I would go to the dollar store and just by a pair of glasses and leave them next to your desktop, maybe have a string to connect the glasses to the PC
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 Says There Won't Be a 27-Inch iMac With Apple Silicon
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's a pain but it does make sense that a computer with a built in display of those specs never really made much sense. When the time comes, I may just try my hand at converting our 2020 27" into a monitor we can use with a Mac Mini or Studio. I also have our old 2014 iMac sitting around, though it had more severe burn-in issues than the newer iMac does.
Steve Jobs came up on stage to announce the iMac G4 as the death of the CRT and then a short time later announced the eMac with a 17 inch CRT
I get a kick out of 5 different laptop SKUs but only 1 all-in-one SKU.
The only other options are the Mini, Studio, and the ridiculous not-necessary Pro… none of which come with a display.
Apple is all about bigger, Bigger, BIGGER with phone screens and laptops, but tells consumers to pound sand on desktops.
The only other options are the Mini, Studio, and the ridiculous not-necessary Pro… none of which come with a display.
Apple is all about bigger, Bigger, BIGGER with phone screens and laptops, but tells consumers to pound sand on desktops.
Apple has confirmed to The Verge and some other publications that it has no plans to release a new 27-inch iMac with Apple silicon.
Apple discontinued both the Intel-based 27-inch iMac and iMac Pro over the past two years, and it has yet to launch a larger-screen iMac with an Apple silicon chip as a replacement, leaving the recently-updated 24-inch iMac with the M3 chip as its only all-in-one desktop computer. For customers who want a larger or higher-end desktop, Apple recommends pairing the 27-inch Studio Display with a Mac Studio or Mac mini.
From the report:Apple has only ruled out a new 27-inch iMac, so a larger-screened iMac is still possible. Last month, Bloomberg's Mark Gurman said Apple was still developing an iMac Pro with a 32-inch display for release in late 2024 or in 2025. Apple analyst Ming-Chi Kuo also expects a 32-inch iMac with mini-LED display backlighting to launch in 2025.
Article Link: Apple Says There Won't Be a 27-Inch iMac With Apple Silicon
Wait, Max Tech was wrong?
only ever known 60hz on a monitor so i have nothing to compare it to but apples the only one worth it with 5k and thunderbolt is only capable to 60hz at 5k and anything under 5k strains my eyes personally…
Apple’s MO is to force you to buy as many products as possible esp drive up sales for their overpriced and under-spec displays.
I have a friend who is still sitting on his 2024 27” iMac dying for an upgrade. I honestly don’t get it and never have.
My advice to him is the same as Apple’s: get a Mac Mini. (The guy actually owns an LG 5K Ultrafine as it is.) I actually wish they’d drop the internal power supply on the Mac Mini and let it power up over USB-C. Do that and for those who are psychologically minimalist, they could mount the thing the thing to the rear of a monitor.
I never understood iMacs for power users. I upgrade my laptop every 2-4 years. I upgrade my monitor like every 6-8. That lines up really poorly with an iMac. I wish I still had the monitor portion of my 5K iMac (a machine I only owned because I happened to get a crazy good deal on)! It was nicer than my LG 5K.
If I ever get a Studio Display, that’s my monitor for 6-8 years.
My advice to him is the same as Apple’s: get a Mac Mini. (The guy actually owns an LG 5K Ultrafine as it is.) I actually wish they’d drop the internal power supply on the Mac Mini and let it power up over USB-C. Do that and for those who are psychologically minimalist, they could mount the thing the thing to the rear of a monitor.
I never understood iMacs for power users. I upgrade my laptop every 2-4 years. I upgrade my monitor like every 6-8. That lines up really poorly with an iMac. I wish I still had the monitor portion of my 5K iMac (a machine I only owned because I happened to get a crazy good deal on)! It was nicer than my LG 5K.
If I ever get a Studio Display, that’s my monitor for 6-8 years.
Thanks, Apple. My wife really wanted a 27" iMac and now I'll be sleeping on the couch.
It's pretty obvious at this point that Apple would rather you but a laptop and one of their monitors (or a Mac Studio, Mac mini, or MacBook Pro and a Studio Display). The latter is what I ended up doing when I upgraded my 27-inch iMac 5K.
Too bad, the iMac 5K 27 was a fantastic machine and I'd buy a new 27-inch form factor in a heart beat.
Too bad, the iMac 5K 27 was a fantastic machine and I'd buy a new 27-inch form factor in a heart beat.
Please show me the 27" 5K monitor with 500 nits brightness for $200 and I'll buy it today.
With the Mac Studio and the 27" display now on sale for some time, why would Apple want to build a new 27" iMac in the first place?
"Apple PR representative Starlayne Meza confirmed the company's plans to The Verge. The company encourages those who have been holding out hope for a larger iMac to consider the Studio Display and Mac Studio or Mac mini."
