Why do ARM Mac’s suck with external monitors?

[mr_roboto]

The problem started when MacOS stopped supporting text Anti-aliasing few years ago.

This is completely untrue. I screenshotted the text "MacOS stopped..." on my M1 MBP and opened it in an image editor so I could blow it up. As you can see, this is antialiased rendering.

Windows has ClearType technology, which is more superior and enabled on by default.

Microsoft ClearType - Typography

ClearType is a software technology developed by Microsoft that improves the readability of text on existing LCDs, such as laptop screens, Pocket PC screens, and flat panel monitors.

docs.microsoft.com

On Mac there is no solution to the problem except going for ultra high resolution displays (5K) to overcome the need of text sharping technologies.

The only thing Apple stopped supporting is subpixel AA, which is what Microsoft markets as Cleartype. Subpixel / Cleartype is not a clean win. There are downsides to the trick it's based on, which is why Apple stopped using it.

The trick is built on the fact that RGB LCD pixels are composed of three subpixels, one each for R G and B, and typically these are three vertical stripes side-by-side.

Subpixel AA treats these stripes as individual pixel elements, raising the effective resolution by a factor of 3 (only in the horizontal dimension, of course). But the cost is that you'll generate off-color pixels at the edges of glyphs. These are not as visible as you might think, given adequate software massaging and sufficiently thick strokes (it looks real bad for thin elements), but there's always a little bit of weird color fringing going on.

There's failure modes. LCD manufacturers differ on whether subpixels are RGB or BGR order, and if you rasterize for the wrong order the result can look really awful. You can also run into severe problems in circumstances where displays are rotated.

There's also a scaling issue - if you ever dynamically blow up or shrink an area of the display without re-rasterizing everything, subpixel AA looks nasty. Guess what Apple does during pinch-to-zoom?

 

[theorist9]

There's failure modes. LCD manufacturers differ on whether subpixels are RGB or BGR order, and if you rasterize for the wrong order the result can look really awful. You can also run into severe problems in circumstances where displays are rotated.

There's also a scaling issue - if you ever dynamically blow up or shrink an area of the display without re-rasterizing everything, subpixel AA looks nasty. Guess what Apple does during pinch-to-zoom?

I can't speak to the scaling issue (I've not seen it), but the other issues seem to be easily addressable:

Rotation: MacOS knows when a display is rotated, and can simply turn off subpixel AA when that happens. I've used my 4k Dell in portrait mode, and never noticed any issues, so that could be what they did (alternately, perhaps they implemented subpixel AA vertically insteaad of horizontally; it seems that would still give clarity benefits).

Subpixel ordering: MacOS has always recognized the brands and model nos. of all my aftermarket external displays, so when it's able to do so it could just check a database to determine the layout.* And for the minority it doesn't recognize, or does recognize but determines it has a layout for which its subpixel rendering wouldn't work (BGR) or wouldn't work well (the triangular RGB layout in QD-OLED), it could simply default to turning subpixel AA off. That would still leave working subpixel AA for the overwhelming majority of desktop monitors.

[*Or, if possible, and even better, MacOS could query the display to get info. on the layout. E.g., for my Dell 4k, System Profiler says "Framebuffer Depth: 30-Bit Color (ARGB2101010)". Did it get that info. by querying my display, and does "ARGB" tell MacOS that it's an RGB layout?]

Given the availability of these simple solutions, I think the real reason that Apple abandoned subpixel AA isn't so much because of implementation challenges (after all, they implemented it quite well across many OS's), but rather because of a lack of interest in continuing to make sub-Retina (read: non-Apple) displays look good on MacOS.

Companies do this all the time when they want to remove a feature: They say it's to "improve user experience". Sometimes that's true, but sometimes it's not, and the real reason they're doing it is financial.

I'd be more inclined to give Apple a pass on this if consumer-priced Retina external monitors (i.e., externals that look good on MacOS without subpixel AA) existed, but they don't.

 

[galad]

One of the main reason of the removal of subpixel AA is that it's a pain to do it right on a translucent background, the subpixel AA algorithm needs to know exactly on what background is compositing the text, this means an additional draw pass, or some hacks. macOS versions before 10.14 were full of text that switched back to a simpler AA when animating, and then back to subpixel AA. Or text with subpixel AA that were rendered without knowing the background, and looked horrible.

Anyway, the fact that most Mac had a built-in Retina display made the removal of this complexity a simpler choice.

 

[theorist9]

One of the main reason of the removal of subpixel AA is that it's a pain to do it right on a translucent background, the subpixel AA algorithm needs to know exactly on what background is compositing the text, this means an additional draw pass, or some hacks. macOS versions before 10.14 were full of text that switched back to a simpler AA when animating, and then back to subpixel AA. Or text with subpixel AA that were rendered without knowing the background, and looked horrible.

