You can make a difference in the Apple Support Community!
When you sign up with your Apple Account, you can provide valuable feedback to other community members by upvoting helpful replies and User Tips.
When you sign up with your Apple Account, you can provide valuable feedback to other community members by upvoting helpful replies and User Tips.
I think that Apple states that Windows may be installed on the Retina 5K, but will there be a problem with drivers?
More importantly, will Windows drivers be in conflict with Apple's proprietary Timing Controller they've announced for this computer?
I received a 5k retina iMac today and immediately setup Windows 8.1 using the built in Bootcamp process. NO snags installing, NO driver/exclamation marks, NO lockups. Audio, Bluetooth (kb/mouse) and Network (wired/wireless) works in Win 8.1.
BOTH operating systems have the same HUGE (for me!) issue. **No 5k resolution option, so I cannot maximize the real estate**
OSX:
Windows: Allows for a native resolution setting of 4k 3840x2160.
Updating the ATI catalyst software pack from the version shipped to the latest October beta had no effect.
y2kpc, I can tell that you're very, very disappointed in your new iMac. I'd encourage not to get so discouraged yet. There may be something to your fears, but I believe that there are other explanations. Be of good cheer, mate.
You're going on the assumption that the Retina 5K iMac has a maximum resolution of 4K or less. I see no clear-cut evidence of that, yet. The reading that you report of "2560 x 1440 (optimal, Retina)" is nonsense. That's the resolution of the NON-retina 27" iMac which is CLEARLY NOT a Retina display on a 27" monitor. This report, which I do understand you merely copied (so not being critical of you), can be nothing but a bug in Yosemite's System Preferences/Display applet. Regarding the "5K wallpaper," the selection box is telling you the resolution of the image, NOT the resolution of the display. I don't think the stepping of the pixel adjustment on icon size has anything at all to do with display resolution. For example, I have two monitors; one is 2560 x 1440 (not an Apple monitor), and the other is 1920 x 1080, but the icon size adjustment occurs in 4-pixel increments on BOTH.
You state further:
"So I am convinced that with the 5K iMac Retina, Apple is using 15.7 million raw pixels (5k) in the "background", but:
1 -- only allows 3.68 Million unique/addressable pixels in OS X (2560x1440/Retina)
2 -- only allows 5.76 Million unique/addressable pixels in OS X (3200x1800)
3 -- only allows 8.29 Million unique/addressable pixels in Windows/Bootcamp (3840x2160)"
The last statement is true because it's a given that there are currently NO Windows display drivers capable of resolution higher than 4K; the first two are simply not true. For one thing, the first two statements are directly contradictory, so by the rules of logic, at least one of them has to be false, but I believe both are. No display was ever stated to be 3200 x 1800; rather, I believe the Display applet states that it "looks like" 3200 x 1800. Is that not correct? And to state [ your #1] that the 27" display on the iMac Retina 5K has the same actual resolution as the non-Retina 27" iMac (2560 x 1440) seems to border on the preposterous. If that's the case, then Apple has opened themselves wide to a large class-action law suit; do you truly think they're that incompetent?
Today, I got to see a Retina 5K at the Apple Store for the first time. It was displaying the Yosemite-logo wallpaper. With my bifocal glasses I scrutinized the details of that photo as closely as I could and compared it to the same wallpaper on a MacBook Pro Retina. I could discern NO difference, and I could not discern individual pixels, meaning that the pixel density of both is Retina-quality -- not identical, but Retina quality. On my 2560 x 1440 monitor on which I'm writing this, I can, indeed, make out individual pixels with the same spectacles. Please look as closely as you can at the Retina display on an iPhone, an iPad, or a MacBook Pro to see if you can make out individual pixels in a gray or white area and then perform the same test on your 5K. Please let us know the results.
Until there's an explanation by Apple engineers or highly-qualified 3rd-party testers, I'm not thinking that Apple "got around the maximum bandwidth limitation" by making the display lower in resolution than they're claiming and advertising. In fact, I'm off to order one. (The Apple Store here stocks only the base model; if one desires more than 8GB of RAM or the R295 display adapter, it's necessary to order online.)
