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

131–140 of 203 posts

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#131

Post by voltaireodactyl »

VectorLock wrote: post #47
scyzoryk_xyz wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering the number of people out there making enormous salaries doing jobs on computers, spending 10+ hours a day looking at their screen, 1800€ does not sound insane at all. Same thing applies to any tool of any trade. I work with surgeons, and you would be amazed how unfathomably expensive all their instruments are. (Though to be fair I do all my work on a pair of 100€ monitors.)

Do the surgeons buy their own instruments? I figure they'd belong to the hospital.

In my experience it is a fractional minority of surgeons who work from home.

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#132

Post by Joeri »

kitsunesoba wrote: post #83
sp332 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Indeed, I’ve had my desk set up to have the middle of my screen line up with my eyes to keep my neck straight. When I have to use a more traditional setup that has my face tilting down a bit, my neck quickly tells me to stop.

What works for you is what works for you, but I don’t think putting the middle of the screen at eye level is good advice for most people.

Moving the head is indeed a bad thing, but you’re not supposed to tilt the head down, only the eyes.

All ergonomic advice says to put the top of the screen 5 to 10 cm above eye level so that the eyes can move to any spot on the screen comfortably without having to tilt the head. It is straining on the eyes to look up, so having the top of the screen too far above eye level causes people to tilt their head backwards to look at the top of the screen. I used to raise my screens and had exactly this problem, with lots of shoulder and neck aches. Now that my screen is at the ergonomic height I can work entire days without having neck or shoulder discomfort.

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#133

Post by moduspol »

criddell wrote: post #112
dbg31415 wrote: post #105

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 hel…

> I expect the monitors will last around 3 years... That's it? What is it that fails for you? My current monitor (a cheap Dell) is more than ten years old and it gets used every day. I was thinking paying close to $2000 for a monitor isn't that bad because it's an important piece of equipment and they last a long time. It's the same logic I use to buy office furniture.

The value tends to hold a lot better, too.

I just sold my old 27" Thunderbolt Display on Facebook Marketplace for $200 earlier today. Apple stopped selling it in 2016. I think I bought mine in 2014, but recovering $200 on an eight year-old discontinued monitor isn't bad.

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#134

Post by dbg31415 »

criddell wrote: post #112
dbg31415 wrote: post #105

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 hel…

> I expect the monitors will last around 3 years... That's it? What is it that fails for you? My current monitor (a cheap Dell) is more than ten years old and it gets used every day. I was thinking paying close to $2000 for a monitor isn't that bad because it's an important piece of equipment and they last a long time. It's the same logic I use to buy office furniture.

I find that the brightness either fades, or I perceive it to have faded due to new tech coming out and looking better. Dunno, just in my head I've got a "computer shit lasts about 3 years before it becomes unreliable" concept. I could be wrong.

And I do re-home almost all my shit to my parents, and they tend to get use out of it. I know my 4k Samsung monitors that I got off Woot last time around (for like $375 each) were probably on the low-end of things. They only had 60hz refresh rates. But like, to me, I felt the contrast and colors started to go. Since they were matching and had identical color settings, once the colors no longer matched between them it felt like they failed to me. But... split them up, give one to Mom, one to Dad... nobody has complained. I'm probably too fussy.

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#135

Post by kuschku »

mort96 wrote: post #85
kuschku wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Wayland (as in the protocol) doesn't support it either, FWIW. Fractional scaling on compositors which support it (e.g Sway) renders everything at the nearest integer scale and then downscales when compositing, so everything becomes a bit blurry -- just like how macOS does it. Using all vector graphics for the GUI so that you can freely change the scale is all well and good, but lots of GUI applications need raster gr…

X11 supports fractional DPI just fine, and Android, Windows, and even the web handle it fine.

If I zoom to 150% on a website, how wide will a 1px line be?

PDF handles that fine, the web handles it fine, Android handles it fine.

It's only in recent years that suddenly this has become an issue that "can't" be solved.

I honestly don't care if regular desktop apps waste performance, as long as Qt, Android, Electron, games etc are just rendered at the fractional resolution properly.

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#136

Post by goosedragons »

Joeri wrote: post #127
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…

Because it depends on torso height too and that varies from person to person? What's a few cm too tall for you could easily be 5 cm too short for me. This combined with different chairs and different table heights results in different eye level points.

I don't understand why Apple is just so cheap here. On a $200 monitor you can maybe make the case it shouldn't be height adjustable to save a few bucks, on a $1600 one it's just inexcusable.

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#138

Post by MatthiasPortzel »

Joeri wrote: post #127
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…

I've been using a laptop as my primary computer for ~8 years now. Now I find it difficult (unergonomic) to go back to a normal monitor; I'm more comfortable with my head tilted down 20º. I wonder if laptop use leads to this preference for lower monitors.

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#139

Post by Jcowell »

kitsunesoba wrote: post #88
BoorishBears wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear this all the time but across the room from my 60hz XDR is one of the fastest IPS panels ever, a 360hz e-Sports oriented monitor and a 144hz 4k monitor... It takes no appreciable time to adjust when switching between any of the three. Maybe for a split second I notice the mouse cursor and then... nothing. If I were gaming on the XDR it'd be one thing, but it's a productivity monitor. I don't need 144hz (or more…

I feel the same. I have a 240hz AW2721D, 120hz M1 Pro MBP, and a 60hz iMac and adjusting between them is entirely unnoticeable, even though the difference is smoothness is easily visible. Similarly, I see a lot of upset over mouse acceleration curves but I adjust to differences within 5-10 seconds of switching at most and forget about it.

Samish set up, same thing. I never notice.

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#140

Post by cudgy »

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…

Just by the version that fits a VESA mount and get a proper VESA arm.
Post reply on HN