Mac OS X 10.10 'Yosemite' developer preview shows evidence of iMac with Retina Display

There was a plethora of announcements from this year's WWDC and, aside from unveiling iOS 8, the most notable was the announcement of the redesigned OS X 10.10 'Yosemite.' It has been reported by MacBidouille that the developer preview of 'Yosemite' includes information pertaining to resolution scaling for iMacs using Retina Display technology.

The information in the file shows that the resolution is maxed out at 6400 x 3600 pixels (3200 x 1800 for Retina Display) for the unconfirmed addition to the iMac family. According to MacRumors, the machine was first spotted in the OS X 10.9.4 beta, but this latest discovery shows that support for the iMac with Retina Display is indeed included in 'Yosemite.' Apple has been rumored to be working on an iMac with Retina Display since the release of the similarly equipped MacBook Pro back in 2012. If the rumor is true, the company could offer options similar to the MacBook Pro, which includes models both with and without Retina Displays.

It would be strange for Apple not to announce such an anticipated update for the iMac, but it is a possibility that the company could roll out an iMac with a Retina Display without a formal unveiling like when they recently updated the MacBook Air's hardware.

Source: MacBidouille via MacRumors | Image via Apple

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft's Imagine Cup enters the final round, 35 teams going after $50,000 top prize

Next Story

Text messaging banned in Central African Republic

36 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Still, even on a current non-DPI display, the screen looks decent - it's the FLATNESS of it that is jarring (compared to Mavericks in the case of Yosemite DP1, or iOS 7 compared to iOS 6). Has anyone run iOS 6 on an iPad Air, for example? In short, how does a retina display on an iDevice handle a non-flattish screen? (Same would apply with a non-Retina MacBook and Mavericks or Lion.) I am not running Yosemite on a high-DPI display; it's the same TN panel that had run Mavericks (and Windows 8.1 and earlier, and even SteamOS and Android by turns). At the end of the day, it's no more about the bling/finish than it would be about dental crowns - if it's not about effectiveness, than aesthetics doesn't matter. Yes - it's flatter than Mavericks; however, if the effectiveness of the OS (and software I need to run on the OS) is either even or improved, then the flatness is irrelevant.

My guess is that by the time OS X Yosemite is released, Apple's whole line of laptops and AIOs will have transitioned to retina displays and they'll have introduced a stand-alone retina display as well.

If you mean they will look tiny, it won't work that way. Everything will be the correct size, just sharper.

A lot of apps and sites still haven't updated their stuff for high DPI screen's... reminds me of the days when right after the iPhone 4 came out, and nobody had updated their app's for the retina display. Everything looks pixelated and blah.

Where are the new Mac Mini's? Been wanting one for ages, but I'm not about to shell out 600 bucks on 2 year old specs.

shockz said,
Where are the new Mac Mini's? Been wanting one for ages, but I'm not about to shell out 600 bucks on 2 year old specs.

You and I are in the same boat.

Meanwhile, Apple is still selling its Macbook Air 11 with a 1366x768 TN panel. It looks pretty low end compared to similarly priced ultrabooks.

looks like they are afraid of the impact of HiDPI screen on battery life.

link8506 said,
Meanwhile, Apple is still selling its Macbook Air 11 with a 1366x768 TN panel. It looks pretty low end compared to similarly priced ultrabooks.

looks like they are afraid of the impact of HiDPI screen on battery life.

Or the MacBook Air is now the entry level laptop ala MacBook.

Yea, well. they'll have to have an 'innovation', faster CPUs and a higher price tag notwithstanding. It's a joke the iMac doesn't have it already.

Why is it a joke? Screen prices have steadily declined. If they'd release a retina version 1-2 years ago, the price would have put it into the Mac Pro price category. Not to mention, the old GPU's would have struggled to drive those monsters. As it currently stands, I doubt a 780m or 880m could give you acceptable frame rates while playing demanding games. Hopefully the Maxwell 980m will help alleviated this problem.

Paul Fruehauf said,
Yea, well. they'll have to have an 'innovation', faster CPUs and a higher price tag notwithstanding. It's a joke the iMac doesn't have it already.

?

Because 27" Retina-level IPS displays are so common?

Northgrove said,

?

Because 27" Retina-level IPS displays are so common?

Thank you. Until the retina mbp no company had a laptop panel at 3200x1800 so a 27" panel at 6200x3200 won't happen until of course apple does it.

I also bet the price won't go up much. The retina mbp is evidence of that.

Northgrove said,
Because 27" Retina-level IPS displays are so common?

what is "retina level"? No marketing please.

Enron said,

what is "retina level"? No marketing please.

