I love the 27" iMac. It should not come back.

[tomscott1988]

Just retired my 2020 intel iMac 27”. Splurged with 2 Apple Studio displays, and a 14” M3 Max MBP.

I had my fingers crossed that a docked MBP setup would work to save the cost of needing a Mac Studio. To my surprise, the answer is a resounding yes. Works fantastic! Displays wake instantly, OWC dock keeps Ethernet connection active, etc.

Fantastic experience. I was waiting for a new 27” iMac, but now I would never go back. It just makes sense to separate the display from the computer.

I would agree but you have given apple twice the money and you will probably be on a similar upgrade path in the next 3 years.

 

[WarmWinterHat]

Nope

24” screen is too small in the modern world. We typically use two 27” monitors for everyone, even the accountant.

I have a 27" monitor at home and I dislike it. It's uncomfortable to look at when sitting at my desk and is too tall.

At work, I have dual 24" screens side-by-side. It's a much more comfortable setup to use.

 

[canadianreader]

The 24" iMac exists so it doesn't compete with Apple's Studio display combined with the Mac Mini or the Mac Studio.

 

[mectojic]

One day, when the EU mandates full user repairability, it would be nice if Apple would just let you swap out motherboards between M-series iMacs and M-series Mac Minis. The Mac Mini especially makes a lot of sense, if you could just swap the board each time you upgrade. Apple wouldn't even need to make it much cheaper, they could just offer a $50 gift card or something.

 

[Warped9]

I’m going to get an M3 iMac spec’d to my tastes. I did consider the Mac Studio or even a spec’d M2 Pro Mac Mini with Studio Display as an alternative, but the price of the SD is discouraging. I have looked at non Apple displays as an alternative, but they all look like plastic junk in comparison. And you often still have to add an audio system.

If Apple can offer a base 24 iMac AIO for its price why can‘t they offer a 24 or 27in. 4-5k display with built-in audio for a more reasonable price for those wanting a good display for their Mac Mini or Mac Studio? The current Studio Display is, as said upthread, over engineered. The existence of the 24 iMac itself is proof of that when a damned display monitor is priced more than a very good AIO computer with great display and sound system included!

 

[-BigMac-]

It seems wasteful and unbalanced to have a computer fuzed to the screen in this way.

However, I'm equally quick to give Apple credit for making the right decision, and taking the iMac back to its roots was the right decision. The 24" is fine as the only iMac Apple offers.

So which one is it?

Wasteful to fuse a computer to a screen, or giving credit to Apple for fusing a computer to a 24" screen?

Edit: OP has chosen to ignore this comment 😉

 

[TracerAnalog]

The original iMac didn't have a cutting-edge anything. It was meant to be an easy to use, fun appliance for home users looking to get on the internet, offices wanting a bit more color, and computer labs tired of dealing with a mess of cables. Over the years Apple started pushing the boundaries of what was possible with iMac, and eventually propelled it into the cutting-edge realm. Unfortunately, putting gorgeous displays inside an all-in-one is a double-edged sword.

Newer iMacs have a poor record of being useful as displays long after the computer inside is obsolete. Apple partly addressed this with Target Display Mode before the feature was removed in the 5K generation. Even the iMacs that do have Target Display Mode tend to not be an optimal experience, requiring much more power consumption and producing much more heat than they need to just to drive the display.

I experienced this first-hand with the late 2006 iMac, the first generation to feature a full HD 1920x1200 IPS display. I picked up a used one back in 2016. Watching 1080i MPEG2 broadcast TV worked great, but when it came to modern video codecs I found I needed workarounds to play anything smoothly. Performance in the browser was choppy, so everything needed to be played in VLC or Quicktime. The OS was capped at Mountain Lion which limited things severely as many apps simply would not work.

I was also an early adopter of the 27" 5K iMac. It served me well for many years and I love this product, aside from some display quality issues. I upgraded the RAM in mine to 32 GB and it could handle anything I threw at it. Sadly, the same can't be said anymore. My iMac is the same, but the world has moved on. Apple Silicon and newer x86 processors both provide much better performance. There is some hope as Chinese manufacturers have created a board which allows conversion of the 5K iMac to a standalone display for a newer computer (I plan to get one), but completing this project requires extra expense and technical expertise beyond what many iMac users have.

