4 ms·

MacOS doesn't handle HiDPI screens that well either. The most common and affordable high res monitors are 27" 4K monitors and those don't mesh well with the way

MacOS doesn't handle HiDPI screens that well either. The most common and affordable high res monitors are 27" 4K monitors and those don't mesh well with the way macOS does HiDPI. You either have a perfect 2x but giant 1080p like display or a blurryish non-integer scale that's more usable. And god forbid you still have low DPI monitor still!

bsimpson 9mo ago
Blows my minded that a 4k 27" monitor that was $500 a dozen years ago is still near top tier now. 5k has been surprisingly stagnant.
- SoftTalker 9mo ago
  At some point additional resolution is a dimishing return. The human eye has limits.
  - robotresearcher 9mo ago
    5K 27” looks usefully better than 4K 27” to my middle aged eyes. I’d prefer that to not be so, because 5K panels are so much more expensive. But in a side by side comparison it’s very obvious. But the market has spoken: a quality 4K display is very good, certainly good enough, and the value for money is great. I’m ok with spending more on a better display that I spend so much time with. The cost per use-hour is still very, very low.
    - necovek 9mo ago
      Agreed. I tried 24k 4k screen as soon as they came out (required two DP cables to run at 60Hz at the time), and turning subpixel rendering off, I could see jagged edges on fonts from normal sitting position (I am shortsighted, but at -3.25 I always need correction anyway, which brings my eyesight to better than 20/20). At 27" or 32", DPI is even worse. And MacOS has removed support for subpixel rendering because "retina", though I only use it when forced (work).
  - intrasight 9mo ago
    We're approaching that point but are not there yet
  - necovek 9mo ago
    It's not just that: bandwidth needed to drive things above 4k or 5k is already over the limits of HDMI 2.0 (and 2.1 without all the extensions). DisplayPort is a bit better with 1.4 already having enough bandwidth for 8k30Hz or 4k at 120Hz or 8k60Hz with DSC. When considering a single-cable solution like Thunderbolt or USB-C with DP altmode, if you are not going with TB5, you will either use all bandwidth for video with only USB2.0 HID interfaces, or halve the video bandwidth to keep 2 signal lanes for USB 3.x. (I am currently trying to figure out how can I run my X1 Carbon gen 13 with my 8k TV from Linux without an eGPU, so deep in the trenches of color spaces, EDID tables and such as I only got it to put out 6k to the TV :/)
- shantara 9mo ago
  There were several promising 5K 27” MiniLED displays announced at CES a few days ago. People speculate that LG has produced the panel for the upcoming Apple Display refresh, but is also making it available for the other display manufacturers.
Saline9515 9mo ago
You can adjust this in settings.
- chocochunks 9mo ago
  Adjust it to what? Making a 4K monitor look like 1440p (or a non-1080p or 4K desktop) ends up with a non-integer scale on macOS AFAIK. They also completely tore out subpixel font rendering for low DPI displays.
  - Saline9515 9mo ago
    I use a 4k/27" display and it's crisp as it gets at 125%.
    - necovek 9mo ago
      Perhaps try a 5k/27" at 150%, or look for visual acuity correction :) FWIW, I could see jagged edges on 4k at 24" without subpixel rendering, 27" is worse. Yes, even 4k at 32" is passable with MacOS, but Linux looks better (to the point that 4k at 43" has comparable or slightly better text quality to 4k at 32" for a Mac). I am trying to get a 55" 8k TV to work well with my setup, which might be a bit too big (but same width as the newly announced 6k 52" monitor by Dell), but it's the first next option after prohibitively expensive 32" options.
- mrweasel 9mo ago
  In my experience it's a little hit and miss with macOS. You need a monitor that is specifically listed as being supported by macOS. If not you get rather strange results. I had a Dell monitor that, under macOS only, would sometimes freak out and flicker if you had to many electron apps open. In some sense it's reasonable that you need a supported monitor, it's just strange that Linux can support all these monitors, but macOS can't?

bsimpson 9mo ago

Blows my minded that a 4k 27" monitor that was $500 a dozen years ago is still near top tier now. 5k has been surprisingly stagnant.

SoftTalker 9mo ago
At some point additional resolution is a dimishing return. The human eye has limits.
- robotresearcher 9mo ago
  5K 27” looks usefully better than 4K 27” to my middle aged eyes. I’d prefer that to not be so, because 5K panels are so much more expensive. But in a side by side comparison it’s very obvious. But the market has spoken: a quality 4K display is very good, certainly good enough, and the value for money is great. I’m ok with spending more on a better display that I spend so much time with. The cost per use-hour is still very, very low.
  - necovek 9mo ago
    Agreed. I tried 24k 4k screen as soon as they came out (required two DP cables to run at 60Hz at the time), and turning subpixel rendering off, I could see jagged edges on fonts from normal sitting position (I am shortsighted, but at -3.25 I always need correction anyway, which brings my eyesight to better than 20/20). At 27" or 32", DPI is even worse. And MacOS has removed support for subpixel rendering because "retina", though I only use it when forced (work).
- intrasight 9mo ago
  We're approaching that point but are not there yet
- necovek 9mo ago
  It's not just that: bandwidth needed to drive things above 4k or 5k is already over the limits of HDMI 2.0 (and 2.1 without all the extensions). DisplayPort is a bit better with 1.4 already having enough bandwidth for 8k30Hz or 4k at 120Hz or 8k60Hz with DSC. When considering a single-cable solution like Thunderbolt or USB-C with DP altmode, if you are not going with TB5, you will either use all bandwidth for video with only USB2.0 HID interfaces, or halve the video bandwidth to keep 2 signal lanes for USB 3.x. (I am currently trying to figure out how can I run my X1 Carbon gen 13 with my 8k TV from Linux without an eGPU, so deep in the trenches of color spaces, EDID tables and such as I only got it to put out 6k to the TV :/)
shantara 9mo ago
There were several promising 5K 27” MiniLED displays announced at CES a few days ago. People speculate that LG has produced the panel for the upcoming Apple Display refresh, but is also making it available for the other display manufacturers.

Saline9515 9mo ago

You can adjust this in settings.

chocochunks 9mo ago
Adjust it to what? Making a 4K monitor look like 1440p (or a non-1080p or 4K desktop) ends up with a non-integer scale on macOS AFAIK. They also completely tore out subpixel font rendering for low DPI displays.
- Saline9515 9mo ago
  I use a 4k/27" display and it's crisp as it gets at 125%.
  - necovek 9mo ago
    Perhaps try a 5k/27" at 150%, or look for visual acuity correction :) FWIW, I could see jagged edges on 4k at 24" without subpixel rendering, 27" is worse. Yes, even 4k at 32" is passable with MacOS, but Linux looks better (to the point that 4k at 43" has comparable or slightly better text quality to 4k at 32" for a Mac). I am trying to get a 55" 8k TV to work well with my setup, which might be a bit too big (but same width as the newly announced 6k 52" monitor by Dell), but it's the first next option after prohibitively expensive 32" options.
mrweasel 9mo ago
In my experience it's a little hit and miss with macOS. You need a monitor that is specifically listed as being supported by macOS. If not you get rather strange results. I had a Dell monitor that, under macOS only, would sometimes freak out and flicker if you had to many electron apps open. In some sense it's reasonable that you need a supported monitor, it's just strange that Linux can support all these monitors, but macOS can't?