Interesting, I wasn't aware of that. The reason is that I only run my Macs with Increase Contrast set to ON which, in addition to ameliorating the dark-gray-text-on-a-light-gray-background, also defeats transparency. I do this because, while I value aesthetics, I value readable text more (function over form).

So the obvious solution for the issue you raise is to only implement subpixel AA with Increase Contrast ON, i.e., Apple could have kept it as an Accessibility feature for those who prize sharp text.

Anyway, the fact that most Mac had a built-in Retina display made the removal of this complexity a simpler choice.

This leaves out every Mac laptop owner who wants to plug their Mac into an external display when using it at home, unless they want to spring for a $1500+ Retina external.

 

[Ethosik]

Could be HDMI issues. I never experience any scaling issues but I 1. Never use HDMI and 2. Never connect more monitors than officially supported (I saw people mention 3 monitors on a Mac mini when it officially only supports two). And this is from someone that operates even my laptop 99% clamshell with external monitors. Always using non apple monitors.

 

[pshufd]

Could be HDMI issues. I never experience any scaling issues but I 1. Never use HDMI and 2. Never connect more monitors than officially supported (I saw people mention 3 monitors on a Mac mini when it officially only supports two). And this is from someone that operates even my laptop 99% clamshell with external monitors. Always using non apple monitors.

DisplayPort is a third-party standard that's been around for at least ten years and is supported on Windows and macOS. It runs fine on my system except for fuzzy fonts with some scaled resolutions. I am going to try a few experiments to try to fix the issues. I've run four monitors off my M1 mini with no problems other than fonts in scaled resolutions.

 

[leman]

This leaves out every Mac laptop owner who wants to plug their Mac into an external display when using it at home, unless they want to spring for a $1500+ Retina external.

4K displays are the standard these days. You only have a problem if you for some reason really insist on using one of the lower-res displays.

 

[theorist9]

4K displays are the standard these days. You only have a problem if you for some reason really insist on using one of the lower-res displays.

I have what's considered one of the best 27" 4k displays, and was very happy with it up through High Sierra. But when I tried Mojave, I found text no longer had that really nice sharpness, and thus reverted to High Sierra. I tried Catalina as well, and had the same problem.

So I stuck with High Sierra until I was able to upgrade to a 27" 5k 2019 iMac, which provided the Retina display needed for text to be really crisp without subpixel AA. Right now I'm running the two displays side-by-side, with the 5k as my main montor and the 4k as one of my two side monitors. The 4k works fine in that role, where I look at it intermittently, but it would give me eye fatigue to use it as my main monitor.

 

[10001110101]

I was shopping for new external monitors, and I managed to get an amazing discount / deal on a brand new Dell Ultrasharp display, only to be warned not to use it with Mac’s as it has terrible scaling issues.

I have the same problems with my current Samsung 4K display as the letters are small as hell, and I basically have to change the resolution in Mac OS.

So why are ARM Mac’s terrible with external monitors?

@Zest28

Please watch this video and read this article for a very good explanation. If I am understanding your concern correctly, as I had the same, this information could help you.

Mac external displays for designers and developers

If you’re considering an external display for your Mac, there’s a few important decisions to make. Apple doesn’t sell external displays any more, so you can’t just default to their wisdom. That’s an issue, because not all displays are well suited for Macs.

bjango.com

I chose a BenQ 34” wide monitor based on this information and am satisfied with scaling and performance.


My best,


Mike

 

[leman]

I have what's considered one of the best 27" 4k displays, and was very happy with it up through High Sierra. But when I tried Mojave, I found text no longer had that really nice sharpness, and thus reverted to High Sierra. I tried Catalina as well, and had the same problem.

So I stuck with High Sierra until I was able to upgrade to a 27" 5k 2019 iMac, which provided the Retina display needed for text to be really crisp without subpixel AA. Right now I'm running the two displays side-by-side, with the 5k as my main montor and the 4k as one of my two side monitors. The 4k works fine in that role, where I look at it intermittently, but it would give me eye fatigue to use it as my main monitor.

Ah yes, I think we already talked about this. I suppose be some subjective variation to this. Personally, current macOS looks good for me on a 4K/32“ display. I’m much more sensitive to colors and contrast…

Would be curious to see how much of the population shares your experience. Folks in my office haven’t been complaining yet…

 

[theorist9]

Ah yes, I think we already talked about this. I suppose be some subjective variation to this. Personally, current macOS looks good for me on a 4K/32“ display. I’m much more sensitive to colors and contrast…

Would be curious to see how much of the population shares your experience. Folks in my office haven’t been complaining yet…

There's certainly individual variation. I've always been very sensitive to sharpness (any my close vision is pretty good -- I can read the microprinting on US currency).

