Anyone think the 27 inch is too big?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by mountain_feeling, May 29, 2019.

  1. mountain_feeling macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 4, 2019
    #1
    My primary computer is a 2011 11-inch macbook air. And it's been my primary computer since 2011. I briefly had a 2011 21.5 inch iMac until the wife confiscated it for her own use. Coming from the Air, the 21.5 inch is huge. I went to best buy the other day to check out the 27 inch and it was a MONSTER! I'm hesitant to get such a big screen despite it being a better deal and more future proof. I like watching videos, gaming etc but I feel my eyes would get lost looking at that thing.

    Anyone regret getting a 27 inch over the 21?
     
  2. Thessman macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2005
    Location:
    GR
  3. redheeler macrumors 604

    redheeler

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2014
    #3
    You'll get used to the 27". You may have to sit further back from it than you would a 21.5".
     
  4. MacDaddyPanda macrumors regular

    MacDaddyPanda

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2018
    Location:
    USA, CA
    #4
    I have 32" so not to me. 27" as secondary monitor.
     
  5. Jacobi macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2012
    #5
    I find the 21.5 much more attractive on a desk -- it's just a more human proportion to me. The 27 inch dominates a desk and makes itself the center of attention. For me, I want the computer to disappear into the background when I'm doing other things at my desk, and that seems like it'd be harder with the 27. If you find the 21.5" real estate adequate, why bother with the extra cost, energy consumption, computer-power requirements, etc. of the larger screen? I suppose the RAM being upgradeable in the 27, but not the 21.5, is one good counterargument to that.
     
  6. mikehalloran macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2018
    Location:
    The Sillie Con Valley
    #6
    Aging eyes is why I tell my older clients to get 27" monitors. They always thank me later for insisting.

    My current setup is an iMac Pro flanked with two 27" LG 4K monitors that cost me $279 each. My old setup was a 2010 27" iMac with a pair of 24" 1080P monitors — that was good but this is better.

    Lots better!
    --- Post Merged, May 29, 2019 ---
    You can add any size monitor you want to a 2018 Mini through the HDMI 2 port. 24" is a nice compromise.
     
  7. QCassidy352 macrumors G4

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #7
    Yes, I've always preferred the 21" size (formerly, the 20" when it was 20 and 24). The bigger one has never appealed to me.
     
  8. JustMartin macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Location:
    UK
    #8
    I upgraded recently and looked at going from 21 to 27. I had been running out of screen space. However, decided it was more economical and more flexible to have two monitors. So, I went for a 21, with an additional dell 24.
     
  9. Sodium Chloride macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2017
    #9
    The 27” is great for viewing two pdf documents side by side. It’s like reading a real textbook where you can see two pages side by side. It is great for that purpose. 27’ is like having two iPad Pro 12.9” side by side.Too bad Apple doesn’t make an iMac with Apple Pencil support.
     
  10. Bohemien macrumors regular

    Bohemien

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2019
    Location:
    Germany
    #10
    I went from a 17" MBP to the 27" iMac. I seriously thought of getting the 21.5" iMac with the i7-8700 processor. However, Apple's outrageous RAM prices made me refrain from doing that. I also went to a local store to compare the sizes, and right next to each other, the 27" looked way more fun to use.

    Yes, I sometimes have the feeling 21.5" would've been more reasonable - I used to work full-screen on most apps, on the 27", that almost feels like overkill at times (e.g. working in PowerPoint-editing a single slide in 27" is just crazy). So I have set most apps to only use e.g. 1/4 of the screen now, which of course makes the screen look more "cluttered" as when you see only a single file you're working on, and can be distracting.

    However, in many cases, I'm glad I went big, e.g. when I'm working on a document and need to look at another for reference. No problem having 3 A4-pages open next to each other, that's really convenient. And editing photos on that huge, brilliant screen looks just amazing. The 17" MBP screen looks so small now in comparison. :D

    I only wish developers would make better use of the format-screens are wider than they are long, yet you can have only one column of palettes/tools to each side of e.g. the photo you're editing (as it is you have a lot of "wasted space" on the screen, at least with the larger screens, but still have to scroll down e.g. in Lightroom to get to all the tools you need when working on one photo). Those stupid "ribbons" e.g. Office has make absolutely no sense to me, especially on a smaller screen (I also have a 13" MBP), where I'd like to see more of the page, but have a lot of empty space to the sides of my document, where they could put the palettes. Office 2004 had those floating palettes you could dock to each other to totally customize your workspace... where's that concept gone?
     
