I don't have any USB-A requirements on my desk now that I got a new USB-C enclosure for my local backup disk - however, USB-A ports are still useful for most of the userbase... did this monitor team not get the memo about ports being back in vogue for Apple?
I didn't return my Apple Studio Display
81–90 of 203 posts
Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display
#82I 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 play any games on what is more of a work screen. Different use cases.
Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display
#83I don't particularly like the Apple Studio Display, but this post is wrong on the ergonomics. Generally the top of your monitor should sit at or just below eye level.
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.
Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display
#84I bought a very slightly used Iiyama 5K monitor (XB2779QQS-S1 with Displayport 1.4) for 450€. While it does have some stuck pixels, they are so tiny that you only notice them when you are looking for them. 1800€ is insane. I also use a 27" 4K monitor. The difference between the two isn't that great. 5K is mostly useful for 4K video editing. PS: It sounds as if the author would have had a great experience with a 350€…
Does that one work with one DP 1.4 port or do you need two to drive it at 60Hz?
Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe because he wanted a 27" display and not a 24" one? You wanna stick to integer DPI scaling for the most part, and at 2x scale, a 4k 27" display has way too big GUI elements. There aren't many good options in the HiDPI 27" market, just half-measures like the 4k 27" screens you mention which require fractional scaling.
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 graphics too. With integer scaling, you just have different image assets for the different scales. With fractional scaling, there isn't really a good solution; you could automatically downscale a higher resolution image, but then you get the blurriness problem.
GUIs also use lines a lot. If an application asks for 1pt wide lines, and you're at 1.5x scale, what do you do? Do you draw it at 1px wide, and end up with a line that's too light? Do you draw it at 2px line, and end up with one that's too heavy? Or do you make one line of pixels that's solid and one line of pixels that's at 50% opacity, which gives the right visual weight but makes it look blurry and messes up the positioning slightly? This probably isn't a huge problem, but it's the kind of problem that it makes sense if Apple wants to avoid.
Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display
#86Honestly I just dont understand why would one buy a 27" display these days. 32" makes much more sense
I would not want a low resolution (4K) 32" screen. Text would be less sharp. If you could find a 32" 6K for a reasonable price that would be sweet. If you are watching videos or playing games, resolution is not significant, but if you are working with text, resolution is more important than absolute size or refresh rate.
Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why not buy the LG then 5 years ago for cheaper? The LG Ultrafine 5K is notorious for its high unreliability (WiFi interference), low build quality (creaky plastic), and low durability (flaky ports). The target market for Apple Studio Display does not look to trade price for lower quality. Rather, Apple's target market are premium buyers, people looking to pay a bit more for higher quality.
Not only is the UltraFine 5k’s chassis creaky, it can’t handle the heat the display produces and has an extremely high rate of cracking with pieces flaking off. The whole product is abysmal in terms of quality, I don’t know how LG thought it was ok to release.
What's weird to me is it doesn't take a genius to guess at what an Apple monitor would have looked like.
Why can zero other companies execute on something like this? Sure Apple has advantages with scale, but it's not like they're squeezing tight margins. There was a lot of room under the cost of the Pro Display XDR.
I'm not sure why none of these other companies can really execute on high quality hardware.
Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display
#89The LG 5K has all the benefits of Retina 5K and most likely is the exact same panel. The biggest downside is the slower USB-C ports (5GB vs 10GB). The camera isn't technically as good as Apple's, but it also doesn't rely on Apple software. It can raise/lower and tilt without paying $400 extra. It has a black plastic frame which doesn't look as nice, but the glass won't chip if you bump your laptop into the side. If I…
LG owners complain about uneven light levels, edge bleeding, failing ports, and a wobbly stand. The Apple Studio display at $300 more gives you a monitor with higher built standards.
Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display
#90Earlier 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…
Nah, that's not true. Linux also looks best at roughly that scale. Everything is way too big at 1080p@1x/4k@2x at 27" -- in both macOS and Linux. I'm not too sure about Windows, but given the fact that cross-platform apps like web browsers render everything at the same logical size across the systems, and the fact that browsers don't look hilariously out of place in Windows. I'm gonna assume that it applies to Windows as well.
I used to have a 27" 1080p monitor for my Linux box, now I have a 27" 1440p monitor and a 24" 1080p monitor. Everything looks less oversized now.