Why not 24" iMac?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by soomster, Feb 27, 2013.

  1. soomster macrumors regular


    Apr 15, 2010
    21.5" is too small and 27" is to big. I miss 24" option.
    With 27" default display resulotion letters are almost too small to read without glasses.
    Anyone else miss 24" iMacs?
  2. Ddyracer macrumors 68000


    Nov 24, 2009
    Yeah. i saw the 27 and its big. Hell, even the 24 is big.
  3. JustMartin macrumors 6502a

    Feb 28, 2012
    I got the 21" because the 27 was too big for my desk, but would have got a 24 if that had been available.
  4. ApplesAOranges macrumors 6502

    Jan 7, 2011
    Why not 30" or 40" iMac?

    I think the 27" is too small.

    More resolution please!
  5. smoking monkey macrumors 65816

    smoking monkey

    Mar 5, 2008
    You Only Live Twice
    My 24 was great, but now I got a 27 I like it even better. opening documents side by side is such a breeze. It speeds up my workflow and that can only be a good thing.
  6. soomster thread starter macrumors regular


    Apr 15, 2010
    Yeah, 27" is great but I would like 24" as an option.
    21.5" 24" and 27" would be great options.
  7. tekno macrumors 6502a

    Oct 15, 2011
    I find iMacs odd.

    Too bog 27" or too small 21"
    Ultra thin - not an issue on my desk
    Tiny keyboard with very sharp edges - less comfortable to use than my MacBook Air
  8. dangerly macrumors regular


    Oct 27, 2009
    European Dis-Union
    I own a 24" iMac since 2010. For me is the perfect size.
    Have looked at the 27" in stores few times, but is too big of a screen for me.
    My plans are to wait and see what Apple does in the future, in the meantime i will substitute my 1TB HDD with a new one and install a SSD in place of the superdrive and make a fusion drive.
  9. lucasfer899 macrumors 6502


    Sep 23, 2012
    The 24" is 16:10 aspect ratio, however the 21.5 and 27 are 16:9, apple did this for god knows what reason, but they did.
    The 24" was killed off because they wanted to bump the sizes and resolutions of their macs, they couldn't keep it, as it was too big for some people to use as the small model. 27" was becoming more and more prominent in the prefessional sector, with 1440p screens, apple wanted a bite of it. So they bumped from 24 to 27, however the 20" iMac was still 16:10 aswell, like all the older ACD's. Therefore they needed to bump the res on that to 1080p, and at the same time they increased the size to make up for the 24".
    In short, buy either of the new ones and call it a day.
    If you really are that fussed over 2.5" from the 21.5" model, or 3" t the 27" model, go buy a Mac mini and a 1200p 24" display.
  10. bmcgrath macrumors 65816


    Oct 5, 2006
    London, United Kingdom
    I would like a 30" iMac.

    Preferably retina :D
  11. drawnacrol macrumors newbie

    Sep 23, 2009
  12. bembol macrumors 65816


    Jul 29, 2006
    I had the 24" (Mid-2008), I thought it was perfect.

    I thought Apple was going to keep it and give us a 30" iMac.

    21.5" is too small for me.
  13. HenryDJP macrumors 603

    Nov 25, 2012
    United States
    While I do understand your point, to be honest, having all 3 as an option presents way too much confusion, let alone from a business standpoint it could lose a lot of sales for both the 21" and the 27". Firstly, people will become undecided if they should go for the 24" over the 21" as they think they will lose something by getting the smallest. Then they may choose the 24" over the 27" due to price and that will lose sales for the 27". Don't tell me I'm wrong because you're the very customer I'm speaking of. ;) Now, if Apple offered a 24" iMac and a 30" then that would make more sense. Do away with the 21 and the 27.
  14. soomster thread starter macrumors regular


    Apr 15, 2010
    I agree with you, 24" or 30".
    I would also like 16:10 ratio again.
  15. Rab Simpson macrumors regular

    Rab Simpson

    Feb 10, 2006
    Glasgow, Scotland
    I've got a 2009 24" iMac on my desk next to my 2014 27" riMac and the only difference is the width, and it really isn't much.

    The 27" is fine if you have the extra horizontal room for it.
  16. Piggie macrumors G3


    Feb 23, 2010
    funny how you don't understand.

    They don't make a 24" model as THAT is the model most people would go for.

    They make the 27" in the hope that those people who would have gone for the 24" stump up more money as they don't want the 21" so their only option is the 27"

    Apple are not stupid and know how to get extra money out of customers.
    The exact same way they won't make an iPhone with the memory capacity many would buy, they make one with too little, and the next one with a bit too much, but then the people decide to buy the more expensive one.
  17. colodane macrumors 6502a


    Nov 11, 2012
    A 4K 24 inch model would be ideal for me. But I'm not holding my breath.
  18. FreemanW macrumors 6502

    Sep 10, 2012
    The Real Northern California
    I would love to see a 30" retina iMac along with an Apple store north if the Interstate 80 corridor in California.
  19. varian55zx macrumors 6502a


    May 10, 2012
    San Francisco
    I think a lot of people are in your same boat.

