What display sizes do you like?

faust

macrumors 6502
Sep 11, 2007
321
120
Los Angeles, CA
I can't really handle using a laptop without a 15" or higher display, and I like 27" or above for the gaming computer I built.
 

skaertus

macrumors 68040
Feb 23, 2009
3,350
460
Brazil
I have a 32-inch 4K display which I feel is very big but it also provides an unparalleled level of productivity (but it required some getting used to due to its size). I use it at 125% scale.

I also have a 27-inch display with a 2560x1440 resolution which is great for productivity as well.

I have a 15.6-inch laptop with a 3840x2160 resolution which I use scaled to 150% which provides great productivity for a laptop. I prefer a 16:9 screen on these larger displays as it is better for side-by-side multitasking. I felt the screen of my 15.4-inch MacBook Pro was too tall, and more suitable for performing one task at a time (not my kind of use).

The laptop which I use on a daily basis has a 1920x1080 14-inch screen, which is good and I think the smallest bearable size for side-by-side multitasking.

And I have two MacBooks with a 13.3-inch retina display and 2560. They are fine, but I think that the extra width of the 16:9 14-inch provides more room for multitasking (while keeping the same height as the 16:10 13.3-inch).
 
  • Like
Reactions: retta283

retta283

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Jun 8, 2018
1,563
1,270
Kingman, AZ
I have a 32-inch 4K display which I feel is very big but it also provides an unparalleled level of productivity (but it required some getting used to due to its size). I use it at 125% scale.

I also have a 27-inch display with a 2560x1440 resolution which is great for productivity as well.

I have a 15.6-inch laptop with a 3840x2160 resolution which I use scaled to 150% which provides great productivity for a laptop. I prefer a 16:9 screen on these larger displays as it is better for side-by-side multitasking. I felt the screen of my 15.4-inch MacBook Pro was too tall, and more suitable for performing one task at a time (not my kind of use).

The laptop which I use on a daily basis has a 1920x1080 14-inch screen, which is good and I think the smallest bearable size for side-by-side multitasking.

And I have two MacBooks with a 13.3-inch retina display and 2560. They are fine, but I think that the extra width of the 16:9 14-inch provides more room for multitasking (while keeping the same height as the 16:10 13.3-inch).
This is one of the reasons that Apple switching to 16:9 on the iMacs did not turn me off completely, they made them larger in order to retain the same (or better for the 27) height as the earlier 16:10 models.
 

Reflej0

macrumors member
Jan 3, 2020
78
26
Hi, I tried a lot of settings,
  • 15" (1366x768)
  • 17" (1440x960)
  • 27" (2560x1440)
  • 32" (1920x1080)
And some, but those configurations are the ones that I lived with, one could say more time and simultaneously.
I think that for a notebook screen the typical measures of 13 ", 15" or 17 "are fine, and under 13" I find myself very small.
And for PC definitely 27 "or 32" is a lot to the point that you should already get away from the desk enough to take care of your view haha.
With respect to the resolutions, the jump between each of them is remarkable, from 1080p to 1440p as well, but you have to be careful with the rescued ones of each operating system, in Windows it is easy to rescale, in Linux you can but it is a bit more complicated and In OS X I still haven't found a way to do it.
 

compwiz1202

macrumors 6502a
May 20, 2010
785
207
Lenovo Ideapad 17+ 1080p right now. Think it was a Dell 17" before that. They both lasted a bit, so I don't even remember what I used on a desktop. It may have been a CRT :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: maxjohnson2

maxjohnson2

macrumors 6502
Mar 24, 2017
334
207
I'm using a 32" 1440p IPS monitor. I actually downgraded from a 4K monitor, mainly due to fonts being so small in some programs. Now that I'm used to 32", it's really hard to settle for anything smaller.
 

xraydoc

macrumors demi-god
Oct 9, 2005
7,502
1,701
192.168.1.1
I have 3 main machines: one PC with a 32" Dell 4K + two 24" (1920x1200) in portrait, one with two 27" WQHD, and one with an old Dell 30" (2560x1600) + two 22" (1920x1080) in portrait.

The 32" at 4K is the sweet spot.
 

MyopicPaideia

macrumors 68000
Mar 19, 2011
1,868
619
Trollhättan, Sweden
Using a 45" 4K panel at work at 100% with a 2012 Quad Core i7 Mac mini. At home I have a 27" 5K iMac scaled to 4K (SwitchResX), and a dual 28" 4K setup on a Raspberry Pi 4 scaled to 125% I plan on installing Manjaro KDE Plasma on. Most productive on the Raspberry pi 4! iMac is for photo and video edit nowadays. Trying to migrate away from macOS to Linux for personal use.
 

MultiFinder17

macrumors 68020
Jan 8, 2008
2,063
755
Tampa, Florida
For desktops, I usually like something in the 20”-23” range. At home, my Mac Pro has a 23” Cinema Display and a 23” Dell attaches to it. In my classroom, I have a 2010 21” iMac with a 20” Cinema Display on it. I really wouldn’t want much bigger than that, especially in the classroom. I need room on my desk for other stuff, and I need to be able to see over the screen to see the kiddos :p

As far as laptops go, the smaller the better. I get laptops to be portable, and have always used the smallest ones I could get my hands on. A 12” PowerBook served me well all through college, and was replaced by a 13” Air, which in turn was replaced by an 11” Air. I use a 13” white MacBook for school, as it’s cheap and expandable, while my home laptop is a 2015 11” Air. If I need a bigger screen, I can just plug one in.
 

retta283

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Jun 8, 2018
1,563
1,270
Kingman, AZ
For desktops, I usually like something in the 20”-23” range. At home, my Mac Pro has a 23” Cinema Display and a 23” Dell attaches to it. In my classroom, I have a 2010 21” iMac with a 20” Cinema Display on it. I really wouldn’t want much bigger than that, especially in the classroom. I need room on my desk for other stuff, and I need to be able to see over the screen to see the kiddos :p

As far as laptops go, the smaller the better. I get laptops to be portable, and have always used the smallest ones I could get my hands on. A 12” PowerBook served me well all through college, and was replaced by a 13” Air, which in turn was replaced by an 11” Air. I use a 13” white MacBook for school, as it’s cheap and expandable, while my home laptop is a 2015 11” Air. If I need a bigger screen, I can just plug one in.
Interesting to see someone else using those sizes, I actually overall prefer displays in that size too. 24" is really ideal, but 27" is about my limit for 16:9 due to width.

If I could find two good 23" Cinema Displays, I think a dual 23" setup would be the sweet spot for work, and maybe a 24" iMac for home. 20" is a nice size too, I like my 20" iMacs and don't really feel cramped when I return to them.

I found the jump from 17" to 20" on the iMac to be a huge increase, it really opened everything up. By comparison the jump from 20" to 23/24 was not as large. 17" is too small for me now, but 20" or above is doable. Again, I think 24" is the sweet spot, as these smaller screens fit better on my desk and also into my areas of focus, I don't have to move around as much to get to content.

I can certainly understand why some people use 27" or larger, but for me I've found that it's a bit much. I've been zooming in a lot since I got my 27" iMac, it's not nearly as easy to read for me without getting close to the screen.