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

[Warped9]

If the user experience of an AIO works for you then you see the comparison differently. It’s not just a matter of getting what you need for the least price.

Firstly when you try comparing as I did you see the annoyance of buying a desktop then having to add all the required components allowing you to use the desktop. Unlike PC desktop towers Apple doesn’t provide you with a mouse and keyboard included. Then you have all these components you have to connect. A lot of people are fine with that.

But having used an AIO since 2001 it works for me. I like its elegance, tidiness and simplicity in tandem with doing everything I want. And it looks cool rather than being a collection of disparate components strewn across the desk.


Now in some months, perhaps Spring 2024, the Mac Mini will get M3 and that will change the comparison. An M3 Mac Mini with 24GB RAM and 1TB SSD will likely be $1799 CAN, but that doesn’t include keyboard, mouse, display and audio system. A new Studio Display would add $1999 CAN to that, a refurb would $1699. So it’s still hundreds more than the iMac. If you go with a non Apple display and such you might get it about the same as the iMac give or take a few bucks. But then we’re back to a collection of disparate components strewn across the desk.

So it’s not just a question of numbers and performance, but also how you see the whole thing.

 

[Abdichoudxyz]

Take what you want from that information. Maybe your old display is damaged but the numbers dont lie.

Was a comparison with a 2019 27" iMac. The problem with only using specification figures, is that they don't tell the full story. I found the Studio Display to just have the edge with colour accuracy, dynamic range, and of course brightness. It just looked better. And this is with both displays set to look as close to each other as possible. This is experience, not simply reading spec sheets. The numbers don't tell the whole truth.

I have two cameras; both have 24Mp sensors. Essentially, the 'same' sensor. Except; the newer cam (by 6 years) is just better all round, in terms of image quality, especially in lower light. Sometimes, the differences are things that you can't see in spec sheets.

 

[Warped9]

The numbers don't tell the whole truth. Sometimes, the differences are things that you can't see in spec sheets.

Definitely.

 

[tomscott1988]

If the user experience of an AIO works for you then you see the comparison differently. It’s not just a matter of getting what you need for the least price.

Firstly when you try comparing as I did you see the annoyance of buying a desktop then having to add all the required components allowing you to use the desktop. Unlike PC desktop towers Apple doesn’t provide you with a mouse and keyboard included. Then you have all these components you have to connect. A lot of people are fine with that.

But having used an AIO since 2001 it works for me. I like its elegance, tidiness and simplicity in tandem with doing everything I want. And it looks cool rather than being a collection of disparate components strewn across the desk.


Now in some months, perhaps Spring 2024, the Mac Mini will get M3 and that will change the comparison. An M3 Mac Mini with 24GB RAM and 1TB SSD will likely be $1799 CAN, but that doesn’t include keyboard, mouse, display and audio system. A new Studio Display would add $1999 CAN to that, a refurb would $1699. So it’s still hundreds more than the iMac. If you go with a non Apple display and such you might get it about the same as the iMac give or take a few bucks. But then we’re back to a collection of disparate components strewn across the desk.

So it’s not just a question of numbers and performance, but also how you see the whole thing.

This is true if your a new user but how many are first time users in this day and age and if they are I would think portables make more sense. Were all talking in this thread because we all have experience using the AIO and want to replace ours with a new one.

How many people who arent Mac people have experience of AIOs? I would think a very small selection as there have been barely any AIO competition over the years and those were much more expensive than stand alone PCs and often a much worse experience.

If you are a previous iMac user do you not have all the peripherals? That was the rhetoric with the Mac mini and studio, the likelihood is most current user have all these items. The mini was designed to tempt those windows users so they could bring their own peripherals.

Ive been using Mac since 2006 and have 4-5 sets of keyboards and mice as they have barely changed since since the A1242 released in 2009. The new ones arent that different and still have lightning the only difference is Touch ID but I prefer using my Apple Watch to auto unlock instead rather than another press.

Same with speakers I have 2-3 sets because I never thought the internal speakers were any good. Ye its ok casually and the 24" iMac is meant to be good but it depends on what you think is good I don think any of them sound good enough.

The other thing is that I use more than one display 3 at work where the iMac would be in the middle but with two the audio is then off to one side so the internal speakers dont do what they need to. So again most users probably have dedicated speakers too.

If you want to use external the stupid side on audio jack on the 24 is a complete eyesore and means you cant put a display to the left. Such a stupid design.

