Finding a monitor for the Mini is an exercise in frustration!

[pldelisle]

Finally the YPbPr color scheme is not an M1 only bug. My U2414H has been running in the scheme for years in HDMI. When put in DisplayPort to Mini-DP it works fine in RGB. Couldn’t tell the difference between both scheme. I could patch it in HDMI since I’m still on my Late-2013 MBP15.

After a lot of reading, the problem seems generalized to Dell with Mac. But is it because only Dell shows the input color scheme in its OSD ? Nobody knows for sure. It’s very strange.

 

[Stephen.R]

I'm blown away that there is little to no discussion of the fact that any 4k monitor is essentially unusable with a Mac. You either have to squint, or be 1ft away to go full 4k, or drop resolution, then whats the point?

Stupid that apple wont provide correct support for native resolution.

went through a multi day process trying to make a 4k monitor display well.

I was able to get it in the highest resolution using the program "resolutiontab".

In full 4k the menu bar is too small to use.

You have missed the point. A 24" 4K display in the default "looks like 1920x1080" is immensely crisper and easier on the eyes than a native "1920x1080" 24" display. The same applies for almost all combinations: the hi-dpi modes will almost always look better than a comparable low-ppi display, because it's using more, smaller pixels to display the same thing.

That is the entire point. I don't understand why it's so hard for people to grasp the concept. No one complained about the iPhone 4 being basically the same size as the 3GS but with much higher resolution, and "what's the point"?

 

[richmond62]

What a daft title: Finding a monitor for the Mini is an exercise in frustration!

Most monitors work perfectly well with Mac Minis.

The title should be changed to: Fusspots get frustrated when they get picky about the type of monitor they want to use with a Mac Mini.

 

[Cassandle]

What a daft title: Finding a monitor for the Mini is an exercise in frustration!

Most monitors work perfectly well with Mac Minis.

The title should be changed to: Fusspots get frustrated when they get picky about the type of monitor they want to use with a Mac Mini.

Thanks for your contribution

 

[Coheebuzz]

You have missed the point. A 24" 4K display in the default "looks like 1920x1080" is immensely crisper and easier on the eyes than a native "1920x1080" 24" display. The same applies for almost all combinations: the hi-dpi modes will almost always look better than a comparable low-ppi display, because it's using more, smaller pixels to display the same thing.

That would depend on what you are looking at the most, some of my software are barely usable at 27"@QHD, let alone 4k, the small pixel-perfect fonts used on the various panels do not look good under high-dpi and you have to be a teenager with 10/10 eyesight to tolerate it.

 

[Pressure]

That would depend on what you are looking at the most, some of my software are barely usable at 27"@QHD, let alone 4k, the small pixel-perfect fonts used on the various panels do not look good under high-dpi and you have to be a teenager with 10/10 eyesight to tolerate it.

Then you need to write those developers a stern letter. No excuse not to have all assets 2x in this day and age.

Fonts will always look sharper in retina mode.

Could you list the software that gives you problems at QHD or 4K?

 

[Stephen.R]

the small pixel-perfect fonts used on the various panels do not look good under high-dpi

Then they aren't fonts, as far as your Mac is concerned, they're likely bitmap images.

People were writing **** software long before Hi-DPI screens came along - this is just another thing that highlights those that cut corners.

 

[pldelisle]

Application must be freaking old not to support retina dpi.....!

 

[Coheebuzz]

Then you need to write those developers a stern letter. No excuse not to have all assets 2x in this day and age.

Fonts will always look sharper in retina mode.

Could you list the software that gives you problems at QHD or 4K?

Try Substance Painter.

Also i disagree that more pixels leads to better clarity, it might reveal the form of the font better but if you are using very thin and intricate fonts then visual contrast and thus clarity will be lower.

As an example, the text on the panel below is the smallest my eyes can handle from 50cm away and i have to squint often...

 

[Pressure]

Try Substance Painter.

Also i disagree that more pixels leads to better clarity, it might reveal the form of the font better but if you are using very thin and intricate fonts then visual contrast and thus clarity will be lower.

As an example, the text on the panel below is the smallest my eyes can handle from 50cm away and i have to squint often...

View attachment 1707265

The attached picture is only 72 DPI ... no wonder it looks blurry.

If you ran it at HiDPI then it would be 144 DPI. Having 4 times more pixels to resolve the font makes it sharper.

Substance Painter looks fine in 4K HiDPI (7680x4320 pixels).

 

[Stephen.R]

Try Substance Painter.

