First of all, you've never even seen it in person. And did you even bother to read the specs? It's not even true 4K. It's a very deficient monitor. If Apple put out a monitor like this, you'd be asking Trump to nuke Apple. The Apple hatred here doesn't even have any logic or meaning here. It's just pure hatred. Please put the shame where it belongs. And it's not Apple.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
LG and Dell to Showcase Latest USB-C Displays for New MacBook Pro at CES This Week
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
First of all, you've never even seen it in person. And did you even bother to read the specs? It's not even true 4K. It's a very deficient monitor. If Apple put out a monitor like this, you'd be asking Trump to nuke Apple. The Apple hatred here doesn't even have any logic or meaning here. It's just pure hatred. Please put the shame where it belongs. And it's not Apple.
No it doesn't "depend on the purpose". LG 5K screen wipes the floor with this Dell thing in every aspect except for "pretty frame".
But If you want to pay $700 for a 1440p screen in a pretty frame - it's your money.
Yes, but will it work reliably? Dell has had a bad track record so far with USB-C/Thunderbolt 3. Thinking specifically about the complaints XPS owners have about the Thunderbolt 3 implementation.
Thin is nice to have. I had a 50" HDTV from 2009 that was about 2" think and 1.5" bezels. I then replaced it with a 55" HDTV that was .75" thick and .5" bezels. It was so much cleaner hanging on the wall. I thought it was the ultimate as the space needed for the HDMI and power cables was close to the thickness of the HDTV.
I upgraded to a 60" 4k OLED and the bottom the monitor is about an inch think, but the top is about a 1/4" think and the bezels are just about non-existent. it is so much cleaner and minimalistic, it makes the HDTV look like an outdated piece of crap. The image on the screen is all you see.
I would pay ALOT to get similar minimalistic tech with super resolution and HDR on my desktop. Two 27" 5k monitors like this would be perfect to me.
If I can't have an apple monitor, (damn you Tim Cook) I want a monitor that all I see is the image.
They're like that for functional reasons. Apple's display design was the worst from an ergonomic perspective. It looked pretty, yet the height was too low and not adjustable.
They were following Apples lead and removed the ports.
[doublepost=1483406547][/doublepost]
Could you please explain what you were meaning, why would a low or high resolution be ok for a 27" monitor but a high resolution only be good for a small screen?
Resolution is all about how far you sit from a screen.
[doublepost=1483406670][/doublepost]
For a monitor, I agree you don't need thin, just seem like Apples thin disease is catching. I guess I would like a paper thin screen stuck to my wall for a tv.
I wonder if that base comes off so it can be mounted on a monitor arm?
Any displays that are aesthetically pleasing and 20-24 inches big? Just got the new base MacBook Pro 13", and while 5k screens sound great, I can't imagine what I'd even do with a 32 inch screen and what not.
Check out the new Monoprice premium display for $280 for WQHD, or the Dell U2515h looks nice too.
Ok -- it took me half an hour to find the link that I wanted to share but I now have it. (I'll save it this time!)
What I meant is simply that Mac OS is designed to look best at about 100-110 pixels-per-inch or at twice that much 200-220 ppi, in 'retina' mode, with perfect pixel doubling. This translates to an 'ideal' resolution of either 1080p (or 4K for retina) for a monitor in the 22" range or else a resolution of 1440p (or 5K for retina). This is the "correct" mode of displaying MacOS, but of course, as you say, one could just sit closer or further from the display. That's a different topic, Apple designs based on what it understands to be typical usage.
As you can see from this chart, a 4K 27" monitor is "wrong", because OS elements appear too small if used natively as 4K, and too large if used as "retina" 1080p (which is what the OS defaults to, by the way). Many people will go into the settings and run a 27" 4K monitor scaled to 1440p because, as most people would tell you, that just "looks" like the right size for Mac OS on a panel that size. But if you do that you are wasting money: you should have just bought a 1440p monitor instead of a 4K.
This is also why Apple never released an iMac 27" 4K, but waited until they could release a 5K 27" iMac, and a 4K 21.5" iMac. Ditto for the LG UltraFine. You will never see Apple officially endorsing a 4K 27" panel because its OS just looks bad on it.
This link is very helpful, and it contains this great chart, which I think every one shopping for an external display should take note of, and that MacRumors staff should understand before they claim that higher resolution is always better.
I have become convinced that this is an industry problem: they find it easy to manufacture 27" 4K panels right now, so this is what they are pushing. But for Mac users, 22" 4K or 27" 5K are more appropriate.
I personally don't have very strong eyesight (almost wrote iSight there), so maybe I would be content with a 24" 4K and things looking a bit big. But I had a 27" 4K and had to send it back, the OS elements were so big as to be goofy.
Last edited:
If it's not 5K with wide color gamut, I'm not interested. Simple. Where are the new 5K screens with multiple inputs and displayport 1.3?
I wonder if tv's will start to use USB C as well? Would defiantly be great if our consoles and boxes will be able to draw power, connect to the tv, and even communicate with the tv directly.
That's a great post, however I will slightly disagree with your above statement.
When you scale 4K screen to 1440p - macOS will run the display in 1.5:1 HiDPI mode. While it's certainly not quite as nice as 2:1 5K-to-1440p scaling - it is absolutely better than "native" 1440p. With HiDPI - you are still taking full advantage of your 4K screen, and getting crisper text and UI elements as compared to non-hi-DPI resolutions. MacOS is perfectly capable to support a variety of scaled resolutions in-between 110-220ppi zone.
And so, I will say that 4K screen even at larger 27" size is still a better investment than 1080p/1440p screen these days. But you're correct that 5K is the best way to go at 27" size.
NOT to worry. Apple will soon phase out all Apple-branded products except iPhones.
Let's get it straight: Apple = Steve Jobs (for better or worse).
Let's get it straight: Apple = Steve Jobs (for better or worse).