Eventually Apple will have to consider a larger iMac if they want to upgrade to higher resolutions.
A 32" iMac capable of 5K resolutions at a native 60Hz is likely to be in the planning stage.
I see people are using 40" displays as their desktop setup. Most gamers I know are using 32" now.
[doublepost=1457318607][/doublepost]Photographers are moving fast into 32" or larger 4K displays
Christ, do we even want that? I mean, I guess why not. But 27 is such an optimal size. But there is never a disadvantage to another (or bigger), option, sure.
21" is still large for me... I lose things on the screen lol. I can't imagine using 27", let alone 32". But playing games and watching movies would be awesome.
Last night I was writing a draft of a technical article.
I used the following programs, largely simultaneously
Scrivener: for writing the damn thing
XCode: for editing python code that would construct the technical illustrations.
Terminal: for executing various shell scripts
Draftsight: for viewing and manipulating these illustrations
Preview: for finetuning the pdfs
Safari: for reference.
Big monitors and multiple monitors make juggling multiple programs a lot easier.
21" is still large for me... I lose things on the screen lol. I can't imagine using 27", let alone 32". But playing games and watching movies would be awesome.
That might be your usage scenario but for me, I can have a Vmware VM up and running, Excel, Word and remote session(s) to work.
I also use a second monitor which comes in handy when using Lightroom, where one monitor has grid of images and the other showing the one I'm working on.