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

The state of external retina displays

caseyliss.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 353 posts

Re: The state of external retina displays

#341

Post by wswope »

BoorishBears wrote: post #337
wswope wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, who could ever imagine using a 1080p 32” monitor…

It's pretty awful. I got Dell's "5k" ultrawide before the XDR, and at the time M1 Macbooks couldn't do fractional scaling at that high of a resolution. The result was essentially a wider 32" 1080p screen. And while the text was crisp, the space efficiency was absolutely awful. I can't even imagine the 16:9 version of that...

I was originally making a snide joke (sorry) since it’s a popular form factor, and I can’t think of a better common option for 2x scaling than 4k 32”… but on review, I actually take your point on space efficiency, if we’re talking about it as a primary display.

Re: The state of external retina displays

#342

Post by mmis1000 »

nickjj wrote: post #311
mmis1000 wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you end up with the same screen real estate as 1080p. Is that even a problem? I am not buying better screen to torture my eyes. IMO. A smaller sharper text won't really be easier to see compared to a larger but blurrer text.

I think so, but it's personal opinion. I wear glasses and 25" at 1440p has very clear text. I feel no strain. Even the grey text on HN is very readable from about 32" (81 cm) away which is my normal viewing distance. It's readable without much strain from 45" (114 cm) but I wouldn't want to use things that far away. For reference my work issued laptop is a 13" 2020 MBP so I have experienced retina. I would take the 1…

Then probably this is the reason.

I never need to run app and editor side by side on same screen. I always have 2+ screen in any setup. So I just threw it to another if I want ever want to run it side by side. And besides, I seldom codes with my 27 4K screens.

They ares used mostly on browsing web/gaming. which you can't use something side by side isn't even a issue.

Re: The state of external retina displays

#343

Post by jagger27 »

wswope wrote: post #341
BoorishBears wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty awful. I got Dell's "5k" ultrawide before the XDR, and at the time M1 Macbooks couldn't do fractional scaling at that high of a resolution. The result was essentially a wider 32" 1080p screen. And while the text was crisp, the space efficiency was absolutely awful. I can't even imagine the 16:9 version of that...

I was originally making a snide joke (sorry) since it’s a popular form factor, and I can’t think of a better common option for 2x scaling than 4k 32”… but on review, I actually take your point on space efficiency, if we’re talking about it as a primary display.

I find 1080p at 27" to be comically big, let alone 32". Maybe my eyes are still young though.

Re: The state of external retina displays

#344

Post by ztjio »

spatulon wrote: post #201
jasonjmcghee wrote: post #71

LG 27GN950 seems like it hits a a lot of the criteria others are discussing. It is not 220 PPI though. 4K IPS at 144Hz (or 120Hz depending on video card) HDR 400 nits It also rotates to portrait mode, has a built in backlight for eyestrain, is essentially borderless- and it's $800-900. Have had it over a year with no issues.

I have this as well, and I like it, but it's quite difficult to find a computer capable of driving it at 4K and 144Hz. You can only do that if your GPU supports DisplayPort Stream Compression. My GeForce 960 does not, so I can only drive it at 95Hz (I'd buy a better GPU, if I could find one...). It doesn't support HDMI 2.1 either, although there's a newer model, the 27GP950-B, that does. It's kind of funny to me that…

I have a computer and display combo that does 4K @ 144hz just fine with no stream compression. Instead it uses two DP cables at once. It’s a 2080Ti GPU and Acer Nitro XV3 display.

Re: The state of external retina displays

#345

Post by binbag »

kecupochren wrote: post #336
binbag wrote: post #322

Why is it so difficult to get the right screen for a mac, relative to how easy it is with Windows? Is this a proactive design choice by Apple, or just a lack of care?

The issue is subpixel antialiasing. it got removed in Big Sur and hence nonretina screens have blurry fonts.

But, why?

Re: The state of external retina displays

#346

Post by Schiendelman »

derekdahmer wrote: post #250
Eric_WVGG wrote: post #134

My utterly unrealistic dream is: now that the first batch of 5k iMacs is approaching “old age,” some business would start selling kits than had the tools and instructions necessary to gut old iMacs, and a new controller board that would convert the remaining screens to basic DisplayPort displays. At $300 and around $500 for an old iMac on eBay, this could be somehow both more economical and likely more reliable than…

Check your local craigslist listings. I bought a lightly used LG Ultrafine 5k in 2019 for $600 in SF.

