I use 4k with my 32 inch screens. It's great, rather small of course, but just imagine you'll get twice the screen estate.
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.
Report: Apple Developing 24-Inch OLED iMac With 600 Nits Brightness
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I use 4k with my 32 inch screens. It's great, rather small of course, but just imagine you'll get twice the screen estate.
A Mac Studio ($1999 + $200 for 1TB) and a 27" Studio Display ($1599) plus keyboard/mouse (~$170) is actually less than the iMac Pro was ($4999). Even my regular iMac 27" decked out was around $3800 at the time so roughly the same. That is probably the real comparison in your case IMO... so don't feel bad
Where the increase is was the lower end iMac 27" ($1799) vs say a Mac mini ($599) and an Apple Studio Display ($1599) and then plus keyboard/mouse (~$170). Of course that could be fixed by pricing the ASD at ~$1000 which hopefully they keep the current model and price it around that when they release the newer model(s).
I personally think the minimum for 27” is 4K and for 32” that would mean 5K. However, 32” 5K doesn’t yet exist yet (although it has been announced), so I got a 32” 6K.*
However, clearly your pixel density requirements are less stringent than mine. What do you mean by "2K"? If you mean 2560x1440, then that is 109 ppi, which is the standard Apple used way back in 2009 for the 27" iMac. If you are OK with that, I suspect it's because you're using it at its intended native resolution. There is nothing comparable at the 32" size. The equivalent pixel density would be something like 3008x1692 31.6". When you go to 32" 4K, I think the text quality is poor at 138 ppi (at my normal seating distance of 22").
Why is 138 ppi worse than 109 ppi? Because at 109 ppi you will use the native resolution. At 138 ppi you have to use a non-integer scaled resolution, which will reduce text quality.
Much preferred is 2X integer scaling at 218 ppi, which unfortunately for an Apple display means the Pro Display XDR.
The Pro Display XDR is 3008x1692 x 2X = 6016x3384.*I'm personally using the 31.5" LG UltraFine 6K which is 6144x3456 at 224 ppi, so with 2X scaling that's equivalent text size to a 3072x1728 monitor.
I would suggest checking out 4K 32" screens in person to see if the text quality is good enough for you. It certainly wasn't for me.
I used to run a 27" 5K iMac (218 ppi) with a 27" 2.5K iMac (109 ppi) as a second monitor beside it (using Target Display Mode). I sometimes actually kinda disliked this setup. I didn't like having the centre of my viewing area being bezel, and it was kind of an awkward use of desk space. Plus I didn't need all that screen space. I'm now on an M4 Mac mini with a single 31.5" 6K monitor, and I like that setup much. much better. My monitor is 224 ppi, which makes for kinda small text, but I compensate for that in Safari by using its zoom setting at 115%.
End of life product. The iMac customer with base m chip is not looking for oled screen…. The days of the iMac and the Mac Pro are over
I wonder how well OLED can survive 10 years of use. LCD + led backlight can do it easily, OLED..not so sure.
What an odd combo.
One would think the folks most inclined to buy the 24" iMac are among those who will least appreciate or care about an OLED screen.
The only place I ever see these iMacs are in fancy medical & architect offices, where a receptionist is using them for scheduling and emails.
One would think the folks most inclined to buy the 24" iMac are among those who will least appreciate or care about an OLED screen.
The only place I ever see these iMacs are in fancy medical & architect offices, where a receptionist is using them for scheduling and emails.
It makes more sense, I think, to just get a Mac Mini and then go shop any of the hundreds of options for OLED monitors, based on your priorities of cost or quality or size, etc. I think no one wants a 24" OLED iMac (which seems to be the size Apple requested information on from Samsung and LG). The cost of a tandem RGB OLED would cost to much for Apple to absorb and the price of the iMac would rise quite a bit.
Can someone explain to me why in 2015 the max spec on a standard iMac was a 3tb fusion hard drive and 128 gb ram...and today, 10 years later the max spec is a 2tb hard drive and 32 gb of ram. What am I missing?
No one cares. We want a 32” monitor that doesn’t cost as much as a used car.
If the rumour is true, then this could be to separate the product from a potential 'iMac Pro' and other more premium displays.
As we know, Apple likes to differentiate its consumer and pro products; so even if on a technical level they withdraw HDR, its purely so that the consumer-level iMac doesn't blur the lines with their pro products.
