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

[krspkbl]

do i really need a 4K monitor? I have a 1440p monitor...

honestly if i need to buy a new monitor then forget it. i'll stay on Windows or keep hoping Apple release a 27" iMac.

 

[MarkC426]

No, you don't 'really need a 4k monitor'....

If you have been using any Mac with a Retina display, you will notice a difference if you move to a regular display (which are by no means inferior). I go from my iPad Pro (retina) to my Mac Pro (non retina), and yes it is not as crisp, but I couldn't care less, and I do 3D graphics work....😝

It's different with an iPhone/iPad, where it is close to your face, but a display is usually much further away.

 

[perryt]

View attachment 2004038

I think we might be having some word use issues. To my eye, the "whole pixel" image looks more clean, clear and crisp and the sub-pixel render has "blurry" edges with significant color distortion. That said, the diagonal lines obviously have more accurate edge definition in the sub-pixel render. I might have a difficult time determining whether I prefer one over the other. The color distortion on the sub-pixel bothers me more than the less precise edges on the whole-pixel image, but I definitely like the more accurate edge rendering.

All display images are "pixelated" - the higher the dpi (to a point), the less apparent it becomes. Do I prefer "retina" display rendering? Of course. Does that make lower dpi "blurry?" No. It does not. It is still clear and crisp, it just shows less detail - specifically on different diagonal and curved edges.

I suspect how big the pixels have to be before it becomes annoying to the eye is very subjective. For those of us that started using computer displays with as few as 5x7 pixels per ASCII character (back in the 1970s), more than 80-100 dpi is quite satisfactory for rendering simple fonts (depending on viewing distance, of course). For "ornate" fonts or small size, obviously more ppi is going to be beneficial.

Whether your personal preference or work "requires" 4k display seems to me a subjective question. I suspect the vast majority of Mac mini buyers do not need a 4k display to enjoy the computer and find it useful and productive.

 

[ader42]

No you don’t need a 4k monitor - my son uses an old 2k/1080p samsung gaming monitor (92 ppi) with an M1 Mini just fine.

Of course if you are used to a higher res then you “may” notice the difference - my son previously used (and still uses simultaneously) an older 15” MBP (227 ppi) and hasn’t commented on the screen res at all. His eyes are far better than mine lol.

 

[theorist9]

I think we might be having some word use issues. To my eye, the "whole pixel" image looks more clean, clear and crisp and the sub-pixel render has "blurry" edges with significant color distortion. That said, the diagonal lines obviously have more accurate edge definition in the sub-pixel render. I might have a difficult time determining whether I prefer one over the other. The color distortion on the sub-pixel bothers me more than the less precise edges on the whole-pixel image, but I definitely like the more accurate edge rendering.

All display images are "pixelated" - the higher the dpi (to a point), the less apparent it becomes. Do I prefer "retina" display rendering? Of course. Does that make lower dpi "blurry?" No. It does not. It is still clear and crisp, it just shows less detail - specifically on different diagonal and curved edges.

That picture was more to illustrate what's going on at a pixel level with subpixel rendering, and thus explain the differences you see when looking at a screen, not to directly illustrate what you'd see without that magnification. First, while the staircase is sharp, MacOS doesn't display text that way. It uses pixel-level anti-aliasing, in which edge pixels are rapidly switched on and off to smooth out the edges, which is what leads to the blurring. That's not shown here. And the color-fringing you see in the highly magnified pic is much less perceptible when directly viewing a screen. Some people see it, others don't.

 

[Micky Do]

I've addressed this many, many times in the thread, but the text is not clear and crisp. You have just become used to the blurriness. That PPI is simply not adequate to display clear text, even on Windows using cleartype. Forget about MacOS.

Reminds me of the Hans Christian Anderson fairy tale, The Princess and The Pea.

"Only a real princess could have felt the pea through twenty mattresses and twenty feather beds."

For average folks it's not a biggie. Go for what fits your needs, situation and budget.

 

[Colstan]

For average folks it's not a biggie. Go for what fits your needs, situation and budget.

Last year, I replaced my ancient Dell 2005FPW that I got 17 years ago, with a 21.5-inch LG UltraFine that I got off of Ebay for half the original MSRP ($342 US). It was brand new, and had a manufacture date of 2017, so I have no idea where it was hiding for all of those years.

The Dell used the same 20-inch panel that the Cinema Display of that era featured, $700 on sale for the Dell, $1,299 for the nearly identical Apple monitor. I still remember the price differential, and reading the Anandtech review where they mention this. The Apple tax goes way back.

Comparing my old monitor to the new one, the form factor and case color are almost identical. The panels are completely different, with the Dell being 1680X1050 featuring a matte finish. The LG has a "Retina" 4096X2304 semi-glossy display.

For me, personally, this was a massive upgrade and easily worth what I paid for it. However, when I've had non-tech users sit down and use my Mac mini with the LG, they didn't notice a difference. One person asked me when I was going to set up my new monitor. Two others had no idea that I had swapped anything.

We tech nerds notice and value these sort of upgrades, but many average users don't perceive anything other than the size and color of the monitor casing. It all depends on the individual, and for some a standard definition monitor is just fine, for others the "Retina" experience is a must. When Apple changed macOS to favor "Retina" displays, I stayed on Mojave, because newer versions gave me physical headaches while using the Dell. I only switched to Monterey when I got the UltraFine.