Please check what your 5K display reports for the following two commands. I currently have three displays, built-in LCD, a DELL U2711 and an Apple TB (I removed extra lines in the second command output to better align them). The Color LCD is LP154WT1-SJE1 - DCN33610ATRFD4NA0
ioreg -lw0 | grep PixelCount
| | | | | | | "IOFBCurrentPixelCount" = 5630080
| | | | | | | "IOFBCurrentPixelCount" = 4028320
| | | | | | | "IOFBCurrentPixelCount" = 4028320
ioreg -lw0 | grep IODisplayEDID | sed "/[^<]*</s///" | xxd -p -r | strings -6
Color LCD
D971T13716HL DELL U2711
C02MP792F2GC Thunderbolt
BY the way, y2kpc, I wouldn't be concerned by the indicated resolution at tracemyip.org, either. When I connect there with my iPad Air that has a resolution of 2048 x 1536, it reports that my screen is exactly 1/4 of that -- 1024 x 768. Tracemyip doesn't report "Retina" resolutions reliably. IF it's error is the same for your 5K as it is for my iPad Air, then it actually confirms your resolution to be 5120 x 2880. IF.
milleron wrote:
BY the way, y2kpc, I wouldn't be concerned by the indicated resolution at tracemyip.org, either. When I connect there with my iPad Air that has a resolution of 2048 x 1536, it reports that my screen is exactly 1/4 of that -- 1024 x 768. Tracemyip doesn't report "Retina" resolutions reliably. IF it's error is the same for your 5K as it is for my iPad Air, then it actually confirms your resolution to be 5120 x 2880. IF.
Untrue. Tracemyip and all other similar sites report the Safari resolution. If it reports less (as with an iPad), then some scaling is happening (which is the case with all retina iPads). You don't see it or notice it, but there you are.
True but irrelevant. What I'm saying is that tracemyip will not give an accurate interpretation of screen resolution with Apple Retina displays. On my MacBook Retina, for yet another example, it reports 1280 x 800 which is, yet again, exactly 1/4 of its true resolution. What I'm further saying is that y2kpc needn't think that tracemyip is telling him anything about his screen resolution directly but that, on the contrary, it's a looking like a fairly strong indication that it is, in fact, 5120 x 2880. Do you disagree?
Sure, it probably is 5120x2880. But it's a pity y2kpc doesn't respond anymore... My 5K (with R9 M295X and 4.0 GHz) has been shipped from China and is arriving next week. So then I'll know for sure if Boot Camp works fine.
Loner T said:
Please check what your 5K display reports for the following two commands.
ioreg -lw0 | grep PixelCount
| | | | | | | "IOFBCurrentPixelCount" = 15639360
ioreg -lw0 | grep IODisplayEDID | sed "/[^<]*</s///" | xxd -p -r | strings -6
xcode-select: note: no developer tools were found at '/Applications/Xcode.app', requesting install. Choose an option in the dialog to download the command line developer tools.
(I then allowed the developer tools to download/install)
ioreg -lw0 | grep IODisplayEDID | sed "/[^<]*</s///" | xxd -p -r | strings -6
(blank line of output each time this is run now)
When I click the at the top left and pick about this Mac, it reports "Built-In Retina Display, 27-Inch" 5120x2880"
millerron said:
I can tell that you're very, very disappointed in your new iMac.
I'm disappointed, but more in a curious/inquisitive way... I agree that it's not a set-in-stone permanent issue. Apple is delivering Retina 5K panels. What bothers me is that they are restricting users from setting a 5K display resolution (to view twice the real-estate).
The Retina and Non Retina 27" iMacs both support 2560x1440 resolution. They will 'fit' the exact same # of icons, the exact same # of lines in a spreadsheet, the exact same amount of internet content on a maximized internet window. I bought the Retina iMac expecting to USE 5120x2880 pixels as my desktop, my workspace. Some reports have super-imposed a 1920x1080 display over top of a retina display to show that the Retina 5K 'fits' nearly eight 1920x1080 displays worth of content into one, which is not true.
