If thinner bezels can make a 21.5" iMac into a 23"er. I'd epect the next iteration of the 27 to be in the neightberhood of 29-30" all within the same form factor.
Was hoping the refreshed iMac would be 27", bummer.
I don’t think this rumor precludes an updated 27” iMac, just that there may be a 23” iMac added to the line up. To be honest, a 23” iMac doesn’t even mean that there won’t be a 21” iMac anymore, although that is the model that the new model seems likely to replace.
The rumor does make me wonder if Apple will use the screen size as a differentiator between a normal iMac and an iMac Pro.
Regardless, I give 50/50 odds that any new enclosure will allow for user-upgradable RAM.
Just look at an LG 4K 23 inch. Boom. You'r welcome!
We have over $3500 burning a hole in our pocket for a new iMac. Want: 1. larger size than 27 2. double the resolution 3. SSD only
Larger than 27" and double the resolution? We already have 5k iMacs, doubling the resolution won't make a difference unless you mean very large screens when you mentioned larger than 27”.
Why do you care if an iMac is not SSD only? People are always harping about choice so why force something you want on a user who doesn’t want or need what you do? Of course you can order an SSD only iMac today so what’s the problem? And double the resolution? The iMac is 5K but you want 10K? How does that even work?
Non-SSD’s are only good for external storage.
Blathering nonsense. Internal spinning hard drives are perfectly fine for most people and it’s why Apple still offers them. You don't need blinding electronic speed to send an email, play some music, and store photos. Yours is the same false argument used by the 5G crowd. Most people don’t need 5G speeds any time soon, especially on a mobile phone.
Trouble is that Apple has decided the plebs are not allowed to replace their internal storage. HDDS are unreliable in comparison with SSDs and almost always die well before the end of the useful life of the iMac. That is even before you start talking speed. If the internal drives were user replaceable I would not have a problem with your position.
I would hope that if they're raising the screen size of the smaller iMac that they'll also increase the size of the 27" iMac. I've been working on a MacBook Pro connected to an LG 34" widescreen display and have fallen in love with the extra real estate. I almost considered a Mac that I could get a monitor that size but there is nothing powerful enough without spending a fortune.
I'm not sure the timetable of the new iMac design but I doubt they would rollout the smaller size first. I wish there was something with iMac power but you could add your own monitor to it.
What about the new Mac mini 3.2GHz 6‑core 8th‑generation Intel Core i7? That seems pretty good...
It would need to be based on a 6K panel (like the Pro Display XDR) to maintain pixel pitch close to that of the 27" 5K. Unless there is a cheaper version of a 32" 6K panel, that could be one pricey iMac.
Similar issue on larger 4K panel pointed out by GlockWorkOrange in #20 above.
PS: Does anyone think an ultra-wide iMac will show up? (Not that I think this is a good idea).
We have over $3500 burning a hole in our pocket for a new iMac. Want: 1. larger size than 27 2. double the resolution 3. SSD only
Larger than 27" and double the resolution? We already have 5k iMacs, doubling the resolution won't make a difference unless you mean very large screens when you mentioned larger than 27”.
Why do you care if an iMac is not SSD only? People are always harping about choice so why force something you want on a user who doesn’t want or need what you do? Of course you can order an SSD only iMac today so what’s the problem? And double the resolution? The iMac is 5K but you want 10K? How does that even work?
Because iMacs are great for productivity and large capacity SSDs last much longer than spinning drives. Apple users care about speed and the speed of an email is determined by internet connection not the hard drive. This is like saying "why do I need an A13 processor when phone calls don't need all that power".
As for 10k displays. I was disagreeing with him as well.
Yes! ^^^^ The 21.5 iMac was the budget option, but 23" with a refreshed frame is a great move. Work out the kinks, and bring on the 30" iMac i9 at affordable artist prices asap after working ut the kinks on the budget upgrade.
Could be 23" with the dimensions as 21.5" but smaller bezels.
Sure would like to see a redesigned larger iMac, but more importantly if they could just also release a Thunderbolt Display with the same panel alongside it, I'd be really happy to replace my aging 30" ACD.
If they were to make the bezels thinner, they could easily make 23" fit into the dimensions of the current 21.5". I do wish they would have some ports on the front, or at least the side like they used to, there is no reason to have the sides be so thin. Repairing the current iMacs is a big pain.
If they were to make the bezels thinner, they could easily make 23" fit into the dimensions of the current 21.5". I do wish they would have some ports on the front, or at least the side like they used to, there is no reason to have the sides be so thin. Repairing the current iMacs is a big pain.
Good point.
Oops didn't see that someone already made this point. Though I would welcome a bigger screen in a smaller shell along with a smaller Apple Logo. Maybe a logo the size of the iPhone 11 Max.
