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

Monoprice Announces 27-Inch 2560 x 1440 Monitor for $390

tested.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 167 posts

Re: Monoprice Announces 27-Inch 2560 x 1440 Monitor for $390

#151

Post by simonh »

gte910h wrote: post #146
simonh wrote: post #141

I was in the market for a new Mac in December. Our old machine was a 24" iMac 1920x1200 which was great. My default choice was a new 27" iMac, but trying one out in the store I found the resolution was so high that the menus, buttons and icons were too small and fiddly. They'r gorgeous displays, but the usability isn't there, especially since this machine would be used by other members of my family, some with signifi…

As to your first point, you can turn all the sizes of that stuff way up in the settings.

My understanding is that you can set a 'virtual' screen resolution and the system will interpolate everything in the same way that computer games do, but at a significant reduction in display quality. I don't think OSX supports changing the system font size or display element sizes directly.

Re: Monoprice Announces 27-Inch 2560 x 1440 Monitor for $390

#152

Post by sp332 »

jfb wrote: post #145
sp332 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? If ~300 ppi is enough at 10" away (retina iPhone) and ~200 ppi is enough at 18" away (retina MBP) then ~100 ppi should be enough at 30" away (large desktop monitor), right?

But what does "enough" mean? Regardless of eyeball distance, more resolution -- certeris paribus -- will mean the ability to display a superior image. I want 300ppi on a 30" screen.

"Enough" specifically means that if you increase it, or even double it, you won't be able to tell the difference. With 20/20 vision, your eye cannot resolve details finer than about one arc minute. (Note that 20/20 vision is, in practice, a limitation of the lens of your eye and not really the retina part.) So if you have better-than-average vision I guess you might need more pixels... or just sit a bit further back :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20/20_vision#Normal_vision

nitpick: it's "ceteris" not "certeris"

Re: Monoprice Announces 27-Inch 2560 x 1440 Monitor for $390

#153

Post by jdboyd »

lmm wrote: post #114
ericabiz wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have both an HP LP2475w (24" 1920x1200, IPS) and a 27" 2560x1440 monitor--the same resolution as mentioned here. (I didn't want to deal with potential dead pixels and scaling issues, so I forked over the $700 for the Asus PB278Q instead of buying the off-brand.) Honestly, I hate using my HP now. It's a great monitor, but the 2560x1440 resolution on the Asus is amazing . Side by side, the Asus knocks the HP out of t…

It's a pain to cart around, but I love my 10-year-old 2048x1536 CRT, and am alternately amused and saddened that modern displays still have a smaller smallest dimension.

I had one of those at home. I took the hit on resolution and color to go LCD because the LCD's at work didn't make me feel as tired as the high-res CRT at home did.

Re: Monoprice Announces 27-Inch 2560 x 1440 Monitor for $390

#154

Post by mstromb »

gcr wrote: post #78
riobard wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Portrait mode will screw subpixel rendering of text.

In most linuxes, you can ask for vertical subpixel hinting, at the very least from the command line. I'm pretty sure that Windows has a setting for it too buried in the graphics card display settings somewhere.

It's under "Adjust ClearType text" on the control panel in Windows 7. It's also known as "ClearType Text Tuner."

It doesn't specifically ask you to pick your subpixel layout, but rather shows you a bunch of different renderings and asks you to pick the one you think looks best.

Re: Monoprice Announces 27-Inch 2560 x 1440 Monitor for $390

#155

Post by gte910h »

simonh wrote: post #151
gte910h wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As to your first point, you can turn all the sizes of that stuff way up in the settings.

My understanding is that you can set a 'virtual' screen resolution and the system will interpolate everything in the same way that computer games do, but at a significant reduction in display quality. I don't think OSX supports changing the system font size or display element sizes directly.

Dock item sizes are controlled in the Dock Prefpane

If you want to go the resolution: They're set per user, so only the people with reduced vision need the more visible resolutions

http://www.bresink.com/osx/TinkerTool.html can change fonts all over the place for MOST apps.

Re: Monoprice Announces 27-Inch 2560 x 1440 Monitor for $390

#156

Post by jdietrich »

rogerbinns wrote: post #47

Dear display industry, Please please please increase vertical resolution. I look back on the days of 16:10 fondly and wish we could end up back there or better.

Forget about the aspect ratio of the panel - with enough useable pixels, it's all but irrelevant.

I use one of these cheap 2560x1440 displays. 99% of the time, I treat it as two portrait displays, each with an effective resolution of 1280x1440 (8:9 aspect ratio). My ideal monitor would be an enormously wide curved display, providing a similar workspace to a triple-monitor setup but without the inconvenience of bezels.

Re: Monoprice Announces 27-Inch 2560 x 1440 Monitor for $390

#157

Post by dy »

turtlebits wrote: post #15

Microcenter sells one @ $399 with the same warranty but has DVI/HDMI/VGA/DisplayPort. I'm assuming same panel as it is also IPS LED. http://www.microcenter.com/product/384780/EQ276W_27_IPS_LED_...

I have three of these monitors and while they're great for coding, don't expect the color to be anything close to Apple displays. No matter the amount of calibration I do, if you sit one of these next to your MBP Retina, it will look drastically different.

Compare GMail's grey highlights to see the difference.

Re: Monoprice Announces 27-Inch 2560 x 1440 Monitor for $390

#158

Post by mikeevans »

paxswill wrote: post #93
bengl3rt wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can they now? http://www.apple.com/displays/ still says that only MBP and iMac can do it.

There's a thread on the AnandTech forums claiming it is possible: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2251899

That picture looks like a MBP though?

Re: Monoprice Announces 27-Inch 2560 x 1440 Monitor for $390

#159

Post by rorrr »

jfb wrote: post #129
rorrr wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't really need 4K at 27", even if your vision is very good you shouldn't sit that close to your monitor. 4K is awesome for large sizes, 32" and up, I would say.

Nonsense. More pixels is always better.

For larger displays - yes. For smaller - not really. After a certain density at a given viewing distance you stop seeing the difference, but doubling the density requires 4X more powerful hardware (and battery) to keep up.

Re: Monoprice Announces 27-Inch 2560 x 1440 Monitor for $390

#160

Post by lmm »

jdboyd wrote: post #153
lmm wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a pain to cart around, but I love my 10-year-old 2048x1536 CRT, and am alternately amused and saddened that modern displays still have a smaller smallest dimension.

I had one of those at home. I took the hit on resolution and color to go LCD because the LCD's at work didn't make me feel as tired as the high-res CRT at home did.

I had the opposite; for a long time LCDs gave me headaches, I think because they were all 60Hz. (Recently I've bought a laptop with a 120Hz display, which doesn't give me headaches).
Post reply on HN