Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Review: Monduo's 16-Inch Pro Duo Triples Your MacBook Pro Display Space on the Go

sirozha said:
1440p on 16” renders fonts too small. I bought a great 15” 120 Hz gaming portable display on AliExpress with 1440p, thinking that it would be good at this size and resolution. The fonts are way too small on this size at 1440p. I have to double-pixel, but it makes the screen elements, including the fonts, the same size as on a 720p display (though the screen elements look very sharp). 720p size screen elements on 15” makes fonts way too big and also unnecessarily eats the screen real estate.
(...)
Using these displays at non-native resolution looks horrible, so
Click to expand...

The display's app is made in a way that it enables scaled HiDPI (pixel doubled) resolutions that match the GUI size with the 16" MBP - so no mismatching sizes, small fonts or horrible non-native resolutions. The displays have a PPI of 188 so scaled HiDPI resolutions look fine (of course can't beat the MBP's built in screen's pixel density). This and the added brightness synchronization with the built-in display (adjusts the hardware panel backlight) using the native brightness keys and the auto-arrangement just make this a rather nice, integrated solution. Here's a video about how the scaling works (at 4:30):

 
  • Like
Reactions: RazorWriter, thekaiju and cyb3rdud3
cyb3rdud3 said:
And that is a perfect demonstration as to why there is a price difference; good that for some there are alternatives. To me, that looks like a right mess, also the screens all look drastically different.

Sure there are so many portable USB-C displays available, screen and device quality varies immensely, none come even close to matching the Mac. Some may not care about that and just want something cheap. But come on, the 16" MacBook Pro wasn't particularly cheap either ;)
Click to expand...
Whilst the MacBook has the best screen without question, these two once they were set up properly have been for the last few months very close to it. This was actually the unboxing and check that they worked.
 
$799 is not bad at all for something like this IMO. I could really see it benefitting home office users with limited surface area, where traditional monitors sitting around all the time would take up valuable space.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SteveJUAE
RazorWriter said:
The biggest use case for all the devices discussed here so far is van lifers, digital nomads or people who bounce around the world while they work remotely, carrying all their stuff in one or two bags. Like the person in this video, working from their stereotypical van on the beach.
Click to expand...

No. Just because a commercial shows someone using something doesn't define ALL the ways something can be used. I've seen beer commercials of men on mountains, so beer is only for mountain climbers? I've seen car commercials of people driving down the Pacific Coast Highway, so cars are only for people who live on the California coast? I've seen iPhone commercials where iPhone is being used as a camera to shoot someone running down a street... so iPhone is only for action movie making?

The video for this product was just an example... ONE example. I took it to imply that someone even in cramped quarters like a van could have a 100" virtual screen ("canvas"). That commercial could have easily been a non-nomad, white collar businessperson in a cramped airplane seat using that same 100" screen... so this product is only for airplane travelers? That commercial could have easily been average Joe/Jill sitting in an uber/lyft... so this product is only for people who use cabs/rides? Coffee shop user... so only for coffee drinkers? Etc.

I suspect the target market is well beyond digital nomad, van lifers.

To me, this appears to be a product for anyone who needs a bigger screen ANYWHERE. It doesn't replace all physical screens as there will still be needs to collaborate and many people will simply prefer the as is. But in my head, this is a new kind of laptop not limited to up to a 16" screen and not require folding screens (and the accompanying weight). Anyone using laptops who wish they had more screen RE to do whatever they do, could opt for VR screens to have any amount of screen that serves whatever they are trying to do.

Whether this is good enough for such applications or not, I don't know yet. But I suspect it will be impressive in person. Since Apple has the reputation of not being first, but doing something BEST, I expect their cut at this to be better than anything else out there. If this looks anything like as good as implied in this commercial, I can only imagine what Apple's virtual Mac screens would look like (on much better computing guts and much higher resolution screens). I hope it is amazing as I myself am often frustrated trying to do my kind of computing work on a cramped 16" screen when on the road... and I don't want to lug around additional physical screens to add more screen RE the "old fashioned" way.