When I bought a 4K monitor with a resolution of 3840x2160, I could fit exactly four full 1920x1080 web pages (two across/two down). If I hook up a 1920x1080 monitor next to my 4K pc, and pull up one of the same web pages, the exact same amount of info fits on 1/4th of my 4K monitor.
This iMac, in Yosemite, does not allow me to set even a 4K resolution, let alone 5K resolution, so I cannot see the same amount of content if I split it in four and open 4 internet windows. It is more forgiving, thankfully, in Windows, as the ATI driver at least lets me set a 4K resolution.
millerron said:
On my 2560 x 1440 monitor on which I'm writing this, I can, indeed, make out individual pixels with the same spectacles. Please look as closely as you can at the Retina display on an iPhone, an iPad, or a MacBook Pro to see if you can make out individual pixels in a gray or white area and then perform the same test on your 5K.
You are 100% correct-through the use of more pixels, Apple makes the 2560x1440 resolution into a "Retina" display. When they jump to a Retina version they don't double the usable resolution, as shown between the Retina and non-retina iPads, and now sadly (for me) the iMac.
1) when set to "retina" mode the iMac 27" 5K only allows 3.68 million pixels of content (2560 across x 1440 down)... identical to the non Retina 27" iMac
2) when set to 'smaller text' it allows 5.78 million pixels of content (3200 across x 1800 down)
3) when running in Windows/bootcamp, it allows 8.29 million pixels of content (3840 across x 2160 down).
For all three scenarios above, since the underlying hardware (apple's LG panel), is 5K with 15.7 Million pixels, ALL of the above 3 modes look extremely clear. Retina clear.
The quality is perfect with no way to see a pixel-AT 2560x1440 resolution. I just wanted to use the full 5120x2880 to fit more content on the same screen.
In comparison to even my Dell P2815Q 4K, when I run this Retina display at 4K 2560x1440 in Windows, text and photos are better quality with less eye strain, due to the extra 7 or so million pixels behind the scenes.... I ordered this because of the "buy a 5k monitor, get a computer free" marketing... but until an update changes something in Yosemite or the ATI driver, the Dell 5K monitor coming soon will let me use 5120x2880 without any scaling, up from the 3200x1800 that OS X Yosemite allows, which will yield an extra 1980 pixels of content horizontally and 1080 pixels of content vertically.
y2kpc wrote:
Loner T said:
Please check what your 5K display reports for the following two commands.
ioreg -lw0 | grep PixelCount
| | | | | | | "IOFBCurrentPixelCount" = 15639360
ioreg -lw0 | grep IODisplayEDID | sed "/[^<]*</s///" | xxd -p -r | strings -6
xcode-select: note: no developer tools were found at '/Applications/Xcode.app', requesting install. Choose an option in the dialog to download the command line developer tools.
(I then allowed the developer tools to download/install)
ioreg -lw0 | grep IODisplayEDID | sed "/[^<]*</s///" | xxd -p -r | strings -6
(blank line of output each time this is run now)
When I click the at the top left and pick about this Mac, it reports "Built-In Retina Display, 27-Inch" 5120x2880"
Apologies, xxd is part of the Xcode application Developer suite, but what you have posted shows a 15.7 Million Pixel Count Frame Buffer for your Retina5K.
For the three displays I posted, Color LCD is 5.6M pixels (2013 Retina MBP), Dell and Apple TB monitor both are 4.0M pixels.
y2kpc, are you saying that when you drag a full-screen window from the 2160 x 1440 monitor onto the Retina 5K screen, it still takes up the full screen? If so, then I understand where you're coming from. If you drag a full-screen window from the 2160 x 1440 monitor onto the Retina 5K when the 5K is set to "smaller text," does that window shrink accordingly (measured in inches or cm, of course, not pixels) ?
millerron,
y2kpc, are you saying that when you drag a full-screen window from the 2160 x 1440 monitor onto the Retina 5K screen, it still takes up the full screen? If so, then I understand where you're coming from. If you drag a full-screen window from the 2160 x 1440 monitor onto the Retina 5K when the 5K is set to "smaller text," does that window shrink accordingly (measured in inches or cm, of course, not pixels) ?