It seems wasteful and unbalanced to have a computer fuzed to the screen in this way. And while there is an argument to be made that an easy to use, fun appliance should still exist in some form, it doesn't make sense to buy cutting-edge technology, arguably years ahead of its time as with the 5K iMac – just for it to become waste years before it has to be. The issues aren't just with the obsolete hardware. The heat from the computer degrades the display faster, the use of the display with a secondary work laptop becomes difficult, and the notorious failures with some generations of iMac left the whole thing unusable.

For those of us introduced to the world of Mac within the last 15 years, being nostalgic about the big-screen iMacs is fine. However, I'm equally quick to give Apple credit for making the right decision, and taking the iMac back to its roots was the right decision. The 24" is fine as the only iMac Apple offers.

What Apple should change is the price of the Studio Display. The Studio Display is overpriced and overenginnered, which is a shame as it has potential to be a much better value. $1,299 is a much better price target for the display, and gets rid of any doubt that a Mac mini + Studio Display or Mac Studio + Studio Display can replace the old 27" iMac, with the added benefit of fixing all the aforementioned issues.

Excellent write-up! Couldn’t agree more. I had two maxed out iMacs that still live on with friends, but I’m much happier now with a screen + Mac combo. My only remaining wish is a 5K QLED 32 inch 90hz+ screen that can connect to both my gaming PC (Display Port) and my Mac (Thunderbolt). Sadly such product does not exist (yet)…

 

[0339327]

what for though?

Secondary display:
Mail App
Messages
Reminders

Primary display:
Web browser
Primary program (Quickbooks, dispatch software, etc,)

Several of us have three

1. Mail with anything relevant open
2. Primary work
3. Dispatch software, notes, reminders, messages, WhatsApp, maybe Music

It makes things so much easier to see it all with a glance.

 

[theluggage]

That is a weird way of saying that Apple isn't capable of implementing true resolution independence.

I don't entirely disagree, but "true" resolution independence has its drawbacks - it's very dependent on applications following the rules (and, yes, I've written resolution-independent Windows software - it doesn't "just work" for anything with a non-trivial UI). Windows has had "full" resolution independence since at least the early 90s, but for most of that time changing the DPI would mess up a lot of software. Last time I used a Windows laptop extensively was in 2017 it still messed up occasionally (e.g. you'd open an application and it would come up with tiny, unusable text and icons), especially when used with an external display that needed different scaling - Mac has always seemed pretty robust in that respect. Then, of course, any bitmap assets have to be scaled anyway - unless the developer provides 'optimised' assets for every possible resolution.

Apple certainly have the technology to be resolution independent - I'm using a pair of third-party odd-sized (28.5" 3:2 4K+) displays running in 2:1 mode and if I open an A4 document in Preview and choose "Actual Size" and hold up a sheet of A4 paper it's pretty much spot on. Change the second display to "looks like 2560x1707" scaled mode, drag the window across and hit "Actual Size" again and its still right. Other applications (Micro*cough* *cough*ffice) don't bother implement this.

I guess that the reason that Apple didn't apply this to the UI is that it would mean that every developer would have to take the trouble to query the true size of all the system assets when laying out their toolbars, menus and dialogues.

Either the interface is huge or tiny, unless you want to put up with non-integer scaling which looks terrible (I manually turned it off on my Intel 16" MacBook Pro).

Your mileage (and eyeballs) may vary. For a long time I used a cheap-and-cheerful Dell SQ 4k in '1440p' scaled mode as a second screen for a 5k iMac - for colour reproduction, no contest (I said the 4k was cheap-and-cheerful) while in terms of clarity, yes, the 5k was "crisper" (apparently, 5k>4k, who knew?) but that was only noticable with them side-to-side. 4k@27" at typical outstretched-arm's-length viewing distance is effectively 'retina' (<1 arc minute per pixel) anyway so pixel-sized artefacts shouldn't be obtrusive. Now I'm using a pair of 28.5" 3:2 4k+ displays and "2:1" mode works well for me - it only affects the UI size anyway, pretty much every application lets you zoom the content to taste. Plus, unlike 5k@27", 4k@27" is still just about usable in 1:1 mode (or would be if my eyeballs were a decade or two younger) and - again - that only affect the UI, not the content.

