Wish I could simply plug a Mac mini into my iMac display.
That is my single “ding” against the iMac line. The display is magnificent; but then tech on the motherboard will be obsolete decades before the monitor is done. The monitor doesn’t have the ability to switch inputs; which is why I went with the Mac Mini
With a decent monitor; keyboard, mouse and a little extra storage the cost outlay is not that far apart, assuming you start off with a upper level Mini
There are some hardware hacks that will allow you to use the iMac as just a monitor, or to replace the computing internals completely. Not for the faint of heart, but I'm toying with the idea for my 2015 27" 5k iMac when I finally replace it. It might get sold as-is to help fund the new purchase, or maybe if I can find a cheap AS mini I'll see if I can transplant the motherboard into the iMac shell.
Wish I could simply plug a Mac mini into my iMac display.
That is my single “ding” against the iMac line. The display is magnificent; but then tech on the motherboard will be obsolete decades before the monitor is done. The monitor doesn’t have the ability to switch inputs; which is why I went with the Mac Mini
With a decent monitor; keyboard, mouse and a little extra storage the cost outlay is not that far apart, assuming you start off with a upper level Mini
It is a risk someone takes whenever they buy an all-in-one product from any company.
To state the obvious, the comments here about wanting to use the iMac 5K as a display vividly illustrate why the iMac 5K is dead.
Somewhere, I’m pretty sure it was in 2017 when they did the mea-culpa about the 2013 Mac Pro graphics and thermals, someone explained the target audience of the iMac 5K — the same as the Mac Studio. They learned a lot from that — the iMac 5K sold to a broader audience than they expected. So now they’ve got this broad range, from $599 to $3999 (base configurations), plus the Studio Display.
The bonus in this is it returns the iMac to the original vision for it (and that of the original Macintosh as well) — I think we’ll see it in March, along with the M2 iPad Air.
Then WWDC features both the announcement of the reality machine, and the powerful Macs designed to create for it, the Mac Pro and the Mac Studio. Also, one more thing, the new Liquid Retina Pro Display, in two sizes, 28" 6K and 32" 8K, all with Thunderbolt 5, all available in Fall 2023, thus ending the Apple Silicon transition.
Wish I could simply plug a Mac mini into my iMac display.
I had my Mac mini plugged into my 2009 iMac, but after an update or two ago target display mode stopped working on the iMac. So I just connected to it using Remote Desktop. That worked for about a week before I got annoyed with it and ended up buying a 28" 4k Acer display for $279 from MicroCenter. It obviously doesn't offer an "Apple" like experience, but it works good enough for now.
Target display mode like MagSafe will be back it’s just too useful to sit on the sidelines.
But will the large screen iMac be back? Seems doubtful.
Yes. I believe they will bring back the larger iMac once the dust settles from the Studio Display (meaning, sales drop significantly). I bet we'll eventually see a larger iMac with an Mx Pro in it for a $1000 markup over the same spec'ed mini. So if released now, the large iMac would start at $2299. Which to me would be reasonable.
Wish I could simply plug a Mac mini into my iMac display.
That is my single “ding” against the iMac line. The display is magnificent; but then tech on the motherboard will be obsolete decades before the monitor is done. The monitor doesn’t have the ability to switch inputs; which is why I went with the Mac Mini
With a decent monitor; keyboard, mouse and a little extra storage the cost outlay is not that far apart, assuming you start off with a upper level Mini
It is a risk someone takes whenever they buy an all-in-one product from any company.
My first iMac, the original Bondi Blue G3 iMac, was delivered the first day it was released (August 15, 1998). iMacs are still being produced 24.5 years later so it has been a risk a lot of people have taken. Of course, maybe Apple is the only company that actually made money on an all-in-one computer.
I checked Geekbench and they didn't list any Apple M2 Pro Compute scores for Metal.
As a comparison, here's my early 2019 iMac19,1 Core i9 8c, 72GB RAM, 2TB SSD, AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 (bought son's fully blown iMac used for animation).
Single 1309, 67% of M2 Pro mini Multi 8021, 53% of M2 Pro mini Compute Metal 53883 Compute OpenCL 49436 Cost (can't remember but over $5K)
M2 Pro mini, 10/16/16 32GB 2TB $2,299 Studi Display $1,599 Keyboard and Mouse $298 (keyboard with TouchID) Total $4,096 (funny total because it's 2 to the 12th power) <80% of iMac i9
Wish I could simply plug a Mac mini into my iMac display.
Only one version of the old iMac supported acting as a display. It was a 27” iMac with mini-DisplayPort/Thunderbolt 2 connectors. I don’t remember the exact model.
Wish I could simply plug a Mac mini into my iMac display.
That is my single “ding” against the iMac line. The display is magnificent; but then tech on the motherboard will be obsolete decades before the monitor is done. The monitor doesn’t have the ability to switch inputs; which is why I went with the Mac Mini
With a decent monitor; keyboard, mouse and a little extra storage the cost outlay is not that far apart, assuming you start off with a upper level Mini
It is a risk someone takes whenever they buy an all-in-one product from any company.