If Apple's new product can do this ONE thing really well, that's easily enough for me to rationalize even $3K. After all, many of us just rationalized an iMac 27" minus the computer + keyboard + mouse for about $2K... which will likely sit in one spot for the life of that device. Only $1K more for a 100" screen anywhere we travel??? Sign me up!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bluespark and EllZ89
I need to do a deeper dive into this. At home I have 2x LG 5K monitor connected to the 16" laptop, but I spend 200+ days per year on the road, and sometimes it sure would be nice to have the extra screen space without having to try to travel each day carrying actual monitors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HobeSoundDarryl
HobeSoundDarryl said:
No. Just because a commercial shows someone using something doesn't define ALL the ways something can be used. I've seen beer commercials of men on mountains, so beer is only for mountain climbers? I've seen car commercials of people driving down the Pacific Coast Highway, so cars are only for people who live on the California coast? I've seen iPhone commercials where iPhone is being used as a camera to shoot someone running down a street... so iPhone is only for action movie making?

The video for this product was just an example... ONE example. I took it to imply that someone even in cramped quarters like a van could have a 100" virtual screen ("canvas"). That commercial could have easily been a non-nomad, white collar businessperson in a cramped airplane seat using that same 100" screen... so this product is only for airplane travelers? That commercial could have easily been average Joe/Jill sitting in an uber/lyft... so this product is only for people who use cabs/rides? Coffee shop user... so only for coffee drinkers? Etc.

I suspect the target market is well beyond digital nomad, van lifers.

To me, this appears to be a product for anyone who needs a bigger screen ANYWHERE. It doesn't replace all physical screens as there will still be needs to collaborate and many people will simply prefer the as is. But in my head, this is a new kind of laptop not limited to up to a 16" screen and not require folding screens (and the accompanying weight). Anyone using laptops who wish they had more screen RE to do whatever they do, could opt for VR screens to have any amount of screen that serves whatever they are trying to do.

Whether this is good enough for such applications or not, I don't know yet. But I suspect it will be impressive in person. Since Apple has the reputation of not being first, but doing something BEST, I expect their cut at this to be better than anything else out there. If this looks anything like as good as implied in this commercial, I can only imagine what Apple's virtual Mac screens would look like (on much better computing guts and much higher resolution screens). I hope it is amazing as I myself am often frustrated trying to do my kind of computing work on a cramped 16" screen when on the road... and I don't want to lug around additional physical screens to add more screen RE the "old fashioned" way.

If Apple's new product can do this ONE thing really well, that's easily enough for me to rationalize even $3K. After all, many of us just rationalized an iMac 27" minus the computer + keyboard + mouse for about $2K... which will likely sit in one spot for the life of that device. Only $1K more for a 100" screen anywhere we travel??? Sign me up!
Click to expand...

This.

I dont always go into the office and when i dont I only have one screen (the MBP screen). I dont have the space, nor do i want to permanently have two big screens set up at home. I regularly go and work either at the library or in a starbucks during the day and these would be ideal. Ive recently been looking at portable screens for my MBP as going back to one screen is challenging when your used to multiple ones. If these came in a 14" setup they would have my money instantly.
 
Almost the same here. I opted for 40" Ultra-Wide for my office desktop. I love the expansive screen RE. I almost can't believe how much more can get done with about 2X the width of my old iMac 27".

However, I have many times where I have to hit the road, which then means using a 16" screen. That feels insane. Suddenly my kind of computing has all this window switching, mission controlling, etc not necessary with the "usual" screen. Nevertheless, I have near ZERO interest in adding multiple portable (physical) screens to a laptop bag. It's heavy enough as is.

So this idea of MAYBE being able to have what might be thought of as the bottom half of a small MBpro and Goggles for the "lid", the latter of which delivering ANY size screen on which to work vs. only 16" MAX is VERY APPEALING to me: a brand new kind of laptop computer.

Too many times, I've been on a long flight hoping to get some work done and the space in a Coach seat just didn't support fully opening up a regular laptop. If Goggles work as implied, it can basically remove up to everyone else from that plane and/or make it seem I'm at the office using the primary screen... or two of them.