The only thing that confuses me is that Apple has (mostly) stuck to combining various technologies. So, where they have used mini-LED or OLED, they have also integrated ProMotion or higher brightness settings. So if this OLED iMac rumour is true, it would break a trend.
The iPad Air and MacBook Air may also offer clues, as we're led to believe that they too could be using a higher quality display in the future, though it remains to be see whether they will have higher brightness and ProMotion..
Another possibility is that the rumour has mixed messages, and that it is the iMac Pro which will be OLED and simply a refresh of the 24-inch.
But that wasn't even the pro model. The iMac Pro had a 4TB ssd hard drive and 256 gb ram.
Would you mind sharing your exact setup? I have a 2019 21.5 iMac and really considering an update but don't want to get the M4 iMac and unsure when the next update might be.
24" is for kids, don't know why Apple is so stuck on this silly size. iMac needs bigger sizes. 27" minimum but 30-32" would be perfect. Also, having 2 sizes 24 & 32 would be ideal as 24 is more for education and 32 would be more for content creation etc.
I did the same. M4 Mac Mini and Samsung M8 32". The screen is not as good as the Apple but it was only $599CAD so you can't beat that.
If there was 32" Apple Studio Display that is not insanely expensive like the XDR then I would get that.
These days I'm toying with the ideal to get one of those asia models that (most likely) use the same panel as Apple. Youtube reviews are fairly positive.
If there was 32" Apple Studio Display that is not insanely expensive like the XDR then I would get that.
These days I'm toying with the ideal to get one of those asia models that (most likely) use the same panel as Apple. Youtube reviews are fairly positive.
This! 24" is a bit too small for my work flow so I use the ASD (sometimes two of them). But I agree there is a significant market for 24" as it works perfectly for people who work with a full-screen app (like retail, call centers, professional offices, etc) and for home use with limited desk space.
I imagine for a single product line and the associated target market it is more appealing, not less. Cost considerations and price targets are also probably more appealing at 24".
The amount of people who would prefer a larger, heavier and bulkier all in one, is going to be niche. There are other product lines to fill that gap.
The 27” iMac non-Pro was very commonly used by creative pros. It seems very few pros use the Apple Silicon iMacs, because the screen is too small.
This is not a TV. For desktop computing, 600 nits is really bright. I can’t go much above 250 nits on a desktop monitor, personally.
FWIW, I paid the equivalent of CA$2114.50* for my LG 32” UltraFine 6K, plus eco fee and tax. For the non-Canadians, that’s a little over US$1500.
*It was $2380, but I got a $300 pre-paid credit card from LG back as a bonus, and before Ontario HST that is worth $265.50.
For my LG 6K which can do 600-900 nits peak, I run it in SDR at around 120-150 nits usually. However, for the few times I watch Netflix on it, sometimes I put it in HDR mode and run it at near full brightness. Cuz only the highlights are at max brightness, not the overall average screen brightness.
That’s okay, macOS support is only for around seven years.
27" is a good size, and that's the size of my home monitor, but I personally think 32" is too big for most. I guess just speaking for myself, but if I have to turn my head to see part of the screen, it's too big.
Not sure where the "for kids", part comes from; 24" is the only size displays we can get here at work (hospital), so everyone and every unit has them. I think they work great, not too tall, so one easily see and talk to people over the top. Everyone has dual monitors, so that I guess that helps.
Ah yes; a thinner iMac. I simply find it astonishing that if Apple dropped the 24” for a 27” or larger display the chin would be half the size of not smaller as the computer components would have more room to be placed in-line. It also boggles the mind that Apple is unable to make the iMac have an articulated arm and hamstring the iMac ability to be adjusted.
A better solution would be a blend of the G4 Luxo Lamp iMac. Have the iMac display removable on an articulated arm/stand and the computer located at the base that can also be removable. This would effectively provide the customer/client to swap out the display as needed to a different size and upgrade the computer with a Mac mini while the key component of the iMac being the articulating stand. This would result in a win-win-win situation for the environment, customer and Apple. While you are at it Apple make the sole iMac stand foldable that way transporting and travelling with it would be a pleasure.
A better solution would be a blend of the G4 Luxo Lamp iMac. Have the iMac display removable on an articulated arm/stand and the computer located at the base that can also be removable. This would effectively provide the customer/client to swap out the display as needed to a different size and upgrade the computer with a Mac mini while the key component of the iMac being the articulating stand. This would result in a win-win-win situation for the environment, customer and Apple. While you are at it Apple make the sole iMac stand foldable that way transporting and travelling with it would be a pleasure.