  11. Moonjumper macrumors 68000

    Moonjumper

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Location:
    Lincoln, UK
    #11
    27" took me about an hour to get used to. It is certainly not too big for me as I use several programs that need as much space as possible (game engine, 3D modelling, graphics), and often have many of them open at the same time, so now I have a second 27" screen attached to reduce the amount of switching windows I need to do, and am considering another monitor for the other side.
     
  12. tarsins macrumors 6502a

    tarsins

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Location:
    Wales
    #12
    My main monitor is a 34" curved ultrawide while my 27" iMac is my secondary.
     
  13. Eliott69 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2019
    #13
    I do. I just bought an 27 inch six weeks ago and was not able to adjust to the size. Now I just bought an 21 inch and I'm using the 27 inch as a TV.
     
  14. Fishrrman macrumors P6

    Fishrrman

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    #14
    Just about THE LAST THING you'll ever hear the owner of a 21" iMac say:
    "Boy, am I glad I got rid of the 27" iMac and went back to 21" !!!"

    (Elliot excluded, of course!)
     
  15. trillionaire macrumors regular

    trillionaire

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2018
    Location:
    Canada
    #15
    I use the 27" on a daily and I wouldn't want anything smaller. It depends what you use it for. A bigger screen helps for better viewing of a lot of things.

    If you were using a laptop and that was sufficient for what you do, then you probably don't need the 27", but I find a bigger screen makes things easier. I find it difficult to go to a smaller screen after and having to needlessly scroll sideways.
     
  16. alphaswift, May 30, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2019

    alphaswift macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2014
    #16
    lol. I sold my 27" to buy a 32" and now covet the LG 49" super wide.
     
  17. fisherking macrumors 604

    fisherking

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2010
    Location:
    ny somewhere
    #17
    what's the point? the 27" is too big if it's too big for you; if not, then it's not too big... :D
     
  18. SecuritySteve macrumors 6502a

    SecuritySteve

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2017
    Location:
    California
    #18
    34" ultrawide is my favorite screen size I've ever used thus far. I wish the iMac Pro came in that screen size option, instead of being only 27" 5k@60Hz.

    Refresh rate matters :(
     
  19. Zdigital2015 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2015
    Location:
    East Coast, United States
    #19
    No, never, and I have owned two 27" iMacs (2010 and 2013). While the 21.5" is nice, the screen size relative to the cost and how little you have to pay to move up to the equivalent 27" ($300) makes it hard to to choose unless you are really comfortable with that smaller screen, have very limited space for your setup or you actually want to shlep it across town on the bus in a bag.
     
  20. Stephen.R macrumors 65816

    Stephen.R

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2018
    Location:
    Thailand
    #21
    I'm using 2x 24" 4K's, and I think any bigger for a single screen would be too big for me, and it'd mean I lose the ability to e.g, rotate one (or both) displays 90º for a more virtual workspace.
     
  21. a2jack, May 30, 2019
    Last edited: May 30, 2019

    a2jack macrumors regular

    a2jack

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2013
    #22
    27" is now too small. 32" is best for me as the resolution moves higher, to 5k and beyond.

    Came from 27" iMac to minis and TV sets. Waiting for a 32" 4 or 5k TV at a reasonable price. the 40" up are just too big.

    Now run a 4k 55" for movie watching and some surfing, a 1080i 32" as a work machine and a 24" 1080i on a rolling cart ,all 3 driven by Minis. a2
     
  22. fisherking macrumors 604

    fisherking

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2010
    Location:
    ny somewhere
    #23
    i live on my 12" macbook, perfect for my day-to-day needs. but use a 21" imac for logic X; makes sense. (fyi, have a video projector for movies, etc... about 93" screen on my wall).

    each thing suits my needs... :cool:
     
  23. shaunp macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2010
    #24
    Use 2 x 27" 4K monitors, have done for years. When I eventually replace them they will be at least 32". I use 2 x 24" monitors at work and they seem cramped.
     
  24. Icaras macrumors 603

    Icaras

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Location:
    California, United States
    #25
    Why would the 27” be better for aging eyes? They both have the same PPI (actually the 21.5” is 219 vs 27” at 218). What you gain in the larger screen is just more screen estate with more pixels but quality is identical. They both have the same nits brightness and wide color.
     

Share This Page

40 May 29, 2019