A warning: Do not buy a Mac Mini unless you have a high resolution (4K+) display.

[TiggrToo]

So no, this isn’t a matter of opinion.

Apparently it is a matter of opinion, since a slew of us feel the display is perfectly acceptable and has no blurring what so ever.

Not debating that for you, and others, it possibly doesn't look right, but do not go around assuming that's the same for everyone.

The monitor I mentioned in my earlier post was previously being used by the wife on her windows desktop server that I'm decommissioning.

Not knowing how well the Air would work I took a gamble and purchased a USB C to DVI-D cable (the monitor only takes DVI-D or VGA). She's used this monitor for over a decade and she's very very picky. She was delighted with being able to continue using this non 4K monitor with her M1 Air and she doesn't feel it's lost any clarity between Windows 10 and the M1.

Why do you not want to accept that this is a case of YMMV?

Most respondents on this thread have disagreed with you yet you still maintain you are the only person who's correct.

 

[rumz]

OSX seems quite simply optimised for 1440p and 2880p.

I don't know enough about changes to the last two OS iterations, but yeah-- interface has clearly been designed for 109ppi / 218ppi displays (I take the title of this thread to suggest that it's now just geared toward the latter).

 

[MarkC426]

What makes me laugh about this thread.....?.....is looking at 'old school' monitors, you would have had 640x480, 1024x768, 1920x1080 etc.

You would buy a larger monitor which would give you a higher resolution, and hence more 'real estate'.

This analogy stopped at QHD 2560x1440.
Then comes along '4k' displays, which NOBODY runs at native resolution, so you still have 2560x1440 with no extra screen space, likewise with 5k....?

Maybe I am stuck in my ways......?

 

[turbineseaplane]

To be honest, anyone using a monitor lower than 5k likely doesn’t know what they are missing or don’t care.

For me at least, I do know what I'm missing and I sort of care...but there is no solution for me and my aging eyes.

I'd love to have a perfect 2x scaled experience, but the sizing never works out quite right for me, as I tend to prefer things a little bit physically larger than the workspace offered by effective 1440p at 1x/2x and 27"

For me, a 32" 5k monitor would be perfect, as 1440p effective resolution at perfect 2x - but at the physical size of a 32" monitor - would be a dream.

tldr. My old eyes prefer things on screen to be a bit bigger than Apple has choses as "correct" and thus I'm stuck in a scaled resolution world no matter what I do.

 

[BeatCrazy]

This analogy stopped at QHD 2560x1440.
Then comes along '4k' displays, which NOBODY runs at native resolution, so you still have 1920x1080 with no extra screen space, likewise with 5k....?

What's wrong with running a 4K monitor at 2560x1440?

 

[MarkC426]

What's wrong with running a 4K monitor at 2560x1440?

It just seems pointless to me (but that's me).
When I bought my QHD monitor, I was torn between a 27" 4k or the QHD and decided as I wouldn't be running it native (everything would be too small), go for the matte QHD, which is less of a strain on the gpu.

The only reason I would go 4k or 5k would be for the extra screen space.
I am happy with two 27" 2560x1440.

 

[rumz]

What's wrong with running a 4K monitor at 2560x1440?

It might be acceptable to some, but the interface doesn't scale perfectly, it will be a bit blurry (I've got a 4k 27" monitor running at 2560x1440 and I don't love it, but I prefer it to the reduced "real estate" / larger interface elements of running it at the default scale-- which is what, 1080p?)

 

[rumz]

What makes me laugh about this thread.....?.....is looking at 'old school' monitors, you would have had 640x480, 1024x768, 1920x1080 etc.

You would buy a larger monitor which would give you a higher resolution, and hence more 'real estate'.

This analogy stopped at QHD 2560x1440.
Then comes along '4k' displays, which NOBODY runs at native resolution, so you still have 2560x1440 with no extra screen space, likewise with 5k....?

Maybe I am stuck in my ways......?

I remember buying a 15.4" Dell laptop back in 2003 w/ 1920 x 1200 resolution.... I loved how tiny all my icons were and how much "real estate" I had, as you said. Running a 27" 4k at full res is hilarious how tiny everything gets. My eyes can't handle that anymore, haha.