I remember when I was doing a lot of work in Terminal on my G5 running Tiger and a 106 ppi monitor, I spent a lot of time playing with font faces and sizes until I found one that was optimally readable and didn't have that edge blur (IIRC, it was Monaco 13 with anti-aliasing turned off). I definitely preferred sharp and jagged to blurry and smooth. Others perfer the opposite.

 

[YMark]

Thanks - that chart seems to suggest 34 3440 x 1440 would be ok no?

Yes (for non-Retina). It has the same ppi as Apple's pre-retina monitors (Thunderbolt Display, pre-retina iMac), 109 ppi.

Would an M2 MacBook Air be compatible with a 34" 3440 x 1440 as well? Must use Thunderbolt, correct?

@Zest28

Please watch this video and read this article for a very good explanation. If I am understanding your concern correctly, as I had the same, this information could help you.

Mac external displays for designers and developers

If you’re considering an external display for your Mac, there’s a few important decisions to make. Apple doesn’t sell external displays any more, so you can’t just default to their wisdom. That’s an issue, because not all displays are well suited for Macs.

bjango.com

I chose a BenQ 34” wide monitor based on this information and am satisfied with scaling and performance.


My best,


Mike

What is the resolution for the BenQ. Connected via Thunderbolt?

 

[Gudi]

Everybody! Stop the ignorant entitlement. For many many years Apple tried to create a truly Resolution Independent User Interface. You can read everything about these fruitless efforts in John Siracusa's old OS X reviews. It never worked flawlessly, because it's impossible for a line to look sharp at any arbitrary pixel density. Exact pixel doubling (@2x) and tripling (@3x) also known as Retina and Super Retina was, is and remains the only workable solution. That is if what you want to achieve is nothing less than perfection!

Windows only looks better on some displays, because Windows always looks fuzzy and people don't notice small differences in fuzziness. macOS on Retina displays looks crisp, offers five equally brilliant scaling options and switches between them on the fly. This service is absolutely bonkers and in no way diminished, because some cheap trashy non-Retina display doesn't look like Retina. It's physically impossible to draw a perfect macOS user interface on 160ppi displays and there is no reason for Apple to polish the turd. Just get the right display!

 

[PauloSera]

I was shopping for new external monitors, and I managed to get an amazing discount / deal on a brand new Dell Ultrasharp display, only to be warned not to use it with Mac’s as it has terrible scaling issues.

I have the same problems with my current Samsung 4K display as the letters are small as hell, and I basically have to change the resolution in Mac OS.

So why are ARM Mac’s terrible with external monitors?

Wrong question. The question is why is the display market so afraid to make high quality displays that will actually work with true 2x scaling? Cost is the generally the reason.

I do not want macOS scaling changed. I want more products like the LG UltraFine monitors released on the market.

 

[Kazgarth]

Everybody! Stop the ignorant entitlement. For many many years Apple tried to create a truly Resolution Independent User Interface. You can read everything about these fruitless efforts in John Siracusa's old OS X reviews. It never worked flawlessly, because it's impossible for a line to look sharp at any arbitrary pixel density. Exact pixel doubling (@2x) and tripling (@3x) also known as Retina and Super Retina was, is and remains the only workable solution. That is if what you want to achieve is nothing less than perfection!

Windows only looks better on some displays, because Windows always looks fuzzy and people don't notice small differences in fuzziness. macOS on Retina displays looks crisp, offers five equally brilliant scaling options and switches between them on the fly. This service is absolutely bonkers and in no way diminished, because some cheap trashy non-Retina display doesn't look like Retina. It's physically impossible to draw a perfect macOS user interface on 160ppi displays and there is no reason for Apple to polish the turd. Just get the right display!

TL;DR

Go spend $2K+ on monitors you peasants. Because font subpixel rendering (which was removed from MacOS) will make any monitor look crisp and clear like Windows ClearType, is not acceptable and trashy alternative to ultra-expensive-elitist-only retina displays.

 

[pshufd]

TL;DR

Go spend $2K+ on monitors you peasants. Because font subpixel rendering (which was removed from MacOS) will make any monitor look crisp and clear like Windows ClearType, is not acceptable and trashy alternative to ultra-expensive-elitist-only retina displays.

I've found that the Mac Studio does a better job on scaled resolutions than the M1 mini. I'm running 3x4k +1xQHD and they all look good. But I have a bigger choice of good fonts on the Studio compared to the mini, especially on the mini HDMI port. There shouldn't be a difference, but there is. And I suspect that it's macOS.

 

[Boil]

I do not want macOS scaling changed. I want more products like the LG UltraFine monitors released on the market.