Fingers crossed this is delivered soon. That example shared is an actual product, leaning on only 1080p-based lenses and a snapdragon chip. 4K lenses and Mx computing guts in Apple's cut at it seem destined to do that much better.
 
Last edited:
HobeSoundDarryl said:
Maybe it senses which one is getting users current attention and jacks up that one.

In a reality setup, the ones further from our eyes might encourage us to move closer to see more detail. Maybe this could do that dynamically?

We’ll see… or not see… soon.
Click to expand...
Appears to do a lot of this. There's a three finger swipe on the trackpad to bring the virtual displays closer or farther away, so when you want detail or to "lean in" you just swipe and the area you were looking at gets "close" and therefore uses more of the available resolution. Definitely will be even better in the future when there are 4k, 8k and beyond screens in headsets, but even this would not be a bad start. at this point I'd be hard pressed to buy another laptop with screen when I need to update in a couple years, I've been waiting for HMD tech to be ready for decades and it finally seems like it's getting there!
 
  • Like
Reactions: HobeSoundDarryl
Let's push that idea a little further. Swipe could be a way but how about automate it? Apparently the device watches where our eyes are looking. If so, maybe just looking at one of several virtual screens brings that screen closer.

Imagine a classic stock trader setup of maybe 16 screens in a 4 X 4 layout. Stock trader can only look at any one screen at a time. So he looks at screen (row) 1, (column) 3. From his seat, it may be a bit hard to see the detail on that screen, so he leans in or moves closer to that one for a sharper view. Then, he wants to look at screen 3,4. Same. Maybe he shifts a bit to get a little closer to that screen.

Virtualize that 4X4 grid. Eyes look at screen 1,3 and that screen perhaps seems to move towards user and/or the rest seem to move a bit back. Eyes shift their attention to screen 3,4 and the same: 1,3 moves back and 3,4 moves forward. Instead of stock trader moving physically to get a bit closer for a sharper view, maybe the virtual screens float closer/further based on which one has the attention.

We all kind of do this now with manual actions. With several windows open, some seem behind others and one is pulled up front for our current attention. When we want to see one that is behind, we click to bring it forward to see the whole window. Conceptually we could have someone doing the clicking for us or with verbal commands if we had no use of our arms. What if Goggles simply lets our eyes do the "show me this one" task by where they look?

Right now, I type this on a simple ultra-wide screen. This MacRumors in browser window has my attention. To the left is Mail and in my peripheral vision, it looks a bit blurred because my focus is here. To my right is some unused desktop, also looking blurred because I have this screen centered. However, if I look at Mail or Desktop, they then have my immediate focus and this screen may look a bit blurred. Look back again, and it regains my focus.

No swipe necessary. Just look and ye shall see. Look elsewhere and elsewhere becomes main point of focus. Almost magical! I can almost visualize an Apple commercial for this virtual desktop, magical canvas, unlimited view or whatever they may call it.
 
Last edited:
stevemr123 said:
The display's app is made in a way that it enables scaled HiDPI (pixel doubled) resolutions that match the GUI size with the 16" MBP - so no mismatching sizes, small fonts or horrible non-native resolutions. The displays have a PPI of 188 so scaled HiDPI resolutions look fine (of course can't beat the MBP's built in screen's pixel density). This and the added brightness synchronization with the built-in display (adjusts the hardware panel backlight) using the native brightness keys and the auto-arrangement just make this a rather nice, integrated solution. Here's a video about how the scaling works (at 4:30):

Click to expand...
It’s not only about downscaling. It’s about creating virtual pixels with several physical pixels. This only works well when you can create each virtual pixel with four physical pixels (2 pixels x 2 pixels) or 3x3 or 4x4 etc.

What this app does is create a virtual pixel by fractional physical pixels (to match the font size on the MacBook’s screen to the font size of the external displays). The Mac screen uses a virtual pixel made with 2 x 2 physical pixels. The external monitors would have to use fractional physical pixels for each virtual pixel because their native pixel density is much lower than the MacBook’s screen.

