Love the new iMac but is 24" too small?

[Kendo]

As someone who uses a 27" monitor at work, how noticeable is the reduction to 24"?

Unlike iPads or iPhones which to me can be too big (for example I prefer regular Pro sized phones or the 11" iPad), I don't feel the same way about desktop monitors. I think 27" is the bare minimum and anything smaller would be like holding an iPhone 4 today.

I know it is only 3 inches but in terms of overall surface area, that is probably more like a 25% reduction in space. For any iMac owners who had 27" for the past decade, how difficult was the adjustment to 24"?

 

[Adelphos33]

I use a 27" inch monitor at work (Windows) and a 24" iMac at home. The 24" is smaller, but it is definitely very workable. Easy to work with two or three windows side by side. It is likely something you can get used to very quickly. Otherwise - the new iMacs can be connected to two external monitors, so you can add two 27" monitors on either side

 

[ctjack]

I don't mind 24K (my main working display). In iMacs they seem to be too small under one view and the next day in someone room pictures it is actually huge. So context of the room size/interior makes this variable.

My 24" is noticeably smaller than my 27".

 

[dz5b609]

That's what she said 😁

 

[johannnn]

I have a 27” Intel iMac at work and a 24” iMac M1 at home. At first it felt small, but now my brain is so used to it that I don’t notice it anymore.

 

[AlexJaye]

I use a 27" inch monitor at work (Windows) and a 24" iMac at home. The 24" is smaller, but it is definitely very workable. Easy to work with two or three windows side by side. It is likely something you can get used to very quickly. Otherwise - the new iMacs can be connected to two external monitors, so you can add two 27" monitors on either side

This defeats the purpose of “all in one” computing the iMac offered when it had multiple display sizes.

 

[wilberforce]

Actually 23.5”, just to exacerbate your indecision

 

[joshwithachance]

Is it TOO small? Debatable. But it's definitely much less enjoyable to interact with than a 27" or larger monitor, that's for sure...

 

[tomtad]

Get a Studio Display.

24" is a good all round size for a simple home computer the iMac is marketed as

 

[robgendreau]

The iMac’s 24” 4.5k has considerably more info in front of you on the screen than a 27” 4k, if one is coming from that vs a 5k iMac (which has 640 more pixels wide). 218 PPI I think, maybe a tad less than the 27” iMac.

 

[imdog]

I'm the same way, I love small tech. Still using my iPhone 13 mini with zero plans to upgrade until it's no longer supported by iOS updates. I wish they still made the 12" MacBook, even the Airs are FAR too big to me. But for a computer monitor, I prefer large as well. I had a 27" iMac, then a 24" iMac and currently using a Studio Display.

I would like to switch to the M4 iMac as well but the screen is quite small, it's also technically 23.5". I did get used to it when I had one coming from the 27" iMac, but I do much prefer the 27". My regular usage is having the left half of the screen one page for web browsing, then the right side of the screen I have split in 2, top right is a YouTube video playing and bottom right is usually a Pages doc/Discord/etc. I was able to comfortably do this, I did move the screen a bit closer to my eyes than I would normally use it to create the illusion of the screen feeling bigger.

 

[cjsuk]

I've got a 27" Studio Display and I had a 24" iMac next to it for most of the first half of the year. Now I am sitting here posting on Macrumors in a window that would fit on the iMac quite happily.

YMMV on all of these things. Depends what you do.

 

[Sippincider]

This defeats the purpose of “all in one” computing the iMac offered when it had multiple display sizes.

Fully agree. Plugging in external displays (with an "s"!) to make up for its meh screen size really does defeat the purpose of an "all-in-one". Why not use a bigger display to begin with, esp. when they have the 27" Studio panel in the parts bin?

 

[JPack]

It's the difference between multi-tasking with two windows and not wanting to.

24 and 27 is a big difference. Wait for the Mac mini if you're already using 27.

 

[ger19]

It's the difference between multi-tasking with two windows and not wanting to.

24 and 27 is a big difference. Wait for the Mac mini if you're already using 27.

I’ve mentioned this before. If you generally only have one window open 24” is fine. If you multi task and have multiple windows open, you’re probably not going to be happy with 24” if you’re used to 27” or larger. I’m a simple user and moving from 27” to 24” didn’t bother me at all. All it did was decrease the amount of empty space around my open window. Even on a 24” screen, I don’t ever full screen the window I’m working on - too much head movement to see everything in the window. If I multitasked, I’d feel different.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

As someone who uses a 27" monitor at work, how noticeable is the reduction to 24"?

Unlike iPads or iPhones which to me can be too big (for example I prefer regular Pro sized phones or the 11" iPad), I don't feel the same way about desktop monitors. I think 27" is the bare minimum and anything smaller would be like holding an iPhone 4 today.

I know it is only 3 inches but in terms of overall surface area, that is probably more like a 25% reduction in space. For any iMac owners who had 27" for the past decade, how difficult was the adjustment to 24"?

I do not believe in all-in-ones. But as to size, over 15 years I went from 24" to 27" to 32" driven by Macbook Pros [3 displays]. Size matters.

 

[DSTOFEL]

As someone who uses a 27" monitor at work, how noticeable is the reduction to 24"?

