3 ms·

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.
  - bzzzt 3y ago
    On macOS 4K displays are fine. Not the best, but fine. I think the display resolution market suffers from some opposing directions: people who do productivity work like high resolutions, but since Windows (majority of the market) still seems to struggle to scale UI elements correctly some people prefer lower resolution. Also, gamers associate high resolutions with heavy GPU requirements or lower framerates. And then there are companies that are used to spending the absolute minimum on screens that are barely 1080p.
- hollandheese 3y ago
  Either make or subsidize someone to make under $1000 monitors that fit their specs.

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.
- bzzzt 3y ago
  On macOS 4K displays are fine. Not the best, but fine. I think the display resolution market suffers from some opposing directions: people who do productivity work like high resolutions, but since Windows (majority of the market) still seems to struggle to scale UI elements correctly some people prefer lower resolution. Also, gamers associate high resolutions with heavy GPU requirements or lower framerates. And then there are companies that are used to spending the absolute minimum on screens that are barely 1080p.
hollandheese 3y ago
Either make or subsidize someone to make under $1000 monitors that fit their specs.