Again I dont know why anyone would spent the best part of £2k on a base chip, were talking about completely different users here. I cant think of any normal user that would spend that on a Mac mini. The current M2 Mac mini with 24gb and 1tb is £1449. The base m2 Mac mini pro is £1399 makes so much more sense you get so much more with that machine.

The other thing to think is that the reason for the 5k display is to be able to edit 4k video and have enough room for your application tools as well as being retina.

If the iMac works for you then thats great buy one! The thing with the thread is the iMac spanned multi genre, you could be a complete basic user and be right at the top of the pro end. The new one doesn't span that genre but its still a good machine just much more niche.

Ive built my system around the 27" with 2 displays and I couldn't remove the old 27" iMac and replace with the 24" as not only does it only offer one external display but the screen is a completely different size so it would look a mess.

There are a lot of users in that boat. Like many have said in the thread have sold their gear and swapped it all out to make it work, thats the issue. There isnt a replacement without a complete uproot.

Its one of those things, I have 2 27" 4k displays attached to my iMac and they work perfectly and the scaling on a day to day I dont even notice.

Again it just depends what you're doing. If your earning money with it its not as difficult decision still a pain but if your not making money then the convo is void as the specs were talking about is pro level.

Again wants and needs are two different things and like I said people need to analyse their usage to figure out what is actually needed.

If your using 16gbs now on non unified memory and not having any memory pressure issues then unified memory will only improve that experience and save £400.

 

[Warped9]

This is true if your a new user but how many are first time users in this day and age and if they are I would think portables make more sense. Were all talking in this thread because we all have experience using the AIO and want to replace ours with them.

How many people who arent Mac people have experience of AIOs? I would think a very small selection as there have been barely any AIO competition over the years and those were much more expensive than stand alone PCs and often a much worse experience.

If you are a previous iMac user do you not have all the peripherals? That was the rhetoric with the Mac mini and studio, the likelihood is most current user have all these items. The mini was designed to tempt those windows users so they could bring their own peripherals.

Ive been using Mac since 2006 and have 4-5 sets of keyboards and mice as they have barely changed since since the A1242 released in 2009. The new ones arent that different and still have lightning the only difference is Touch ID but I prefer using my Apple Watch to auto unlock instead rather than another press.

Same with speakers I have 2-3 sets because I never thought the internal speakers were any good. Ye its ok casually but the iMac its meant to be good but it depends on your thought process on good. The other thing is that I use more than one display 3 at work where the iMac would be int he middle but with two the audio is then off to the side so the internal speakers dont do what they need to. So again most users probably have dedicated speakers too.

Again I dont know why anyone would spent the best part of £2k on a base chip. The current M2 Mac mini with 24gb and 1tb is £1449. The base m2 Mac mini pro is £1399 makes so much more sense.

The other thing to think is that the reason for the 5k display is to be able to edit 4k video and have enough room for your application tools as well as being retina.

Its one of those things, I have 2 27" 4k displays attached to my iMac and they work perfectly and the scaling on a day to day I dont even notice.

Again it just depends what you're doing. If your earning money with it its not as difficult decision still a pain but if your not making money then the convo is void as the specs were talking about it pro level.

Again wants and needs are two different things and like I said people need to analyse their usage to figure out what is actually needed.

If your using 16gbs now on non unified memory and not having any memory pressure issues then unified memory will only improve that experience.

I have an AIO now so I already have a keyboard and mouse, but those aren’t a major expense. But my sound system is built into my AIO so thats useless with a new device.

Things are relative, too. An M3 is a base chip in terms of Apple Silicon, but it’s a high performance chip relative to what I currently have. And a base M1, M2 or M3 compares pretty darn well with what the mainstream offers in PCs.

And value is not wholly objective. For example one can buy a laptop except I personally don’t like laptops and I don’t need that portability. I hate the small screen, I hate using a trackpad and I hate having the small screen so low below eye level. I just don’t like it. So it doesn’t matter how good a laptop’s overall value is I strongly dislike the configuration and user experience—it doesn't work for me. Sure, I can add a bigger display and mouse, but then we’re back to having multiple components strewn across the table to use something I don’t like in the first place.

An AIO is something that just clicks for you—it fits your overall mindset or it doesn’t.

Because the M3 is far superior to my current i7 2600S maybe 16GB unified RAM would suffice compared to my current 32 non-unified RAM. But 24 would be a safer bet. I’m currently using 62 percent of my 500GB SSD so I could work with a 512 in a new machine. But 1TB would likely be better over the long term.

