Suitable new screen for late 2009 Mac Mini?

[CooperBox]

I've just been given a late 2009 Mac Mini3,1 and now wish to buy a new screen for it. Getting a little confused on all the different models I've seen and their specs.
Could anyone please suggest a new suitable make/model. Would a 2560 x 1600 pixel model be overkill, or should I go with a 1920 x 1200 pixel model? Think I'd prefer a 24" rather than a 27" screen as text on the latter may be more difficult to read for my ageing eyes. The Mini will mainly be used for internet use, YTube videos, and occasional photo editing, with no interest in gaming.
Any advice appreciated.

 

[joevt]

Mac mini (Early 2009) has a Mini DisplayPort output so you can connect any modern display to it. The resolution will be limited to 2560x1600 60Hz (I don't know if 4K 30Hz is possible, maybe with a pixel clock patch).

24" 1080p or 1200p or 30" 1440p or 1600p (non retina) displays would be the best options if you like larger text.

 

[Micky Do]

https://support.apple.com/kb/sp505?locale=en_NZ

I have an early 2009 Mac Mini, which I used with a monitor I got in 2005 until about 2016. Had to get an adapter to run it. I replaced that with a 22 inch Samsung monitor I picked up on sale at a tech supplies store, and ran it using the DVI adapter that came with the Mini.

No need for anything special. Just something off the shelf, with an adapter if necessary. If you are unsure it is easy enough to take the Mini to a store, where a sales assistant should be able to sort you out.

 

[CooperBox]

Ok, thanks for the advice. Appreciated!

 

[Amethyst1]

(I don't know if 4K 30Hz is possible, maybe with a pixel clock patch).

It's possible out of the box - same goes for the 320M in the 2010 Mini/MBA/MBP13. I haven't tried increasing the refresh rate to see where the actual pixel clock limit is yet though.

@CooperBox - if you want larger text, I'd second the 24" 1920×1200 recommendation. Using this at work. Just stay away from 16:9 screens with a resolution lower than 2560×1440 as they're total cr@p for anything besides movies. And make sure to get an IPS panel for the much better viewing angles and colour reproduction.

 

[CooperBox]

It's possible out of the box - same goes for the 320M in the 2010 Mini/MBA/MBP13. I haven't tried increasing the refresh rate to see where the actual pixel clock limit is yet though.

@CooperBox - if you want larger text, I'd second the 24" 1920×1200 recommendation. Using this at work. Just stay away from 16:9 screens with a resolution lower than 2560×1440 as they're total cr@p for anything besides movies. And make sure to get an IPS panel for the much better viewing angles and colour reproduction.

Excellent additional advice. Thanks!

 

[CooperBox]

It's possible out of the box - same goes for the 320M in the 2010 Mini/MBA/MBP13. I haven't tried increasing the refresh rate to see where the actual pixel clock limit is yet though.

@CooperBox - if you want larger text, I'd second the 24" 1920×1200 recommendation. Using this at work. Just stay away from 16:9 screens with a resolution lower than 2560×1440 as they're total cr@p for anything besides movies. And make sure to get an IPS panel for the much better viewing angles and colour reproduction.

Just re-reading your post, do I understand that if to be used mainly for internet use and text editing that a 24" 16:9 screen with a resolution of 1920×1200 is not particularly suitable? i.e. most 24" screens I've seen are in fact 16:9 1920×1200.
Pls excuse my ignorance.....

 

[joevt]

Just re-reading your post, do I understand that if to be used mainly for internet use and text editing that a 24" 16:9 screen with a resolution of 1920×1200 is not particularly suitable? i.e. most 24" screens I've seen are in fact 16:9 1920×1200.
Pls excuse my ignorance.....

1920x1200 is a 16:10 aspect ratio - more vertical pixels.
1920x1080 is a 16:9 aspect ratio (Full HD like for TV and movies).

I suppose if they are both 24 inch then the pixels of the 16:9 will be slightly larger (very slightly)? But the more pixels of the 16:10 is more useful.

We can do some math:

h = height in pixels
w = width in pixels
d = diagonal length in inches
x = inches per pixel

(h * x)^2 + (w * x)^2 = d^2
h^2 * x^2 + w^2 * x^2 = d^2
(h^2 + w^2) * x^2 = d^2
√(h^2 + w^2) * x = d
x = d / √(h^2 + w^2)

for 1920x1080, 24 inch = 0.01089 inches per pixel (91.7878 pixels per inch)
for 1920x1200, 24 inch = 0.01060 inches per pixel (94.3398 pixels per inch)

The pixels for 1920x1080 are 1.0278 time larger for each dimension or 1.0564 times larger in area.

 

[Amethyst1]

Just re-reading your post, do I understand that if to be used mainly for internet use and text editing that a 24" 16:9 screen with a resolution of 1920×1200 is not particularly suitable? i.e. most 24" screens I've seen are in fact 16:9 1920×1200.
Pls excuse my ignorance.....

I meant that a 24" 1920x1200 is a lot more useful than a 24" 1920x1080. Those additional pixels really come in handy. Sorry if I wasn't being clear.