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

161–170 of 203 posts

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#161

Post by hollerith »

BoxOfRain wrote: post #21
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.

I really wish I'd never seen a screen with a 144 Hz refresh rate, I've not been able to un-see the difference from my 60 Hz setup ever since! I've done the same with audio, having bought a decent-ish set of speakers makes everything else sound like arse as much as it makes your music sound good.

Do you notice a difference between 144 Hz and 60 Hz even when interacting with, say, the HN web site?

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#162

Post by shadowfacts »

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…

Thunderbolt/DisplayPort 1.4 has enough bandwidth for 120Hz and 5k using Display Stream Compression. There might not be enough bandwidth left over for the USB hub, but frankly, I'd take that tradeoff. If I were going to buy such an expensive monitor, I'd want to be able to do whatever I damn well please on it, including gaming (even if the resolution of the game needs to be dialed down to 1440p).

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#164

Post by throwaway684936 »

jwalton wrote: post #155
joeman1000 wrote: post #154

To the author: get some glasses and stop being stubborn! The screen will look even nicer if you do. I held out for years and I curse myself for it. I don’t get headaches from squinting and craning my neck now. Also, out of curiosity, why is your laptop keyboard covered with paper? Bonus: why this display over a cheaper M1 iMac?

Or, buy a different 5K monitor? Apple is not the only game in town here.

You mean that one LG panel that's basically the same thing but with build quality issues?

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#165

Post by BeFlatXIII »

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…

I don't like the idea of my Mac OS being tainted by concessions to the hardware reality of the products the rest of the industry produces. Then there's no one at all to embarrass the state of the industry.

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#166

Post by copperx »

vonseel wrote: post #35
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…

> Most 4k monitors are 24 inches Where are you getting this? I was looking at monitors recently and it's impossible to find ANY 24" 4K monitors. Most of them are 27", which at that screen size you really need scaling. My LG 27" 4K recently went out so I downgraded to my older 1440p 27" monitor. I'm not using scaling anymore, but the text doesn't have that buttery smooth look...

I have a Dell 24" 4k, which I got about two years ago, and back then, only Dell and Asus had a 24" option. I have no idea why manufacturers are so insistent on selling 27" 4k monitors; 2x scaling looks too big, and non-integer scaling looks blurry because the resolution is too low for 27".

My theory is that most people, for all practical purposes, are blind.

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#167

Post by copperx »

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".

Indistinguishable? The difference between 160 DPI and 220 is MASSIVE. 160 DPI makes me nauseous from the blur. I say this with all due respect, but have you checked your vision lately?

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#168

Post by copperx »

D13Fd wrote: post #55
ysleepy wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

I use a 30" 4K monitor, and I still don't notice the DPI difference between it and my MacBook Pro or iPad. Personally I would much rather that they made the display 4K and 120hz instead of 5k and 60hz. At that size, I don't see a big difference between 4K and 5k, but the 60hz vs. 120hz jump is very noticeable.

I'm of a different opinion. 120 Hz is nice to have, but it is not a quality of life improvement. The DPI increase of a 220+ DPI monitor is a game changer. Text on a screen becomes readable at 220+ DPI, and that's when I don't feel the need to print PDFs in order to read them at a high resolution (the cheapest $50 laser printer can achieve 600 DPI without a sweat).

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#169

Post by copperx »

hyakosm wrote: post #122
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…

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.

Two years ago I bought my 24" 4k Dell monitor, which is pretty decent. It's a shame that there are no more 24" monitors being manufactured.

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#170

Post by brirec »

joeman1000 wrote: post #154

To the author: get some glasses and stop being stubborn! The screen will look even nicer if you do. I held out for years and I curse myself for it. I don’t get headaches from squinting and craning my neck now. Also, out of curiosity, why is your laptop keyboard covered with paper? Bonus: why this display over a cheaper M1 iMac?

> Also, out of curiosity, why is your laptop keyboard covered with paper?

I came here to ask the important question, but you asked for me. Seconded.

Post reply on HN