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

121–130 of 203 posts

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#121

Post by jefftk »

hyakosm wrote: post #119

I remember when bigger monitors had higher resolution. 15 inch monitors were 1024x768, 17 inch were typically 1280x1024 and some 20 inch monitors 1600x1200. Now nearly every panel from 13 inch to 32 inch are "4K" UHD with the exception of 24 inch monitors stuck at 1920x1080, it's sad because true HiDPI options (> 200 dpi) are extremely limited: two Apple screens, two LG screens and one Dell 8K 32 inch screen for PCs.

> nearly every panel from 13 inch to 32 inch are "4K" UHD with the exception of 24 inch monitors stuck at 1920x1080

I use a Dell Ultrasharp 27" [1] which is 2560x1440. I think this is pretty common for 27" monitors? I find that this is great at 1x resolution.

[1] https://www.dell.com/en-us/work/shop/dell-ultrasharp-27-moni...

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#122

Post by hyakosm »

mistersquid wrote: post #18
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.

> 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…

The only 24 inches monitor on the market is the Ultrafine 4K for Macintosh. It's not even true 4K but UHD (3840x2160) for 184 dpi.

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#123

Post by canuckintime »

ziml77 wrote: post #104
canuckintime wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Windows supports non-integer DPI scaling. The typical riposte is many (most?) third party Windows programs don't support it* BUT many third party MacOS didn't support 'Retina' scaling for some time after launch either (I have more faith in MacOS developer system to jump on board if Apple added support)

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#124

Post by Symbiote »

conk wrote: post #101
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.

Including a USB-A port on a monitor is easy: there's loads of space. It allows the user to continue using their existing devices without needing adaptors.

Offering only USB-C forces additional purchases and the resulting e-waste, so it's no surprise at all that Apple does this.

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#125

Post by bredren »

i386 wrote: post #40
awiesenhofer wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rumors say there could be a ProMotion capable display in the works, to be released in the fall. Might be the successor to the Pro XDR (at a lower price hopefully).

I highly doubt that you’ll be seeing a 120hz apple monitor in this price range this year. It’s a bit cute that most reviewers panned this display because it wasn’t the Pro XDR display at this price,

A sibling to the XDR offering pro motion would be 10k without the stand.

I think tech reviews of anything monitor and graphics related on the Apple side of things have generally been bad takes for a while. (panning of Blackmagic eGPUs, XDR)

I think people got confused by the availability of retina displays on iPhone/iPad and laptops.

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#126

Post by bredren »

> Its only competitor is the LG UltraFine, which is not much cheaper and lacks other features. If you want a 5K retina display the Studio Display is the best choice.

At this price range.

The XDR is a credible competitor to the Studio Display and if you read reviews from people who have adopted it for their primary development workstations, they are holding on to those as well.

The XDR Pro Display, like the Blackmagic eGPUs of yore is wildly underrated in describing its value to developers.

The display, it's fantastic $1000 stand, and the Blackmagic products (that greatly enhance performance of Intel-based macs) are completely buried under hair pulling around sticker price.

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#127

Post by Joeri »

tzs wrote: post #117

> Apple, if you ship a monitor with a non-adjustable stand in 2022, please make sure that the default height is at an ergonomic level. It should be at least 5-8 centimeters higher. That's terrible advice. For a non-adjustable stand it needs to be at or near the lowest that people would want, because it is way easier to raise a fixed stand that is too low by putting something under it than it is to lower a fixed stand…

I’ve never really understood how so many people could come to the conclusion that the 5K iMac was too low. An ideal ergonomic screen height is the top of the screen 5 to 10 cm above eye level, and I’ve always wondered what kind of desk setups people have where it ends up way below that to the point that it needs raising. If anything the 5K iMac was a few cm too tall, and it is a good thing the studio display is lower.

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#128

Post by colechristensen »

hyakosm wrote: post #119

I remember when bigger monitors had higher resolution. 15 inch monitors were 1024x768, 17 inch were typically 1280x1024 and some 20 inch monitors 1600x1200. Now nearly every panel from 13 inch to 32 inch are "4K" UHD with the exception of 24 inch monitors stuck at 1920x1080, it's sad because true HiDPI options (> 200 dpi) are extremely limited: two Apple screens, two LG screens and one Dell 8K 32 inch screen for PCs.

This isn't really the case.

Monitors tend to have three categories, 1080 rows, 1440 rows, and 4k columns (which is actually 3840 x 2160)

Shopping for monitors will find a fair balance of each and a few outliers. Vertical lines reported for 1080 and 1440 because there are quite a few aspect ratio options which will have varying numbers of pixel columns.

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#129

Post by maximus-decimus »

ilovecaching wrote: post #94

We're living in the past, and it's terrible you have to choose between high DPI and high refresh rates. Buy a high DPI monitor and edit text for an hour and you can never go back. Play a game at 144hz and you can never go back. But you can't have both at the same time, and that's not even mentioning the beauty of doing all of this on an Ultrawide. Either way you're going to be shelling out a fortune and waiting or to…

DisplayPort needs lossy compression to run 4k at 144Hz. Not even talking about gpus being able to run that. The display is just not the bottleneck here.

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#130

Post by jmull »

sp332 wrote: post #73
jmull wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That looks like a temporary software issue.
Post reply on HN