Sure would like to see a redesigned larger iMac, but more importantly if they could just also release a Thunderbolt Display with the same panel alongside it, I'd be really happy to replace my aging 30" ACD.
If they can give the ACD the case and leave room for an eGPU it would be popular with laptop buyer and companies wanting hot desk monitors.
We have over $3500 burning a hole in our pocket for a new iMac. Want: 1. larger size than 27 2. double the resolution 3. SSD only
Larger than 27" and double the resolution? We already have 5k iMacs, doubling the resolution won't make a difference unless you mean very large screens when you mentioned larger than 27”.
Why do you care if an iMac is not SSD only? People are always harping about choice so why force something you want on a user who doesn’t want or need what you do? Of course you can order an SSD only iMac today so what’s the problem? And double the resolution? The iMac is 5K but you want 10K? How does that even work?
Non-SSD’s are only good for external storage.
Blathering nonsense. Internal spinning hard drives are perfectly fine for most people and it’s why Apple still offers them. You don't need blinding electronic speed to send an email, play some music, and store photos. Yours is the same false argument used by the 5G crowd. Most people don’t need 5G speeds any time soon, especially on a mobile phone.
Stop pretending to speak for most people. 1 TB NVMe SSD that is replaceable has a wide range of performance/price options that should be the default for all systems now. And yes, RAID DISC layer drives is where they are strong, ala NAS/SAN, etc.
We have over $3500 burning a hole in our pocket for a new iMac. Want: 1. larger size than 27 2. double the resolution 3. SSD only
Larger than 27" and double the resolution? We already have 5k iMacs, doubling the resolution won't make a difference unless you mean very large screens when you mentioned larger than 27”.
Why do you care if an iMac is not SSD only? People are always harping about choice so why force something you want on a user who doesn’t want or need what you do? Of course you can order an SSD only iMac today so what’s the problem? And double the resolution? The iMac is 5K but you want 10K? How does that even work?
Non-SSD’s are only good for external storage.
Blathering nonsense. Internal spinning hard drives are perfectly fine for most people and it’s why Apple still offers them. You don't need blinding electronic speed to send an email, play some music, and store photos. Yours is the same false argument used by the 5G crowd. Most people don’t need 5G speeds any time soon, especially on a mobile phone.
Stop pretending to speak for most people. 1 TB NVMe SSD that is replaceable has a wide range of performance/price options that should be the default for all systems now. And yes, RAID DISC layer drives is where they are strong, ala NAS/SAN, etc.
Spinning drives are on their way out anyway. Soon all storage will be SSD and it will only get better.
We have over $3500 burning a hole in our pocket for a new iMac. Want: 1. larger size than 27 2. double the resolution 3. SSD only
Larger than 27" and double the resolution? We already have 5k iMacs, doubling the resolution won't make a difference unless you mean very large screens when you mentioned larger than 27”.
Why do you care if an iMac is not SSD only? People are always harping about choice so why force something you want on a user who doesn’t want or need what you do? Of course you can order an SSD only iMac today so what’s the problem? And double the resolution? The iMac is 5K but you want 10K? How does that even work?
Non-SSD’s are only good for external storage.
Blathering nonsense. Internal spinning hard drives are perfectly fine for most people and it’s why Apple still offers them. You don't need blinding electronic speed to send an email, play some music, and store photos. Yours is the same false argument used by the 5G crowd. Most people don’t need 5G speeds any time soon, especially on a mobile phone.
Trouble is that Apple has decided the plebs are not allowed to replace their internal storage. HDDS are unreliable in comparison with SSDs and almost always die well before the end of the useful life of the iMac. That is even before you start talking speed. If the internal drives were user replaceable I would not have a problem with your position.
I’d have top disagree from an experience side. I currently use a late 2013 27” iMac 14,2 with a 1.1TB fusion drive that’s now 7 years old. According to DriveDx it’s the 128GB SSD part that’s starting to show its age with a 70% useful life remaining estimate. Meanwhile the 1TB spinning drive is running error free. In either event that Fusion drive now 7 years old and running 24/7/365 is performing like a champ. So could you please provide some credible evidence that spinning drives ‘almost always die well before the the end of the useful life of the iMac’ because, well, I don’t believe you. Before the 2013 iMac I had a 2008 iMac and its spinning drive never failed. In fact I’ve never had a hard drive fail on me to this day, including the four external drives I’ve been using for years and years (WD drives that so-called experts here claim are trash). And I never had a drive fail on my work Windows PC either.
I strongly suspect I’m the norm and not the exception.
Sure would like to see a redesigned larger iMac, but more importantly if they could just also release a Thunderbolt Display with the same panel alongside it, I'd be really happy to replace my aging 30" ACD.
If they can give the ACD the case and leave room for an eGPU it would be popular with laptop buyer and companies wanting hot desk monitors.