 

[turbineseaplane]

What's wrong with running a 4K monitor at 2560x1440?

Nothing

Some people are absolutely obsessed with perfect 2x scaling and thus "need" to have 5k at 27"

The reality of 2x scaling is that I prefer it if comparing directly

(say I had a 1440p dual monitor 27" setup side by side and one is 4k and one is 5k -- I'd prefer the 5k/27"/1440p every time)

But -- if I don't have a side by side comparison going on -- I quickly grow accustomed to how a scaled resolution looks -- and enjoy and use it just fine.

 

[BeatCrazy]

It might be acceptable to some, but the interface doesn't scale perfectly, it will be a bit blurry (I've got a 4k 27" monitor running at 2560x1440 and I don't love it, but I prefer it to the reduced "real estate" / larger interface elements of running it at the default scale-- which is what, 1080p?)

Most people won't know any difference in the 'less than optimal' scaling of 2560x1440 on a 4K monitor.

The bigger travesty should be the awful default color on most every consumer-level monitor for sale. I'll take a barely-noticeable scaling trade-off for better default color accuracy, any day.

 

[turbineseaplane]

The bigger travesty should be the awful default color on most every consumer-level monitor for sale.

Agreed

I will say though, a lot of goodness can be pulled out of even pretty average monitors with a calibration.

Everyone should have a good calibrator in their arsenal

 

[orionquest]

There are people in this thread claiming clear text on sub 100 ppi monitors above 24”. That is literally impossible, unless you are redefining the word “clear”. There’s no way around that. Nothing to “understand”. It’s a math issue.

Here is how it looks on a Dell ultrasharpe U3011 using Mojave. I know the ppi is around 101ppi. Something lower in density may not look so well. Did they ever make flat panels with lower then 100ppi?

 

[staypuftforums]

Apparently it is a matter of opinion, since a slew of us feel the display is perfectly acceptable and has no blurring what so ever.

It really isn't though. Again, this isn't up for debate. There simply aren't enough pixels on these displays to render text properly, without heavy pixalation.

Why would Apple sell high-resolution displays in the first place if what you are claiming were true? What benefit could there possibly be? None.

The fact that every single Apple display on the market, from the iMac, to the Macbook, to the iPhone, to the iPad, to the studio display ALL have high-resolution and high PPI puts this issue to bed.

 

[DanielFNG]

FWIW I notice a huge difference between my 1440p 27" display (used primarily for gaming) and my 4k 27" display (productivity) when connected to my M1 Air. Don't get me wrong, the 1440p text is readable, but it's noticeably 'fuzzy' - it really is night and day for me when I compare to the 4k monitor.

It actually sent me down a spiral of looking for a high FPS high res ultrawide as one monitor to rule them all - but that doesn't seem to exist yet, and I doubt my graphics card would thank me if I bought one anyway.

By comparison, there's much less of a difference in text quality on my Windows PC when it's connected to both displays.

 

[orionquest]

Part of me wonders if Apple is being a little sneaky by turning off sub pixel anti alaising so text doesn't look as good as on their own monitors without sub pixels, and purposely made their screens different enough from the rest of the industry. People keep mentioning windows PC's and how the text seems ok on various monitors or the same monitor on their Mac.

 

[TiggrToo]

It really isn't though. Again, this isn't up for debate. There simply aren't enough pixels on these displays to render text properly, without heavy pixalation.

Why would Apple sell high-resolution displays in the first place if what you are claiming were true? What benefit could there possibly be? None.

The fact that every single Apple display on the market, from the iMac, to the Macbook, to the iPhone, to the iPad, to the studio display ALL have high-resolution and high PPI puts this issue to bed.

No, it doesn’t. You only wish it would put it to bed.

The fact is you started this thread with a huge clickbait title that doesn’t represent real life according to other people.

Text is so blurry. Even the desktop wallpapers look terrible. Video is mostly fine, about the same as Windows. But man, the text. Just incredibly blurry and pixelated.

This was your original quote. A lot of people here have said that text is not blurry. In fact this quote above was stuffed with hyperbole.

No one here has said it’s as sharp as a 4K screen, all we’ve said is that it doesn’t look blurry and we have no issues using sub 4K monitors on our various Mac devices.