I do wish there were more 3:2 format displays available, though.

 

[JamesMay82]

don't worry guys! I just ordered a studio display and Mac Studio so a new 27 inch iMac will be released within the next 3 weeks!

 

[Brandon42]

Good point. Generally speaking, computers become obsolete faster than displays. Heck, the 19 year old 30-inch Apple Cinema Display (released in 2004) would still be a respectable choice for the latest maxed-out Mac Pro.

While I agree with you in general, I would say that the 19 year old Cinema Display would not be respectable by now. I have a 19 year old 23” Apple Cinema Display and it has had horrific image retention for years now. I like the industrial design of it, but it is also quite bulky by modern standards. I also have Dell 30” displays that were the competition to the 2004 30” Apple. They also are showing their age. All high end displays from 2004 also are at least one generation of connection behind. I finally gave up using my 30” Dells because Dual Link DVI is very difficult to convert to modern outputs.

 

[Jack Burton]

Loved my 27 inch iMac. Had an intel 7700k with a high single core clock, so most operations were blazing fast. At the time, the software I used most was single core CPU bound. But as I learned other stuff, I found multicore/GPU workloads quickly bogged down by the heat and laptop GPU.

I even bought an eGPU to try to salvage some GPU power from the thing. I think I'm done with that experiment. No more iMacs.

I will either stick with a powerful windows PC I hate, or get a Mac Studio which can hum along all day without turning into combo furnace/vacuum cleaner.

External displays only so I can hook up multiple computers - work and home computing.

 

[Timpetus]

I'm still having a hard time deciding what to do for my wife when her 2020 i7 5K iMac (maxed with 128GB RAM) finally dies. It's been a real workhorse but also randomly reboots once or twice a day when she's working it hard. I haven't been able to figure out a common cause, the crash logs tell a different story each time about what was in memory/what it was doing when it crashed, so it doesn't seem to be one particular program.

She's started using her 16" MBP M1 Pro more and more, so I think the eventual solution would be to get her a dock and a Studio Display or maybe the LG to save some money. Someone still needs to come out with a more affordable plain 5K monitor with no webcam, speakers, or other misc junk to drive up the price.

 

[Jack Burton]

I'm still having a hard time deciding what to do for my wife when her 2020 i7 5K iMac (maxed with 128GB RAM) finally dies. It's been a real workhorse but also randomly reboots once or twice a day when she's working it hard. I haven't been able to figure out a common cause, the crash logs tell a different story each time about what was in memory/what it was doing when it crashed, so it doesn't seem to be one particular program.

She's started using her 16" MBP M1 Pro more and more, so I think the eventual solution would be to get her a dock and a Studio Display or maybe the LG to save some money. Someone still needs to come out with a more affordable plain 5K monitor with no webcam, speakers, or other misc junk to drive up the price.

My old G5 tower and a more current PC had power supply issues when I had that symptom.

 

[redheeler]

> TV replacement for home

Get an actual TV that's larger than 27" (most are nowadays), or if you're looking for a kitchen computer the 24" iMac or a used 21.5" Intel iMac will easily suffice.

> Basic business computer

The 24" iMac is more than enough for a simple office computer.

> Desktop computer as a second machine for someone who does most of their work on a laptop.

You'd likely want something you can actually use as a display for the laptop when needed.

> Photoshop and graphics work
> Basic video editing

Mac mini or Mac Studio + Studio Display, take your pick based on how heavy the workload is.

 

[Elusi]

I'm still having a hard time deciding what to do for my wife when her 2020 i7 5K iMac (maxed with 128GB RAM) finally dies. It's been a real workhorse but also randomly reboots once or twice a day when she's working it hard. I haven't been able to figure out a common cause, the crash logs tell a different story each time about what was in memory/what it was doing when it crashed, so it doesn't seem to be one particular program.

She's started using her 16" MBP M1 Pro more and more, so I think the eventual solution would be to get her a dock and a Studio Display or maybe the LG to save some money. Someone still needs to come out with a more affordable plain 5K monitor with no webcam, speakers, or other misc junk to drive up the price.

