23 inch iMac is Coming!

Discussion in 'iMac' started by solman, Feb 10, 2011.

  1. solman, Feb 10, 2011
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2011

    solman macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    #1
    Hi Guys,

    As we know, the 21.5 inch iMac is getting a little short in size. Today's standard is 23+ inch monitor.

    After doing some research online, I discovered that LG has just released a 23 inch LED IPS display at very competitive prices. Since LG makes the iMac Panels, it is almost a given that we will see this panel in a 23 inch iMac.

    Even CNet trashed the "outdated" size of the 21.5 inch iMac saying it was behind the market norm. All the competitive Windows- all in ones- are at least 23 inches.

    Now the question is not IF but WHEN?

    We NEED the 23 inch Apple. Now give it to us ASAP.

    http://www.oled-display.net/lg-display-introduce-23-inch-240hz-ips-lcd-for-monitors
     
  2. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #2
    It's not impossible but I wouldn't expect this in the next update. 20" was the base model for three generations until it was replaced by 21.5". Now, we are on second generation 21.5" and it has only been out for less than 1.5 years. In early 2012 or whenever the update after the next on is going to be, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple dumped to 21.5" for 23". Could happen with this update though
     
  3. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #3
    23" has been still 1080p in my experience. Nothing amazing to report there beyond lower dpi.
     
  4. chrmjenkins macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #4
    Just because LG is making a 23" monitor doesn't mean there will be an iMac of that size. LG has made 23", among many other panel sizes, for quite some years.
     
  5. Wiggum macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2010
    #5
    This is beyond speculative, but in all honesty is sounds like a logical upgrade.
     
  6. sportster macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Location:
    Katy, TX
    #6
    Sounds plausible to me, as I hang my head in shame working of my 20" iMac...
     
  7. skiltrip macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    May 6, 2010
    Location:
    New York
    #7
    It kind of makes sense.

    Personally I always felt like the 21" was too small and the 27" was too big. But I ended up just breaking down and getting the 27" because I needed the i7 quad.

    It'd be nice for some folks if they could get the quads into something smaller than the 27".
     
  8. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #8
    Sandy Bridge should take care of that with its 65W quads.
     
  9. talmy macrumors 601

    talmy

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Location:
    Oregon
    #9
    We've still got a 17" G5 iMac in use, and a 15" LCD display on a Windows PC. The small sizes are great when space is cramped. But what bothers me most are screen aspect ratios that assume you are only using the computer for viewing movies. More vertical pixels are nice to have with the dock and menu bars taking up so much space.
     
  10. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #10
    Slower and not a significantly lower in power consumption when compared to the 95W counterpart.
     
  11. GoCubsGo macrumors Nehalem

    GoCubsGo

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    #11
    I think it is reaching but it is one that has the most potential. I work on dual 20"s and I often find myself wishing for a bit more. I don't think that it should be ruled out just because the 21.5" has only been around for 1.5 years. In technology years that seems like ages.
     
  12. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
  13. bassanoclapper macrumors 6502

    bassanoclapper

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Location:
    London
    #13
    I'm upgrading after the next refresh, if i7 was an option I'd go for it
    All seems a bit tentative to me though
     
  14. MacHamster68, Feb 10, 2011
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2011

    MacHamster68 macrumors 68040

    MacHamster68

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    #14
    23" seem spointless as its even closer to the 27" and would not make much of a difference apart if apple would then ditch the 27 inch and bring a 30" iMac too to keep the distance with a resolution 3840x2160 to please the short sighted then, sorry i dont get this bigger and big is just not enough attitude
     
  15. TMRaven macrumors 68020

    TMRaven

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    #15
    Apple likes to keep the pixel density of their displays up and transitioning to 16:9, and I don't see them going up to 23 inches, which would either result in the same 1920x1080 display but less density, or perhaps 1920x1200, with a smaller loss in density. I could only see it happening if they come up with some weird display resolution somewhere in-between 1080p and 1440p, while upping the resolution of the 27 inch at the same time.
     
