Translation: You're not doing anything CPU-intensive enough for the difference to matter. That's fine for you, but doesn't make you the objective authority to ordain what kind of CPU power other people need.
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.
Will Apple Bring Back a Larger iMac? Here's What the Latest Rumors Say
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This is just rude. I made my points, and you asked for authorities.
And it's not a tactic, its receipts, "smart user."
ð christensen grove and and intel - Google Search
Bringing up someone's username to make a point is not silly or rude, I suppose.This is just rude. I made my points, and you asked for authorities.
And it's not a tactic, its receipts, "smart user."
ð christensen grove and and intel - Google Search
www.google.com
I asked you for authoritative information, not authorities. Authoritative information is proven or evident, not just someone’s opinion.
You’re not linking to a direct quote, just a Google search. You’re avoiding direct quotes or links, which speaks volumes.
It has been more than two and a half years since Apple discontinued the 27-inch iMac, as part of its move away from Intel processors. Since then, the 24-inch iMac has been Apple's only all-in-one desktop computer, with no larger model available.
Will a larger iMac ever make a comeback? We recap the latest rumors below.
In November, Apple announced that it had no plans to release a new version of the 27-inch iMac with an Apple silicon chip. Instead, Apple recommended pairing its standalone Studio Display with its Mac Studio or Mac mini desktop computers.
Apple's statement ruled out a new 27-inch iMac, but an even larger model is still possible one day. Nearly a year ago, both Bloomberg's Mark Gurman and Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo said Apple was developing a 32-inch iMac for release in late 2024 or in 2025. Kuo said the larger iMac's screen would feature mini-LED backlighting, which would allow for increased brightness, higher contrast ratio, and other benefits compared to LCD technology.
While there haven't been any rumors lately about this alleged 32-inch iMac, Gurman said Apple was still exploring a larger iMac as recently as August.
"A larger iMac remains something Apple is exploring as well, but it's unclear if that will be an M4 product or something that comes the following year or later," he wrote.
That is all that is known about a potential larger iMac at this point.
All in all, it seems that a larger iMac might be on Apple's roadmap, but the wait continues for now.
In the meantime, the 24-inch iMac is expected to be updated with the M4 chip in October, alongside new MacBook Pro and Mac mini models.
Article Link: Will Apple Bring Back a Larger iMac? Here's What the Latest Rumors Say
Display + Studio Mac
- Not Elegant
- Bulky, large footprint
- Ugly black cables
- Collects more dust
- Not as smooth hardware integration, including webcam
- in 4-5 years your monitor gets old, dusty, likely malfunctioning and obsolete as well as your CPU, so I would not keep the monitor for decade. No cost saving for me with separates.
- Elegant, minimum cables
- Low footprint
- Just works
It seems to be a step back to the past. Mac Quadra 😂:
Last edited:
For other users who frequently have to wait for their Mac to compile code, render scenes or calculate results raw computing power might be the deciding factor, but >99% of the time my Mac is waiting for me. I am, by far, the slowest part of my computing system. Scrolling, switching windows and switching spaces is an incredible waste of time so like the original poster quoted above I buy the largest display I can afford.
For my next Mac I was considering a Mac Mini plus Studio Display because it would exactly match what I have now in terms of screen real estate and physical desk space needed, but the cost will be almost double what I paid for my 27" iMac.
A second option is a Mini with a pair of third party displays. I'd get more screen real estate, but would have to accept lower pixel density and poorer colour reproduction. I'd also have to move the printer off my desk to make room for the second display.
A third option is an iMac with a third party display. The main screen would be smaller so I'd end up doing more scrolling, but having other windows visible simultaneously on the second display might more than make up for that. I'd still have to move my printer though.
Fortunately Apple is still supporting Intel Macs so I can put off the replacement decisions a while longer.
Photo of an iMac with nothing whatsoever plugged in...
vs.
Photo of a Mac Studio with - apart from the necessary power and single USB-C monitor - five USB-C/USB-A devices and an HDMI display connected?
