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

Apple Studio Display and Studio Display XDR

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 335 posts

Re: Apple Studio Display and Studio Display XDR

#181

Post by jasomill »

agys wrote: post #24

Too small… I got used to my 4K Philips OLED 42" that I hung directly on the wall in front of my desk (no stand at all)… USB-C cable also charges the MacBook. This size is so good to work with; so much screen estate.

I agree, and use a 55" LG OLED TV similarly. Got it on sale for $1,300.

Especially nice in a small apartment where I use the same display for video, gaming, and desktop.

No USB-C, but HDMI works better for long cable runs anyway, so I can keep my (non-laptop) computers in the other room and just "dock" my wireless input devices to a USB-C charger as needed.

Thunderbolt would be even worse, as even if I could somehow get Thunderbolt out of an Nvidia GPU, I'm not aware of any devices that would allow switching between multiple Thunderbolt inputs, and 4 sufficiently long optical Thunderbolt cables would probably cost more than the display itself.

As for crisp text, I'll replace it with a 120 Hz 8K display in a few years if the price is right. In the mean time, I value screen real estate far higher (and dislike multi-monitor setups).

Re: Apple Studio Display and Studio Display XDR

#182

Post by IAmGraydon »

Apple just doesn't seem to be hitting on all cylinders anymore. The price for this thing is outrageous compared to the competition, and the competition isn't lagging very far behind. It's certainly pretty and I'm sure it's an incredible piece of tech, but $1,600 on the low end and $3,600 on the high end is just not going to sell in this environment. While the competition has always started with the minimum viable product for a low price and iterated on the product, Apple's approach has been the opposite - maximum possible product and then try to iterate the price point down. The problem is that the competition is now encroaching on their product quality territory, and the offer doesn't seem as tempting. For example, see the ASUS Pro Art, which has arguably better specs with the addition of HDR10 for $799. Or the BenQ MA270S, which you can buy two of for $1,800.

Re: Apple Studio Display and Studio Display XDR

#183

Post by vladvasiliu »

matthoiland wrote: post #158
bsimpson wrote: post #145

As long as we're here: What are people's current favorites for a 5K 27" screen that doesn't cost as much as a whole damned computer?

I've tried the LG UltraFine and LG UltraGear (w/144hz) ... still went with the Studio Display. Expensive, but my previous Thunderbolt display gave me 12 solid years – hoping the SD does the same. Edit: Also consider the price of speakers, camera, hub, power, and the "it just works" factor.

> power

Most modern usb-c / tb seem to come in an integrated "dock" which provides power. But many provide a laughably low number.

Also, for some reason, many come with external power bricks for some reason, which are a special kind of PITA with their short, permanently attached cords.

Re: Apple Studio Display and Studio Display XDR

#184

Post by microtonal »

thought_alarm wrote: post #80
microtonal wrote: post #3

Pretty lame that the Studio Display with a height-adjustable stand is still 400 Euro more. My biggest regret is getting my Gen 1 Studio Display without. Also the non-XDR is only a small upgrade otherwise, no 120Hz, no HDR, only Thunderbolt 5 and a new camera. Finally a downstream Thunderbolt port though. This is all after 4 years?

I just use some old textbooks to raise the height of the display: - Design Patterns by the Gang of Four - Modern C++ Design by Andrei Alexandrescu - Code Complete from the Microsoft Press That's enough old paper to raise the display height to a comfortable level.

I do the same, though ideally the height is different between putting my desk in sitting/standing height.

Re: Apple Studio Display and Studio Display XDR

#185

Post by Fr0styMatt88 »

jonpurdy wrote: post #128
praseodym wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hardware is great, but the software is lacking. macOS only supports resolution-based scaling which makes anything but the default 200% pixel scaling mode look bad. For example, with a 27" 4K display many users will want to use 150% or 175% scaling to get enough real estate, but the image will look blurry because macOS renders at a higher resolution and then downscales to the 4K resolution of the screen. Both Wind…

This is correct and also increasingly affecting me as my eyes age. I had to give my Studio Display to my wife because my eyes can't focus at a reasonable distance anymore, and if I moved back further the text was too small to read. I ran the 5K Studio Display at 4K scaled for a bit but it was noticeably blurry. This would've been easily solved with non-integer scaling, if Apple had implemented that. (I now use a comb…

If you can get used to using it (which really just requires some practice), the screen magnifier on Mac is fantastic and most importantly it’s extremely low latency (by this I mean, it reacts pretty much instantly when you want to zoom in or out).

Once you get used to flicking in and out of zoom instead of leaning into the monitor it’s great.

As an aside, Windows and Linux share this property too nowadays. Using the screen magnifiers is equally pleasant on any of these OSes. I game on Linux these days and the magnifier there even works within games.

Re: Apple Studio Display and Studio Display XDR

#187

Post by Aurornis »

praseodym wrote: post #76
densh wrote: post #13

I might be the only one, but it's still to this date (and dating all the way back to 2014 with the first iMac 5k display) Apple is the only company that truly gets HIDPI desktop displays with high quality gloss and 200+ ppi at screen this large. In the meantime popular and widely sold gaming screens with matte blur filters and mediocre ppi give me headache and eye fatigue after a few hours of use. Prior generation St…

The hardware is great, but the software is lacking. macOS only supports resolution-based scaling which makes anything but the default 200% pixel scaling mode look bad. For example, with a 27" 4K display many users will want to use 150% or 175% scaling to get enough real estate, but the image will look blurry because macOS renders at a higher resolution and then downscales to the 4K resolution of the screen. Both Wind…

> For example, with a 27" 4K display

4K pixels is not enough at 27" for Retina scaling.

Apple uses 5K panels in their 27" displays for this reason.

There are several very good 27" 5K monitors on the market now around $700 to $800. Not as cheap as the 4K monitors but you have to pay for the pixel density.

There are also driver boards that let you convert 27" 5K iMacs into external monitors. I don't recommend this lightly because it's not an easy mod but it's within reason for the motivated Hacker News audience.

Re: Apple Studio Display and Studio Display XDR

#188

Post by zamadatix »

dmix wrote: post #66

I might be missing how this differs from the previous model.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Studio_Display#Technical... has a good table. The short story is the 2nd generation Studio Display has some minor noted user facing changes but isn't that big of a difference. The Studio Display XDR is a bit of a merge of that and the old Pro level feature set.

Re: Apple Studio Display and Studio Display XDR

#190

Post by jonpurdy »

giobox wrote: post #151
jonpurdy wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is correct and also increasingly affecting me as my eyes age. I had to give my Studio Display to my wife because my eyes can't focus at a reasonable distance anymore, and if I moved back further the text was too small to read. I ran the 5K Studio Display at 4K scaled for a bit but it was noticeably blurry. This would've been easily solved with non-integer scaling, if Apple had implemented that. (I now use a comb…

All through the 2000s Apple developed non-integer scaling support in various versions of MacOS X under the banner of “resolution independence” - the idea was to use vectors where possible rather than bitmaps so OS UI would look good at any resolution, including non-integer scaling factors. Some indie Mac developers even started implementing support for it in anticipation of it being officially enabled. The code was p…

Yep, I played with User Interface Resolution app myself back then in uni. The impact of Apple's choice to skip non-integer scaling didn't hit me until a few years ago when my eyes started to fail...
Post reply on HN