What I would love to see from LG:

• Dual Ergo Stand
• 27" 5K display (landscape/right)
• 24" 4K display (portrait/left)
• US$1999

 

[Gudi]

Go spend $2K+ on monitors you peasants. Because font subpixel rendering (which was removed from MacOS) will make any monitor look crisp and clear like Windows ClearType, is not acceptable and trashy alternative to ultra-expensive-elitist-only retina displays.

That's why you buy an iMac. 11 million pixels for 11 hundred dollars. 10,000 pixels per dollar and the computer is free in the chin. The ultra expensive kings option is to buy everything separate and still expect to come out cheaper. Windows doesn't give a **** about fonts. They replace every call for Helvetica with Arial, because Bill was too stingy to license the world's most popular font for Windows. With behavior like that everything is ruined long before you even start rendering. But it's much cheaper than doing it right.

 

[tmoerel]

This leaves out every Mac laptop owner who wants to plug their Mac into an external display when using it at home, unless they want to spring for a $1500+ Retina external.

Why? I have a 4k and a 5k2k screen at home. Works perfectly. If you get a very expensive laptop then adding a 4k screen is only relative peanuts.
It is the other way at work. Only HD screens.

 

[theorist9]

Why? I have a 4k and a 5k2k screen at home. Works perfectly. If you get a very expensive laptop then adding a 4k screen is only relative peanuts.
It is the other way at work. Only HD screens.

Go back to the post to which I was responding and you'll understand what I meant. We were discussing the fact that, to get optimum text sharpness with MacOS, you need a Retina dispaly. The poster responded that this is not an issue, because all Mac laptops come with Retina displays. I responded that doesn't cover those who use an external monitor.

 

[tmoerel]

Go back to the post to which I was responding and you'll understand what I meant. We were discussing the fact that, to get optimum text sharpness with MacOS, you need a Retina dispaly. The poster responded that this is not an issue, because all Mac laptops come with Retina displays. I responded that doesn't cover those who use an external monitor.

The funny thing is that all my external displays (M1 MBP 16) are scaling perfectly. Nothing fuzzy whatsoever. But then they are all connected via thunderbolt.

 

[theorist9]

The funny thing is that all my external displays (M1 MBP 16) are scaling perfectly. Nothing fuzzy whatsoever. But then they are all connected via thunderbolt.

I run three displays—the 27" 5k in my 27" iMac (218 ppi), along with a 27" 4k (3840 x 2160, 163 ppi), and a 24" WUXGA (1920 x 1200, 94 ppi)—and they all scale perfectly as well (I'm using 2:1 for the first two, and 1:1 for the third). The two externals are both connected via TB. But that doesn't change the fact that text on the iMac, at 218 ppi, is clearly sharper than that on my other two displays.

Now it sounds like this is a difference you can't see, or don't care about, and that's fine. But just because you don't see it, or care about it, doesn't mean others don't. It's like food or cars. Some people don't see the difference between a fine gourmet burger and McDonalds; or the difference in handling between a Kia Forte and a BMW 2-Series. Others do. And that's perfectly OK.

The funny thing is that I expect there is something that you are particular about--nearly everyone has at least one thing--and you're probably used to talking to people who don't see the differences you do. Same thing here, except the roles are reversed.

 

[pshufd]

Go back to the post to which I was responding and you'll understand what I meant. We were discussing the fact that, to get optimum text sharpness with MacOS, you need a Retina dispaly. The poster responded that this is not an issue, because all Mac laptops come with Retina displays. I responded that doesn't cover those who use an external monitor.

I'm using Dell Ultrasharp 4k monitors and these work fine on my Studio.

I had problems with my M1 mini. I would guess that it's a hardware difference or how macOS is interpreting hardware differences.

The DisplayLink folks have figured out how to fix those differences as their Beta drivers fix the fuzzy fonts issue on scaled resolutions. If they could fix the problems, then Apple could as well on their Macs which don't support all of the scaled resolutions clearly.

 

[Basic75]

It's physically impossible to draw a perfect macOS user interface on 160ppi displays and there is no reason for Apple to polish the turd. Just get the right display!

Generally agree, it's just that unfortunately there is next to no choice of ~220ppi monitors, and while the choice at ~110ppi is much better you can't find them at all sizes, like a 32" with ~110ppi would give a lot of screen real estate with pixel-perfect rendering and an affordable price. But nobody makes one.

 

[genexx]

Generally agree, it's just that unfortunately there is next to no choice of ~220ppi monitors, and while the choice at ~110ppi is much better you can't find them at all sizes, like a 32" with ~110ppi would give a lot of screen real estate with pixel-perfect rendering and an affordable price. But nobody makes one.

So in Apple´s World a 4K should be 20" or 40"

Thats why i choosed a 27" 1440p as i am older and my eyes not getting any better i could not find Pixel Problems or uncharpnes in this Kind of Resolution.

5 K 27 Inch Retina
5120 x 2880

2K 27Inch
2560 x 1440