I did something similar, and sold it for far more during the pandemic. I don’t think they’ve gotten cheap again, though I haven’t looked hard!

Re: The state of external retina displays

#347

Post by akrymski »

Got a Huawei Mateview recently - 28.2", 4K+, 3:2 aspect ratio, USB-C charging, £500! Fantastic monitor with a great feature set. Retina screen similar to M1 Macbook quality, can barely tell the difference. Looks just like the Apple Pro Display, but with a better aspect ratio for devs. 100% Recommended.

Re: The state of external retina displays

#348

Post by Liron »

bbbobbb wrote: post #331
Liron wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People aren’t thinking clearly about this because of how cheap all monitors are. Here’s how I think about it: For a software engineer, all monitors are worth $100k+. This particular monitor is worth $110k+. So yes, spend an extra few $k to get the best.

How exactly did you arrive at that conclusion? Why would a consumer product that I can get for $800 would be worth $100k for me, thus justifying overpaying for it? Am I supposed to buy $50k wallet because I take it everywhere now? Or $250k glasses because I wear them all day?

Good question, but I have a good answer: you need to understand the amount of consumer surplus of each product. If a wallet cost $50k, you wouldn’t buy it, you’d shove your credit cards in your pants pocket or find a workaround. But if a monitor cost $100k, you or your company would simply buy it and get on with your life - assuming you’re a professional programmer. Monitors have a ridiculous amount of consumer surplus. Once you accept that a monitor is worth $100k of consumer surplus, it’s more intuitive that a 10% noticeably better monitor can have 10% more consumer surplus, regardless of the low market price.

And yes, strong vision correction is also potentially worth $250k if you make a programmer’s salary and that’s the only way you can work. It’s just important to operationalize “10% better” as a measure of how much it helps your output. If your productivity increases 10%, it’s worth an additional $25k cost.

One more example: Imagine McDonald’s Big Mac Value Meals cost $1 each and every other meal cost $50. Assuming you make a $100k+ salary, I think you should opt for the $50 meals quite often, even though most of the country is eating Big Macs and thinking you must be crazy.

Re: The state of external retina displays

#349

Post by bbbobbb »

Liron wrote: post #348
bbbobbb wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How exactly did you arrive at that conclusion? Why would a consumer product that I can get for $800 would be worth $100k for me, thus justifying overpaying for it? Am I supposed to buy $50k wallet because I take it everywhere now? Or $250k glasses because I wear them all day?

Good question, but I have a good answer: you need to understand the amount of consumer surplus of each product. If a wallet cost $50k, you wouldn’t buy it, you’d shove your credit cards in your pants pocket or find a workaround. But if a monitor cost $100k, you or your company would simply buy it and get on with your life - assuming you’re a professional programmer. Monitors have a ridiculous amount of consumer surpl…

The hypotheticals make sense, but they're not reality.

As for your last example, it again make sense on its own.

In case of these monitors though, I see it more like every burger costs $10 but there is also $40 one that has a nice logo stamped on the bun. Also you have to pay extra for a plate. I don't think I am buying that one very often.

Re: The state of external retina displays

#350

Post by tony124 »

Eric_WVGG wrote: post #134

My utterly unrealistic dream is: now that the first batch of 5k iMacs is approaching “old age,” some business would start selling kits than had the tools and instructions necessary to gut old iMacs, and a new controller board that would convert the remaining screens to basic DisplayPort displays. At $300 and around $500 for an old iMac on eBay, this could be somehow both more economical and likely more reliable than…

my current setup consists of 2x imac27 retina sitting next to each other. I use Barrier (a software KVM) to switch mouse/keyboard between those. It works well for my need and is an inexpensive way to get a 2x 5K monitor setup (total cost: 2100 EUR)

I am considering getting a M1 mac mini and use my 2 current imac27 retina as external monitors. My plan is to get a cheap small monitor for the mac mini, then use Barrier to use the imacs as external monitors.

Anyone here has gone that route?

Post reply on HN