Afaik you can boot a memtest86 from a usb-drive on a mac so I'd start with such a test if you haven't. I assume you maxed RAM by yourselves and those sticks can be finicky sometimes.

 

[Thom88]

The original iMac didn't have a cutting-edge anything. It was meant to be an easy to use, fun appliance for home users looking to get on the internet, offices wanting a bit more color, and computer labs tired of dealing with a mess of cables. Over the years Apple started pushing the boundaries of what was possible with iMac, and eventually propelled it into the cutting-edge realm. Unfortunately, putting gorgeous displays inside an all-in-one is a double-edged sword.

Newer iMacs have a poor record of being useful as displays long after the computer inside is obsolete. Apple partly addressed this with Target Display Mode before the feature was removed in the 5K generation. Even the iMacs that do have Target Display Mode tend to not be an optimal experience, requiring much more power consumption and producing much more heat than they need to just to drive the display.

I experienced this first-hand with the late 2006 iMac, the first generation to feature a full HD 1920x1200 IPS display. I picked up a used one back in 2016. Watching 1080i MPEG2 broadcast TV worked great, but when it came to modern video codecs I found I needed workarounds to play anything smoothly. Performance in the browser was choppy, so everything needed to be played in VLC or Quicktime. The OS was capped at Mountain Lion which limited things severely as many apps simply would not work.

I was also an early adopter of the 27" 5K iMac. It served me well for many years and I love this product, aside from some display quality issues. I upgraded the RAM in mine to 32 GB and it could handle anything I threw at it. Sadly, the same can't be said anymore. My iMac is the same, but the world has moved on. Apple Silicon and newer x86 processors both provide much better performance. There is some hope as Chinese manufacturers have created a board which allows conversion of the 5K iMac to a standalone display for a newer computer (I plan to get one), but completing this project requires extra expense and technical expertise beyond what many iMac users have.

It seems wasteful and unbalanced to have a computer fuzed to the screen in this way. And while there is an argument to be made that an easy to use, fun appliance should still exist in some form, it doesn't make sense to buy cutting-edge technology, arguably years ahead of its time as with the 5K iMac – just for it to become waste years before it has to be. The issues aren't just with the obsolete hardware. The heat from the computer degrades the display faster, the use of the display with a secondary work laptop becomes difficult, and the notorious failures with some generations of iMac left the whole thing unusable.

For those of us introduced to the world of Mac within the last 15 years, being nostalgic about the big-screen iMacs is fine. However, I'm equally quick to give Apple credit for making the right decision, and taking the iMac back to its roots was the right decision. The 24" is fine as the only iMac Apple offers.

What Apple should change is the price of the Studio Display. The Studio Display is overpriced and overenginnered, which is a shame as it has potential to be a much better value. $1,299 is a much better price target for the display, and gets rid of any doubt that a Mac mini + Studio Display or Mac Studio + Studio Display can replace the old 27" iMac, with the added benefit of fixing all the aforementioned issues.

I purchased a Mac Studio and a Studio display. Spent well over 6 grand. I HATE THEM BOTH. I miss the (2013) 27” iMac. I was waiting for a 32” which never happened. The 24” is ridiculously small for my needs so I continue to wait and hope that Tim & Company will finally give me and the vast majority of Mac enthusiasts I know want: A 32” iMac or at the least an updated 27” iMac. There is no bigger Apple or Mac fan than me. I own just about every Apple product they’ve made and I’m a stock holder. I still have my original Mac and most of the subsequent units that followed but I am growing extremely disappointed in Apple. The imagination is gone. The excitement is gone. I don’t want VR goggles I can’t afford. Give me an amazing new jaw-dropping 32” iMac. Some reality that works for me. I miss Jonny. I miss Steve. I miss that Apple.

 

[0339327]

Get an actual TV that's larger than 27" (most are nowadays), or if you're looking for a kitchen computer the 24" iMac or a used 21.5" Intel iMac will easily suffice.

The 24" iMac is more than enough for a simple office computer.

You'd likely want something you can actually use as a display for the laptop when needed.

Mac mini or Mac Studio + Studio Display, take your pick based on how heavy the workload is.

The 27 inch iMac was great for these despite them not being perfect for your use.

