Not entirely true. While every "Retina" display is an IPS display, not every IPS display is a "Retina" display. The Retina display is an IPS display with a much higher ppi resolution than the IPS displays that have been around before. And according to my knowledge, Apple was one of the very first companies to offer such high ppi displays.
surely there are, let's not forget Apple was close to bankruptcy and the fan crowd still gathered at annual meetings and fairs, probably to stroke their ego and hug each other. Why someone would buy an Apple watch or for that fact items that are priced 2-3 times as much as qualitatively equal other brands is beyond me. Suckers...maybe...yeah that could be it. 5k display, makes me chuckle to be honest. There are so many uninformed consumers out there and the sites out there which are supposed to "inform" and "advice" are all paid by the top manufacturers, such as Apple, to doctor numbers and impressions.
yes, 100% accurate, and Apple was with its "retina" displays the first that caused its consumers and fan crowd to complain for years about eye strain and health issues with its monitors. Go figure.
Actually, even that's wrong. Not every Retina display is an IPS display, according to Wikipedia all Retina displays before the iPhone 4 were just regular TN screens with higher PPI. There is nothing inherently special about this. And yes, I have used both Apple Retina IPS displays and currently write this using an Asus (LG) IPS display. LG is also a supplier of Apple's Retina screens as they own the patents. The point is, you can go and buy any IPS screen with decent PPI for cheaper than a "Retina". It's better not to be sucked in by marketing.
For 3 years I've been using a 21" iMac(win7) + 2 x 20" Cinema displays and a 13" MBP(win7 now 10). I use Bootcamp on SSD...forget about active trading with VM.It's horribly slow for my use even with 8 and 12 gigs of ram.Then again it depends on your definition of "active". I spread my research and execution across 4 platforms. Was about to purchase a 27" iMac + 2 x 27" Thunderbolt displays and a 15" MBP. However now my with recent focus on moving towards algo/automation using the new TT platform/ADL, the need for a powerful system just became somewhat irrelevant. I'll only need to run my research platform locally.I could get by with a 15" MBP and a 27" Thunderbolt display. Yeah I'm an Apple fan boy..so what!
In terms of trading does retina or 4k/5k really matter? I can see if it was for graphics type jobs etc but if I was looking just for a clear picture that is sharp. All Mac displays I've seen offer that. I have a question for those that know about computers and speed. I'm thinking about getting a Mac Mini with a thunderbolt display to start and adding another later. They have a base model for $499 would the speed of that be sufficient and for 2 displays? What if it was more than 2 displays? Any advice would be appreciated
This is one area where trying to guess is difficult, unless you have someone who's tried the specific computer (and graphics card), and the specific monitor/connection type/etc. Try Google and see what other people have done. Alternatively, I'd suggest asking at the Apple store.
20-30+ charts in 8 or so chartbooks (SierraChart) on a Macbook Pro 15" laptop using VMware fusion an a 4 vCPU VM w/ 4G of RAM allocated to it. Totally tradable so you must be running some hog-heavy platform if you're having issues with it.
Sounds like you know a lot about these products. Do you think a Mac Mini would work with TradeStation platform on a thunderbolt display?
Definitely. Basically any modern piece of hardware will handle almost any competent trading platform. A solid setup IMO, rather than a mini+ext display is the 27" imac retina as the former is more powerful, but the mini should work fine. Alternatively you could just run a windows box for your trading platform as well (but it's pretty easy to flip back and forth between VMs and native).