It's worth it! Ergotron LX (or HX for 40") or this one: and get a decent monitor arm, even to your iMac 32".
#4K MONITOR MAC MINI PRO#
Need new Mac? Get a MacMini or a MacBook Pro M1 if you need portability and good battery life.
Thus, stick to the Mac you have (if applicable) and get the monitor that suits your needs. The user just won't get the extra productivity advantage. I would not recommend below 27" be it iMac or anything else stationary. If you have the space for it, 16:9 32" (4k,140 dpi) is good for photo/film/Cad+++, and 21:9 34" (usually 110 dpi) or 40" (140dpi) is good for office work. True, it obviously is bigger than MacBooks but not that much bigger really - if you do much writing/documents++ You still stuck with 1 page. Therefore the user can save quite a few dollars, yet get something brilliant for them. With a 3rd party monitor the users can pick the one that has the qualities most important to them, and wind down the specs that's less important. The Apple displays (in any Mac) differ from many 3rd party screens in being pretty darn good at everything. $1799 wouldn't be a crazy price to pay just to use it as a monitor. Of course if the next larger iMac looks like that, it would be more cost-effective to just buy that and if they allowed display input, people could even buy iMacs to use as displays. The above LG could get close to this style from the front with a custom stand. Maybe it would cost a bit more than $999 but still a nice option to have. This would just be taking the display from the next Apple Silicon iMac 27"/30"/32" and putting it in the XDR-style enclosure with a basic stand. The mini connected to the XDR display looks nice:
The following LG has quite even bezels:īut it would be so much better if Apple made more affordable standalone displays like the 27" Cinema Display that was $999:
Some displays would look ok with a custom stand or VESA mount. The new iMac 24 has it over all these with regards to aesthetics. Except for the Philips, those are some ugly monitors.