  16. Meyvn macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    #16
    Agreed. Apple isn't the kind of company to move to an inferior (read: lower DPI) panel just for the "buzz" of a slightly larger display. Incidentally, if you DO just think larger is better, I have a 23" 1920x1080 Acer LCD that I'd love to offload in trade for a 21.5" at the same res.
     
  17. solman thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    #17
    Speaking of "buzz", the new LG 23 inch displays are:

    1. IPS
    2. 240 HZ Motion speed
    3. LED Backlit


    Considering that Apple went to the 16:9 format to make the iMac more than just a computer and rather a Multimedia experience device, gaming, movies etc., the larger faster, likely better display could only boost the iMac for a better multimedia experience.

    As a local Best Buy worker noted, when customers stand in front of the base 21 inch and compare it side by side to the Windows All in one's, the larger 23 inch size and touch screen usually sways them to go Windows.
     
  18. meb91, Feb 11, 2011
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2011

    meb91 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2010
    #18
    Agreed, while it's true that the average consumer would prefer a larger physical size and never notice if it results in lower DPI, a 23" at 1920x1080 has a dot pitch of 0.265 mm. That's pretty large for an Apple display, larger than anything they have now, so seems like a downgrade.

    As for that weird resolution in between 1920x1080 and 2560x1440, I have a 23" 16:9 Samsung 2343bwx with a resolution of 2048x1152. It's discontinued now but I believe there was a Dell counterpart. The dot pitch is 0.248 mm which is nearly the same as the 21.5" iMac. I was disappointed to see that it was discontinued as it really looks a lot sharper than the average 1080p 23", but I'm not surprised cause it was an odd resolution (probably got too expensive to make as it wasn't widely manufactured) and 1080p has become the marketing term that consumers recognize and buy, even though it's a fairly low resolution.
     
  19. Fishrrman macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    #19
    "This is beyond speculative, but in all honesty is sounds like a logical upgrade."

    Yes, very logical.

    Has not LG been a supplier to Apple for their current displays?

    Considering the teething problems LG/Apple have been having with the LED backlighting on the 21.5" and 27" panels, perhaps they're finally getting the bugs worked out.

    I would expect to see a revised 23" iMac toward the end of the year.
     
  20. Meyvn, Feb 12, 2011
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2011

    Meyvn macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    #20
    Apple has a long-standing reputation for providing customers what they think the customers need, not what the customers they think want. Big screens for the sake of big screens, and touch screens on interfaces designed for a mouse and keyboard fall firmly into this category.

    Touch screens on an interface designed for a mouse and keyboard are crappy. The HPs may sell well (I haven't seen the numbers), but I sell Macs for a living, and I can tell you we get customers coming in frequently who are switching over from an HP, and talk about how they thought the touchscreen idea was cool, but never actually used it, because it isn't practical.

    Not to mention, Mac sales are rising all the time with their current design strategy. Changing it up for "mass appeal" would make no sense when the masses are converting over to their side.

    I'll say it again: I would be positively shocked if Apple made a 23" iMac before finding a panel with a resolution beyond 1080p in that size. Larger is not better. The only advantage this display has is that it's faster, and going to a 240 Hz (which nothing would take advantage of anyway) and sacrificing DPI would just be senseless. At 2048x1152, maybe. Maybe. But they've already had a chance to do that and didn't. The iMac may be a "multimedia experience," but why Apple want to change it by increasing production cost and decreasing quality? If you want one a lower-DPI monitor, you can already buy one and attach it.
     
  21. hoxley macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2011
    #21
    23" imac with 8 thread quad, LightPeak, and supporting upto 16gb ram (maybe SSD boot/app drive) would turn my head like an owl's.
     
  22. .Max. macrumors member

    .Max.

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Location:
    United Kindom
    #22
    23" Would be a great size ;) Although.. I really wish they'd give the option for a Quadcore in the smaller screen sizes :D
     

Share This Page