They sort of imply that only the Studio display would have given him a DPI increase over his previous 27" 1440p display. Any 4k screen would have also done that.
Then he concludes that 600nits is unnecessary and that he doesn't need or want the USB-C ports.
I have no idea why he went with the apple display instead of any good 4k screen for 400$, or two of them.
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.
>at 2x scale, a 4k 27" display has way too big GUI elements
I've seen this said a lot. This is my setup, and I do not think the GUI elements are way too big. I find it to be a very comfortable computing experience, with very little eyestrain.
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.
X11 supports fractional DPI just fine, and Android, Windows, and even the web handle it fine.
If I zoom to 150% on a website, how wide will a 1px line be?
PDF handles that fine, the web handles it fine, Android handles it fine.
It's only in recent years that suddenly this has become an issue that "can't" be solved.
I honestly don't care if regular desktop apps waste performance, as long as Qt, Android, Electron, games etc are just rendered at the fractional resolution properly.
You can enable DPI scaling under GNOME and it works fine for the DE itself and most GNOME programs, but it’s extremely hit or miss for anything not GNOME. Same deal with KDE.
Really irritating because it makes my Thinkpad X1 Nano unusable under Linux. This is probably why macOS does things the way it does: no room for third party developer error.
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 avail, perhaps Apple should just modify the OS to better support other HiDPI displays available
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.
I don't know about 4k@27, but 1080@27 is indeed too big. The only thing I want to be big is the text - and icons maybe -, But I can't stomach big UI elements.
FWIW, 4k is 3840x2160, which is (19202)x(10802). So 4k@27 running at a 2x scale is exactly the same physical area per logical pixel as 1080p@27 running at a 1x scale.
I have a 1440p@27 monitor. That gives me enough real estate to actually use editors and IDE and have some real estate. I could probably do 4k, but maybe @32 inches and native resolution.
Yes, I made the reasonable assumption that anyone interested in an Apple display is using a Mac.
> Apple should just modify the OS to better support other HiDPI displays available
For a number of years[1][2], OS X did partially support fractional scaling. They ultimately decided the tradeoffs, as mentioned in other comments, weren't worth it and went integer-only[3]. Even if it were still supported, it wouldn't be a complete substitute for displays of appropriate pixel density for integer scaling.
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.
Windows supports non-integer DPI scaling. The typical riposte is many (most?) third party Windows programs don't support it* BUT many third party MacOS didn't support 'Retina' scaling for some time after launch either (I have more faith in MacOS developer system to jump on board if Apple added support)
True, though “no supporting” mainly meant that icons and images looked a little blurry because they were scaled up from 1x. The text and app layouts were fine.
> 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.
As a counterpoint, I absolutely love my LG Ultrafine 5k. I bought a second one even. Never had any issues at all, and I love taking video calls, doing design work, etc. on them.
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.
Hell, just take the same LG panel that's used by both the LG UltraFine and the Apple Studio Display, put it in a well-built metal case, don't waste money on things like the A13 CPU, 64GB of flash, 13 megapixel camera, high-quality speaker system, etc, don't spend as many engineering resources on making the monitor as thin-and-light as possible. You could've made the standard monitor for anyone who wants a 5k 27" screen.
I don't understand why the only manufacturer in the 5k 27" screen market was LG for half a decade and now only LG and Apple. There should be so much room here.
IIRC there was a Dell monitor that used this panel too, but its availability was extremely brief and Dell EOL’d it not too long after release. I believe it had issues with waking from sleep and its picture blinking out sometimes, I guess they had QC issues with their driver board.
Maybe the demand isn’t there? There might not be a big intersect between those who are willing to spend > $1000 on a monitor and those who wouldn’t want to buy non-Apple hardware.
People say it is blurry but I think I have pretty good eyes and do a lot of pixel peeping and don’t really see the issue. I don’t think I’ve ever run macOS at the native resolution because things are just too big, with the exception of my 1080p monitor.
