4 ms·

Why not just get a 4K 27”? They can be had for around $220 USD nowadays. I paid that for mine. I do dislike the fact that Apple removed decent support for lowe

by pivo 3y ago

Why not just get a 4K 27”? They can be had for around $220 USD nowadays. I paid that for mine. I do dislike the fact that Apple removed decent support for lower resolution monitors, but I also don’t see why anyone would prefer them to higher res unless it’s a budget issue.

baq 3y ago
4k is... too low res for desktop use on a mac. 25x14 upscaled to 5k only to be downscaled again to device native resolution by a $15 tool still gives me more usable screen real estate than a native 4k and the $15 makes it so text is actually legible...
- pivo 3y ago
  By 25x14, do you mean 2560x1440? If so, are you saying that a $15 device will magically make a 2560x1440 monitor higher resolution than 3840x2160? If that's what you're saying, do you have a link that provides some detail on this because I don't believe it. I'm also unable to believe someone would consider 27" 4K text illegible on a mac since that's what I use that every day and can read text comfortably. Edit: Unless you're using it unscaled, then yeah, text isn't that legible. These are strange statements to make without any detail.
  - baq 3y ago
    It isn't a device, it's a software tool. It doesn't make the monitor magically 2x the resolution; it can trick macos to render onto a 5k buffer and then downscale the output to the physical display so it looks not-broken. https://github.com/waydabber/BetterDisplay https://github.com/waydabber/BetterDisplay I'm saying macOS is unusable on native resolutions - everything is either too small or too blurry, so a 4k display won't do me any good. 25x14 is the sweet spot for me, but I guess Apple decided I'm holding it wrong, because they want me to get a 5k display to get usable 25x14.
wongarsu 3y ago
The core issue with 4k on Mac is that unlike Windows or Linux, Mac doesn't have usable 125%, 150% or 175% scaling modes. But at 1x font rendering on Macs sucks, and at 2x you basically have a fancy 1080p screen; it just doesn't fit as much as an unscaled 1440p screen. This forces you into 5k screens, or tricks to make the OS do actually useful scaling.

by pivo 3y ago

baq 3y ago

4k is... too low res for desktop use on a mac. 25x14 upscaled to 5k only to be downscaled again to device native resolution by a $15 tool still gives me more usable screen real estate than a native 4k and the $15 makes it so text is actually legible...

pivo 3y ago
By 25x14, do you mean 2560x1440? If so, are you saying that a $15 device will magically make a 2560x1440 monitor higher resolution than 3840x2160? If that's what you're saying, do you have a link that provides some detail on this because I don't believe it. I'm also unable to believe someone would consider 27" 4K text illegible on a mac since that's what I use that every day and can read text comfortably. Edit: Unless you're using it unscaled, then yeah, text isn't that legible. These are strange statements to make without any detail.
- baq 3y ago
  It isn't a device, it's a software tool. It doesn't make the monitor magically 2x the resolution; it can trick macos to render onto a 5k buffer and then downscale the output to the physical display so it looks not-broken. https://github.com/waydabber/BetterDisplay https://github.com/waydabber/BetterDisplay I'm saying macOS is unusable on native resolutions - everything is either too small or too blurry, so a 4k display won't do me any good. 25x14 is the sweet spot for me, but I guess Apple decided I'm holding it wrong, because they want me to get a 5k display to get usable 25x14.

wongarsu 3y ago

The core issue with 4k on Mac is that unlike Windows or Linux, Mac doesn't have usable 125%, 150% or 175% scaling modes. But at 1x font rendering on Macs sucks, and at 2x you basically have a fancy 1080p screen; it just doesn't fit as much as an unscaled 1440p screen. This forces you into 5k screens, or tricks to make the OS do actually useful scaling.