milleron

Q: Boot Camp on iMac Retina 5K?

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?

Posted on Oct 17, 2014 7:45 PM

Close

Q: Boot Camp on iMac Retina 5K?

  • All replies
  • Helpful answers

Previous Page 2 of 8 last Next
  • by milleron,

    milleron milleron Oct 21, 2014 8:32 PM in response to Loner T
    Level 1 (18 points)
    Safari
    Oct 21, 2014 8:32 PM in response to Loner T

    Yeah, I certainly didn't expect the Yosemite resolution to be less than 5K. I'd have thought that Apple would have had to truthfully disclose the fact that even the machine's native OS couldn't deliver the advertised, claimed spec if that were true -- i.e., I suspect that OS  X Yosemite can, in fact, display at 5120 x 2880.  I think it's more likely that there's a glitch in y2kpc's setup. He was kind enough to include Windows screenshots, but I see none from the Mac yet.  I remain unconvinced that Yosemite's resolution can't get to 5K.

  • by Loner T,

    Loner T Loner T Oct 21, 2014 8:32 PM in response to y2kpc
    Level 7 (24,115 points)
    Safari
    Oct 21, 2014 8:32 PM in response to y2kpc

    I do not want to hijack this thread from milleron but can I ask you to post the output of the following two commands (from OS X Terminal) on the other thread from your 5K?

     

    diskutil list

    diskutil cs list

  • by milleron,

    milleron milleron Oct 21, 2014 8:36 PM in response to y2kpc
    Level 1 (18 points)
    Safari
    Oct 21, 2014 8:36 PM in response to y2kpc

    But what about when you select "best for display" rather than "scaled?"

  • by y2kpc,

    y2kpc y2kpc Oct 21, 2014 8:55 PM in response to milleron
    Level 1 (10 points)
    Oct 21, 2014 8:55 PM in response to milleron

    On my Retina iMac, selecting "Best for Display" just forces the middle selection titled Best (Retina).   The text below the monitor then changes to "Looks like 2560x1440".

     

    I would be absolutely furious if I upgraded from an iMac 27" at 2560x1440 to this Retina 5K iMac, and found out that I could not use the extra pixels to fit twice as many icons / windows in one screen.

  • by milleron,

    milleron milleron Oct 21, 2014 8:58 PM in response to y2kpc
    Level 1 (18 points)
    Safari
    Oct 21, 2014 8:58 PM in response to y2kpc

    You should be getting 5K when you select "Best for display" rather than "scaled."  Unfortunately, if this is like the Retina displays on MacBook Pros, selecting that option (or "Best (Retina)" under "Scaled") does not display any resolution information.  You just assume that it's the maximum resolution of the hardware.  What you do actually know from that screen is that 3200 x 1800 is NOT the maximum resolution you can achieve but is much less.  When I select that "More Space" option on my MacBook Pro Retina, it states that the resolution is "1680 x 1050."  That's about 65% of this screens vertical resolution.  If 1800 is about 65% of yours, then your maximum resolution is about 2800 vertical -- just what you were promised and sold.  Take a few deep breaths and chill.

  • by milleron,

    milleron milleron Oct 21, 2014 9:15 PM in response to y2kpc
    Level 1 (18 points)
    Safari
    Oct 21, 2014 9:15 PM in response to y2kpc

    Clearly, regardless of resolution, putting twice as many icons in the same 27" diagonal screen will make them half as large.  But if you just wanted smaller icons, you could do that on your current Mac -- just right-click a blank area on the desktop, select "view options" from the menu, and change the size of your icons to almost whatever you want.

    As I understand it, given that the display area is identical to the 2013 27" iMac, the desktop will look almost identical -- the size of screen elements should be about the same as always.  There will just be a much higher resolution -- no jagged lines that are supposed to be straight or smoothly curved, better rendering of small font sizes, more vivid detail in photos, etc.  You'll still be able to adjust the size of those screen elements to your liking.

  • by y2kpc,

    y2kpc y2kpc Oct 21, 2014 9:29 PM in response to Loner T
    Level 1 (10 points)
    Oct 21, 2014 9:29 PM in response to Loner T

    Loner T -- I am posting the output of those two commands into the other threadMore boot camp problems new 5k imac 3 tera fusion drive

     

    millerron-

    My OS X scaling options show from larger to smaller text)

    1600 x 900  (larger text)

    2048 x 1052

    2560 x 1440 (optimal, Retina)

    2880 x 1620

    3200 x 1800 (smaller text)


    When deselect scaling options and let it run in Retina mode, icons on the desktop and browser windows become the same size as if I pick the middle selection (2560x1440) in scaling.      If I remember correctly, this is how the iPads work as well.   The Retina iPads show exactly the same real estate / text size as the non-retina iPads.    Retina makes the displays clearer without adding higher resolution options to the operating system.