Seriously? Surprised you couldn't find a photo of the Studio with a wired network plugged in for good measure. /s
Now find a picture of an iMac with half a dozen additional cables connected and hanging down in plain sight (rather than tucked behind the Studio) - for bonus points, imagine one mounted on a display arm, or even a decent adjustable stand (hope you ordered the VESA option when you bought the iMac - no swapsies!) with all those cables dangling.
Also, enjoy fumbling around behind that 27" panel whenever you have to plug or unplug something (even an SD card!) - much easier with the Studio, even discunting the front-mounted ports. (Yes, I own both a 27" iMac and a Studio so I know).
Sure, the iMac is a "sweet spot" for people who really never plug in more than the power cable - but the 27" iMac was also the only viable option for people who wanted a more powerful desktop Mac and did need to connect it to everything but the kitchen sink. If Apple could produce a large-screen iMac alongside a decent Mac Mni/Mac Studio line then I wouldn't complain - but history has seen Apple's desktop range consisting of an underpowered Mac Mini, an eye-wateringly expensive Mac Pro and the iMac for everybody else.
In terms of internal dust accumulating - well, an iMac has exactly the same problem and is significantly harder to open up for cleaning than a Mac Studio or Mini (see Apple's repair guides online). Not saying it's easy, but it's a "having the right screwdrivers" job, whereas doing anything to an iMac involves cutting through the glue holding the screen on & obtaining replacement adhesive strips.
Meanwhile, anybody doing any sort of AV production work (not uncommon for a higher-end Mac) will - whether they have an iMac or a Studio - probably need an external audio interface and monitor speakers (and a higher quality video camera if they're YouTubing etc.) anyway making the integrated iMac stuff redundant.
The 5k screen in my 2017 iMac is still as good as anything available today (the Studio Display is maybe a tad brighter) and I'd be using it with my Studio if I could. The 2017 processor is slower and noisier than my Studio, and stopped getting new MacOS versions in 2023. Even the cheapo 4k display I bought in 2016 is still being used as a display for a 2020 MBA. I used an Apple LED Cinema display at work for 8 covering at least 2 Macs and was disappointed that I couldn't quite get away with swiping it when I left.
Unfortunately, there are a couple of articles out there on the tubes which make it sound like using 4k on a Mac will make your eyes bleed - along with super-enlarged images/simulations of worst-case examples of scaling artefacts - which would only really affect people trying to do pixel-accurate editing without using zoom (in which case it takes seconds to switch to a 1:1 or 2:1 mode to get the job done). If you go hunting for artefacts and let yourself get triggered by them you'll find them, but I've found them insignificant in general use. A 30" or larger 4k display will probably be useable in 1:1 mode without scaling (your eyesight may vary).
Colour reproduction should only be an issue if you cheap out on a low-end third party display. As for desk space, you could look into monitor arms or dual-display VESA mounts.
It's true that 5120x2880 @ 27" is the sweet spot for MacOS, but unfortunately the days of $1800 iMacs with 5k displays is over (it's amazing that Apple kept them going for so long once 5k failed to take off on PC and bring down prices).
vs.
Photo of a Mac Studio with - apart from the necessary power and single USB-C monitor - five USB-C/USB-A devices and an HDMI display connected?
Seriously? Surprised you couldn't find a photo of the Studio with a wired network plugged in for good measure. /s
Now find a picture of an iMac with half a dozen additional cables connected and hanging down in plain sight (rather than tucked behind the Studio) - for bonus points, imagine one mounted on a display arm, or even a decent adjustable stand (hope you ordered the VESA option when you bought the iMac - no swapsies!) with all those cables dangling.
Also, enjoy fumbling around behind that 27" panel whenever you have to plug or unplug something (even an SD card!) - much easier with the Studio, even discunting the front-mounted ports. (Yes, I own both a 27" iMac and a Studio so I know).
