the windshield cracking, do you go around and say that BMW's have better windshields?
If a product shows faults at delivery or doing the warranty period, you take that up with the vendor and don't go around blasting the vendor as 'only' selling sub-par products. I don't know why people keep making conclusions from a sample of one or two. Probably because it is in the human nature to find patterns and the prevailing sentiment of instant gratification means whenever there is slightest possibility of feeling good for having found a pattern, we find one. The other explanation is naturally the gratification we get by pissing on somebody's lawn, if they have pissed on ours.
----------
Why aside from the display but not aside of the keyboard? Either a Mac is usable out of the box or it isn't. Do you think it is likelier that people already have a monitor but not a keyboard and mouse?
I have enough keyboards in my cupboard already that I don't need another one. I also don't need another mouse. It's wasteful to include something that a lot of people don't need.
But I guess, if you had your say, the Mac mini would come in package twice the size it currently comes in.
----------
I think you mixed something up here. The complaints here are that Apple only allows you to select the native resolution but not one scaled using the double-res trick to make things look better.
This is exactly what I needed to know about the display support in the new Mac Pro. Good info. I'm hoping a new Apple display will come soon and support high PPI modes, or that Apple supports these in current 4K displays. I don't want tiny GUI objects and text, nor do I want them blurry.
Apple & Displays
I'm so stunningly pissed off at Apple regarding their attitude toward the Mac side of their coin, and how they are letting it all but languish, I hardly know how to put it into words.
The Thunderbolt Display -- their only branded display offering -- is well over 800 days old. There's zero excuse for that. Their should have been a refresh when the product line started going USB3 well over a year ago, and then again in late 2012 (IIRC) when the redesigned iMacs took their first bow.
Feeling bitter, but can't say I'm too surprised; the money is in iDevices and that's where the focus of the company is. Good on them for that, I guess.
I'm so stunningly pissed off at Apple regarding their attitude toward the Mac side of their coin, and how they are letting it all but languish, I hardly know how to put it into words.
The Thunderbolt Display -- their only branded display offering -- is well over 800 days old. There's zero excuse for that. Their should have been a refresh when the product line started going USB3 well over a year ago, and then again in late 2012 (IIRC) when the redesigned iMacs took their first bow.
Feeling bitter, but can't say I'm too surprised; the money is in iDevices and that's where the focus of the company is. Good on them for that, I guess.