To state the obvious, the comments here about wanting to use the iMac 5K as a display vividly illustrate why the iMac 5K is dead.
Somewhere, I’m pretty sure it was in 2017 when they did the mea-culpa about the 2013 Mac Pro graphics and thermals, someone explained the target audience of the iMac 5K — the same as the Mac Studio. They learned a lot from that — the iMac 5K sold to a broader audience than they expected. So now they’ve got this broad range, from $599 to $3999 (base configurations), plus the Studio Display.
The bonus in this is it returns the iMac to the original vision for it (and that of the original Macintosh as well) — I think we’ll see it in March, along with the M2 iPad Air.
Then WWDC features both the announcement of the reality machine, and the powerful Macs designed to create for it, the Mac Pro and the Mac Studio. Also, one more thing, the new Liquid Retina Pro Display, in two sizes, 28" 6K and 32" 8K, all with Thunderbolt 5, all available in Fall 2023, thus ending the Apple Silicon transition.
Agree. Hopefully they can drive the iMac 24 to $1000. Keep the old M1 4+4+7 config even, but hit that $1000 price point. The wait continues for the 5K 120 Hz miniLED display. It would hopefully drive the ASD down to $1300, maybe $1200, and a 27" 120Hz miniLED with TB5 can hit a $1800/$2000 price point, and have a 60 Hz mode for TB3 connections.
I believe this to be deliberate. If Target Displays Mode still existed
Target display mode went away with 5K and Apple's custom graphics controller to bring 5K to market well ahead of the rest of industry supporting it. Yup, target display mode would be nice - but we now have the best solution - separating the computer from a large display with the Studio display. The larger iMacs were always extremely wasteful, even with target display mode (have to have a whole computer running just to use it as a monitor?!?) and I'm glad to see Apple backing away from them.
I believe this to be deliberate. If Target Displays Mode still existed
Target display mode went away with 5K and Apple's custom graphics controller to bring 5K to market well ahead of the rest of industry supporting it. Yup, target display mode would be nice - but we now have the best solution - separating the computer from a large display with the Studio display. The larger iMacs were always extremely wasteful, even with target display mode (have to have a whole computer running just to use it as a monitor?!?) and I'm glad to see Apple backing away from them.
Target display mode like MagSafe will be back it’s just too useful to sit on the sidelines.
I checked Geekbench and they didn't list any Apple M2 Pro Compute scores for Metal.
As a comparison, here's my early 2019 iMac19,1 Core i9 8c, 72GB RAM, 2TB SSD, AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 (bought son's fully blown iMac used for animation).
Single 1309, 67% of M2 Pro mini Multi 8021, 53% of M2 Pro mini Compute Metal 53883 Compute OpenCL 49436 Cost (can't remember but over $5K)
M2 Pro mini, 10/16/16 32GB 2TB $2,299 Studi Display $1,599 Keyboard and Mouse $298 (keyboard with TouchID) Total $4,096 (funny total because it's 2 to the 12th power) <80% of iMac i9
Wish I could simply plug a Mac mini into my iMac display.
Only one version of the old iMac supported acting as a display. It was a 27” iMac with mini-DisplayPort/Thunderbolt 2 connectors. I don’t remember the exact model.
Wrong.
24-inch and 27-inch iMac models introduced in 2009 and 2010
iMac models introduced in 2011, 2012, 2013, and mid 2014
The M2 Pro Mac mini is a steal at $1299 because it’s a 16GB 512GB SSD Mac which is wicked fast with FOUR Thunderbolt 4 OUTPUTS, WiFi 6e and Bluetooth 5.3. Believe me when I tell you: TWO Thunderbolt 4 ports are NOT ENOUGH.
I bought a new base 8GB 256GB SSD M1 Mac mini less than a year ago for $495 and am buying the new base M2 Pro Mac mini IMMEDIATELY for almost list price.
I'm wondering if Apple will be coming out with models with the 20% performance increase every year or if we are going to see a huge jump. 3nm process will mostly provide energy savings but little performance benefit, which is awesome for the portables. I have a Studio Pro, and it's fast enough for me for a couple of years, but I'm curious about the Mac Pro.
“Wish I could simply plug a Mac mini into my iMac display.”
I believe this to be deliberate. If Target Displays Mode still existed, the reason and need for the Studio Display would be greatly diminished. I believe many iMac 5K users would see the Mac Mini M2 Pro as a great alternative to buying a new Apple display.
One step further why can’t you take two 24 inch iMac’s set them side-by-side and use them as one computer with two great screens instead of using a second inferior 24 inch monitor from a third-party as a display? Such a set up would be killer can this be done? With the current 24 inch iMac?
“Wish I could simply plug a Mac mini into my iMac display.”
I believe this to be deliberate. If Target Displays Mode still existed, the reason and need for the Studio Display would be greatly diminished. I believe many iMac 5K users would see the Mac Mini M2 Pro as a great alternative to buying a new Apple display.
One step further why can’t you take two 24 inch iMac’s set them side-by-side and use them as one computer with two great screens instead of using a second inferior 24 inch monitor from a third-party as a display? Such a set up would be killer can this be done? With the current 24 inch iMac?
