3 ms·

I have a ~7 year old 27" iMac. It wasn't that expensive at the time and the screen is still way better than a lot of what is on the market today. Now, it is onl

• camillomiller 3y ago
  Have you seen in person the new iMac? The performance leap from that is insane. The 4,5K retina screen also fits as much even if not more than your 27-inch
  • acdha 3y ago
    No, a 4.5K display doesn’t fit more than the 5K display on the 27” iMac. The performance boost is nice but the display is still better. It looks like the market shifts mean they’re assuming people who want bigger displays will buy a separate 5-8K display and connect it to a Mac Mini, which is probably correct. That used to cost more when the third-party market was so limited but that’s improved considerably.
  • osigurdson 3y ago
    I don't understand why they didn't just keep the 27" screen. It isn't like 27" is considered large by today's standards.
• einr 3y ago
  I guess the high-end iMacs and iMac Pros (remember the iMac Pro? 10 core Xeons upgradable to 512 GB of RAM!) just never sold very well, so they canned the idea of selling iMacs to pro users and instead chose to focus on the lower-end market that was previously served by the 21.5". So it seems to me like the iMac has very much been repositioned as a stylish, basic desktop computer for the home and general office tasks now. No M3 Pro/Max, no bigger monitors, limited I/O, etc. I personally don't really like it because I have labs full of decked-out 27" iMacs that are now kind of left without a clear upgrade path, but I understand what they're doing.