[HN Gopher] Apple Says There Won't Be a 27-Inch iMac with Apple ...
___________________________________________________________________
Apple Says There Won't Be a 27-Inch iMac with Apple Silicon
Author : andrewmcwatters
Score : 23 points
Date : 2023-11-06 15:46 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.macrumors.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.macrumors.com)
| rogerkirkness wrote:
| Realistically the screens are so information dense as it is, when
| I have the 24 inch one I still end up shrinking windows and not
| using the entire thing most of the time.
| SomeoneFromCA wrote:
| Well I am using 4k 32 inch now, at 75 cm distance and I like
| it. Less eystrain than when keeping 27 at 60 cm.
| heisgone wrote:
| Which model of monitor do you use?
| SomeoneFromCA wrote:
| Cheap VA (Samsung S32A700), I use mostly as a TV though. I
| always would get tired quickly previously from 32 inchers,
| but recently I started liking them more than 27 inch; do
| not get tired anymore.
| duffyjp wrote:
| This will unavoidably sound like one-upmanship, but I've been
| using a 43" 4K screen in my home office for probably five or
| six years now. I'm on my second panel. The first one was a
| Hisense TV and the new one is an Aorus monitor.
|
| It is absolutely fantastic. My eyes are around four feet from
| the screen and I don't get that blurred vision you get from
| extended near-work anymore. I could never go back.
| SomeoneFromCA wrote:
| Yea, I thought about it too, but my table is not as deep.
| eyelidlessness wrote:
| I also have a 43" 4K, which I still refer to as "comically
| large". I very nearly decided it was a mistake, until I set
| it as low as I could on my desk. Even so, as a computer
| display I get more out of the vertical space than
| horizontal (and tend to ignore at least a third of the
| screen while at my desk). If it didn't also serve as my TV,
| I'd probably be just as happy with a smaller screen in
| vertical orientation.
| pathartl wrote:
| I don't understand why 5K @ 27" is so sought after. My
| partner uses a 4K 32" display currently and if I'm at a
| normal sitting distance, I couldn't tell the difference
| between it and a 5K Studio Display. The 32" is 137ppi which
| sounds low, but with your eyes at 25" away it's still
| "retina".
|
| As I sit at my desk now looking at my 27" 1440p (108ppi)
| display at a distance of 23" I really cannot fathom having
| double the pixel density. Could it be better? Sure! I chose
| 144Hz over density, but double the amount of pixels? No way
| in hell
| mort96 wrote:
| It's not about information density, it's about size. I upgraded
| from a 27" screen to a 32" screen, and the 32" screen feels
| much nicer to work with. Granted, a large part of that is about
| going from a ~108 PPI TN panel to a ~137 PPI IPS panel, but I
| also find that the physical size means I can comfortably have
| physically larger text without anything feeling cramped.
| KeplerBoy wrote:
| That might be the sole reason why they're not releasing a 27"
| iMac. Maybe they just discontinue the line and switch to 32"
| iMacs.
| tornadron wrote:
| agreed, as a person getting a bit older...I'm now having to
| (somewhat painfully) admit that physical screen size is more
| important to me than pixel density...
|
| ...don't get me started with text using tiny fonts on low
| contrast backgrounds
| michael1999 wrote:
| Good? Ever since they got rid of target-mode, bonding a beautiful
| and expensive screen that will last more than a decade with a
| computer that will be EOLd in 5 years is just sad and wasteful.
|
| This was justifiable when there was no practical way to run 5K
| over standard connectors. But that time is over, and so is the
| age of the 27" iMac.
| mort96 wrote:
| The main problem with that is that there are no decent 5K
| monitors. The Apple Studio Display is literally the same price
| as the iMac (so a Studio Display + Mac Mini/Studio is
| ridiculously expensive). The 5K 27" LG UltraFine is not that
| much cheaper, and people are saying it has pretty terrible
| build quality (at least compared to an iMac). And those are
| pretty much the only 5K monitors.
| jseliger wrote:
| Samsung now makes one: https://www.samsung.com/us/computing/m
| onitors/5k/27-viewfini...
| mort96 wrote:
| Thanks, I didn't know that.
|
| It seems to be even closer to the iMac in price, which I'm
| guessing it makes up for in build quality but that means
| separately buying the computer and monitor is still very
| expensive compared to what a hypothetical 27" iMac would
| cost, and the name "smart monitor" makes my skin crawl...
| but it seems like a decent somewhat cheaper alternative to
| the Studio Display.