Unlike iPads or iPhones which to me can be too big (for example I prefer regular Pro sized phones or the 11" iPad), I don't feel the same way about desktop monitors. I think 27" is the bare minimum and anything smaller would be like holding an iPhone 4 today.

I know it is only 3 inches but in terms of overall surface area, that is probably more like a 25% reduction in space. For any iMac owners who had 27" for the past decade, how difficult was the adjustment to 24"?

As someone mentioned in one of the replies…it’s actually even a bit smaller…at 23.5 inch.

I had a 27 inch 2015 5K iMac and replaced it with the 24 inch M1 iMac when they first came out. I‘m like you in that I love the design of the M series iMacs…but was unsure about the display size. I did adjust to the 24 inch, but really always found it a bit small for the main work I do on the iMac (Photos and videos).

One thing I found was that IQ of the 24 inch 4.5 display was inferior to the 5K iMac display. I noticed it especially in terms of contrast and viewing angle. I found the 24 inch iMac display to be less contrasty…especially when viewed from any angle other than directly head on. The 27 inch 5K display was far superior in my opinion in terms of IQ.

What I ended up doing was selling the M1 iMac. I got a great deal on an M1 Studio Ultra and repurposed my 27 inch 2015 iMac into a display for the M1 Studio. Much happier to have my 27 inch 5k display back.

 

[Saturn1217]

Delete

 

[everglade9441]

It is very much a personal thing. I will say that the 24" iMac display is like a Swedish massage for your eyeballs. The clarity of the resolution at that size is really ideal, from my limited experience testing them out. This would be vs. a 4k or (ew) 2k 27: monitor.

But mostly, I'd say the question comes down to HOW you multi-task. Currently, I'm using a 27" monitor, but this browser window is using the entirety of the space. When I multi-task, I switch between windows using Cmd + tab. I have almost NEVER setup two windows side-by-side. My brain doesn't desire multi-tasking like that, and ergonomically, I hate having to "look all around" at huge displays to read or access content. I like to have what I"m doing right in front me. If you're like me, I'd say the 24" screen could suffice, but if, like most people, you like to lay out your windows arrangements and click back and forth in them, then bigger is just better.

 

[teohyc]

24-inch is not small. It's 27-inch that's bigger.

Even 27-inch is considered small when it's beside a 32-inch.

 

[Velin]

If you want a fantastic desktop monitor, get a 42-inch OLED TV, like the LG C3 or C4. Pair it with a Mac Mini Pro or a Mac Studio, Macbook Pro, anything in the Mac lineup that supports 120Hz HDMI 2.1 output. Push the TV/monitor about arms-length away from you, plus six to ten inches. You'll never go back to a sub-30-inch display, never go back to 60hz, and never go back to IPS panels.

And the real benefit for OSX users is Macs render text, the OS, and video beautifully on these OLED screens. So, yes, 24-inch IPS panel utterly sucks compared to a 30+ inch OLED. And, having just done a comparison between the LG 42-inch OLED and an IPS panel, the IPS looks horrendous compared to OLED.

So, there is your answer.

 

[rebus76]

I have now a M2-Pro Mac Mini with a 27" monitor (and previously a 27" iMac), and the issue that most bothers me is that, when I wake up the monitor, it takes a lot of time, while the iMac was pretty fast. This gets really annoying sometimes.
Don't know if it's a normal thing with external monitors, but at times I think about getting back to an iMac, even though the smaller screen.

 

[stocklen]

As someone who uses a 27" monitor at work, how noticeable is the reduction to 24"?

Unlike iPads or iPhones which to me can be too big (for example I prefer regular Pro sized phones or the 11" iPad), I don't feel the same way about desktop monitors. I think 27" is the bare minimum and anything smaller would be like holding an iPhone 4 today.

I know it is only 3 inches but in terms of overall surface area, that is probably more like a 25% reduction in space. For any iMac owners who had 27" for the past decade, how difficult was the adjustment to 24"?

So here's some genuine advice.

Back when the M1 iMac was released, I was a years and years user of the 27".

initially I thought 'ill wait for the inevitable 27"' but it became clear to me quite quickly that this might be it... and the iMac all in one was 24" like it or not.
The reasons I kindof expected this was looking at the other products Apple made they seemed very clear that if you wanted a bigger screen get the studio display or equivalent and pair it with a Mac mini.

So, ive been correct and watching many people struggle with older machines rather than just accept the 24" has been painful as I though they would never get what they were waiting for and so far of course they haven't.

So, 24 vs 27 - it's FINE. You'll not notice it at all after a very short period of time and the screen will be large enough for your needs. Meanwhile you'll be using one of the best all in ones on the market and the design of the iMac is really very nice.

 

[CooperBox]

I've just been watching the official new iMac announcement video, and must confess it looks fairly promising, especially with a much overdue (but in 2024 hardly sensational) 16Gb of RAM.
However in the video description I almost choked over the statement, ".....takes advantage of this ‘enormous’ iMac display”! One could almost imagine that grossly overblown statement was penned by a certain politician.
If the 24" display is 'enormous', we're in for an incredible word-salad when/if a 32" iMacPro is announced.

 

[Steve121178]

I went from a 21” 2012 iMac to a 2023 M3 iMac and the screen is massive and perfect for my personal needs.

It’s it’s too small then get a Mac mini and a display of your choosing.