Sure, the iMac is a "sweet spot" for people who really never plug in more than the power cable - but the 27" iMac was also the only viable option for people who wanted a more powerful desktop Mac and did need to connect it to everything but the kitchen sink. If Apple could produce a large-screen iMac alongside a decent Mac Mni/Mac Studio line then I wouldn't complain - but history has seen Apple's desktop range consisting of an underpowered Mac Mini, an eye-wateringly expensive Mac Pro and the iMac for everybody else.
...if you take "footprint" literally. But it doesn't actually take that much more "real" desk space because it usually parks under the "overhang" of the monitor. Or, it can located on a shelf, under the desk (along with peripherals and everything but the display cable) or simply shoved out-of-the-way where it isn't taking up useful working space.
If that's the dealbreaker, white replacement thunderbolt 4 and IEC power cables are widely available.
Soft rags are widely available and can be conveniently upcycled from old clothes etc. You don't need to pay $20 for an Apple cleaning cloth, let alone $2000 for a new, non-dusty computer.
In terms of internal dust accumulating - well, an iMac has exactly the same problem and is significantly harder to open up for cleaning than a Mac Studio or Mini (see Apple's repair guides online). Not saying it's easy, but it's a "having the right screwdrivers" job, whereas doing anything to an iMac involves cutting through the glue holding the screen on & obtaining replacement adhesive strips.
The Studio Display you show has internal webcam, sound system and microphones, all via the one Thunderbolt cable. Many third-party USB-C displays offer similar. I've got a Logitech webcam plugged into my USB-C display's USB hub and it Just Works.
Meanwhile, anybody doing any sort of AV production work (not uncommon for a higher-end Mac) will - whether they have an iMac or a Studio - probably need an external audio interface and monitor speakers (and a higher quality video camera if they're YouTubing etc.) anyway making the integrated iMac stuff redundant.
YMMV but every display I've ever bought has served more than one "generation" of computer. Esp. since the switch to LED illumination (those old CF backlights did lose their mojo after a while).
The 5k screen in my 2017 iMac is still as good as anything available today (the Studio Display is maybe a tad brighter) and I'd be using it with my Studio if I could. The 2017 processor is slower and noisier than my Studio, and stopped getting new MacOS versions in 2023. Even the cheapo 4k display I bought in 2016 is still being used as a display for a 2020 MBA. I used an Apple LED Cinema display at work for 8 covering at least 2 Macs and was disappointed that I couldn't quite get away with swiping it when I left.
Don't expect any hypothetical new large-screen iMac to be significantly cheaper than a Mini + Studio Display combo.
Don't rule out a 27" 4k screen until you've tried one. "Looks like 2560x1440" mode (misleadingly named, since it's actually 5220x2880 downsampled to 3840x2160 which shows far more detail than 2560x1440) will give you essentially the same "real estate" as a 5k iMac with a slight softening of detail. I used a 4k 28" screen alongside my 5k iMac for years and although there was a difference in sharpness it was still pretty good.
Unfortunately, there are a couple of articles out there on the tubes which make it sound like using 4k on a Mac will make your eyes bleed - along with super-enlarged images/simulations of worst-case examples of scaling artefacts - which would only really affect people trying to do pixel-accurate editing without using zoom (in which case it takes seconds to switch to a 1:1 or 2:1 mode to get the job done). If you go hunting for artefacts and let yourself get triggered by them you'll find them, but I've found them insignificant in general use. A 30" or larger 4k display will probably be useable in 1:1 mode without scaling (your eyesight may vary).
Colour reproduction should only be an issue if you cheap out on a low-end third party display. As for desk space, you could look into monitor arms or dual-display VESA mounts.
It's true that 5120x2880 @ 27" is the sweet spot for MacOS, but unfortunately the days of $1800 iMacs with 5k displays is over (it's amazing that Apple kept them going for so long once 5k failed to take off on PC and bring down prices).
