Using my iMac as a display for a Mac Mini ...

rlesperance wrote:

Hello,

I have an iMac 27" (2019). I would like to migrate to a M2 Mac Mini

To Migrate to a new Mac mini, have a look at > Transfer to a new Mac with Migration Assistant - Apple Support

The fastest, easiest and most reliable way to migrate to a new Mac is using your Time Machine backup.

A direct Ethernet connection between Mac's is second best but real slow.

Wi-Fi is really slow and highly prone to fail.

and use my iMac as display. Is that possible ?

Nope' the M2 Mac mini does not support using any iMac as a Display in Target Display Mode.

carefully read > Use your iMac as a display with target display mode - Apple Support

If you have or get a new Mac mini...?

Then you will need an external display to setup, migrate and use the Mac mini.

see > Connect a display to Mac mini - Apple Support

That setup is not supported by Apple. The iMac cannot be used as a monitor for any of the newest Macs and Target Display mode is no longer a feature of macOS, having been deprecated several years ago, as of 2014, I believe.

Please see: Use your iMac as a display with target display mode - Apple Support

Per the link above:

• Your target iMac (monitor) must be using macOS High Sierra 10.13.6 or earlier. 

• In all cases the source Mac that you're connecting FROM must have been introduced in 2019 or earlier and have macOS 10.15 Catalina or earlier installed.

You might consider a third-party solution - Luna Display or Duet Display - though I can’t speak for the performance of those. Regardless, you still will need a proper monitor to set up either of those options.

Do yourself a favor, avoid the headache and just budget an extra $100 for a monitor. Yes, they are that inexpensive.

You're welcome.

I simply mean that while yes, it can be done technically with the likes of the Luna or Duet solutions I mentioned, those aren't the best solution, and chasing after less than the best is not especially efficient. It's just an opinion.

A lot of folks come with the same question wishing to save money by using a "monitor" they already own. Some solutions can be had with special (expensive) cables and adapters, but those may also be prone to finicky connections or OS quirks or flakey-ness. They're just more headache than necessary.

You can avoid all that and just buy a monitor that may only cost a few dollars more and is dead simply to use.

That's what I meant. 🙂

A quick look on Amazon reveals these examples, among others:

• Acer KB272 27" Monitor • IPS • Full HD • HDMI $110

• SANSUI 27" Monitor • IPS • Full HD • HDMI $100

• KOORUI 27" Monitor • IPS • Full HD • HDMI $95

I know these are low end and likely don't compare especially well to the wonderful quality of the iMac 27" screen (I have one), but they underscore my points.

I can't advocate for any particular models or brands in the monitor market.

Those ~$100 27" "Full HD" monitors are quite far away from the quality of your 27" 5K iMac's screen. "Full HD" means they have a resolution of only 1920x1080 pixels … not the 2560x1440 pixels of the older 27" iMacs, or the 5120x2880 pixels of the 27" 5K Retina iMacs. Unless you had poor eyesight and needed huge text, you wouldn't consider them as acceptable substitutes for a 27" 2.5K iMac display, let alone a 27" 5K Retina iMac one.

I know of three 27" 5K monitors on the market. There's the 27" Apple 5K Studio Display. It starts at $1599 and is almost as expensive as 27" 5K Retina iMacs that included the computer, Apple keyboard, and Apple mouse used to be. There is a Samsung 5K monitor that costs as much or more. And there is a LG that is slightly cheaper, but still well above $1000.

-----

In the absence of inexpensive 5K displays, the most affordable compromise seems to be to get a 27" 4K monitor with an IPS panel and near-100% coverage of sRGB. You can get ones like that for as little as $300 – $350. If you want extra features like wide color support, USB-C, and downstream hub ports, you might have to pay more, but there would still be several choices for less than half of the cost of the 27" 5K Apple display.

Personally, you may want to consider an LG display. I know they were a provider of display panels for iMacs and for me they have a very similar "iMac" look in most cases. The size and resolutions would be for you to decide. They can also be heavily discounted with 4K HDR displays under $300.

I personally have an LG 27UP600 4K display that I have had for a few years now and really like it for photo editing.

Servant of Cats wrote:

Those ~$100 27" "Full HD" monitors are quite far away from the quality of your 27" 5K iMac's screen. "Full HD" means they have a resolution of only 1920x1080 pixels … not the 2560x1440 pixels of the older 27" iMacs, or the 5120x2880 pixels of the 27" 5K Retina iMacs. Unless you had poor eyesight and needed huge text, you wouldn't consider them as acceptable substitutes for a 27" 2.5K iMac display, let alone a 27" 5K Retina iMac one.

Even if you wanted huge text, a 27" 4K monitor running in "like 1920x1080" mode (exact Retina scaling) would make more sense than an actual 27" 1920x1080 one.