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.
Do you prefer 24" or 27" new iMac?
- Thread starter muimui
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well I expect the 27" iMac 5K is being replaced with a 32" iMac Pro 6K, but as long as it is Retina and 27 inches or wider, I will buy it.
24 colors are already maxing out SKUs so we’re unlikely to see a second size of the base iMac. iMac Pro’s will give a second size but starting price is likely to be 2-3x higher. Mini and Mac Pro will likely have a similar split, so the interesting question is if there will be any medium option on either side. X Mac. I’m expecting not.
Are you asking if we prefer the 24" M1 redesigned iMac vs the 27" Intel one? Or vs a hypothetical 27" M1?
This thread doesn't really make sense, I would assume you mean 24" M1 vs 27" Intel one. As there would be no reason aside from space constraints or budget to actually "prefer" the 24". But you said these will be the only choice for 2 years, and we are certainly going to get the larger iMac within 2 years. It's likely going to be 30 or 32" though.
Thread makes no sense at all but I'm going to assume you mean 24" M1 redesign vs the 27" Intel; in which case I vote 24". But you said the new 27" iMac, which doesn't exist. So I have no idea lol
This thread doesn't really make sense, I would assume you mean 24" M1 vs 27" Intel one. As there would be no reason aside from space constraints or budget to actually "prefer" the 24". But you said these will be the only choice for 2 years, and we are certainly going to get the larger iMac within 2 years. It's likely going to be 30 or 32" though.
Thread makes no sense at all but I'm going to assume you mean 24" M1 redesign vs the 27" Intel; in which case I vote 24". But you said the new 27" iMac, which doesn't exist. So I have no idea lol
I mean the future iMac should be only 24" or 27" and you make a choice between these two.
All the leaks suggest 30 or 32"
24 & 27 are way too close together to justify the price difference
I've worked on all sizes and 21.5 was a bit too small and 27 a bit too big for me. 24 is my ideal desktop screen size, but I would have preferred 4k instead of 4.5k (to have integer scaling at a comfortable reading size).
The scaling for the 21.5 was barely acceptable for my eyes and the 27" too small. I know that technically they are about the same, but I can keep the 21.5 screen closer to my eyes, because it's smaller. While if I do the same with the 27", it's too much light too close to my face. So the bigger you go with a screen size, the farther it wants to be from my eyes, and so the more uncomfortable the same DPI gets.
I would have liked something like the LG Ultrafine 4K 24", which is a slightly bumped up version of the 21.5.
The scaling for the 21.5 was barely acceptable for my eyes and the 27" too small. I know that technically they are about the same, but I can keep the 21.5 screen closer to my eyes, because it's smaller. While if I do the same with the 27", it's too much light too close to my face. So the bigger you go with a screen size, the farther it wants to be from my eyes, and so the more uncomfortable the same DPI gets.
I would have liked something like the LG Ultrafine 4K 24", which is a slightly bumped up version of the 21.5.
Methinks you are wrtong wrong wrtong but let's wait and see before all thee BS threads about the terrible new iMac go up.
Over 30" is not for majority of people and Apple knows it, thats why only for XDR which is for extreme rich people or company.
"Look like 24" and 27" new iMac will be the only 2 options for coming years"
Your total premise is wrong.
We'll find out quite soon what the replacement for the 27" will be...
Your total premise is wrong.
We'll find out quite soon what the replacement for the 27" will be...
Personally, the 27” iMac is just too big for me. If I could use a fractional scaled resolution, it wouldn’t be so bad, but those look notably worse. Scaled at 2560x1440, I just feel like things are too small on the screen, and there’s too much screen real estate that I don’t want or need (bet you’ve never heard that one before). Things on the screen just look comically small, coming from 13” MacBooks.
A 24” 4K monitor run at 1920x1080 looks excellent to me. I wonder what I’ll think of the 4.5K monitor in the new iMac, which will likely run scaled at 2240x1260.
A 24” 4K monitor run at 1920x1080 looks excellent to me. I wonder what I’ll think of the 4.5K monitor in the new iMac, which will likely run scaled at 2240x1260.
I run a 27" 4K external screen at 1920x1080 and it's good, things are a little too big, but when I set it to "5K" (retina 2560x1440), mimicking the iMac 27", everything is just too small. There should be a middle ground. But I think I will be fine with the 24" iMac
Would you guys say 24 inches is the sweet spot for document work? I kinda find looking around a 32 inch screen tiring when reading.
I'd be happy either with 24 or something around 27. It all would depend on the other specs and features. Definitely zero interest in anything 30 or over. Fortunately, I am about 2 years from wanting a new iMac, so am enjoying all the speculation for the time being.
Agreed.
My work displays are 24" and 27" Apple and they are perfect for web, emails, spreadsheets, etc.
At home is a 27" Apple main display and it's great as well, but the larger 32" 4K display is too small in fonts to see clearly.
32" I use it as a video streaming / DVD / YouTube display that I would watch pushed back away further for a pleasant viewing experience...
Why don't you set the 32" 4K to look like 2560x1440 retina equivalent? Should be pretty much perfect at that size/resolution. On my 4K 27" that resolution makes everything too little, on the other hand 1920x1080 makes everything a little too big.