Takes twice more space. And I don't want it to be "located" anywhere on my desk with all the wires running around
Please, no cables, no 3-rd part carp with more cables!
The 5K screen on your 2017 iMac and Apple's newer Studio Display both offer high resolution, but there are some notable improvements in quality and technology you can get today:
- Brightness: The Studio Display is brighter, reaching up to 600 nits compared to the iMac’s 500 nits. This can improve visibility, especially in well-lit environments.
- True Tone: The Studio Display includes Apple’s True Tone technology, which adjusts the color temperature to match ambient lighting. This feature wasn’t available in the 2017 iMac display, so the Studio Display may appear more natural in various lighting conditions.
- Anti-Reflective Coating: the Studio Display offers a nano-texture glass option that reduces reflections even more, ideal if you work in bright or variable lighting.
- Color Gamut: Studio Display is calibrated to higher standards, which might offer better color accuracy, especially for professional needs.
- Processor and Features: The Studio Display includes an A13 chip for enhanced camera and audio processing. This powers features like Center Stage and spatial audio, giving it added versatility beyond just the display quality.
- OLED or Micro-LED offer significant improvement in image quality and black levels
- And It is not filthy old
New always better. - The 32" UltraGear™ OLED Dual Mode 240Hz or FHD 480Hz 0.03ms LG monitor. In 2017 this wasn't available.
Soft rags from old closes means more dust! No OLD CLOSES on my desk please!
No more 3rd party crap again. I just paid premium for apple machine and I have to buy more cables!
And I don't wanna go back to this:
Last edited:
Do what I do: get yourself in the frame of mind of not caring whether or when Apple stops "supporting" its prior hardware and software. In fact, rejoice when they announce your machine is now not-supported -- because that means they're no longer going to eff anything up with an "update". Just replace all the Apple ecosystem apps with better 3rd-party replacements, and throw Safari, Mail, Messages, News, etc off the dock, and log off iCloud for the last time. Has Safari Jekyll/Hyded into ransomware-infested version of Internet Explorer again? Be the guy who doesn't care.
I actually consider the prior 1440p "2.5k" screens to be easier on the eyes. Most people can barely the difference between 2k and 4k anyway if they're more than a foot from the screen, and derisive laughter will be the result of any future marketing pitch along the lines of "You *need* an 8K 120fps screen!" when the average user doesn't need a third of that for anything. (I'm currently composing this on a 75" 4K smart-TV being used as a dumb HDMI wall monitor set to 1080p. <-- That period is a crisp, round dot from ten feet away, with nary an alias in sight.
Computer hardware grotesquely exceeded most user requirements circa 2012, and they can only be made to seem slow by artificially crippling them (a strategy that Apple and Google in particular have developed into an artform).
Revert its OS to Mojave/HFS+, disable MRT, Spotlight, and ReportCrash, and it'll run three times faster. Of course you won't be able to mortgage your child for Abode's latest ostensibly necessary features, so there's that.
Last edited:
Tim Cook made the portable Macbooks bigger (>12") and the consumer desktop iMacs smaller (<27"). What consumer asked for that? What a great way to juice profits and offer less.
Apple shouldn't even have a 24" iMac.
And it's not like the original mac screen didn't get bigger. Of course the screen got bigger and better as technology improved and supply became cheaper. Apple has more than enough margin to sell only have beautiful 27" iMacs with matching 27" second and third screens for those who want.
Last edited:
I'd kill to have a 24" iMac with a 3x4 aspect-ratio pivot-display and the sumptuous analog stereo cone speakers from the 2006 24" polycarbonates. --What's useless are fixed portrait-mode widescreens, whose 16x9 aspect-ratio is a mediocre compromise kludge.
I can't help with the speakers, but probably there's some software that can help rotate your image in a 27".
Can't do that in a 24"! : )
Rotating the image in software is a minor hurdle, rotating the hardware is a major hurdle, because iMacs aren't designed for that. Apple could have knocked it out of the park with a rotator silicon iMac display in 2021, but blew it.