Some people aren’t too sensitive to this, but other are very sensitive. I refuse to buy 4K 27” monitors and downscale them to 1440p because the fonts look blurry to me due to each virtual pixel made up by fractional physical pixels. Instead I buy 5K monitors and use the HiDPI mode (2 x 2 physical pixels to build a virtual pixel), which creates a high resolution experience with the screen elements and fonts of the same size as in 1440p resolution but with 4 times as high pixel density. For the display size of 15” -16”, the correct resolution is 4K with the 2 x 2 physical pixels in HiDPI mode, which makes screen elements and fonts look like under 1080p but with four times as high pixel density than the native 1080p resolution on this size screen.
 
Last edited:
sirozha said:
It’s not only about downscaling. It’s about creating virtual pixels with several physical pixels. This only works well when you can create each virtual pixel with four physical pixels (2 pixels x 2 pixels) or 3x3 or 4x4 etc.

What this app does is create a virtual pixel by fractional physical pixels (to match the font size on the MacBook’s screen to the font size of the external displays). The Mac screen uses a virtual pixel made with 2 x 2 physical pixels. The external monitors would have to use fractional physical pixels for each virtual pixel because their native pixel density is much lower than the MacBook’s screen.

Some people aren’t too sensitive to this, but other are very sensitive. I refuse to buy 4K 27” monitors and downscale them to 1440p because the fonts look blurry to me due to each virtual pixel made up by fractional physical pixels. Instead I buy 5K monitors and use the HiDPI mode (2 x 2 physical pixels to build a virtual pixel), which creates a high resolution experience with the screen elements and fonts of the same size as in 1440p resolution but with 4 times as high pixel density. For the display size of 15” -16”, the correct resolution is 4K with the 2 x 2 physical pixels in HiDPI mode, which makes screen elements and fonts look like under 1080p but with four times as high pixel density than the native 1080p resolution on this size screen.
Click to expand...

Right, I understand that (see this for details: https://github.com/waydabber/BetterDisplay/wiki/MacOS-scaling,-HiDPI,-LoDPI-explanation) and I am glad I find someone else (you) who understands how this works as there is much confusion on the topic. :)

For some use cases it might be critical that all framebuffer pixels are shown fully and exactly matched to physical pixels - you need a display with a very specific PPI for that so that at default HiDPI scale the GUI does not look too small or large. Apple's displays are such but basically no other third party display is like that on the market with some rare exceptions (the reason is simple: after many years of trying to make it right, Windows now has a resolution independent - mostly vector based - UI with modern apps so PPI and GUI size are not that closely linked anymore for PC users).

Most users both with third party external displays but also built-in displays use scaled resolutions (even I do both on my MBP and iMac despite the fact that I understand the technicalities and know that I get a scaled result with some averaging and image enhancing stuff taking away from the clarity). So I think for 95% of the users these Monduo displays are just great. Also, take into account that you simply don't have 16:10 panels on the market that would give the same PPI as the 16" MBP anyway so the entire question is rather theoretical as there is no real alternative. :)
 
Last edited:
stevemr123 said:
Right, I understand that (see this for details: https://github.com/waydabber/BetterDisplay/wiki/MacOS-scaling,-HiDPI,-LoDPI-explanation) and I am glad I find someone else (you) who understands how this works as there is much confusion on the topic. :)

For some use cases it might be critical that all framebuffer pixels are shown fully and exactly matched to physical pixels - you need a display with a very specific PPI for that so that at default HiDPI scale the GUI does not look too small or large. Apple's displays are such but basically no other third party display is like that on the market with some rare exceptions (the reason is that with Windows you have a properly scalable - vector based - UI with modern apps, so it's just not an issue - Apple unfortunately navigated itself into a corner when they did the quick transition to Retina by using a raster scaling method but this is also beneficial for them as if you want perfect results, you need to buy their - rather pricey - displays... :)).

Most users both with third party external displays but also built-in displays use scaled resolutions (even I do both on my MBP and iMac despite the fact that I understand the technicalities and know that I get a scaled result with some averaging and image enhancing stuff taking away from the clarity). So I think for 95% of the users these Monduo displays are just great. Also, take into account that you simply don't have 16:10 panels on the market that would give the same PPI as the 16" MBP anyway so the entire question is rather theoretical as there is no real alternative. :)
Click to expand...
I posted a link to a 4K display on 15” form factor. It will scale down perfectly to the same size screen elements and fonts as the size they would have on a 1080p display but at four-times higher pixel density, providing a great image clarity. The size of the screen elements in macOS under the 1080p resolution on a 15” -16” display is the perfect size for fonts.

