iMac 5k 2015 resolution question

xtac

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Dec 7, 2016
13
0
Since I've gotten this imac I have run my resolution at 1600x900. If I run it at default which is 2560x1440 I can not for the life of me see anything. It's entirely too small, if I go to the 'more space' of 3200x1800 forget about it.

My question is who is using these resolutions? I know my eyes aren't the greatest but are people actually doing real work in default? am I missing something?
 

wardie

macrumors 6502
Aug 18, 2008
414
133
You can change the font size so you can use a higher resolution with reasonable size text still. Somewhere in system preferences.
 

Moonjumper

macrumors 68020
Jun 20, 2009
2,269
1,957
Lincoln, UK
I use mine at default. I have a 27" 2560x1440 monitor as an external, which was my main monitor as an external to the rMBP I had before. I have ageing eyes, but can read the screens fine.

It depends on how far away you sit. I vary between 600-750mm (24-30") according to the task (I tend to lean in more for artwork or coding to focus, the longer distance for web browsing).

I have set my Toolbar to show the zoom button in Safari to deal with websites with small text (View > Customize Toolbar).
 

wubsylol

macrumors 6502
Nov 6, 2014
356
309
How far do you sit from the screen? I found 2560x1440 to be hard to focus on, but liked the space it gave me, so was able to move the iMac a little closer until I found the sweet spot.
 

bbnck

macrumors 6502a
Mar 19, 2009
567
312
Since I've gotten this imac I have run my resolution at 1600x900. If I run it at default which is 2560x1440 I can not for the life of me see anything. It's entirely too small, if I go to the 'more space' of 3200x1800 forget about it.

My question is who is using these resolutions? I know my eyes aren't the greatest but are people actually doing real work in default? am I missing something?
For most people, yes. But if you are struggling to focus on small text at a reasonable distance, I would suggest seeing your local optician. Alas, some people simply can't see text as small as it might appear at 2560 x 1440. It's perfectly reasonable to lower the resolution and on Retina displays, this actually results in no quality loss because this simply changes the UI scaling factor (the size of text, images and app windows). The display is still running at 5120 x 2880. I usually run my iMac display at 2048 x 1152. Occasionally I'll change it to 2560 x 1440 if I'm doing design work, but otherwise, 2048 x 1152 is the sweet spot for me.

Another option is to move the iMac closer to you, but bear in mind it is not recommended to have a monitor closer than an arms length away from you.
 
Last edited:

Fishrrman

macrumors Core
Feb 20, 2009
19,459
6,757
bbnck wrote:
"Alas, some people simply can't see text as small as it might appear at 2560 x 1440."

Yes.

My vision is aging, and in my case, it doesn't matter "how sharp" smaller font sizes are, or not. If they literally "aren't large enough" (in size), they're going to hard for me to discern.

That's why I use a 27" display running at 1080p (1920x1080). I can view onscreen text at "normal font sizes" without having to "blow them up" out-of-proportion to the other elements "around them".

I have a friend (also with "older vision", he actually lost sight in one eye) who just got a new 27" 5k iMac a few months back. When we set it up, one of the first things he wanted to do was "enlarge the text" to make it more readable to him. We set it at "one notch" lower resolution (than 5k) and he seems happy with that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeltaMac

cynics

macrumors G4
Jan 8, 2012
11,554
1,873
I had exceptional vision and its still good now that I'm older (20/20). I use 1440p but due to the distance I sit from the monitor I increased text size/zoomed in a few apps that I stare at a lot of text in like Safari, Messages, Email, etc...

Most everything else is ok.
 

theluggage

macrumors 601
Jul 29, 2011
4,651
3,476
My question is who is using these resolutions? I know my eyes aren't the greatest but are people actually doing real work in default? am I missing something?
(a) Don't worry about it: if you're comfortable in "looks like 1600x900" that's fine - and you're not "wasting" the 5k display. With Retina/4k/5k displays in MacOS, the screen "resolution" setting works completely differently to the way it did on old-school standard resolution displays. Its a bit of a simplification, but you can effectively think of the "looks like" resolution as just setting the "zoom" level for icons and the font size for system text - everything is still rendered with far more detail than you'd see on an actual 1600x900 display.

(b) I sit with the screen at approximately arm's length - and, yes, I use "2560x1440" most of the time - but it is a tad on the small size and I sometimes switch to larger text if my eyes are tired or if its time to get my glasses prescription updated... I can actually use 3200x1800 on a good day - but its asking for a headache.

(c) As has already been said, if you really can't see anything at default then it sounds like time to go and get your eyes tested, and maybe get a pair of glasses "tuned" for arms-length screen use.
 

tarsins

macrumors 6502a
Sep 15, 2009
948
650
Wales
I run my 27" 5K iMac at 2048 x 1152 and my 15" MacBook Pro at 1440 x 900. Anything smaller is too uncomfortable. Wish Apple would do a 17" MacBook Pro again.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.