 

[tomscott1988]

I have an AIO now so I already have a keyboard and mouse, but those aren’t a major expense. But my sound system is built into my AIO so thats useless with a new device.

Things are relative, too. An M3 is a base chip in terms of Apple Silicon, but it’s a high performance chip relative to what I currently have. And a base M1, M2 or M3 compares pretty darn well with what the mainstream offers in PCs.

And value is not wholly objective. For example one can buy a laptop except I personally don’t like laptops and I don’t need that portability. I hate the small screen, I hate using a trackpad and I hate having the small screen so low below eye level. I just don’t like it. So it doesn’t matter how good a laptop’s overall value is I strongly dislike the configuration and user experience—it doesn't work for me. Sure, I can add a bigger display and mouse, but then we’re back to having multiple components strewn across the table to use something I don’t like in the first place.

An AIO is something that just clicks for you—it fits your overall mindset or it doesn’t.

Because the M3 is far superior to my current i7 2600S maybe 16GB unified RAM would suffice compared to my current 32 non-unified RAM. But 24 would be a safer bet. I’m currently using 62 percent of my 500GB SSD so I could work with a 512 in a new machine. But 1TB would likely be better over the long term.

So im not really sure what your issue is, are you not buying one?

I just read back and your on a 2011 21" iMac, its nearly 13 years old!! The ram is unbelievably slow in comparison so it's going to be a mind boggling difference in all respects. Technology has moved on so far that it's barely even comparable. Even an M1 would be vastly superior and you could save some money if thats the issue.

This is an upgrade for you in all respects and the screen is bigger, this machine is pretty much perfect for you. Im not sure how you are still managing on it, you will even get an unreal upgrade in software and feature set.

Doing the math the 2600 on Geekbench single: 680 Multi: 2020

The m3 is 350% faster single core and 480% faster multi, your probably never going to see that gain again 😂 I think ram is the least of your worries.

 

[AL2TEACH]

I'm not interested in anything smaller than that, myself, since this is a desktop machine. (No need to compromise on screen size for portability, in other words!)

yep and this is why I'll be keeping my 2015 27" until nothing will revive it.

 

[Warped9]

So im not really sure what your issue is, are you not buying one?

My issue is the repeated refrain that a Mac Mini, Mini Pro or Mac Studio is a better and supposedly cheaper, or more cost effective, alternative to an iMac. That isn’t true for everyone depending on what you want and prefer.

And, yes, I will be buying one.

 

[tomscott1988]

My issue is the repeated refrain that a Mac Mini, Mini Pro or Mac Studio is a better and supposedly cheaper, or more cost effective, alternative to an iMac. That isn’t true for everyone depending on what you want and prefer.

And, yes, I will be buying one.

If you want more flexibility in upgrades then yes they are, the upfront cost is more but reduces next time as you just replace the computer. It depends on your upgrade cycle. Mine are work machines so it's 3 years 5 max.

It's admirable that you have made the machine last 13 years and obviously you've upgraded elements as you needed, but to me is a pretty extreme case as its not just performance but also security and OS features that your missing. The apple silicon Macs have no option to upgrade and all you can do is add external storage, basically thats what people are saying. The intel iMacs you could swap everything if you were brave enough.

Suppose it depends on what you value more and whether paying the upfront cost is worth it or splitting it on a more frequent upgrade and compromising on the upgrades as thats what pushes the price up.

You havent really said what you use the machine for, but because its performance is so low im assuming (maybe wrongly) that its not overly taxing so like I said, although what you think you need, you might be able to get away with less to save money.

You cant get away from physical ram but speed of ram and efficiency really help, so if its faster it can make the system more effective. Also a standard SSD that I assume you have in your iMac is about 550mb/s but the PCIE SSDs are 3-6000mb/s depending on config, so the swap really can be a substitute unless you are using really heavy weight apps and multiple at once.

Like I mentioned download iStat menu and use it for a week- month. See where your memory pressure is.

For example, I have attached a screenshot of my memory pressure over the last 30 days, some days im not working on things that require swap but the highlighted option I was working on exhibition graphics and they were huge and it maxed my 64gbs and I was using 15gbs of swap too. Those were extreme, some of the indesign files had images rendering that were billboard size and multiple gbs in size.

As you can see im using significant swap quite often so im struggling with 64gbs and need more (The week where there is no swap I was on holiday). You can use this tool to see how much of the 32 you are using then it may make your purchase decision easier.