Good thinking...
I hooked a my Dell P2815 4K monitor up using the Apple thunderbolt (mini display port) connector on the Retina 5k iMac....
Yes, when I drag a full screen window from the Dell (set dell to 2560x1440), it takes up the entire iMac screen (set to Retina/optimal)!!
OS X allows me to choose a manual scaling up to 3840x2160 on the Dell panel. Still only 3200x1800 on the built in mac monitor, or 2560x1440 (retina/best).
When I drag stuff to and from the Dell set at 2560x1440, and the iMac set at Retina 2560x1440, there is no change in window size (rather, less than 1/27th of a change due to the difference between the 27" and 28" displays). So they are both displaying AT the same resolution.
If I set the Dell to its smallest text (3840x2160 native setting), and drag a window from the iMac to the Dell, the window occupies much less space on the Dell (since I am dragging items from 2560x1440 to 3840x2160).
Everytime I mentioned Yosemite, before it went GA, my posts would get complained about and be removed if the article had the word anywhere. I started referring to it as Beta OS, and no one touched any of the discussions.
You can try that. 😉.
The 5K is GA, so I am not sure why such discussions with your findings are being censored.
Retina macbooks had the same problem originally due to the stupid HiDPI modes. Does it not allow the full resolution using something like SetResX?
http://osxdaily.com/2012/06/18/3-ways-to-run-a-retina-macbook-pro-at-2880x1800-n ative-resolution/
houkouonchi2 said:
Retina macbooks had the same problem originally due to the stupid HiDPI modes. Does it not allow the full resolution using something like SetResX?
houkouonchi2 FOR THE WIN!!
SetResX allowed me to quickly switch to 5120x2880. Verified by my eyes and also by tracemyip.org.
Text looks small but a native 5k photo looks AMAZING. The sharpness of the photo is VASTLY superior when the monitor is running at 5k resolution. I am very surprised that Apple is shipping them in Retina HiDPI mode, requiring a 3rd party utility to enable the native hardware mode (5120x2880@60Hz).
http://wallpapers-start.com/view/Bridge-Golden-Gate_5120x2880.html
It now counts individual pixels (instead of counting in pairs) as I drag a selection box over within the photo.
Now, I hope to be able to use 5120x2880 in Windows soon... At 3840x2160, I can tell that the scaling should is off a bit since it's not 1:1 pixel mapping.
Glad that worked. The origina macbook pro retina (which I have) with the old 10.7.x (still running that) had the same issue where for whatever reason apple in their 'infinite wisdom' decided that users would not actually want to run the native 2880x1880 on their notebook. ********... Some of us like the extra desktop real-estate and bought it specifically for that reason. Also HiDPI is not supported on all apps and you are basically wasting pixels when you use an unsupported app. I remember even this being the case back in the day with google earth. It looked like *** in HiDPI mode and looked way better in the native resolution. Images should look the same if the app supports 'HiDPi" mode.
I am not a heavy mac os X user. I mainly use linux. If they made the new macbook pro retina with an Nvidia card I probably would by one but I am on the fence. I would need to be able to run at native 5k under linux in order for it to be worth it for me.
Some other observations:
1) If you're going to hook up a 2nd monitor, BUY the R295 4gb video card upgrade!! With the integrated iMac display + a Dell P2815Q both running at 4K 3840x2160 in screen mirroring mode, the 2nd monitor has a huge (1 second) lag. Scrolling up a webpage or moving a window showed about a 1 second lag before the 2nd display caught up.
2) With both displays hooked up, it forced the lower common denominator of the two monitors' refresh rates (30hz Dell P2815Q) to apply to both monitors.
3) Power consumption jumps from 40 watts to 70 watts on the iMac when a 2nd monitor is plugged into the displayport/thunderbolt connector. CPU/RAM usage as measured by the OS does not change.
4) A company on ebay is selling these Retina iMacs with a 1TB PCIe SSD + a 6TB 7200rpm hdd. nice to know it is user-upgradable.
Boot Camp on iMac Retina 5K?
