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.
27" iMac: Is the text too small?
- Thread starter Sam Spade
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Although I don't own a 27" iMac, I have used one on several occasions for extended periods. The initial impression that I had was that "Wow this text/everything on this screen is tiny" But came to realise that actually, it was the same size as on my macbook, it's just that because you have soo much screen, everything seems smaller.
I think it's one of those things that at first you will be shocked at what that screen, but after using it for a couple of days, you will wonder how you ever managed without it! I know I did!
I think it's one of those things that at first you will be shocked at what that screen, but after using it for a couple of days, you will wonder how you ever managed without it! I know I did!
This is interesting. I'm personally aiming at the 21.5" (or whatever the 2012 iMac will be) mostly due to the cost, but when I tried the 27" in stores I also got a feeling of the text like the menu bar *being smaller than what I'm used to on my 2006 20". The 21.5" seemed to have the same size as what I'm used to, but as you say, it may just be that giant screen tricking me. I guess next time I go back to a store that has them, I'll bring a ruler.
Considering I currently am not using a desk and have my iMac sitting On a low dresser and my chair is a leather recliner about a foot,foot and a half away from screen the text does look a tiny bit small at times. The screen is so vibrant and crisp that it's not much of an issue for me having 20-20 vision. My only gripe is that this is my first Mac and I really should be sitting directly in front of it as I pick up te learning curve but it's been pretty smooth sailing so far. I feel if I had gotten te 21" I would think its too small lol,then again I have OCD with my electronics at times #
Just using a 2K 27 Inch iMac, i can tell you, unless oyu are a video editor doing 2 K or 4 K editing and want to use the mnonitor for viewing videos of this quality, then if its just for work, like text, browsing, photoshop and so on, and dont need 4K, then you will suffer a lot with a 27 inch iMac.I don't have an iMac but I use a TBD daily with my MBA - same display panel I believe.
At 27" it is perfect. Text looks larger on the TBD than on my 13" MBA so it isn't an issue at all.
EDIT: This is sitting a full arms' length from the display (I'm 6', avg size/build) - though I know that is subjective as each has a different length arm
Basically, you cant work fullscreen with browsers or even if you do, the webpages will only be a thin stripe in the middle of the browser
If you open an app like photoshop or any app, the toolbars will be tiny eensy weensy, and youll be long sighted within 2 years of use (happened to me)
The 27 inch iMac screen is good for putting four ipad sized tiny text browsers in a square. it is a high res screen, that shows tiny UI components. This makes it 4 iPad screens, not one big screen
I mean that it wont work for 'big screen' its just a large surface to put multiple small windows in. If big screen fullscreen is what you want, get a 21 inch 1080p monitor or a 32 inch sony tv with a Mac Mini will be much better on the eyes for general computer use. mac mini is great because you can change the screen
My iMac hard drive is bust now too and its so expensive to get it fixed, that the imac is now in the museum of deprecated never buy one again items in the back room
Someone said in another thread that scaling is great in MacOS, and better than in Windows.
But people here are saying that "quality degrades with scaling", "native resolution was a fail" for them, and "you don't want to scale unless it's racing games and stuff with little text."
So, now I'm confused.
But people here are saying that "quality degrades with scaling", "native resolution was a fail" for them, and "you don't want to scale unless it's racing games and stuff with little text."
So, now I'm confused.
Just don't follow.
If text is your problem go into the browser's preferences and enlarge the size. In Safari standard font is 9, increase it to 11 maybe.
Having used both a 21.5" and 27" do not see any difference other than quality of the 5K.
If text is your problem go into the browser's preferences and enlarge the size. In Safari standard font is 9, increase it to 11 maybe.
Having used both a 21.5" and 27" do not see any difference other than quality of the 5K.
This is a zombie thread from 2012 - before the 5k iMac and before - or in the very early days of - the Retina MacBook Pro. Retina/4k/5k displays and newer versions of MacOS have changed the game.
On a "standard def" LCD monitor the best results by far come from driving it at native resolution. Circa 2012, "scaling" means that the computer outputs a lower-res signal and the monitor zooms it to fill the screen. The result is pretty awful unless - as you say - it is a movie or game with no text or "hard edges".
With a Retina/4k/5k display in so-called "HiDPI" mode, however, a Mac will always drive the display at native resolution - even in the so-called "scaled" modes - and the system uses various scaling and re-sampling techniques to produce a display that "looks like" the scaled resolution in terms of text and icon sizes, produces a passable result for older applications, but still allows modern "Retina-aware" applications to use something like the full native resolution of the display. (You can look up the gory details of HiDPI and 'scaled mode' if you like).
Suffice to say the results are good enough that the new MBPs default to a non-native "scaled" screen mode.
As for Windows: it's technically more flexible in that - since forever - you've been able to change the "DPI" value to match the display and properly written applications will query the operating system whenever they need to convert between pixels and 'real' dimensions or create a bitmap for off-screen rendering. On Win10, you can set the "magnification" for each screen connected to the system. In practice, though, it is very dependent on the mythical "properly written" application - especially when it comes to the magnification changing "on the fly" (e.g. dragging a window between a standard res and 4k screen). My experience is that it certainly can't cope on a laptop that gets moved between different external screen setups - and I'd often be presented with a window with either huge or tiny text and icons. The Apple way sounds a bit kludgey but is more robust in the face of multiple, mixed displays and old apps.
Last edited:
Damn, didn't notice it was an old thread. Thanks for the extra information. I was wondering about it because I had asked in another thread if using an external monitor with a 1440p res would be compatible with a 5K iMac. From what people in the other thread were saying, and from what you're saying, it sounds like the 5k iMac can be scaled to match a 27" 1440p monitor with no clarity issues.
No need: the default "Best for Display" mode on a 5k iMac is "looks like 2560x1440" - meaning that the menu bar, system fonts, icons, window furniture etc. will be the same physical size as on a 27" 1440p display, but rendered with double the number of pixels in each direction, so looking much crisper. Any old, non-"retina aware" applications doing their own bitmap rendering will have each pixel turned a 2x2 block - since that's an exact doubling, the result will be optimal.
You could also hook up a 27" UHD "4k" external display and set that to "looks like 2560x1440" to get a matched display.
As I said, with 4k/5k displays and "HiDPI" mode, non-native resolutions are a far cry the horror show you may be used to with standard def.
You can install something like SwitchResX to experiment with HiDPI/Scaled modes on a standard def display if you like, but it really needs a "retina" class display to be effective.