 

[Makisupa Policeman]

Late to the party but I think OP makes a compelling case. I loved my 27” 5K iMac and hoped for a while Apple would make an ASi version but the more I thought about it the less I desired one. I eventually went back to laptops because I missed portability too much. If I really still wanted a bigger screen it would make way more sense to use a dock and stand alone display from an economic and flexibility standpoint. AIO is a cleaner look to be sure, but considering I need peripherals like external drives connected to it, it’s not like I can have the cleanest setup in the world anyway.

 

[dazzer21-2]

The iMac is like the Mac Pro. It exists now because without it, Apple's line up is just anonymous. Mac Pro = recognised as the big beefy one with the cheese grater looks and the expensive wheels. iMac = the trademark all-in-one. Otherwise, it's just anonymous-looking boxes and laptops. There's no 'Apple passion' in the designs. The M2 Mac Pro is now an anomaly. What's it's real purpose when it does what a Studio can do and yet it can't run a single graphics Gard in its behemoth of a chassis? And the iMac? Apple now markets it as a computer you can put in your kitchen! Let's face it, if they made a standalone 24" 4.5k screen, the iMac needn't exist at all. A mini/mini Pro would be just the job with one of these screens. On one side of my room, I have my late '15 5k iMac. On the other, a mini Pro and a Studio Display. Both equally great to use. Next to me is my MacBook Pro - to have a standalone display based upon the current iMac would be great. In my mind, the iMac's not long for this world.

 

[aj_niner]

I want a late 2024 iMac 32" 6K M4 16GB 512GB once 32" 6K display parts drops down to ~$500.

 

[Warped9]

A 32in. iMac would be a heavy, unwieldy and expensive piece of hardware. I simply cannot see this happening. It’s pure wishful thinking with little to no basis in reality.

 

[aj_niner]

A 32in. iMac would be a heavy, unwieldy and expensive piece of hardware.

No iMac is laptop so "heavy & unwieldy" does not apply to any desktop. When 32" 6K parts drop to ~$500 then it will not be expensive.

I simply cannot see this happening. It’s pure wishful thinking with little to no basis in reality.

That was likely said about the 27" iMac a year or two before one was released.

25 years ago who would have thought a 27" iMac would weigh less than a iMac G3.

 

[Warped9]

^^ Flying in the face of Apple actually saying no 27in. iMac is coming. If there isn’t going to be a 27 then I seriously doubt there’ll be a 32.

And if one appears then of all those crying for one very few will actually buy it given it’s inevitable high price.

 

[aj_niner]

^^ Flying in the face of Apple actually saying no 27in. iMac is coming. If there isn’t going to be a 27 then I seriously doubt there’ll be a 32.

And if one appears then of all those crying for one very few will actually buy it given it’s inevitable high price.

The difference between a iMac 24" 4.5K & iMac 27" 5K is 0.5K.

A iMac 32" 6K did not release because of panel parts pricing.

If 32" 6K parts was ~$500 then it would have been released in 2021 or 2023.

11 months from today I hope Apple manages to source ~$500 parts.

 

[Chuckeee]

A iMac 32" 6K did not release because of panel parts pricing.

If 32" 6K parts was ~$500 then it would have been released in 2021 or 2023.

11 months from today I hope Apple manages to source ~$500 parts.

Cost of parts provides no incentive for Apple to lower prices. Even if piece cost was low Apple’s pricing NOW is based on the desire to achieve the highest profit across the entire product line. A low price point for your 32” iMac would hurt sales for too many other Mac products.

My evidence? Look at current RAM and SSD upgrade prices as compared to the actual cost of those memory components. Apple does not care about low BOM cost when they set their prices.

Apple sets prices based on the perceived VALUE of their products. Basically they set prices based on what the market is willing to bear. All the based on selling a highly desirable boutique product. Limited numbers of high profit items.

 

[aj_niner]

Cost of parts provides no incentive for Apple to lower prices. Even if piece cost was low Apple’s pricing NOW is based on the desire to achieve the highest profit across the entire product line. A low price point for your 32” iMac would hurt sales for too many other Mac products.

My evidence? Look at current RAM and SSD upgrade prices as compared to the actual cost of those memory components. Apple does not care about low BOM cost when they set their prices.

Apple sets prices based on the perceived VALUE of their products. Basically they set prices based on what the market is willing to bear. All the based on selling a highly desirable boutique product. Limited numbers of high profit items.

Comparing RAM & SSD to displays do not make sense.