I used to see 27 inch iMac all over the place in business. Now everyone’s back to using a PC.

 

[MarkNewton2023]

The original iMac didn't have a cutting-edge anything. It was meant to be an easy to use, fun appliance for home users looking to get on the internet, offices wanting a bit more color, and computer labs tired of dealing with a mess of cables. Over the years Apple started pushing the boundaries of what was possible with iMac, and eventually propelled it into the cutting-edge realm. Unfortunately, putting gorgeous displays inside an all-in-one is a double-edged sword.

Newer iMacs have a poor record of being useful as displays long after the computer inside is obsolete. Apple partly addressed this with Target Display Mode before the feature was removed in the 5K generation. Even the iMacs that do have Target Display Mode tend to not be an optimal experience, requiring much more power consumption and producing much more heat than they need to just to drive the display.

I experienced this first-hand with the late 2006 iMac, the first generation to feature a full HD 1920x1200 IPS display. I picked up a used one back in 2016. Watching 1080i MPEG2 broadcast TV worked great, but when it came to modern video codecs I found I needed workarounds to play anything smoothly. Performance in the browser was choppy, so everything needed to be played in VLC or Quicktime. The OS was capped at Mountain Lion which limited things severely as many apps simply would not work.

I was also an early adopter of the 27" 5K iMac. It served me well for many years and I love this product, aside from some display quality issues. I upgraded the RAM in mine to 32 GB and it could handle anything I threw at it. Sadly, the same can't be said anymore. My iMac is the same, but the world has moved on. Apple Silicon and newer x86 processors both provide much better performance. There is some hope as Chinese manufacturers have created a board which allows conversion of the 5K iMac to a standalone display for a newer computer (I plan to get one), but completing this project requires extra expense and technical expertise beyond what many iMac users have.

It seems wasteful and unbalanced to have a computer fuzed to the screen in this way. And while there is an argument to be made that an easy to use, fun appliance should still exist in some form, it doesn't make sense to buy cutting-edge technology, arguably years ahead of its time as with the 5K iMac – just for it to become waste years before it has to be. The issues aren't just with the obsolete hardware. The heat from the computer degrades the display faster, the use of the display with a secondary work laptop becomes difficult, and the notorious failures with some generations of iMac left the whole thing unusable.

For those of us introduced to the world of Mac within the last 15 years, being nostalgic about the big-screen iMacs is fine. However, I'm equally quick to give Apple credit for making the right decision, and taking the iMac back to its roots was the right decision. The 24" is fine as the only iMac Apple offers.

What Apple should change is the price of the Studio Display. The Studio Display is overpriced and overenginnered, which is a shame as it has potential to be a much better value. $1,299 is a much better price target for the display, and gets rid of any doubt that a Mac mini + Studio Display or Mac Studio + Studio Display can replace the old 27" iMac, with the added benefit of fixing all the aforementioned issues.

Some of us do love 27” iMac and would love to get it updated. Everyone has different preference. Whatever works for each. Keep calm and be happy 😊!

 

[redheeler]

Nope

24” screen is too small in the modern world. We typically use two 27” monitors for everyone, even the accountant.

Then get a Mac mini and two 27" monitors for it. Doesn't seem that complicated.

 

[Zaydax333]

So much this! The Studio Display is SUPER overpriced for what it is.
If It was $999 - $1299 the Mac Mini Pro would be a great companion for it to replace old 27 inch iMacs.

 

[drrich2]

As for the iMac, the first 27" iMac back in 2009 was a great machine that cost little more than an equivalent stand-alone monitor of the same quality but with a full computer thrown in. With upgradeable RAM and target display mode. For me that was the pinnacle of the iMac and I used it for 10 years.

The thing that pains me is the iMac was the value proposition, £1700 to start and add your own ram. Now with apple silicon the studio display which is essentially the same display as my 2017 iMac is nearly as much as the base was in 2017. If you buy the base Mac mini which isnt suitable for me with 8gb and 256gb ssd and the studio display its £400 more than the base iMac was.

This is my cynicism and snark, probably not Apple's strategy, but an irony occurs to me. If the old, excellent value iMacs sold an excellent monitor with a cheaply priced computer built-in but you had to toss the monitor when you tossed the computer, and the current strategy is to sell a similar monitor alone for roughly double the price but used twice as long by carrying it forward to your next computer, in a twisted way the math works out. X money for y duration, or 2X money for 2Y duration.