|
| Hopefully these 5K 27" monitors will get more widespread
| and cheaper over time.
| tshaddox wrote:
| There's also the new Samsung 27" ViewFinity S9 5K. The list
| price is $1600 but Amazon has it for $1300 in the U.S. I've
| heard mixed reviews, particularly about how smoothly it works
| with Macs.
| pathartl wrote:
| I'm not old, but things like this make me go "back in my
| day we had a CRT with one input, VGA, and it just worked".
| Obviously we don't have to worry too much about a monitor's
| supported modes anymore (though that wasn't a problem at
| the tail end of the CRT), but we're in a period where
| plugging in a monitor doesn't guarantee that it'll work.
|
| Signal integrity and all that sure, but really it's just a
| freaking monitor.
| vvillena wrote:
| The VGA days were the times where a computer user could
| kill a CRT screen because the analog data stream wasn't
| what the monitor supported or expected. I don't miss
| those days!
|
| Plugging a monitor nowadays will always work. Of course,
| buying a new monitor only to have it fall back to a
| lower-quality compatible mode is unacceptable, but that's
| what happens in today's world. Monitors are more varied
| than ever. A 1080p60 monitor will work everywhere, and
| all monitors will accept such a signal. But we all love
| fancy toys.
| reaperman wrote:
| I'm partial to the $800 Huawei MateView 28". It's only 9.8
| million pixels compared to the 14.7 million pixels of the
| $1,300 5K UltraFine 27" and $1,300 5K Samsung ViewFinity 27"
| (Standard 4K is 8.8 million pixels), but the MateView has a
| 3:2 aspect ratio! So you get 20% more vertical real estate
| than a standard 4K aspect ratio.
| mikestew wrote:
| I'm in the same boat. I'm looking at a 2019 27" iMac on my desk
| right now, and it's been a great machine. But without target
| display mode, I can't use it with the 13" MBP that work gave
| me. So, what, stick _another_ 27 " display on my desk _just_
| for the laptop? And when the CPU or MB fries, I 'll be stuck
| with a nice display I can't use.
|
| Next time it'll be a Mac Studio and a Studio Display, cost be
| damned.
| michael1999 wrote:
| You're stuck with the lag of remote-desktop. Which isn't a
| disaster over decent ethernet if you are just programming.
| elteto wrote:
| Honestly, why should I even worry about how they build the
| machine? My 27in Intel iMac is 7-8 years old and I will
| probably get 2-3 more years out of it. That's a whole decade
| I'm getting out of the machine. Probably more than I would get
| from a non-bonded monitor.
| michael1999 wrote:
| You stopped getting os updates, and will stop receiving even
| high-priority security updates this year. I feel much safer
| running a 10-year-old monitor than my 10-year-old laptop.
| poulsbohemian wrote:
| This is the issue pushing me to update, and I have to say
| I'm disappointed in Apple... when I bought this iMac, it
| was an absolute beast and even today it's very, very good
| kit. But Apple has decided it's too old to update.
| krabizzwainch wrote:
| My issue was that my 2019 iMac got updates that made the
| whole thing practically unusable. The storage became so slow
| that it would take like 10ish minutes to become usable after
| boot. I did have the version with a hdd instead of ssd, but
| it was fine right when I purchased it. I ran whatever storage
| tests that would show the drive wasn't dead/dying, so I was
| never sure what the issue was.
|
| My options were essentially to either trade it back to Apple
| for $300, try to sell it myself for maybe $400 and pay a ton
| to ship it, or try to take it apart myself to swap out the
| hard drive for an ssd and risk breaking part of it and it
| being worth $0. I caved and traded it in to Apple just so I
| could stop looking at the box.
| jollyllama wrote:
| Indeed, because you could buy that one with base specs (2GB
| ram) and slap 64 in it with zero screws or soldering.
| Erratic6576 wrote:
| There should be a way to reuse the screen opening the case and
| plugging in anything else. What a waste otherwise
| ender341341 wrote:
| Or just an input on the back...
| innagadadavida wrote:
| Apple should release a Mac mini that can "dock" to a 5k monitor
| with usb-c display and power. This will avoid power cable
| clutter and enable a much nicer setup.
| pram wrote:
| If you look at the internals of the Studio Display it's pretty
| obvious to me that _was_ the Apple Silicon 27 inch iMac. It has a
| Mac Mini sized motherboard in it.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-11-06 21:02 UTC)