Apple historically & to this day competitively MSRP desktop & laptop screen sizes.

Memory & storage are unchangeable at check out hence Apple's ability to lean on anyone to pay their prices.

To a less severe extent PC OEMs up charge those upgrades.

Compare the $1299 iMac from 1998, 2019 & 2023. The price point remains static in spite of inflation but the screen sizes increase from 15" to 21.5" and currently 24".

Apple made it public that no 27" iMac will be sold in future but it does not mean no 32" iMac will.

The 32" 6K panel tech needs to lower to ~$500 for one to happen. Using different panel tech, Dell managed to lower their 32" 6K model to less than half that of Apple's 4 year old model.

 

[macsound1]

Comparing RAM & SSD to displays do not make sense.

Truly.
If they release a 27" iMac that has higher specs than a 24" iMac, that would make no sense.
There's no reason a M3 Pro wouldn't fit just as well in a 2 fanned 24" iMac than it would in a similar 27".

I think there needs to be as much correlation between available specs in the different size iMacs as there is with the different size MBPs.

 

[aj_niner]

Truly.
If they release a 27" iMac that has higher specs than a 24" iMac, that would make no sense.
There's no reason a M3 Pro wouldn't fit just as well in a 2 fanned 24" iMac than it would in a similar 27".

I think there needs to be as much correlation between available specs in the different size iMacs as there is with the different size MBPs.

1st complaint by users & the press would be

- 24" 4.5K
- 27" 5.0K

The difference is 0.5K for additional $500-700?

Personally I'd buy it because it is the same 27" I have now but many people will give hell over the "JUST" the 0.5K difference.

Now, if the difference was 1.5K difference then $500-700 cost diff makes more sense.

 

[jouster]

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.

I have the ACD HD 30, which is a little more modern than the '04 you note. It is happily working away with my M2 Mini thanks to a cheap Amazon adapter whose details I have forgotten. I have no plans to update it until it breaks. Together they make up the best system I have ever had for my modest computing needs.

 

[tomscott1988]

I have a 23” Cinema Display and it ghosts like no tomorrow drives me insane so doesn’t get used anymore

 

[JBaby]

I have a 23” Cinema Display and it ghosts like no tomorrow drives me insane so doesn’t get used anymore

My 2013 iMac ghosted like crazy. I do not miss that!!!!I haven’t noticed any ghosting on my M3 iMac.

 

[aj_niner]

I have a 23” Cinema Display and it ghosts like no tomorrow drives me insane so doesn’t get used anymore

Is that the 1920 x 1200? That's equivalent to "2K" in Apple marketing terms. The non-aluminum is 2002 & aluminum 2004.

Those are over 22 & 20 years ago respectively.

This is why I am not that concerned about reusing any display past 10 years. By its 1st decade Apple will be using more advanced display tech that you'd want to replace it with.

Use it for 3650 days at 12 hour daily at over 40,000 hours and it is time to retire it or sell it to a collector.

JBaby's 2013 iMac is over a decade old now on a "2.5K" panel.

The 1st "5K" iMac came out in 2014. 2021 has Apple moving their small iMac to a "4.5K" display.

If Apple kept pushing the 5K iMac into the Apple Silicon era they'll be pointing out that $500 more gets them "just" additional 0.5K? WTF, right?

Last month Apple disclosed that no 27" iMac will be ever made. But it does not mean a 32" iMac is not pending.

5 years later if 2nd gen 32" 6K panel replacing the 2019 model lowers parts cost to ~$500 wouldn't Apple use it for their 2024 iMac?

- 32" 6K 2nd gen display
- M4 3nm chip
- 8GB LPDDR6 RAM
- 256GB SSD
- ~$1,999 MSRP
- CPU Max of 150W instead of 295W

Many many many iMac users just want the largest display possible with the most basic of Mac chips because the most basic of M4 chips outperforms any and all Intel Macs.

Even the 2019 Mac Pro Xeon 14nm.

They will use it until it falls apart hopefully after a dozen years.

There will be some who wished that there is Target Display Mode that allows iMacs to be used as an external display for a new Mac. It is a feature that is "nice to have" but not crucial to me as I replace when no more Security Updates are issued.

 

[Feek]

I purchased a Mac Studio and a Studio display. Spent well over 6 grand. I HATE THEM BOTH.

I'm intrigued as to what you hate about them?

In my shack, I switched from a 27" iMac to a Mac Studio and two Studio displays. To all intents and purposes, it's just like using the iMac only significantly faster.