I did. I just downloaded that monstrosity of a program.

So firstly, it's an Adobe app. That alone is reason to give serious weight to the theory that it's the fault of the developer. I used Adobe UI apps (specifically Fireworks) back in the days when they used Flash to make terrible User Interfaces. They've apparently learnt nothing.

So, I couldn't find the exact panel your screenshot is from. Mostly because 80% of the UI appears like this, on a fresh install:

Yes, the text is all up side down. I cannot begin to imagine how they ****ed that up.

Anyway I found a panel that actually renders "correctly" (you know, for those of us who don't read standing on our heads), and as mentioned, at 144DPI the text is very legible (a lot of that has to do with being up the right way, to be honest).

 

[pldelisle]

At first sight it looked like russian... 😂

 

[Stephen.R]

At first sight it looked like russian... 😂

I thought the same thing. It’s too late to screenshot it now (already uninstalled) but the initial view has a bunch of... I dunno what it was, brushes and other options for drawing I guess, but displayed like a icon view in the finder, except they were all squished up over each other... and also upside down so it really looked like Cyrillic text

 

[Pressure]

I'm honestly bummed out that the M1 doesn't support anything higher than 6K. I was ready to replace my old Mac Pro with a silent and fast computer.

I know the amount of people with an 8K monitor is minuscule but it also hurts people with ultrawide monitors as well.

macOS in 4K HiDPI looks great and offers a lot of real estate.

 

[Stephen.R]

I'm honestly bummed out that the M1 doesn't support anything higher than 6K. I was ready to replace my old Mac Pro with a silent and fast computer.

I know the amount of people with an 8K monitor is minuscule but it also hurts people with ultrawide monitors as well.

macOS in 4K HiDPI looks great and offers a lot of real estate.

It’s an entry level computer. Wait for the mid/high end models.

 

[Pressure]

It’s an entry level computer. Wait for the mid/high end models.

Thanks for reminding me, that totally changes my perspective about what a computer with DP1.4 functionality should be able to support. Either you support standards or you don't. It's labelled as supporting DisplayPort v1.4 and not DisplayPort v1.4 "Sorta, kinda, in a way but not".

Cheap computers with DP1.4 can drive my monitor and ultrawide monitors.

Other than that I loved it. It was much faster than what I was trying to replace it with and it was silent. Except the monitor issues there isn't much to complain about really. Perhaps their storage upgrade prices ...

This video may show something you would be fine with, I don't know. I'm not. I left a lot of feedback to Apple through the Feedback Assistant as well as spent several hours online and on the phone with their support.

 

[Stephen.R]

that totally changes my perspective about what a computer with DP1.4 functionality should be able to support.

.... the specifications of DisplayPort, regardless of version are maximums that are dependent on the GPU that's driving the DP lanes.

Cheap computers with DP1.4 can drive my monitor

I'm sure some can, and some can't.

ultrawide monitors

This is an entirely different issue, AFAIK.
Every ultra wide monitor I've seen on the market so far, is actually quite mediocre in terms of raw resolution supported, (at most we have "5K2K", which falls somewhere between a 4K and 5K display in terms of pixel count.

My understanding is that the issues with M1 Macs and 'ultra wide' displays is purely software related, which makes sense when you consider that they're capable of driving a 'regular' aspect ratio 5K or 6K display, both of which are higher resolution than even a '5k2k' ultra wide.

This video may show something you would be fine with, I don't know.

... A flickering green bar across the screen? Why would anybody be fine with that? Are you suggesting that somehow because I dared to suggest that it's not unreasonable for an entry level computer to not support a very high end display, I think so long as their is some semblance of a picture on the display, anything is fine?

 

[Pressure]

.... the specifications of DisplayPort, regardless of version are maximums that are dependent on the GPU that's driving the DP lanes.



I'm sure some can, and some can't.



This is an entirely different issue, AFAIK.
Every ultra wide monitor I've seen on the market so far, is actually quite mediocre in terms of raw resolution supported, (at most we have "5K2K", which falls somewhere between a 4K and 5K display in terms of pixel count.

My understanding is that the issues with M1 Macs and 'ultra wide' displays is purely software related, which makes sense when you consider that they're capable of driving a 'regular' aspect ratio 5K or 6K display, both of which are higher resolution than even a '5k2k' ultra wide.



... A flickering green bar across the screen? Why would anybody be fine with that? Are you suggesting that somehow because I dared to suggest that it's not unreasonable for an entry level computer to not support a very high end display, I think so long as their is some semblance of a picture on the display, anything is fine?