Whether or not the font size would match the font size on the MacBook’s built-in display is immaterial. No one needs the fonts to be exactly the same size - as long as they are reasonably sized (not too small or too large). Matching the font sizes is the solution in search of a problem. The actual problem that needs to be solved here is to have sharp and well defined fonts displayed at a retina resolution with a reasonable size, which 15” -16” 4K displays downscaled to HiDPI 1080p provide fantastically well.

I personally made a mistake myself by buying a 1440p 15” display by the same company on AliExpress I linked to. The display is of a very high quality, comes with high-quality accessories, case, sleeve, etc. It’s a 120Hz display with a great response time and is probably really great for gaming on the go. The colors are great. The price was under $250. But the resolution of 1440p on this size display is the wrong resolution for using the display for text. I have to downscale this display to HiDPI 720p, and then the fonts look amazing but are a little bigger than I would want them to be, plus a lot of screen real estate is wasted when downscaling to 720p on a 15” display. I should have paid an extra $100 and get a 15” 4K display by the same company.

That’s all I was trying to say here. If you want a perfect travel-size display in the 15”-16” size for working with text, get a 4K display (not a 1440p display) and use the HiDPI 1080p resolution mode in macOS.
 
Last edited:
I could see the benefit of this during audio or video remote recording sessions. There is no question that portable displays increase productivity on the go just like stationary setups do.

My biggest complaint about this setup is the total reliance on the MBP's hinges... a part that does not have the best track record over the last 20+ years (starting with the PowerBook Titanium).

I'd argue that the AR/VR solution is still either priced well beyond or isn't ready for primetime, but concede that it eventually will supplant the concept of multiple monitors.
 
I'm very interested in this. I travel a fair amount and love the idea of using this to turn my hotel desk into something resembling a true home office. I also frequently attend hearings and other meetings where I need a "war room" setup that is also reasonably portable. This seems to fit the bill for all of those things.

The one thing that is holding me back is the fact that this seems to be compatible only with 16" computers. Although that's what I have currently, I might decide to pick up the rumored 15" MacBook Air or something else in the future. If I knew this would still work with a machine like that (even though the computer display itself would be smaller than the sides in that scenario), I would buy it now.
 
bluespark said:
I'm very interested in this. I travel a fair amount and love the idea of using this to turn my hotel desk into something resembling a true home office. I also frequently attend hearings and other meetings where I need a "war room" setup that is also reasonably portable. This seems to fit the bill for all of those things.

The one thing that is holding me back is the fact that this seems to be compatible only with 16" computers. Although that's what I have currently, I might decide to pick up the rumored 15" MacBook Air or something else in the future. If I knew this would still work with a machine like that (even though the computer display itself would be smaller than the sides in that scenario), I would buy it now.
Click to expand...
The MacBook Air can only accept one external display.
 
chucker23n1 said:
The displays accept USB for video input, so they presumably use a DisplayLink-like protocol to act as their own display controllers.
Click to expand...
No, it has nothing to do with DisplayLink. Nothing. You CAN use DisplayLink if you put a DisplayLink adapter in between your MacBook Air and the monitor. USB ports in these displays use USB Display Port Alternate mode, which has NOTHING to do with DisplayLink.

If you want to use a DisplayLink adapter, then you can use both external displays.
 
The display accepts native DisplayPort over USB-C (or HDMI), does not use built-in DisplayLink or similar tech. It is of course possible to use a DisplayLink dongle with one of the displays, but that will prevent the Monduo app's scaling and hardware backlight control features from working and limits refresh rate as well. The assembly is somewhat flexible (allows for some extension) so it can be attached to notebooks of varying sizes, exact 16" is not a requirement - but the current model is oversized for a 14" MBP (asked Monduo about it, the 14" version is in the works, I need to be patient... :)).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back