Then he concludes that 600nits is unnecessary and that he doesn't need or want the USB-C ports.
I have no idea why he went with the apple display instead of any good 4k screen for 400$, or two of them.
There aren't many good options in the HiDPI 27" market, just half-measures like the 4k 27" screens you mention which require fractional scaling.
Sadly, macOS and Gnome refuse to support it, which is ridiculous, because macOS UI Toolkit is originally based on PDF to allow arbitrary scaling.
Really irritating because it makes my Thinkpad X1 Nano unusable under Linux. This is probably why macOS does things the way it does: no room for third party developer error.
Using all vector graphics for the GUI so that you can freely change the scale is all well and good, but lots of GUI applications need raster graphics too. With integer scaling, you just have different image assets for the different scales. With fractional scaling, there isn't really a good solution; you could automatically downscale a higher resolution image, but then you get the blurriness problem.
GUIs also use lines a lot. If an application asks for 1pt wide lines, and you're at 1.5x scale, what do you do? Do you draw it at 1px wide, and end up with a line that's too light? Do you draw it at 2px line, and end up with one that's too heavy? Or do you make one line of pixels that's solid and one line of pixels that's at 50% opacity, which gives the right visual weight but makes it look blurry and messes up the positioning slightly? This probably isn't a huge problem, but it's the kind of problem that it makes sense if Apple wants to avoid.
If I zoom to 150% on a website, how wide will a 1px line be?
PDF handles that fine, the web handles it fine, Android handles it fine.
It's only in recent years that suddenly this has become an issue that "can't" be solved.
I honestly don't care if regular desktop apps waste performance, as long as Qt, Android, Electron, games etc are just rendered at the fractional resolution properly.
I've seen this said a lot. This is my setup, and I do not think the GUI elements are way too big. I find it to be a very comfortable computing experience, with very little eyestrain.
You can get a Dell with 90W charging 27" 4K for under $600.
The Studio Display is 60Hz, no HDR, no Mini-LED...it's got really similar specs to similar 4K displays for $1000+ more.
Getting 5K over 4K is not worth $1000 extra. Other displays are offering Mini-LED in this price range.
Plus the stand situation is ridiculous.
The LG Ultrafine 5K is notorious for its high unreliability (WiFi interference), low build quality (creaky plastic), and low durability (flaky ports).
The target market for Apple Studio Display does not look to trade price for lower quality. Rather, Apple's target market are premium buyers, people looking to pay a bit more for higher quality.
Why can zero other companies execute on something like this? Sure Apple has advantages with scale, but it's not like they're squeezing tight margins. There was a lot of room under the cost of the Pro Display XDR.
I'm not sure why none of these other companies can really execute on high quality hardware.
I don't understand why the only manufacturer in the 5k 27" screen market was LG for half a decade and now only LG and Apple. There should be so much room here.
https://www.planar.com/media/439284/planar-ix2790-specsheet....
Now that Apple is back in the game you're probably right.
ftfy. Apple is double dealing you here. Apple developed MacOS to look best at that size/density, and forced the development of the few expensive displays are that size/density... After a decade waiting for third party displays to meet up their standard, to no avail, perhaps Apple should just modify the OS to better support other HiDPI displays available
I used to have a 27" 1080p monitor for my Linux box, now I have a 27" 1440p monitor and a 24" 1080p monitor. Everything looks less oversized now.
> Apple should just modify the OS to better support other HiDPI displays available
For a number of years[1][2], OS X did partially support fractional scaling. They ultimately decided the tradeoffs, as mentioned in other comments, weren't worth it and went integer-only[3]. Even if it were still supported, it wouldn't be a complete substitute for displays of appropriate pixel density for integer scaling.
[1]: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2005/04/macosx-10-4/20/#scal... [2]: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2007/10/mac-os-x-10-5/9/#res... [3]: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2011/07/mac-os-x-10-7/14/#hi...
You can do non-integer scaling to change the UI size, but then it becomes blurry.
Does blurry mean something other than blurry?
While true, the ppi increase from most 4k screens would not be as large as the Apple Studio Display.
