Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

ivanwi11iams

Contributor
Original poster
Nov 30, 2014
4,507
3,066
Georgia, USA
Based on my recent posts, I'm starting to broaden my view on units. From a MacBook, to possibly an iMac (I've always been more of a Desktop user).

The question now, is an iMac non-Retina as good as a Retina unit? And, more to the point, for us that are use to everyday monitors, without Retina (not watching movies and the likes), is it worth it?

Thanks in advance for your input...
 
People love to talk about 4K as if it's limited to movies. But truth be told, it takes a lot of effort when filming a picture to preserve that 4K edge. You have to use the right film, the right sensors, the right lenses, the right sort of lighting techniques, the right sort of focus, the right sort of makeup and scenery and costumes to preserve the level of clarity that people have come to expect from "4K." So, when displayed on a retina imac, sometimes it makes a big difference. Sometimes it doesn't.

On the other hand, if a computer is rendering text, it has four subpixels to render the text with all the extra clarity it deserves. The viewer doesn't have to imagine that the grey parts of a letterform are indicitive of more detail. Instead, the viewer sees a more detailed letterform, and all the distracting grey forms that distracted from the ideal of crisp back ink on a crisp white paper have suddenly become a lot smaller, and hard to pick out.

The retina advantage is most apparent when rendering text and simple line drawings. Sure, if you are reading National Geographic, and it's been optimized for the retina display, it looks like freaking National Geographic. It is really nice to look a museum website and see all the additional detail that coarser displays miss out on. But those are professionally photographed using the best technologies available.

In most cases, what you will notice is the text--san serif fonts look clean. serif fonts look elegant. And it will all be easier to read.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MadDane
...The retina advantage is most apparent when rendering text and simple line drawings....

This is a good point and gets too little attention. On an iMac retina screen, text looks like it has been painted on with a perfect tiny brush, or somehow inked with a perfect printing process. It is a major difference.
 
Based on my recent posts, I'm starting to broaden my view on units. From a MacBook, to possibly an iMac (I've always been more of a Desktop user).

The question now, is an iMac non-Retina as good as a Retina unit? And, more to the point, for us that are use to everyday monitors, without Retina (not watching movies and the likes), is it worth it?

Thanks in advance for your input...
You'll be spoiled by retina.

Once you become used to the 5K's screen nothing else will compare ever again.

Why? Because it's the highest resolution available right now.

But beyond that, everything will seem pixely when you're shifting away from the 5K iMac.

Obviously our MacBooks and iPhones have had retina for some time but it is simply different when experienced on a desktop.

As an example, even other resolutions which are considered "ultra-hd" nowadays (is that all of them?) simply just don't measure up at all.

The screen alone on this computer has vastly improved my user experience in a way that I didn't even ask for.

In addition, the screen size is just superior.

Big screens are in, small is well out.

I'm coming from a 24, and 27 seems to be the sweet spot.
 
Last edited:
All the other points in this thread are valid, but also consider this point. Buyers remorse, will you be kicking yourself a week, month or even a couple of months after the purpose because you chose the non-retina.

I do believe the screen is the major component that you will be face to face every day, and if there's an opportunity to have a vastly superior screen, then why not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jerwin
I was a Windows/DOS user for 30+ years and one of the deciding factors in switching over to Apple was the Retina Screen on the iMac. I couldn't see paying $5000 for a retina monitor (at the time) and then having to buy the computer. I haven't regretted the decision at all, best move I have made.
 
The question now, is an iMac non-Retina as good as a Retina unit?

No.

And, more to the point, for us that are use to everyday monitors, without Retina (not watching movies and the likes), is it worth it?

Movies would be the last reason you buy the Retina. The reason to purchase it is for everything else, to be honest. The improved color gamut and sharper text make working with every application more pleasant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ivanwi11iams
My eyes thank me everyday when I use the retina screen versus the piece of crap PC at work with non-retina
 
You don't "need" retina until you've used it. Once you've tried it, it makes no sense to go back to that horrible non-retina display!
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.