    I used to have one of the old 24 inches in the household and I was wondering for a little while why that was discontinued from the lineup. It seemed a no brainer to keep it, on the surface.

    However I do think it does make sense. Not necessarily from a consumer standpoint, but from Apple's standpoint. They want to try and get anyone who thinks the 21.5 is too small to be forced to pay much more, for the 27 inch. I think they felt they would be able to get enough of the 24 inch customers to go to the 27 inch to justify getting rid of it, in addition to that, bigger screens are more in style nowadays. I personally much prefer the 27 inch, part of the reason I bought it. I am in love with the giant 5K screen. The 21.5 is small, not too small, but smaller than I'd like to have my main home computer be. Bigger screens are in style nowadays. The 21.5 makes sense in smaller enclosed spaces. The 24 inch doesn't have much of a place anymore.
  20. JoeG4 macrumors 68030


    Jan 11, 2002
    Bay Area, Ca.
    I got used to my 34" monitor to the point where 24" looks kinda.. small.
  21. 5iMacs macrumors regular

    Oct 25, 2014
    Well, I'm a huge fan of the 2007 24" aluminum iMac, I used it for 7 years. In the days before Retina, pixels were the thing and those were big and beautiful.

    But Retina is here and that is your premium option now, an entirely superior experience, and 21.5" for "4k" and 27" for "5k" is a pretty optimal pixel size.

    Using the Retina iMac since fall 2014, I very much agree with varian55zx. The 21.5" is very pleasing and useful, you just can't get so many things on the screen at once and if that's the way you work you really should go for the 27". A hypothetical 24" just wouldn't improve on the 21.5" enough, in my opinion.

    Another thing to consider, in my experience, is that initial reactions to the "size" of a screen often fade pretty quickly once you start using it. In the last 2 years I've also used a 39" 2160p screen and a 25" 1440p screen and they also seem comfortable, it's the pixel count, contrast and color saturation that end up being the more important factors.
  22. ApfelKuchen macrumors 68030

    Aug 28, 2012
    Between the coasts
    I certainly wouldn't deny the 24" option to people who want one, but in terms of desk space? A 24" would be about 2.5" narrower and 1.5" shorter than a 27". While I'm sure there are some conditions when that would make a difference, under most I'd expect not. It's not like the days of CRT monitors, when extra width meant significantly extra depth as well.

    27" next to a 21" certainly looks huge, so I can see how some people may think that it's too large. I'm not so sure that they'd have the same impression if they had a 24" next to a 27". As someone who works on both 27" and 20.5" Macs on a daily basis... I wish they all could be 27 screens (you can sing that last bit, if you know your Beach Boys).

    I can imagine Apple likes offering the stark contrast between 21" and 27" displays. The difference in desktop area (and the amount of work you can spread across it) is less obvious between 21" and 24" or 24" and 27". I can see people who would otherwise go to 27" compromising on 24" to save a few bucks, but I can't see nearly as many stepping up from 21" to 24" because it is affordable. In other words, I don't think that 24" is an effective up-sell from 21", it's more of a down-sell from 27".
  23. Rab Simpson macrumors regular

    Rab Simpson

    Feb 10, 2006
    Glasgow, Scotland
    I remember using two 17" displays side by side years ago (easily 9 years), now I've got two 27" 5K displays side by side. The difference is breathtaking!
    --- Post Merged, Feb 27, 2016 ---
    There's no difference in height. I'm looking at my old 24" on the desk next to my 27" and if there's any height difference it's on the atomic scale.
  24. ApfelKuchen macrumors 68030

    Aug 28, 2012
    Between the coasts
    Since aspect ratio has changed from the days of the 24" display (from 16:10 to 16:9), height in proportion to width has changed. Since today's 27" are essentially the same height as yesterday's 24", it stands to reason that today's 24" will be shorter.

    Early 2009 20-inch iMac - 1680 by 1050 (1.6:1)
    Height: 18.5 inches (46.9 cm)
    Width: 19.1 inches (48.5 cm)
    Depth: 7.4 inches (18.9 cm)
    Weight: 20 pounds (9.1 kg)1

    Early 2009 24-inch iMac - 1920 by 1200 (1.6:1)
    Height: 20.5 inches (52.0 cm)
    Width: 22.4 inches (56.9 cm)
    Depth: 8.1 inches (20.7 cm)
    Weight: 25.4 pounds (11.5 kg)1

    Late 2015 21.5-inch iMac - 1920‑by 1080 (standard - 1.77:1) 4096-by-2304 (Retina 1.77:1)
    Height: 17.7 inches (45.0 cm)
    Width: 20.8 inches (52.8 cm)
    Stand depth: 6.9 inches (17.5 cm)
    Weight: 12.5 pounds (5.68 kg)2

    Late 2013-Late 2015 27-inch iMac - 2560-by-1440 (standard - 1.77:1) 5120‑by‑2880 (Retina - 1.77:1)
    Height: 20.3 inches (51.6 cm)
    Width: 25.6 inches (65.0 cm)
    Stand depth: 8 inches (20.3 cm)
    Weight: 21 pounds (9.54 kg)2

Share This Page