Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

cfenollosa.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 203 posts

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#71

Post by turtlebits »

ysleepy wrote: post #5

They sort of imply that only the Studio display would have given him a DPI increase over his previous 27" 1440p display. Any 4k screen would have also done that. Then he concludes that 600nits is unnecessary and that he doesn't need or want the USB-C ports. I have no idea why he went with the apple display instead of any good 4k screen for 400$, or two of them.

On a Mac, the UI on 4k at 27" is too large. That is why the Studio Display is 27" 5k and the 24" iMac is 4.5k.

You can do non-integer scaling to change the UI size, but then it becomes blurry.

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#72

Post by Syzygies »

dainiusse wrote: post #52

Honestly I just dont understand why would one buy a 27" display these days. 32" makes much more sense

Yes. I ordered a $5K Mac Studio for parallel Haskell computing, but not the monitor.

My favorite monitor is:

EIZO FlexScan EV3285 31.5" 16:9 IPS Monitor (Black) https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1450642-REG/eizo_ev32... $1,839

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#73

Post by sp332 »

jmull wrote: post #38
asciimov wrote: post #20

It seems like those writing about this monitor are like "look it's got all these problems, but at least it doesn't have a notch so I'm keeping it."

This reviewer has three "cons". (1) stand too low; (2) screen is glossy; (3) speakers have too much bass for video conferences. (1) and (2) are addressed by the options Apple provides, so they are really complaints about the price (and those options are pricy!). (3) seems pretty minor (notice the author also has the speakers in the "pros" column) and can maybe be addressed with a basic equalizer of some some. In othe…

Also the camera is bad.

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#74

Post by kitsunesoba »

turtlebits wrote: post #71
ysleepy wrote: post #5

They sort of imply that only the Studio display would have given him a DPI increase over his previous 27" 1440p display. Any 4k screen would have also done that. Then he concludes that 600nits is unnecessary and that he doesn't need or want the USB-C ports. I have no idea why he went with the apple display instead of any good 4k screen for 400$, or two of them.

On a Mac, the UI on 4k at 27" is too large. That is why the Studio Display is 27" 5k and the 24" iMac is 4.5k. You can do non-integer scaling to change the UI size, but then it becomes blurry.

And even on OSes that can handle native non-integer scaling, sharpness is noticeably degraded compared to 5k.

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#75

Post by yoz-y »

I wish they made the screen 120hz and support hdmi or display port. 5K@27” has the sweet advantage of integer downscaling to 1440p, which is quite ideal for games unless you have a really top of the line graphics card.

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#76

Post by kitsunesoba »

kuschku wrote: post #42
mort96 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe because he wanted a 27" display and not a 24" one? You wanna stick to integer DPI scaling for the most part, and at 2x scale, a 4k 27" display has way too big GUI elements. There aren't many good options in the HiDPI 27" market, just half-measures like the 4k 27" screens you mention which require fractional scaling.

Not fractional scaling, just dpi scaling instead of integer scaling. Sadly, macOS and Gnome refuse to support it, which is ridiculous, because macOS UI Toolkit is originally based on PDF to allow arbitrary scaling.

You can enable DPI scaling under GNOME and it works fine for the DE itself and most GNOME programs, but it’s extremely hit or miss for anything not GNOME. Same deal with KDE.

Really irritating because it makes my Thinkpad X1 Nano unusable under Linux. This is probably why macOS does things the way it does: no room for third party developer error.

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#77

Post by turtlebits »

egypturnash wrote: post #23

Shoulda gotten the version with the VESA mount adaptor and just hooked it to whatever nice monitor arm he has. I wonder if you can buy it separately and attach it. Looks like not, there's several big screwheads visible in the photo of the back on Apple's page that don't have corresponding holes in the backs of the other versions. Damn that sure is an Apple move; the Dell monitor I spent $500 on a decade ago came with…

They probably couldn't/wouldn't wait. I looked at the VESA version when the display was announced and it was backordered until mid-May.

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#78

Post by kitsunesoba »

mistersquid wrote: post #22
ysleepy wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1000$ worth of difference? - Why not buy the LG then 5 years ago for cheaper?

> Why not buy the LG then 5 years ago for cheaper? The LG Ultrafine 5K is notorious for its high unreliability (WiFi interference), low build quality (creaky plastic), and low durability (flaky ports). The target market for Apple Studio Display does not look to trade price for lower quality. Rather, Apple's target market are premium buyers, people looking to pay a bit more for higher quality.

Not only is the UltraFine 5k’s chassis creaky, it can’t handle the heat the display produces and has an extremely high rate of cracking with pieces flaking off. The whole product is abysmal in terms of quality, I don’t know how LG thought it was ok to release.
Post reply on HN