4 ms·

Strange. I've got the complete opposite experience. Most displays work fine. It helps if you stick with models that advertise at least a bit of macOS support (l

by bzzzt 3y ago

Strange. I've got the complete opposite experience. Most displays work fine. It helps if you stick with models that advertise at least a bit of macOS support (like some Dells or Samsungs). Docker sucks, but there's Orbstack. I don't care for posix, but most of my *nix tools are available in Homebrew. Network is steady and more bulletproof than wireless on Linux. Is your experience based on a recent mac?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
piyush_soni 3y ago
I have a modern Dell supported 4K display supporting USB-C to USB-C connection. macOS shows black screen for a few seconds before being able to show anything. Also using the 4K monitor with an actual 4K resolution makes everything very slow, so I just use it with lower resolutions :|. Never saw such issues on even entry level Windows laptops.
- bzzzt 3y ago
  Is it macOS or the monitor not being responsive? Also, if it's slow your laptop might be too old to properly support 4K or you might have misconfigured something. At least Dell supports their hardware: have you tried updating the monitor firmware or submitting a report?
  - piyush_soni 3y ago
    It's the built-in mac display that goes blank along with the external monitor. On my Intel 2019 MBP it was very slow (many seconds), on this new M3 it's much shorter but still more than a decent Windows laptop which is almost instant.
jsheard 3y ago
The problem with third party displays on the Mac is the system has some deeply held assumptions that all monitors are as pixel-dense as the ones which Apple ships with their machines. 100% DPI scaling for classic ~100ppi monitors is a poor experience since macOS no longer supports subpixel font rendering, and DPI scales higher than 100% but less than 200% are really just 200% in a trenchcoat because the system renders everything at 200% then uses non-integer resampling to squish it onto the display. That works well enough on the ~220ppi panels that Apple uses but isn't ideal on common 4K displays which are usually around 140-160ppi. It's not unusable if you at least have one of those medium density 4K monitors, but it feels like a step backwards if you're used to Windows which still (mostly) supports subpixel font rendering for crisp text at 100% scale, and can render natively at 125/150/175% scales.
- zuhsetaqi 3y ago
  I use both, Windows and macOS on the same two 4K 27" monitors and don’t see any problems or that Windows is sharper or something like this
- user_of_the_wek 3y ago
  Yes, this is irking me too. You really need a high density display to enjoy macOS, it shouldn't be like that. I guess they like to leave the baggage behind.
  - jsheard 3y ago
    The worst part is you can't even throw money at the problem without still compromising somewhere - third party 6K/8K monitors which meet Apples PPI standard do exist, but those are currently limited to 60hz, so if you want a fast refresh rate you have to settle for 4K at a lesser PPI.
  - bzzzt 3y ago
    "Retina" Macs were introduced 12 years ago. So what should Apple do? Expend serious time and engineering effort to fix problems with hardware that's far behind the times? Nobody's calling for the return of MCGA graphics so it's clear there's a cutoff needed somewhere.
    - jsheard 3y ago
      I can agreee with accommodating old ~100ppi displays not being worth it past a certain point, but the way that Apple handles high DPI by standardizing on ~220ppi across the board is setting the bar way higher than most people can afford even today. The cheapest large format monitors which meet that standard are at least $1500, when you can get a 4K 160ppi monitor for as little as $200, and 160ppi is absolutely fine on systems like Windows which natively support fractional scaling. I think Wayland originally planned to work like macOS but they are in the process of implementing true fractional scaling akin to Windows. Another factor is that focusing on pixel density above all else comes at the expense of pixel speed, there are no large monitors which meet Apples 220ppi standard and have a refresh rate of 120hz or better, no matter how much money you're willing to spend, they just don't exist.
nullwarp 3y ago
> Network is steady and more bulletproof than wireless on Linux. I gotta disagree hard here. Macs have by far the most obnoxious and temperamental WiFi stack I've ever experienced. Constant disconnects, have to turn it off and on to get it to bother looking for APs again. All of them constantly trigger bad experience scores in UniFi. Absolutely subpar compared to any of my Linux devices, even the raspberry pi jammed inside a metal box.

by bzzzt 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

piyush_soni 3y ago

I have a modern Dell supported 4K display supporting USB-C to USB-C connection. macOS shows black screen for a few seconds before being able to show anything. Also using the 4K monitor with an actual 4K resolution makes everything very slow, so I just use it with lower resolutions :|. Never saw such issues on even entry level Windows laptops.

bzzzt 3y ago
Is it macOS or the monitor not being responsive? Also, if it's slow your laptop might be too old to properly support 4K or you might have misconfigured something. At least Dell supports their hardware: have you tried updating the monitor firmware or submitting a report?
- piyush_soni 3y ago
  It's the built-in mac display that goes blank along with the external monitor. On my Intel 2019 MBP it was very slow (many seconds), on this new M3 it's much shorter but still more than a decent Windows laptop which is almost instant.

jsheard 3y ago

The problem with third party displays on the Mac is the system has some deeply held assumptions that all monitors are as pixel-dense as the ones which Apple ships with their machines. 100% DPI scaling for classic ~100ppi monitors is a poor experience since macOS no longer supports subpixel font rendering, and DPI scales higher than 100% but less than 200% are really just 200% in a trenchcoat because the system renders everything at 200% then uses non-integer resampling to squish it onto the display. That works well enough on the ~220ppi panels that Apple uses but isn't ideal on common 4K displays which are usually around 140-160ppi. It's not unusable if you at least have one of those medium density 4K monitors, but it feels like a step backwards if you're used to Windows which still (mostly) supports subpixel font rendering for crisp text at 100% scale, and can render natively at 125/150/175% scales.

zuhsetaqi 3y ago
I use both, Windows and macOS on the same two 4K 27" monitors and don’t see any problems or that Windows is sharper or something like this
user_of_the_wek 3y ago
Yes, this is irking me too. You really need a high density display to enjoy macOS, it shouldn't be like that. I guess they like to leave the baggage behind.
- jsheard 3y ago
  The worst part is you can't even throw money at the problem without still compromising somewhere - third party 6K/8K monitors which meet Apples PPI standard do exist, but those are currently limited to 60hz, so if you want a fast refresh rate you have to settle for 4K at a lesser PPI.
- bzzzt 3y ago
  "Retina" Macs were introduced 12 years ago. So what should Apple do? Expend serious time and engineering effort to fix problems with hardware that's far behind the times? Nobody's calling for the return of MCGA graphics so it's clear there's a cutoff needed somewhere.
  - jsheard 3y ago
    I can agreee with accommodating old ~100ppi displays not being worth it past a certain point, but the way that Apple handles high DPI by standardizing on ~220ppi across the board is setting the bar way higher than most people can afford even today. The cheapest large format monitors which meet that standard are at least $1500, when you can get a 4K 160ppi monitor for as little as $200, and 160ppi is absolutely fine on systems like Windows which natively support fractional scaling. I think Wayland originally planned to work like macOS but they are in the process of implementing true fractional scaling akin to Windows. Another factor is that focusing on pixel density above all else comes at the expense of pixel speed, there are no large monitors which meet Apples 220ppi standard and have a refresh rate of 120hz or better, no matter how much money you're willing to spend, they just don't exist.

nullwarp 3y ago

> Network is steady and more bulletproof than wireless on Linux. I gotta disagree hard here. Macs have by far the most obnoxious and temperamental WiFi stack I've ever experienced. Constant disconnects, have to turn it off and on to get it to bother looking for APs again. All of them constantly trigger bad experience scores in UniFi. Absolutely subpar compared to any of my Linux devices, even the raspberry pi jammed inside a metal box.