Double density displays, for a generic PC it'd be equivalent to going from 96ppi to 192ppi (So a 23" 1080p monitor to a 23" 4K monitor)

Most monitors are never exact (The rMBP ends up like 230ppi), but how it's done is a simple doubling.

JHBrown said,
Why is it a joke? Screen prices have steadily declined. If they'd release a retina version 1-2 years ago, the price would have put it into the Mac Pro price category. Not to mention, the old GPU's would have struggled to drive those monsters. As it currently stands, I doubt a 780m or 880m could give you acceptable frame rates while playing demanding games. Hopefully the Maxwell 980m will help alleviated this problem.

Paul is a troll - don't feed the troll. Given that many replies have come and no appearance by him speaks volumes.

Sigh, my iMac is not even that old to bother upgrading I wish I had money to upgrade to a new iMac but only thing I hate about new iMacs no more optical drives, need to get it separate.

bithush said,
Do you honestly use optical media that much?!

Interested (yet unrelated) info tidbit. I built a new PC in November that didn't have an optical drive (no space in the case for it). I bought an external optical drive for it, and it's still in the box. Haven't used it once in 7 months :)

bithush said,
Do you honestly use optical media that much?!

To be fair, you only need to use it once to make it a pain.

Majesticmerc said,

Interested (yet unrelated) info tidbit. I built a new PC in November that didn't have an optical drive (no space in the case for it). I bought an external optical drive for it, and it's still in the box. Haven't used it once in 7 months :)

I have not used any optical media in years. I can't even remember the last time I used one!

Working in design/graphics media we often send clients stuff via disk. I'm one of the few artists who uses Windows. Two of our team got the new mac pros and regularly transfer stuff to me or the rest of the team to burn to disk. One has two external CD writers on her desk now.

Some clients want disks, they're a little more old school. Other times we deal with sensitive information that we can't risk leaking (via other employees or leaked credentials allowing access) . Also they are physical meaning we can have a nice time line of the design process and all the iterations. Cheap too, we tried USB flash drives but it was too expensive. For larger stuff we do use Blu Ray or small external HDD's.

TL:DR - We use optical all the time. Just because you don't, doesn't mean I don't. As far as the home user goes. Less likely.

I'm not disagreeing with you here, there are plenty of use cases for optical drives. But if you're all getting $4,000 on a PC, what's the problem with spending an extra $20 on an external CD writer? To be honest I find external drives much more convenient than internal once since they're on my desk, rather than under it. To each their own though.

External USB optical drives are better because you can choose between a DVD or Blu-ray writer if you do actually need a drive, they are easy to replace when they break and you can share the drive between multiple computers. Why include a DVD writer in all Macs just for the sake of it?

I like the fact that Apple Macs are legacy free. I wish PC manufacturers would do the same so that we could get rid of VGA, DVI, serial, parallel, PS/2 ports, PCI slots and DVD drives.

bithush said,
Do you honestly use optical media that much?!


Well not to install Software if that is what you mean but I have many music I never ripped to iTunes I guess it is time to do it I just never bothered. I do also have iTunes Match so it is all good not worried about it really and Time Machine to do back ups also never bothered watching DVDs on my iMac never found the use for it.


The only reason I would need a optical drive I have few friends who still back up pictures on DVDs or CDs, yeah I know ridiculous kind of blame PC users PC has not really moved on to the whole Cloud thing yet.

Ace said,
I like the fact that Apple Macs are legacy free. I wish PC manufacturers would do the same so that we could get rid of VGA, DVI, serial, parallel, PS/2 ports, PCI slots and DVD drives.

What PC available today still has all those ports?

TsMkLg068426 said,
Well not to install Software if that is what you mean but I have many music I never ripped to iTunes I guess it is time to do it I just never bothered. I do also have iTunes Match so it is all good not worried about it really and Time Machine to do back ups also never bothered watching DVDs on my iMac never found the use for it.

The best thing I did was backing up all my CDs to FLAC and ripped all my DVDs - they're now sitting on a Drobo device with 10TB of storage. Media deteriorates so why not back it up to something more robust. As for the DVD drive - I have the new iMac but bought a DVD drive which I use for me, my sister and parents so I guess if you're going to use it for many computers it isn't such a waste I guess.

The only reason I would need a optical drive I have few friends who still back up pictures on DVDs or CDs, yeah I know ridiculous kind of blame PC users PC has not really moved on to the whole Cloud thing yet.

Why not use a thumb drive given how cheap a 64GB one is these days.

Enron said,
What PC available today still has all those ports?

I was talking in general, rather than about a specific PC or motherboard.