Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Rumored to Launch 27-Inch Mini-LED iMac With ProMotion in Early 2022 [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The current roumors don't show a clear path of what happens. But because the Mac Studio got more likely in the last days it seems that we will see no iMac today. But who knows!?
We'll know shortly. I don't see an iMac if they're going to do a Mac Studio and a 27 inch monitor. They may feel that you just buy those two together if you want an iMac.My current desktop setup is a 2010 iMac 27 and a 2014 iMac 27 and two external monitors, one off of each. And I really like this setup. What's great about these is that I can stick 32 GB RAM in each to run my stuff. I obviously do not need a lot of CPU horsepower. I paid $600 for these two systems so spending $3,000 to do the equivalent with a Mini Studio isn't a consideration. It would make my setup a ton faster but that's not what I need.
An Apple Silicon M1 iMac 27 would be very interesting, especially if it could drive three external displays. I wouldn't need Pro/Max on such a device; just support for 32-64 GB RAM. I don't expect to see the 27 inch iMac until 2023.
An Apple Silicon M1 iMac 27 would be very interesting, especially if it could drive three external displays. I wouldn't need Pro/Max on such a device; just support for 32-64 GB RAM. I don't expect to see the 27 inch iMac until 2023.
But it's a 4K display, right? Means lower than half the dpi than an iMac 5K. Apple wants to keep the dpi around 220. They wont go to sub retina ever again.
I’m curious, why do you need 32GB or more RAM? One of the advantages that Apple originally pushed about their ARM chips was that you didn’t need as much memory, as the system was optimized, whatever that means concerning data stored in RAM. But I notice most people still want a lot of RAM available anyway. Is this habit, future protection, or does the system still just runs better when you have more memory? My current computer is a 2016 iMac and I’m trying to figure out how much memory I really need (mostly I do personal photo editing) especially since I can’t add memory later if I need more with Apple’s ARM architecture.
The programs that I use use up a lot of RAM. My 2014 iMac is using 22 GB of RAM right now. My 2010 iMac is using 19 GB of RAM. I run a bunch of trading programs and you can allocate up to 128 GB of RAM for their use though my use is much less than that. I also have one program that runs via WINE and then Rosetta 2 and I suspect that takes up a lot of RAM. Perhaps for the translated on the fly code? When you use Rosetta 2, I think that it translates x86 machine code to ARM machine code and that it saves what it translates so that it won't have to translate it again. So it has to store that code somewhere.
One other aspect of the 2010 iMac is that it has a Hard Disk Drive so caching the disk really helps with performance. It's me being too lazy to open it up to install an SSD. It runs fine for its purpose with the SSD.
I am running High Sierra on the 2010 iMac and it runs really well and uses less RAM than both Big Sur and Monterey running similar applications. I suspect the video RAM in the dGPUs may help on the Intel iMacs.
Thanks. My usage is that I inherited our families suitcase full of photos and I have been scanning them in and trying to repair damage or fading, and also linking the photos to a database so that I can let extended family view and identify people that I personally have no idea who they are. I use Adobe and also Affinity Photo but my system really bogs down if I open 6 or 7 images even if I am only working on one at a time. I am saving the work to a NAS and I allow a few people remote access, and plan to allow more, slowly, as I get more pictures scanned. The scanning is the easy part.
I did that with pictures back in the 1990s so I know that it's a tedious process. I wondered why there weren't bulk services to do this. I also know people that bought bulk scanners but I don't know how well they worked. I recall cleaning up pictures was time-consuming because of the tech back then.
I got an Epson Fast Foto 660 scanner. The scanner is great and the software is good. I can load a group of pictures, up to 20 or 30, and scan them in in less than a minute at 600 dpi, it also scans both front and back so if someone wrote something or there is photo lab information on the back it is also saved. It will even handle Polaroid pictures.
But when I’m retouching photos I can only select a couple in the software otherwise my 2016 iMac slows to a crawl. But if buying a new Apple M1 whatever with more memory isn’t really going to help then I’d rather not spend the money on memory. Which is why I like people that have hands-on experience with the systems because I don’t know how much memory I need. My current iMac has 24 GB.
Is it possible to connect two computers to two Thunderbolt ports of CJ791 and switch between them (video and usb) - like a KVM)?I've been hoping that someone is Apple, but I have a feeling they won't go the Ultra-wide route. A couple years ago I was in your position looking for a high res 36" ultra-wide and couldn't find one that was Thunderbolt friendly. I wound up settling for the 34" Samsung CJ791 because it checked the Thunderbolt and rear hub boxes and was available for $700 when I bought it. I'm glad I did as its 3440 x 1440 resolution does suffice for my needs at this time, but I've got my eyes open for a higher res, larger screen. At the price I got the Samsung for, I managed to convince my company to buy 50+ for all the developers as well, so I have one at home and in the office. That worked out well
Yes for the video only. I answered your question in greater detail in the Ultrawide thread.