They wouldn't waste that much space for the few people who want to put a graphics card in there. A first party eGPU box that would fit/look good with a display (or Mac mini) would be awesome but just as unlikely.
In fact I’ve never had a hard drive fail on me to this day, including the four external drives I’ve been using for years and years (WD drives that so-called experts here claim are trash). And I never had a drive fail on my work Windows PC either.
I strongly suspect I’m the norm and not the exception.
I find this nearly impossible to believe; you have to be exceptionally lucky. ALL hard drives die, it's just a matter of when. I have memories going back to the early 90s of slamming sticky drives against my desk to get them spinning up and I don't know how many failures since on my own Macs, not to mention the numerous failed drives for others I've replaced. Has to be in the dozens at this point.
We have over $3500 burning a hole in our pocket for a new iMac. Want: 1. larger size than 27 2. double the resolution 3. SSD only
Larger than 27" and double the resolution? We already have 5k iMacs, doubling the resolution won't make a difference unless you mean very large screens when you mentioned larger than 27”.
Why do you care if an iMac is not SSD only? People are always harping about choice so why force something you want on a user who doesn’t want or need what you do? Of course you can order an SSD only iMac today so what’s the problem? And double the resolution? The iMac is 5K but you want 10K? How does that even work?
Non-SSD’s are only good for external storage.
Blathering nonsense. Internal spinning hard drives are perfectly fine for most people and it’s why Apple still offers them. You don't need blinding electronic speed to send an email, play some music, and store photos. Yours is the same false argument used by the 5G crowd. Most people don’t need 5G speeds any time soon, especially on a mobile phone.
My experience is the opposite. That, at least on Windows machines, upgrading from a harddrive to SSD can rejuvenate an older machine -- literally transition it from the junk pile to being fully comparable to a brand new machine. I have done that on three different machines and found remarkable differences. And the difference is particularly noticeable on machines that are not frequently used because, when they are booted up they trigger massive downloads of upgrades that, with a harddrive can bring the machine to a near standstill. But, with an SSD are those updates are barely noticeable. It appears that with a harddrive the machine just thrashes around unable to complete the updates. But, with an SSD it can operate smoothly.
At this point, from my experience, an SSD makes far more difference than does the CPU or GPU and even more than does RAM (as long as its not constrained).
In addition, on two of the machines, I was able to re-install the old harddrive as a drive in the DVD bay and configure it for automatic, continuous backups. So, for 1/10 the cost of a new machine I ended up with a machine that was actually better than new -- just by upgrading to an SSD.
I think that, right now, with the new keyboard / trackpad combination, an 11" iPad would be perfect!
My experience with my grandson's 9.7" Gen6 iPad is that:
-- in tablet mode the screen (and the iPad) is almost over sized -- the iPad Mini feels better to me.
-- in laptop mode with its keyboard the screen is a bit too small.
Likewise, the 11" screen on my MacBook Air is a bit small but very usable in a pinch or on my lap.
I think an 11" screen -- particularly if its done by reducing or eliminating the bezels -- would be the best of both worlds now that the iPad can operate effectively in either tablet or laptop mode with a keyboard and mouse.
Comments
Just look at an LG 4K 23 inch. Boom. You'r welcome!
It would need to be based on a 6K panel (like the Pro Display XDR) to maintain pixel pitch close to that of the 27" 5K. Unless there is a cheaper version of a 32" 6K panel, that could be one pricey iMac.
Similar issue on larger 4K panel pointed out by GlockWorkOrange in #20 above.
PS: Does anyone think an ultra-wide iMac will show up? (Not that I think this is a good idea).
Because iMacs are great for productivity and large capacity SSDs last much longer than spinning drives. Apple users care about speed and the speed of an email is determined by internet connection not the hard drive. This is like saying "why do I need an A13 processor when phone calls don't need all that power".
As for 10k displays. I was disagreeing with him as well.
Could be 23" with the dimensions as 21.5" but smaller bezels.
Oops didn't see that someone already made this point. Though I would welcome a bigger screen in a smaller shell along with a smaller Apple Logo. Maybe a logo the size of the iPhone 11 Max.
Stop pretending to speak for most people. 1 TB NVMe SSD that is replaceable has a wide range of performance/price options that should be the default for all systems now. And yes, RAID DISC layer drives is where they are strong, ala NAS/SAN, etc.
Spinning drives are on their way out anyway. Soon all storage will be SSD and it will only get better.
I strongly suspect I’m the norm and not the exception.
I find this nearly impossible to believe; you have to be exceptionally lucky. ALL hard drives die, it's just a matter of when. I have memories going back to the early 90s of slamming sticky drives against my desk to get them spinning up and I don't know how many failures since on my own Macs, not to mention the numerous failed drives for others I've replaced. Has to be in the dozens at this point.