There are people out there who are perfectionists in sound quality and would probably run screaming if they heard music coming out of your standard home theatre. Does it mean the sound there is bad? No, not at all, it just means it’s not as pure as it could be - which involves money.

Heck 5K Screens put 4K screens to shame - does it mean now that all 4K monitors are fuzzy and should be ignored? I’ve read plenty of posts from coders who will maintain they can ONLY use a 5K Screen to code on because anything less is uncomfortable for them. That‘s fine.

Welcome to personal preference, choice and comfort.

You are not the final arbiter on all this - every individual is. If we’re happy with our screens and we do not find it blurry, then to us, it’s not blurry. We don’t need someone else telling us that we’re wrong - or worse.

I use my 2020 iPad Pro 12.9 and MBP using 2 external monitors equal amounts during the day. I see very little noticeable difference between the iPad Retina display and the HD monitors. I get you don’t like that this is the case, but it is.

 

[entropi]

Part of me wonders if Apple is being a little sneaky by turning off sub pixel anti alaising so text doesn't look as good as on their own monitors without sub pixels, and purposely made their screens different enough from the rest of the industry. People keep mentioning windows PC's and how the text seems ok on various monitors or the same monitor on their Mac.

yeah, it would be interesting to hear from Apple what their motives were to turn it off. But then again - something has changed (I guess) since they first removed it, because on mac os monterey there is no difference on two seperate Dell monitors and one Philips monitor on how they look now. On El Capitan they were fine, in Mojave it first looked worse (subpixel rendering removed, I fixed it in the terminal), but now on Monterey it looks fine again without any tinkering from me.

 

[turbineseaplane]

People keep mentioning windows PC's and how the text seems ok on various monitors or the same monitor on their Mac.

And not just "ok", but vastly better than on the macOS side

 

[MarkC426]

It really isn't though. Again, this isn't up for debate. There simply aren't enough pixels on these displays to render text properly, without heavy pixalation.

Again this is just your opinion, you started this debate.
My displays show the amount of pixels they are designed for, who is to say what text SHOULD look like.....

 

[Fravin]

The fact that every single Apple display on the market, from the iMac, to the Macbook, to the iPhone, to the iPad, to the studio display ALL have high-resolution and high PPI puts this issue to bed.

Apple was selling a low-tier iMac with just 1080p resolution last year, wasn't it?

How do you managed your issue? Did you bought a 4k display?

 

[mdwsta4]

I have a 24" 1080p Dell monitor that is connected to both my HP work laptop and my personal M1 Mini (previously connected to intel MBP). I don't see any issues between the two. I'm not opposed to upgrading to a 4k monitor at some point, but it seems harder to find smaller screens like 22-24" where I can easily toggle between two computers

 

[crowe-t]

I'm planning on buying an M1 Mac Mini. I currently have a 2009 Mac Mini with a 20" Cinema Display from 2003. The monitor is old but still looks cool but I'll need a new monitor with the new Mac Mini.

Will this Dell in the link work with the M1 Mac Mini? It's 4K.

https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/del...onitors-monitor-accessories#techspecs_section

 

[staypuftforums]

You are not the final arbiter on all this - every individual is.

I use my 2020 iPad Pro 12.9 and MBP using 2 external monitors equal amounts during the day. I see very little noticeable difference between the iPad Retina display and the HD monitors.

Reality is the final arbiter. You can claim the Sun is not bright, but the reality is what it is.

“I’m OK with blurry text” and “text is not blurry” are two entirely different statements. You want to make the first, fine. When you make the second, well, that’s just factually incorrect.

Regarding your final paragraph, this obviously boils down to a vision issue, unless someone is using their monitor from 15-20 feet away, they should easily be able to tell the difference.

 

[omeletpants]

Unless you are using a 5K monitor you are all lying to yourselves

 

[staypuftforums]

Apple was selling a low-tier iMac with just 1080p resolution last year, wasn't it?

How do you managed your issue? Did you bought a 4k display?

The last 1080p Mac was entry-level 2017 iMac. This was also the last year they released an OS with sibpixel antialiasing.

Unfortunately, I had to return the Mac Mini as I don’t like large monitors and the only options for a reasonable price are 27”.