Hacker News Reader

Comment by acchow | Hacker News Reader

  Frankly, a 4K 32" monitor is quite crappy..

The Apple Cinema display is 2560×1440 (1440p) at 27" and plenty of people use that. That was a pretty standard resolution for 27-30" screens before 4K became popular. Most people would find 2160p (i.e. 4k) at this screen size to be really nice.

View on HN

Apple no longer makes or sales that, it is outdated tech. I'm so used to 200+ PPI now that when I had a 4K 28" monitor at work, I thought it was just not that good.

I just bought a P2715Q (27", 163ppi) and I really haven't noticed the difference from my 220ppi 15" MacBook Pro. I'm sure if I put them side by side and shoved my face into them I would notice, but practically speaking, 163ppi is pretty great.

If you are using Mac OS, font smoothing makes it really hard to tell. If you are using Windows, the difference is more apparent given a more sharp font rendering.

This makes sense. I've also had a P2715Q for more than a year and it looks retina to me, but I'm mostly looking at the (anti-aliased) text when determining that.

I use one and while the text is pretty clear, it's not as good as a Retina-type display. The pixels are visible.

This matters mostly with tiny type. The difference there is astounding.

You mean the Thunderbolt monitor, right? Apple didn't make a 27" Cinema.

The 27" was a non-Thunderbolt Cinema Display for about a year.

Ah, my mistake. Thanks for the correction!

Most Mac people might, but professionals doing real work want at least UHD 4K

Reply on news.ycombinator.com