I’m thinking about a new 27" monitor. There were a few very helpful threads here on this topic.
When I asked my photography instructor, he said Apple monitors are “industry leading”, and suggested I might be able to get a used iMac and use it as an external monitor for my Linux thinkpad.
My initial investigation indicates this may be possible, bit there are lots of posts online that indicate it can be finicky.
However, the price of a used iMac with more RAM and comparable SSD space to my laptop is not much more than I was thinking of paying for a monitor on its own. This got me thinking about a few different options, and I was wondering if anyone has any experience or insight into these:
Get a used iMac and use it as-is, with the Apple versions of RawTherapee, Gimp, etc, along with the proprietary (free) Nikon programs I can’t use on Linux
Get the iMac but install Linux on it and use it as a standard Linux box
Get a decent 27" LG or Asus monitor for my thinkpad
I found a used iMac with 64Gb ram and a 27" screen for $550 Canadian. Or, I get a new monitor in the $300-$500 range.
I have this one and I’m really liking it. Not sure the apple displays on the iMac are “industry leading” and tbh getting an iMac to use as am external display is extremely strange advice.
Some older iMacs can run in “target display mode”, where they act essentially like a monitor. But as far as I know, this feature was variously broken by firmware updates, and generally wasn’t particularly dependable to begin with.
Also note that iMacs without Apple’s color management probably aren’t any better than any other decent monitor. And by this point, their screens have aged quite a while, which does not tend to improve color accuracy.
I would not recommend going this route.
If you want to run Linux on a Mac, check out Asahi Linux, and check exactly what hardware they support. The older Intel iMacs were nice machines in their day, but are probably no longer a good value proposition.
That’s what I was thinking before I started looking at the iMac, after reading your other thread.
Now I’m back to the proart, trying to decide between the one @paperdigits recommend, which I can get here for $380; or the PA279CRV, which is the 4k HDR version, for $650
I decided on the 2k one since it still doesn’t need scaling for me… all I’d like with 4K is scale it, which makes things look nice, but wasn’t worth the extra price for me.
Yes. I actually used my v old iMac as an external monitor for a while with my also v old MacBook Air (because the iMac wouldn’t run sigma photo pro) but was only able to do this because weirdly their respective different OS’s were both each in extremely narrow windows where Apple introduced this as a feature before removing it again a couple of years later. Even then it was clunky AF. I gave up after a while and got a monitor.
Just so I understand, you mean you can use the 2k monitor at it’s native resolution, but the 4k monitor you need to scale up to get a GUI/text of readable size? Does scaling make the apparent resolution of the monitor higher or lower?
I think the 2K is probably fine for me, but it’s likely a 10-year purchase (I bought my current monitor, 1920x1080, in 2013 or so). So paying a bit extra for some nice-to-have benefits is ok too.
I’d suggest that a new 27" monitor is the straightest path to solving your problem. As an aside, I just got an Asus ProArt 32" 4k, and love it so far. Nice monitor, and they have the 27 inch in both 2k and 4k.
Thanks, that seems to be the consensus. I recall from the previous thread that 4K was more important for screens larger than 27", but at 27" the benefit of 4K over 2K was more limited?
I think that’s probably good advice. I’ve been on 32" for a few years, and just moved from a 2k to this 4k display. My viewing distance is about 18", and I went to the 4k because since having cataract surgery, I was seeing the monitors pixels on the older display. The new one is tack sharp. I think the 27 2k would work, but as you said in your post, it’s a 10 year purchase, so If the pricing was good, I’d go with the 4k myself. Peace of mind and so on. And hope a consumer grade electronics product will make it that long!
I bought myself a 43 inch LG 4K monitor and while it sounds very big the size has never proven a problem to me, but has always been a blessing for photo editing. At work I was supplied a Dell curved screen monitor. It was probably about 34 inches but the wide screen is great for photo editing because it gives more room for the modules at the side without compromising the area for the image being edited. The size of the GUI and text has never proven an issue for me. I also have a 27 inch monitor which I just use as a third monitor on my system, but not for editing. The size of the screen makes editing harder. That’s my five cents worth based on my personal experience. Good luck with your decision.
I run Debian 12 (+darktable) on an elderly 27" iMac. Debian runs very well on the iMac, and the system is fine for my editing needs. But the small and elderly built-in GPU/driver doesn’t run OpenCL; and installing a different driver is, by all accounts, a bit of a pain. Fortunately, dt meets most of my fairly simple editing needs without a GPU, so I’m happy with the system. But I agree with the rest of the discussion here: if you’ve got the cash, get a newer system with stand-alone monitor.
That’s where I’m at now. I wasn’t familiar with the iMac to begin with, and when I realized it’s a ‘monitor’ that contains a full computer, I did consider maybe going that route, and avoiding the apparent problems involved in using it as an external monitor for another computer.
But from the comments I’ve received here, I’m back to the conventional route of getting a good (probably Asus ProArt) conventional monitor to use with my Thinkpad running Debian.
If you were to go for an all-in-one desktop, the iMacs are indeed a pretty good choice. Good displays, pretty fast, and quiet. But currently limited to 24", which is a bit small for my taste.
On the other hand, a computer with an external monitor will always be more flexible. In particular, you can swap out your computer at a later point but keep your display. Indeed, I typically keep my displays much longer than my computers. To me, it therefore makes good sense to invest some decent money in a good display.
He actually asked
"I was wondering if anyone has any experience or insight into these:
1 Get a used iMac and use it as-is, with the Apple versions of RawTherapee, Gimp, etc, along with the proprietary (free) Nikon programs I can’t use on Linux
2 Get the iMac but install Linux on it and use it as a standard Linux box
3 Get a decent 27" LG or Asus monitor for my thinkpad"
and I was responding to his Q2. (AFAICS you introduced the idea of an iMac as a monitor.)
