5 ms·

Realistically the screens are so information dense as it is, when I have the 24 inch one I still end up shrinking windows and not using the entire thing most of

Realistically the screens are so information dense as it is, when I have the 24 inch one I still end up shrinking windows and not using the entire thing most of the time.

SomeoneFromCA 3y ago
Well I am using 4k 32 inch now, at 75 cm distance and I like it. Less eystrain than when keeping 27 at 60 cm.
- heisgone 3y ago
  Which model of monitor do you use?
  - SomeoneFromCA 3y ago
    Cheap VA (Samsung S32A700), I use mostly as a TV though. I always would get tired quickly previously from 32 inchers, but recently I started liking them more than 27 inch; do not get tired anymore.
- duffyjp 3y ago
  This will unavoidably sound like one-upmanship, but I've been using a 43" 4K screen in my home office for probably five or six years now. I'm on my second panel. The first one was a Hisense TV and the new one is an Aorus monitor. It is absolutely fantastic. My eyes are around four feet from the screen and I don't get that blurred vision you get from extended near-work anymore. I could never go back.
  - SomeoneFromCA 3y ago
    Yea, I thought about it too, but my table is not as deep.
    - duffyjp 3y ago
      I do have a pretty deep table at around 33 inches, but my secret is that I use a lapdesk for my keyboard & mouse. I set the whole thing on an ottoman I have under the table for my feet when I'm done. It's super comfortable and as long as I'm careful about the enormous screen I can still use the table for projects when not on the computer.
  - eyelidlessness 3y ago
    I also have a 43” 4K, which I still refer to as “comically large”. I very nearly decided it was a mistake, until I set it as low as I could on my desk. Even so, as a computer display I get more out of the vertical space than horizontal (and tend to ignore at least a third of the screen while at my desk). If it didn’t also serve as my TV, I’d probably be just as happy with a smaller screen in vertical orientation.
  - MrMan 3y ago
    [dead]
- pathartl 3y ago
  I don't understand why 5K @ 27" is so sought after. My partner uses a 4K 32" display currently and if I'm at a normal sitting distance, I couldn't tell the difference between it and a 5K Studio Display. The 32" is 137ppi which sounds low, but with your eyes at 25" away it's still "retina". As I sit at my desk now looking at my 27" 1440p (108ppi) display at a distance of 23" I really cannot fathom having double the pixel density. Could it be better? Sure! I chose 144Hz over density, but double the amount of pixels? No way in hell
  - kcb 3y ago
    macOS fractional scaling never looked good for me on a 4K 32" screen. At 5K you can get a clean 2560x1440 integer scale.
    - canes123456 3y ago
      4k on 32” doesn’t look good on windows either.
      - kcb 3y ago
        That's what I'm running now with 125% scale and it looks perfect to me.
        SomeoneFromCA 3y ago
        I run it in KDE at 168% scaling. Yeah I like everything big and very smmoth.
  - kecupochren 3y ago
    4k 32" is 77% less pixels than 5k 27". That many pixels make night and day difference in text sharpness
  - canes123456 3y ago
    4k on 32” is usable but is very clearly much less sharp than 4k on 27”. If you can’t tell the difference, you might need to update your glasses or contacts.
mort96 3y ago
It's not about information density, it's about size. I upgraded from a 27" screen to a 32" screen, and the 32" screen feels much nicer to work with. Granted, a large part of that is about going from a ~108 PPI TN panel to a ~137 PPI IPS panel, but I also find that the physical size means I can comfortably have physically larger text without anything feeling cramped.
- KeplerBoy 3y ago
  That might be the sole reason why they're not releasing a 27" iMac. Maybe they just discontinue the line and switch to 32" iMacs.
- tornadron 3y ago
  agreed, as a person getting a bit older...I'm now having to (somewhat painfully) admit that physical screen size is more important to me than pixel density... ...don't get me started with text using tiny fonts on low contrast backgrounds
  - petercooper 3y ago
    Ha, yes, I've just gone through this myself. I've had a 27" Ultrafine 5K for several years but it was just starting to feel 'wrong' somehow. Gone for a 32" 4K monitor and it's proving much better, despite clearly not being anywhere near as good in terms of fidelity. Would I prefer a 30" 5K? Yes. But no-one makes them.

