Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I've been thinking about replacing my 5 year old 39" 4k with a 32" 4k and a 27" 4k turned 90 degrees.

I'd pluck for a 32" 6k instead of a 4k if it's competitive, but if they did a ~42" 6k I'd buy that alone almost regardless of price.

Unless something changes in how macOS does UI scaling, it's almost certainly 31/32" if it's 6k horizontal resolution, due to the PPI that represents. This would result in a "looks like" resolution of 3072 x 1536 (I've worked on 6144x3072 as the raw resolution), at almost exactly the same visual size as the 4K and 5K iMacs.
[doublepost=1551876673][/doublepost]To get current PPI levels at 42", it'd need to be some variant of 8K.
 
How about 2:1... So "work" that the monitor's stand will be a steel-toe boot!
There is a problem with ratios beyond 16:10 to 2:1, the problem is vertical real size, horizonal view can be always expanded in horizontal adding more screens as it has been doign for ever, but expanding vertical size is impossible.
And it doesnt matter how wide the screen is, there is a minimum vertical size that screens should have in order to be productive, and a 27”iMac vertical size is barely enough, AE, premier, Maya, Animate and many many animation or video editing software timelines demands more vertical area, having tools at the far sides in a 2:1 in Photoshop doesnt help either.
2:1 in 27” screen is a gamer ratio,
To be a production ratio, vertical size would need to be big enough, so a 32 or bigger screen would be necessary. Moreover, macOS is not ready for a 2:1 screen as organizing windows would be a real mess, always manually as you cant snap windows to the sides to mimic to screens together, macimizing windows in finder or webrowser would end in very awark full screen
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.