There is clearly some shortcomings with the M1 regardless of the great performance or what market segment it belongs in.

It just shows there are issues that needs to be resolved. This is clearly a limitation software- or hardware-wise.

We will see when Apple updates macOS or releases their next Apple Silicon.

I've sent my Mac mini back and will upgrade later. It's only an issue as I have a rather niche monitor.

 

[pldelisle]

As far as I know....

A 699$ computer ...

Supports flawlessly a 6000$ Apple Pro XDR display at full 6K....

That’s pretty damn good.

You got an 8K display? Wait for M1x/M2.

Just saying....

@Stephen.R Said it all.

 

[Pressure]

As far as I know....

A 699$ computer ...

Supports flawlessly a 6000$ Apple Pro XDR display at full 6K....

That’s pretty damn good.

You got an 8K display? Wait for M1x/M2.

Just saying....

@Stephen.R Said it all.

You are not really adding anything new to the discussion.

I already mentioned I returned the M1 Mac mini and are waiting for a better solution.

A lot of $699 computers support my 8K display, so the price point is really irrelevant. I'm not ******** on the product (it's great), I'm merely saying it has shortcomings with regards to monitors.

 

[Cassandle]

Despite researching monitors for what feels like forever, I came across one today for the first time: the Dell P2721Q.

Looks like it ticks most of the boxes (4K, good text clarity, adjustable stand, USB-C - could be handy with the Mini, allowing me to use HDMI for the 2nd screen).

Has anyone got any experience with this monitor? Looks like it’s similar to the highly-rated S2721QS, but with added USB-C. Any other differences? (Info on the P model is hard to find online...) I remember someone saying here that the P models are generally better than the S models?

 

[pldelisle]

Despite researching monitors for what feels like forever, I came across one today for the first time: the Dell P2721Q.

Looks like it ticks most of the boxes (4K, good text clarity, adjustable stand, USB-C - could be handy with the Mini, allowing me to use HDMI for the 2nd screen).

Has anyone got any experience with this monitor? Looks like it’s similar to the highly-rated S2721QS, but with added USB-C. Any other differences? (Info on the P model is hard to find online...) I remember someone saying here that the P models are generally better than the S models?

No experience with it, but yes, P > S in term of build quality and panel quality. It generally has better ergonomics tha S, but a bit less than U. U is the premium panel and built quality, but at higher price point.

 

[Beerstalker]

Dell monitor part numbers used a be a little bit easier to figure out.

The first letter was kind of the "trim level" type information.

E was economy
S was standard
P was professional
U was Ultrasharp (or higher resolution).

so E<S<P<U.

The first two numbers following the letters are the screen size. So an S24xxx is a 24" standard monitor, P27xxxx is a 27" professional monitor, etc.

The next two numbers are the "model year". So a P2719 is a 27" Professional series monitor that came out around 2019, S2417 is a standard monitor from around 2017 etc.

The numbers at the end usually referred to different options, like the stand type, or different ports etc. For example my monitors are P2719H and P2719HC. The H means they both have adjustable height stands, and the C meant that monitor has USB-C, where the other one does not.

The 2020 and 2021 models don't seem to completely follow this anymore, so they are a bit harder to figure out.

 

[ilex27]

Good job, Beerstalker. I was going to post the Dell cheat sheet but you explained it better.

 

[Cassandle]

Dell monitor part numbers used a be a little bit easier to figure out.

The first letter was kind of the "trim level" type information.

E was economy
S was standard
P was professional
U was Ultrasharp (or higher resolution).

so E<S<P<U.

The first two numbers following the letters are the screen size. So an S24xxx is a 24" standard monitor, P27xxxx is a 27" professional monitor, etc.

The next two numbers are the "model year". So a P2719 is a 27" Professional series monitor that came out around 2019, S2417 is a standard monitor from around 2017 etc.

The numbers at the end usually referred to different options, like the stand type, or different ports etc. For example my monitors are P2719H and P2719HC. The H means they both have adjustable height stands, and the C meant that monitor has USB-C, where the other one does not.

The 2020 and 2021 models don't seem to completely follow this anymore, so they are a bit harder to figure out.

I do find it frustrating that you need a cheat sheet to understand model numbers.

Seems to me that companies make so many similar monitors and seem to want to put all the information about them into their name via code.

I've complained about Apple's naming conventions before (the iPad line was a mess for a while) but they are mostly easy to understand. If you want to find out more about the device, you look at the spec sheet.