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.
Absolutely. That was my intention when I purchased the monitor, and it definitely delivered. I bought mine for $279. However, I had to return two of them because of a pronounced moire-like pattern created by the anti-reflective coating. The third one, the one I kept, still has a slightly visible pattern.
I spend most of my day watching a screen, and I want it to be perfect. Because of this, I would be tempted to buy the new Apple display. However, buying an iMac makes much more economic sense. I have no idea why display manufacturers can't get the details right.
Windows and Gnome look gorgeous at 2x rendering. macOS does too, but that's expected.
Well to compare devices used at similar distances... my XDR blows away my previous 27" 4k monitors and various 5k ultrawides.
I don't even use HDR, the density is just that good for looking at text all day. It takes on this milky quality that I haven't seen on any other monitor before this.
The complete lack of appreciable IPS glow or uniformity issues is also better than you might expect for text. Especially with dark backgrounds which will now present one impressively uniform block of color, improving contrast.
Same. I gave up Apple ever releasing an affordable standalone display last year and bought a 4k 27". I can't tell the difference between it and the 5k 27" panel on the iMac. It also has multiple inputs, and USB-A outputs.
Obviously there are people who need the higher PPI, but if you look at text all day I'd recommend giving 4k a try before spending 3-4x as much on a 5k. You can run the 4k display at 5k, the same way that you can run a MacBook Air at 2880x1800 even though it's really 2560x1600. Modern scaling algorithms are very good.
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).
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?
Not to mention this is the only glossy display he's used, which is visually going to be much more pleasing than a matte display until you can't stand the glare.
A 24" 4K screen has the same DPI as a 27" 5K screen. So a 4K screen will natively provide a smaller desktop layout regardless of screen size, particularly on macOS.
> A 24" 4K screen has the same DPI as a 27" 5K screen
Not quite. 24" 4K (3840 x 2160) is 184 DPI. A 27" 5K (5120 x 2880) is 218 DPI.
I'm pretty sure that 24" 4K would be high enough that I would not be able to notice the lower DPI compared to my current 27" 5K iMac.
I base this on the fact that I normally view the iMac from about 19" away, occasionally leaning in to as close as 13". At 218 DPI, viewing from those distances gives 72 PPD (pixels per degree) and 49 PPD. I don't see any difference, and so conclude that I'm fine with anything about 49 PPD.
At 19" distance a 24" 4K would give me 60 PPD. Somewhere around 15" it would drop below the 49 PPD I know for sure is good enough for me. At 13" it would be down to 42 PPD.
I'm pretty sure that would still be fine, because if I get close enough to my iMac for it to be 42 PPD (just a little under 10 inches) it is still fine for me.
The main issue I have with 24" 4K is that there doesn't seem to be many models and they cost a lot. Newegg for instance only has 3: LG 24MD4KL for $690, LG 24MD4KLB for $900, and a refurbished LG for $649. B & H has those first two for $697 and $882, and an LG 24UD58 for $297. I'm not sure why that last is so much cheaper than the others--it has a pretty low maximum brightness but I didn't notice anything else too bad in the specs.
Fortunately, similar calculations for 4K 27" and tests at various distances from the iMac to match the PPD of 4K 27" at my distances suggest that 4K 27" would work for me and there are a gazillion of them in the $300-600 range.
I've been recently looking into this because my 2017 27" 5K iMac has developed a vertical line of bad pixels [1]. (And wow...I need to clean that screen. Those photos show a lot of dust and dirt that I do not see with the naked eye). That line is in the middle of the right half of the screen and the way I sit has me centered in front of the left half of the screen, so it is pretty much ignorable most of the time but it has prompted me to start thinking of upgrading to a new Mac system, with a Mac Studio being the most likely candidate.
Then he concludes that 600nits is unnecessary and that he doesn't need or want the USB-C ports.
I have no idea why he went with the apple display instead of any good 4k screen for 400$, or two of them.