    I laughed when I saw the larger text option.  A certain % of the population will end up buying this Retina 5K iMac and running it at this super low resolution of 1600x900.  


  • by fredz85,

    fredz85 fredz85 Oct 22, 2014 3:08 AM in response to y2kpc
    Level 1 (0 points)
    Oct 22, 2014 3:08 AM in response to y2kpc

    Can you please send correct links for the 4 driver images? None of them work.

    I have an iMac 5K arriving in a few days with the upgraded R295X.

     

    What resolution does a site as http://www.tracemyip.org report?

  • by y2kpc,

    y2kpc y2kpc Oct 22, 2014 10:17 AM in response to fredz85
    Level 1 (10 points)
    Oct 22, 2014 10:17 AM in response to fredz85

    fredz85,

     

    I did not use any of the driver links (apple bootcamp handled that for me-everything worked).    While trying to get full 5k resolution support, I then updated the ATI catalyst package after I was already in Windows to the latest shipping release, and then to the latest beta.    Neither succeeded in adding the 5k support.

     

    I ran the tracemyip.org report that you requested:

    2560x1440 - Safari & Firefox browser set to "best for display"

    3200x1800 - Safari & Firefox set to "more space" (maximum on slider)

    3840x2160 - Windows IE & Firefox set to highest selectable resolution 3840x2160 (maximum on slider)

     

    I downloaded a free 5k wallpaper:   http://wallpapers-start.com/view/Bridge-Golden-Gate_5120x2880.html

    The OS X viewer program lets me open it in a partial window or maximize it to full screen (removing all icons/toolsbars).  the viewer opens with a handy selection tool.  If I drag a selection box of the entire photo, it does show the full 5120x2880 resolution whether maximized to full screen or using a partial screen window.   I almost believed that I was viewing it in 1:1 pixel mapping, or full 5k resolution.   But, when I redraw the selection box which starts at 0 pixels horizontal, it reports in multiples of two.  0,2,4,6,8,10, all the way up to 5120.   same thing horizontally.   sometimes going backwards it reported even numbers but still always counts as two.  So it seems to open 5k content, allow it to be maximized, but really cut the resolution in half horizontally and half vertically before displaying.

     

    As a more basic test, when I right click on the desktop and pick show view options, it lets me resize desktop icons... in multiples of two pixels at a time only.

     

    So I am convinced that with the 5K iMac Retina, Apple is using 15.7 million raw pixels (5k) in the "background", but:

    only allows 3.68 Million unique/addressable pixels in OS X (2560x1440/Retina)

    only allows 5.76 Million unique/addressable pixels in OS X (3200x1800)

    only allows 8.29 Million unique/addressable pixels in Windows/Bootcamp (3840x2160)

     

    Perhaps someone better trained than me can generate a 5120x2880 "iso test pattern", (or even use photoshop) to prove how many individual pixels the OS allows it to address show horizontally/vertically.          I may start a thread in the iMac forum because this one was originally devoted to a bootcamp issue...

  • by y2kpc,

    y2kpc y2kpc Oct 22, 2014 10:37 AM in response to y2kpc
    Level 1 (10 points)
    Oct 22, 2014 10:37 AM in response to y2kpc

    Is it possible this is how Apple got around the maximum bandwidth limitation of display port which isn't high enough for 5k?  

    Other forums speculated that Apple overclocked the display port chain, or built their own proprietary controller.     If they did this by blocking the higher resolutions, that may explain that with this Retina 5K model, they removed the ability to allow this iMac to be used as an external display....

     

    The Dell 5K monitor, shipping later this year, uses the identical LG panel as the Retina 5k ifixit teardown, but Dell will require two separate display port cable connections.    With the Dell, Windows will definitely allow the full 5120x2880 to be used.

  • by milleron,

    milleron milleron Oct 22, 2014 5:53 PM in response to y2kpc
    Level 1 (18 points)
    Safari
    Oct 22, 2014 5:53 PM in response to y2kpc

    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.)

  • by Loner T,

    Loner T Loner T Oct 22, 2014 9:26 PM in response to y2kpc
    Level 7 (24,115 points)
    Safari
    Oct 22, 2014 9:26 PM in response to y2kpc

    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 milleron,

    milleron milleron Oct 22, 2014 10:16 PM in response to y2kpc
    Level 1 (18 points)
    Safari
    Oct 22, 2014 10:16 PM in response to y2kpc

    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.

  • by fredz85,

    fredz85 fredz85 Oct 23, 2014 12:02 AM in response to milleron
    Level 1 (0 points)
    Oct 23, 2014 12:02 AM in response to milleron

    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.

  • by milleron,

    milleron milleron Oct 23, 2014 7:08 AM in response to fredz85
    Level 1 (18 points)
    Safari
    Oct 23, 2014 7:08 AM in response to fredz85

    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?

Previous Page 2 of 8 last Next