A junior Apple PR rep probably doesn't have a lot of detail around Apple's future iMac pipeline. Why would she? She's a PR rep, not a hardware engineer. Her job is to provide messaging around the current lineup.
A junior Apple PR rep probably doesn't have a lot of detail around Apple's future iMac pipeline. Why would she? She's a PR rep, not a hardware engineer. Her job is to provide messaging around the current lineup.
Really? Have you tried a 4K display on a Mac? It doesn't work (scale) well. 1440p or 5K are the resolutions for sharpest display.
Apparently everyone here who keeps saying "buy your own monitor" know nothing about the poor scaling of macOS on a 4K display. +1 for Windows for designing an OS that looks great on any display resolution (including the very common, sharp 4K).
"Apple has only ruled out a new 27-inch iMac, so a larger-screened iMac is still possible."
These two sentences are saying exactly the opposite things. Either MR author didn't understand, or his/her desire to actually see a bigger iMac released is so high that it blinds him/her.
I'm running a 4k display at home with my M1 Air. I scale it to 1440p, and it seems fine to me?
I replaced my (broken) 2017 iMac with a Mac mini and BenQ. The computer is great (although it requires an expansion dock - no SD card slot!!). The monitor I got is okay (for the money) but nowhere as good as my iMac. The lack of built in camera and microphone kinda sucks.
Yeah, this is super disappointed but it tracks with Apple’s movements over the past few years. The overall decline in what Apple used to be is overwhelming.
If you’d like to know, Mr. Cook, my customer satisfaction is very low across all segments and seems to get lower with every OS and device update.
It's scaled to 1440p, it's not running at 1440p. I have it like that because the screen area is too large for my liking at 4k.
Last edited by a moderator:
Before Thunderbolt the "Target Display Mode" primarily worked on a DisplayPort (DP) port. They didn't need a 'customized controller' as much as a DP switch(es) which Apple could toggle to reroute the port from being a 'display output' port to some path inside the system back to the embedded display.
| GPU out 1 --> | DP | ---> DP to embedded screen |
| GPU out 2 ---> | routing | --> DP port out mode |
| switching | <-- DP port in mode |
So either GPU out 1 or DP port in drives the screen depending upon how the switch to route the signal. Similarly GPU out 2 goes out the DP port out is blocked by some signal coming in.
The 5K display presented a problem because there wasn't evenough single DisplayPort v1.x bandwidth to drive the display. So needed two signals to drive the display and a customer display controller (that takes two inputs ).
Thunderbolt 3 only got to point were could carry two signals over a single wire. However, it doesn't inherently solve the issue though. These are are some TBv1 diagrams but present the core problem in the modern context.
Everything You Need To Know About Thunderbolt
A year after its debut on Apple platforms, Thunderbolt is finally available for PCs. Both fast and scalable, the technology’s 10 Gb/s connectivity and potential for external graphics promises to inspire innovation. But is it ready for prime time?
Later TB controllers took two DP ports in and had ability for two DP ports out. Historically, this was done with discrete controllers. Some variants of the Intel controller could be used in both "Host Mode" (inside a PC) and "Endpoint Mode".
Two layers of problems. One is that the 'target mode' for display needs to switch the controller from 'host' to 'endpoint' mode. The other major modern problem though is that "host mode" is primarily not implemented using a discrete TB controller. There are no "DP out" ports on an embedded TB controller. Intel mobile and all of Apple's TB controllers are now embedded onto the main SoC die (or at least onto the main SoC chip package). It is a big Perf/Watt boost and economical at scale.
This is all very similar to the USB 2.0-3.0 world where most mainstream host USB controllers are integrated into the rest of the platform provisioning die; not a discrete chip. And peripherals are made in such large quantities that endpoint only USB controllers dominate. Thunderbolt merging with USB-IF means that TB controllers are extremely likely to diverge the same way USB controllers have.
Myopically focusing on TB's bandwidth to solely solve the problem is misguided. If there is no path to get the signal to an embedded screen ( no DP out port) then TB won't be a solution.
Could Apple go through gyrations to embed not only a TB controller but also a relatively very rarely used DP switch on the die ? Technically possible. But relatively very expensive use of die area when there are lots of other die subsystems that can deliver greater bang-for-the-buck.
More than decent chance Apple's 'Green Team' is pushing for that approach also. Laptops get a 'pass' because integration is an essential element of being able to take the 'whole system' with you. iMac 24" probably gets a pass because now a much narrower part of a display modular desktop line up. There are some device security contexts where one whole system works better, but not looking to make that Apple's 'king of desktop volume' model.
If a larger screen iMac ever comes back it would likely be relatively low volume (and much higher margin) and targeted at a narrow niche. If Apple is trying to push more of their products to 'zero carbon footprint' lifecycle then one easy factor is to greatly end the life. For monitors that is much more easy for them to do. Apple doesn't refresh monitor quickly before. ( e.g., sold the 30" display for 6-7 years. sold the TB display for 6-7 years , etc. )