That would be pretty amazing and possibly quite efficient for workloads amenable to that. Someone here recently was saying that it made sense (in their case) to buy four Minis instead of one maxed-out Studio.
So two iMacs working in parallel would be nice. Making that happen would be a macOS feature, I don’t know how big a software-engineering challenge it would be. I mean, what happens if you try to do that today (connect two iMacs via Thunderbolt)?
“Wish I could simply plug a Mac mini into my iMac display.”
I believe this to be deliberate. If Target Displays Mode still existed, the reason and need for the Studio Display would be greatly diminished. I believe many iMac 5K users would see the Mac Mini M2 Pro as a great alternative to buying a new Apple display.
One step further why can’t you take two 24 inch iMac’s set them side-by-side and use them as one computer with two great screens instead of using a second inferior 24 inch monitor from a third-party as a display? Such a set up would be killer can this be done? With the current 24 inch iMac?
That would be pretty amazing and possibly quite efficient for workloads amenable to that. Someone here recently was saying that it made sense (in their case) to buy four Minis instead of one maxed-out Studio.
So two iMacs working in parallel would be nice. Making that happen would be a macOS feature, I don’t know how big a software-engineering challenge it would be. I mean, what happens if you try to do that today (connect two iMacs via Thunderbolt)?
With Universal Control and iCloud, you have a modicum of compute fusion. iCloud will sync your files across both Macs so that the same data is accessible across both Macs. Apps and processes are run on the local Mac. Clipboards are shared as well, so copy-n-paste between Macs will work for most things I think.
The big feature will be if apps can distribute jobs across both Macs. Say, you have a Handbrake job, have the transcode split in half and then distribute the jobs evenly between the two Macs. The pros can do this with Compressor or Xcode with networked Macs, but the big change is enabling Joe Users to do it without thinking about it, and having the operating system load balance processes, and presenting a local contiguous filesystem across the two drives.
One of the tricks would be if you dragged a web browser view from one iMac to the other iMac. Does the other Mac take over running the web browser? Does the source Mac continue to run the browser and the other Mac is just displaying the UI? Does the 2nd Mac display anything at all, and just serve as a compute resource? How are threads and processes migrated? So, thats sounds like a lot work at both the core OS and app framework level.
There just isn't a lot of need for most users to do this, so, it's just going to be left to specific applications running master-slave type distributed processing, which is already being done.
Comments
Somewhere, I’m pretty sure it was in 2017 when they did the mea-culpa about the 2013 Mac Pro graphics and thermals, someone explained the target audience of the iMac 5K — the same as the Mac Studio. They learned a lot from that — the iMac 5K sold to a broader audience than they expected. So now they’ve got this broad range, from $599 to $3999 (base configurations), plus the Studio Display.
The bonus in this is it returns the iMac to the original vision for it (and that of the original Macintosh as well) — I think we’ll see it in March, along with the M2 iPad Air.
Then WWDC features both the announcement of the reality machine, and the powerful Macs designed to create for it, the Mac Pro and the Mac Studio. Also, one more thing, the new Liquid Retina Pro Display, in two sizes, 28" 6K and 32" 8K, all with Thunderbolt 5, all available in Fall 2023, thus ending the Apple Silicon transition.
I had my Mac mini plugged into my 2009 iMac, but after an update or two ago target display mode stopped working on the iMac.
Yes. I believe they will bring back the larger iMac once the dust settles from the Studio Display (meaning, sales drop significantly). I bet we'll eventually see a larger iMac with an Mx Pro in it for a $1000 markup over the same spec'ed mini. So if released now, the large iMac would start at $2299. Which to me would be reasonable.
24-inch and 27-inch iMac models introduced in 2009 and 2010
iMac models introduced in 2011, 2012, 2013, and mid 2014
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204592I bought a new base 8GB 256GB SSD M1 Mac mini less than a year ago for $495 and am buying the new base M2 Pro Mac mini IMMEDIATELY for almost list price.
So two iMacs working in parallel would be nice. Making that happen would be a macOS feature, I don’t know how big a software-engineering challenge it would be. I mean, what happens if you try to do that today (connect two iMacs via Thunderbolt)?
The big feature will be if apps can distribute jobs across both Macs. Say, you have a Handbrake job, have the transcode split in half and then distribute the jobs evenly between the two Macs. The pros can do this with Compressor or Xcode with networked Macs, but the big change is enabling Joe Users to do it without thinking about it, and having the operating system load balance processes, and presenting a local contiguous filesystem across the two drives.
One of the tricks would be if you dragged a web browser view from one iMac to the other iMac. Does the other Mac take over running the web browser? Does the source Mac continue to run the browser and the other Mac is just displaying the UI? Does the 2nd Mac display anything at all, and just serve as a compute resource? How are threads and processes migrated? So, thats sounds like a lot work at both the core OS and app framework level.
There just isn't a lot of need for most users to do this, so, it's just going to be left to specific applications running master-slave type distributed processing, which is already being done.