 

[felt.]

I was given a bunch of imacs, so I repurposed them as secondary displays. Looked around at the options and target display mode only worked on a specific os versions etc which is no go for me. Other options were paid apps, no thank you. Using sunshine+moonlight game streaming server/client with an hdmi dummy plug and now I can use all my imacs as displays without having to pay for any silly app, or be restricted by which os version I am running. I still have a dead gpu 27" which the lcd controller can be replaced to make into a standalone monitor but I'm not sure the result is worth the time+$ invested.

 

[AF_APPLETALK]

The original iMac didn't have a cutting-edge anything. It was meant to be an easy to use, fun appliance for home users looking to get on the internet, offices wanting a bit more color, and computer labs tired of dealing with a mess of cables. Over the years Apple started pushing the boundaries of what was possible with iMac, and eventually propelled it into the cutting-edge realm. Unfortunately, putting gorgeous displays inside an all-in-one is a double-edged sword.

Newer iMacs have a poor record of being useful as displays long after the computer inside is obsolete. Apple partly addressed this with Target Display Mode before the feature was removed in the 5K generation. Even the iMacs that do have Target Display Mode tend to not be an optimal experience, requiring much more power consumption and producing much more heat than they need to just to drive the display.

I experienced this first-hand with the late 2006 iMac, the first generation to feature a full HD 1920x1200 IPS display. I picked up a used one back in 2016. Watching 1080i MPEG2 broadcast TV worked great, but when it came to modern video codecs I found I needed workarounds to play anything smoothly. Performance in the browser was choppy, so everything needed to be played in VLC or Quicktime. The OS was capped at Mountain Lion which limited things severely as many apps simply would not work.

I was also an early adopter of the 27" 5K iMac. It served me well for many years and I love this product, aside from some display quality issues. I upgraded the RAM in mine to 32 GB and it could handle anything I threw at it. Sadly, the same can't be said anymore. My iMac is the same, but the world has moved on. Apple Silicon and newer x86 processors both provide much better performance. There is some hope as Chinese manufacturers have created a board which allows conversion of the 5K iMac to a standalone display for a newer computer (I plan to get one), but completing this project requires extra expense and technical expertise beyond what many iMac users have.

It seems wasteful and unbalanced to have a computer fuzed to the screen in this way. And while there is an argument to be made that an easy to use, fun appliance should still exist in some form, it doesn't make sense to buy cutting-edge technology, arguably years ahead of its time as with the 5K iMac – just for it to become waste years before it has to be. The issues aren't just with the obsolete hardware. The heat from the computer degrades the display faster, the use of the display with a secondary work laptop becomes difficult, and the notorious failures with some generations of iMac left the whole thing unusable.

For those of us introduced to the world of Mac within the last 15 years, being nostalgic about the big-screen iMacs is fine. However, I'm equally quick to give Apple credit for making the right decision, and taking the iMac back to its roots was the right decision. The 24" is fine as the only iMac Apple offers.

What Apple should change is the price of the Studio Display. The Studio Display is overpriced and overenginnered, which is a shame as it has potential to be a much better value. $1,299 is a much better price target for the display, and gets rid of any doubt that a Mac mini + Studio Display or Mac Studio + Studio Display can replace the old 27" iMac, with the added benefit of fixing all the aforementioned issues.

Well stated, and I agree.

Let the iMac serve its iMac purposes, and stop shipping a compromised product that is just unusable in meaningful way at the end of it's life.

 

[aParkerMusic]

what for though?

You’ll never get an actual answer. For some reason, some people have a religious obsession with 27”. There is no way a 24” display wouldn’t work for an accountant, or almost anyone, regardless of how many things they want open. Sure someone might need a larger display or multiple monitors. But people used to work on far smaller displays and, miracle, still got work done. Yeah, people “need” 27”. Oh please. This whole obsession is so silly. People just like to complain. I suspect in many cases the people who complain about not having a 27” all-in-one are the same people that complain on other articles about all-in-ones becoming obsolete because the processor ages faster than the display. Always complaining.