Most 4k monitors are 24 inches, and those monitors will be 192.94 ppi. [0][1] The Apple Studio Display comes in at 218 ppi. [2]
I'm sitting in front of a 4k 27" and the 160ppi is almost indistinguishable to my macbook at 227 due to the different viewing distance.
And I always had the impression most 4k displays were 27".
I don't even use HDR, the density is just that good for looking at text all day. It takes on this milky quality that I haven't seen on any other monitor before this.
The complete lack of appreciable IPS glow or uniformity issues is also better than you might expect for text. Especially with dark backgrounds which will now present one impressively uniform block of color, improving contrast.
> most 4k displays were 27".
This is in the direction of lower PPI/DPI, which is worse. That is:
4K @ 24" > 4K @ 27"
Also, as others have noted, the Apple Studio Display is 5K, so more UI is visible than on a 4K monitor.
Personally I would much rather that they made the display 4K and 120hz instead of 5k and 60hz. At that size, I don't see a big difference between 4K and 5k, but the 60hz vs. 120hz jump is very noticeable.
Obviously there are people who need the higher PPI, but if you look at text all day I'd recommend giving 4k a try before spending 3-4x as much on a 5k. You can run the 4k display at 5k, the same way that you can run a MacBook Air at 2880x1800 even though it's really 2560x1600. Modern scaling algorithms are very good.
Where are you getting this? I was looking at monitors recently and it's impossible to find ANY 24" 4K monitors. Most of them are 27", which at that screen size you really need scaling. My LG 27" 4K recently went out so I downgraded to my older 1440p 27" monitor. I'm not using scaling anymore, but the text doesn't have that buttery smooth look...
It's even worse than I thought!
https://www.bestbuy.com/site/searchpage.jsp?st=4k+monitor+24...
https://www.apple.com/shop/product/HMUA2VC/A/lg-ultrafine-4k...
There appears to be exactly one 24" 4K display being sold. Which is more a niche than a good number.
My theory is that most people, for all practical purposes, are blind.
So at 24” 4K does everything looks nice and smooth without scaling like a built in Retina display?
I spend most of my day watching a screen, and I want it to be perfect. Because of this, I would be tempted to buy the new Apple display. However, buying an iMac makes much more economic sense. I have no idea why display manufacturers can't get the details right.
Windows and Gnome look gorgeous at 2x rendering. macOS does too, but that's expected.
Not quite. 24" 4K (3840 x 2160) is 184 DPI. A 27" 5K (5120 x 2880) is 218 DPI.
I'm pretty sure that 24" 4K would be high enough that I would not be able to notice the lower DPI compared to my current 27" 5K iMac.
I base this on the fact that I normally view the iMac from about 19" away, occasionally leaning in to as close as 13". At 218 DPI, viewing from those distances gives 72 PPD (pixels per degree) and 49 PPD. I don't see any difference, and so conclude that I'm fine with anything about 49 PPD.
At 19" distance a 24" 4K would give me 60 PPD. Somewhere around 15" it would drop below the 49 PPD I know for sure is good enough for me. At 13" it would be down to 42 PPD.
I'm pretty sure that would still be fine, because if I get close enough to my iMac for it to be 42 PPD (just a little under 10 inches) it is still fine for me.
The main issue I have with 24" 4K is that there doesn't seem to be many models and they cost a lot. Newegg for instance only has 3: LG 24MD4KL for $690, LG 24MD4KLB for $900, and a refurbished LG for $649. B & H has those first two for $697 and $882, and an LG 24UD58 for $297. I'm not sure why that last is so much cheaper than the others--it has a pretty low maximum brightness but I didn't notice anything else too bad in the specs.
Fortunately, similar calculations for 4K 27" and tests at various distances from the iMac to match the PPD of 4K 27" at my distances suggest that 4K 27" would work for me and there are a gazillion of them in the $300-600 range.
I've been recently looking into this because my 2017 27" 5K iMac has developed a vertical line of bad pixels [1]. (And wow...I need to clean that screen. Those photos show a lot of dust and dirt that I do not see with the naked eye). That line is in the middle of the right half of the screen and the way I sit has me centered in front of the left half of the screen, so it is pretty much ignorable most of the time but it has prompted me to start thinking of upgrading to a new Mac system, with a Mac Studio being the most likely candidate.