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

101–110 of 203 posts

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#101

Post by conk »

r00fus wrote: post #81

I don't have any USB-A requirements on my desk now that I got a new USB-C enclosure for my local backup disk - however, USB-A ports are still useful for most of the userbase... did this monitor team not get the memo about ports being back in vogue for Apple?

At this point I see no reason to continue putting USB A ports in products. Continuing to include them is only going to prolong the transition to USB C. The great thing about USB is the protocol is the same for different connector types so you can use a $5 adapter to easily plug an older USB A device into a USB C port.

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#102

Post by poyu »

wodenokoto wrote: post #7
yakkityyak wrote: post #2

I prefer running two 144hz 27” 4k monitors instead. Yeah the 5k to 4k scaling isn’t as crisp as native 2x, but god the high refresh rate really makes up for it.

Is 144hz useful for anything other than gaming?

All the new M1 MBPs (and the iPad Pro and the iPhone 13 Pro) have 120hz refresh rate. Not exactly 144hz but it matters enough that they put that on the whole product line.

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#103

Post by tehnub »

sp332 wrote: post #70
D13Fd wrote: post #60

I don't particularly like the Apple Studio Display, but this post is wrong on the ergonomics. Generally the top of your monitor should sit at or just below eye level.

Doesn't that mean you have your head slouched forward most of the time? I think that's just painful.

It means your head/neck is straight, but your eyes glance slightly downwards. I believe I read in some ergonomics article that the natural, most comfortable gaze position of the eye is not straight ahead, but slightly down.

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#104

Post by ziml77 »

canuckintime wrote: post #57
shadowfacts wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't speak for the author, but I find 2560x1440 /logical/ pixels (what apple calls points) at 27" to be the ideal amount of screen real estate (and physical size for UI elements). Unless it's a small 21" display, 4k at high-DPI would result in less screen space. Going up to 5k is the best way to get that combination of real estate and pixel density.

> 2560x1440 /logical/ pixels (what apple calls points) at 27" to be the ideal amount of [MacOS] screen real estate (and physical size for [MacOS] UI elements) ftfy. Apple is double dealing you here. Apple developed MacOS to look best at that size/density, and forced the development of the few expensive displays are that size/density... After a decade waiting for third party displays to meet up their standard, to no a…

Why are you saying this is a macOS thing? It's the same for Windows and Linux.

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#105

Post by dbg31415 »

Guy was on a non-4k Monitor saying the Apple Studio 5k was more crisp. Oof.

For me...

I like 2 monitors. Just one is a huge loss to productivity.

I like 4k Monitors. Anything less is unusable.

I like 144hz monitors.

I like matching monitors. I find that if I mix 4k and 1080p I am prone to headaches.

I like monitors where the top is roughly eye level, or even a little bit higher, when I'm sitting down. I feel this helps my posture.

I hate monitors with any sort of light on them that's not coming from the screen. Power lights on the front that are on when I use the monitor make them unusable for me.

I just go with whatever 2 monitors I can afford that match the above criteria.

I expect to pay $750 to $1,000 per monitor. So $1500 to $2000 when I buy new monitors.

I expect the monitors will last around 3 years... likely they can be re-homed after, but like most things I don't think they hold up for me personally after that time.

I couldn't ever afford 2x Apple Studio Displays... I mean... even if I could, I would have more sense.

At one point in the past, about 5-7 years back, the job bought me 2x Apple Thunderbolt Display... and frankly it was nice, but the monitors were so low to the desk they had to be stacked on reams of printer paper to make them usable. I thought it was funny the company spent like $3k on monitors and I still had stacks of printer paper on my desk.

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#106

Post by cehrlich »

ysleepy wrote: post #19
mistersquid wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> would have given him a DPI increase over his previous 27" 1440p display. Any 4k screen would have also done that. While true, the ppi increase from most 4k screens would not be as large as the Apple Studio Display. Most 4k monitors are 24 inches, and those monitors will be 192.94 ppi. [0][1] The Apple Studio Display comes in at 218 ppi. [2] [0] https://www.sven.de/dpi/ [1] https://imgur.com/a/8Woe7Bn [2] https://ww…

That's why I said "DPI increase". 27" at 1440p is 108.79 PPI. I'm sitting in front of a 4k 27" and the 160ppi is almost indistinguishable to my macbook at 227 due to the different viewing distance. And I always had the impression most 4k displays were 27".

Same. I gave up Apple ever releasing an affordable standalone display last year and bought a 4k 27". I can't tell the difference between it and the 5k 27" panel on the iMac. It also has multiple inputs, and USB-A outputs.

Obviously there are people who need the higher PPI, but if you look at text all day I'd recommend giving 4k a try before spending 3-4x as much on a 5k. You can run the 4k display at 5k, the same way that you can run a MacBook Air at 2880x1800 even though it's really 2560x1600. Modern scaling algorithms are very good.

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#107

Post by aesh2Xa1 »

kitsunesoba wrote: post #99
mort96 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hell, just take the same LG panel that's used by both the LG UltraFine and the Apple Studio Display, put it in a well-built metal case, don't waste money on things like the A13 CPU, 64GB of flash, 13 megapixel camera, high-quality speaker system, etc, don't spend as many engineering resources on making the monitor as thin-and-light as possible. You could've made the standard monitor for anyone who wants a 5k 27" scre…

IIRC there was a Dell monitor that used this panel too, but its availability was extremely brief and Dell EOL’d it not too long after release. I believe it had issues with waking from sleep and its picture blinking out sometimes, I guess they had QC issues with their driver board.

There might have been a Dell, but the company I remember was Planar. The panel even had the webcam cutout (but no webcam) as I recall.

https://www.planar.com/media/439284/planar-ix2790-specsheet....

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#109

Post by xoa »

Tagbert wrote: post #82
yoz-y wrote: post #75

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.

the bandwidth of 120Hz/5K is too high for current Thunderbolt connections. It does support 120Hz/4K but the higher resolution puts it over the edge. It is the same reason that the Apple XDR display is 60Hz/6K. Bandwidth limits. If you are interested in games, you likely don't want a high resolution monitor anyway. Those of us who do need the higher res of 5K value that above refresh rate and are likely not going to p…

Yes, it's very unfortunate that silicon photonics never hit critical mass. It's intensely painful to constantly see these bandwidth limitations run into and have to deal with ludicrously expensive active cables with extremely short lengths because of the stubborn sticking to copper, when plain old cheap OM3 will cheerfully do 100 Gbps at hundreds of feet. Someday I hope to see the last of copper for data.

That said, if Apple really wanted to they could definitely do a multistream system like some of the bleeding edge High DPI screens did way back when. Require two Thunderbolt connections to drive it. But whether these 5K panels actually even can be driven at 120 Hz is another question and always a balancing act in this stuff particularly since presumably companies of Apple's scale have a bit of a clearer picture of what's in the pipe.

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#110

Post by gonehome »

hnlmorg wrote: post #98
gonehome wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's weird to me is it doesn't take a genius to guess at what an Apple monitor would have looked like. Why can zero other companies execute on something like this? Sure Apple has advantages with scale, but it's not like they're squeezing tight margins. There was a lot of room under the cost of the Pro Display XDR. I'm not sure why none of these other companies can really execute on high quality hardware.

Maybe the demand isn’t there? There might not be a big intersect between those who are willing to spend > $1000 on a monitor and those who wouldn’t want to buy non-Apple hardware.

Maybe? There were years without any viable option where I think people would have.

Now that Apple is back in the game you're probably right.

Post reply on HN