Realistically the screens are so information dense as it is, when I have the 24 inch one I still end up shrinking windows and not using the entire thing most of the time.

SomeoneFromCA 3y ago

Well I am using 4k 32 inch now, at 75 cm distance and I like it. Less eystrain than when keeping 27 at 60 cm.

heisgone 3y ago
Which model of monitor do you use?
- SomeoneFromCA 3y ago
  Cheap VA (Samsung S32A700), I use mostly as a TV though. I always would get tired quickly previously from 32 inchers, but recently I started liking them more than 27 inch; do not get tired anymore.
duffyjp 3y ago
This will unavoidably sound like one-upmanship, but I've been using a 43" 4K screen in my home office for probably five or six years now. I'm on my second panel. The first one was a Hisense TV and the new one is an Aorus monitor. It is absolutely fantastic. My eyes are around four feet from the screen and I don't get that blurred vision you get from extended near-work anymore. I could never go back.
- SomeoneFromCA 3y ago
  Yea, I thought about it too, but my table is not as deep.
  - duffyjp 3y ago
    I do have a pretty deep table at around 33 inches, but my secret is that I use a lapdesk for my keyboard & mouse. I set the whole thing on an ottoman I have under the table for my feet when I'm done. It's super comfortable and as long as I'm careful about the enormous screen I can still use the table for projects when not on the computer.
- eyelidlessness 3y ago
  I also have a 43” 4K, which I still refer to as “comically large”. I very nearly decided it was a mistake, until I set it as low as I could on my desk. Even so, as a computer display I get more out of the vertical space than horizontal (and tend to ignore at least a third of the screen while at my desk). If it didn’t also serve as my TV, I’d probably be just as happy with a smaller screen in vertical orientation.
- MrMan 3y ago
  [dead]
pathartl 3y ago
I don't understand why 5K @ 27" is so sought after. My partner uses a 4K 32" display currently and if I'm at a normal sitting distance, I couldn't tell the difference between it and a 5K Studio Display. The 32" is 137ppi which sounds low, but with your eyes at 25" away it's still "retina". As I sit at my desk now looking at my 27" 1440p (108ppi) display at a distance of 23" I really cannot fathom having double the pixel density. Could it be better? Sure! I chose 144Hz over density, but double the amount of pixels? No way in hell
- kcb 3y ago
  macOS fractional scaling never looked good for me on a 4K 32" screen. At 5K you can get a clean 2560x1440 integer scale.
  - canes123456 3y ago
    4k on 32” doesn’t look good on windows either.
    - kcb 3y ago
      That's what I'm running now with 125% scale and it looks perfect to me.
      - SomeoneFromCA 3y ago
        I run it in KDE at 168% scaling. Yeah I like everything big and very smmoth.
- kecupochren 3y ago
  4k 32" is 77% less pixels than 5k 27". That many pixels make night and day difference in text sharpness
- canes123456 3y ago
  4k on 32” is usable but is very clearly much less sharp than 4k on 27”. If you can’t tell the difference, you might need to update your glasses or contacts.

mort96 3y ago

It's not about information density, it's about size. I upgraded from a 27" screen to a 32" screen, and the 32" screen feels much nicer to work with. Granted, a large part of that is about going from a ~108 PPI TN panel to a ~137 PPI IPS panel, but I also find that the physical size means I can comfortably have physically larger text without anything feeling cramped.

KeplerBoy 3y ago
That might be the sole reason why they're not releasing a 27" iMac. Maybe they just discontinue the line and switch to 32" iMacs.
tornadron 3y ago
agreed, as a person getting a bit older...I'm now having to (somewhat painfully) admit that physical screen size is more important to me than pixel density... ...don't get me started with text using tiny fonts on low contrast backgrounds
- petercooper 3y ago
  Ha, yes, I've just gone through this myself. I've had a 27" Ultrafine 5K for several years but it was just starting to feel 'wrong' somehow. Gone for a 32" 4K monitor and it's proving much better, despite clearly not being anywhere near as good in terms of fidelity. Would I prefer a 30" 5K? Yes. But no-one makes them.