From here on out, I'm going to be using displays that are ~218ppi with my Macs. I just prefer sticking to Apple's recommended resolution, and anything else is unacceptable to me. However, there are plenty of folks who are fine with standard definition, or anything in-between, because we all have different preferences, tolerances, and biological vision.

 

[Dutch60]

2019 27" iMac here (fully specced). Intel ofcourse. Bought a second 27" monitor this year. Wanted 2560x1440p and bought one. Specifically for photography and I find this to work much better for editing and color accuracy (although the iMac is not bad at all for colour accuracy). So now 2 screens next to each other (5k and 2k). Best of both worlds, I think.
Now I' m curious in what way would a M1/M2 Mac mini behave different from my Intel iMac in this regard? To be more precise...does M1/M2 make screen image different when compared to Intel?

 

[crowe-t]

I'm looking at these 2 monitors for use with either an M1 Mac Mini or a possible M2 Mac Mini.

Is there any problems with flickering on the Dell S2722QC. I read that in a couple of the reviews on Dell's web site.

Dell 27 Inch 4K UHD Computer Monitor with USB-C Hub - S2722QC | Dell USA

View the Dell 27 Inch 4K UHD Monitor with USB-C Hub (S2722QC) featuring simplified USB-C connectivity, or shop all Computer Monitors at Dell.com.

www.dell.com

Monoprice 28in CrystalPro Monitor - 4K UHD, 60Hz, 65W USB-C, Height Adjustable Stand, IPS - Monoprice.com

Monoprice™28" CrystalPro™ 4K UHD Monitor4K@60Hz IPS panel for business and gaming, with fully articulating standThe Monoprice™ 28" CrystalPro™ 4K UHD Monitor provides

www.monoprice.com

 

[boswald]

Personally, I enjoy the way fonts are rendered on macOS versus Windows with 1080p. I appreciate the smoothness in contrast to the sharp, jagged look Windows offers. To each their own...

 

[crowe-t]

Clearly 1024x768 is the way to go
View attachment 1982514

(surprisingly good looking on that display actually)

What connectors & adaptors are you using to connect this to your Mac Mini?

 

[Heindijs]

What connectors & adaptors are you using to connect this to your Mac Mini?

I was using the ADC to DVI connector that Apple makes, then used a DVI to HDMI adapter attached to it.

 

[crowe-t]

I was using the ADC to DVI connector that Apple makes, then used a DVI to HDMI adapter attached to it.

Which year Mac Mini and OS are you using the ADC monitor with?

There were no problems getting it to work with all the adaptors?

Isn't it a mini DVI connector?

 

[Heindijs]

Which year Mac Mini and OS are you using the ADC monitor with?

There were no problems getting it to work with all the adaptors?

Isn't it a mini DVI connector?

OS shouldn't matter but I was using Monterey.
There's nothing to worry about since it's just a simple conversion. HDMI to DVI works flawlessly. There is no mini DVI on that Mac Mini, only hdmi and displayport

 

[crowe-t]

OS shouldn't matter but I was using Monterey.
There's nothing to worry about since it's just a simple conversion. HDMI to DVI works flawlessly. There is no mini DVI on that Mac Mini, only hdmi and displayport

Which year Mac Mini are you using with the ADC display? Is it the Mac Mini late 2012, 2,3ghz i7, 16gb, Ventura in your signature?

 

[Heindijs]

Which year Mac Mini are you using with the ADC display? Is it the Mac Mini late 2012, 2,3ghz i7, 16gb, Ventura in your signature?

Yes

 

[Basic75]

From here on out, I'm going to be using displays that are ~218ppi with my Macs.

It's just unfortunate that there are hardly any 220ppi displays to choose from! The mainstream market has mostly settled between 143ppi and 163ppi which is not ideal for us Mac users as it's usually too much for @1x, and too little for @2x, leaving only the indirectly rendered scalings with their well-known downsides.

 

[EugW]

It's just unfortunate that there are hardly any 220ppi displays to choose from! The mainstream market has mostly settled between 143ppi and 163ppi which is not ideal for us Mac users as it's usually too much for @1x, and too little for @2x, leaving only the indirectly rendered scalings with their well-known downsides.

I want ~200 ppi myself. They don’t seem to exist either. 218 is a tad too high, and I say that as an owner of a 27” Retina iMac.

 

[Heindijs]

I want ~200 ppi myself. They don’t seem to exist either. 218 is a tad too high, and I say that as an owner of a 27” Retina iMac.

How can a ppi count be too high? Too low looks ugly and is noticeable, but when you go higher it'll only get clearer and sharper. Scaling in macOS is great

 

[EugW]

How can a ppi count be too high? Too low looks ugly and is noticeable, but when you go higher it'll only get clearer and sharper. Scaling in macOS is great

Default font sizing becomes a bit too small when the ppi count goes a bit too high. You can use alternate scaling options but there are two problems with this:

1. 218 ppi is not high enough to make the alternate scaling options look good. The text is not as crisp.
2. Apple doesn't actually offer pleasant scaling options IMO.

For macOS, I actually like the Apple 30" Cinema HD Display the best for default font sizing. A Retina version of that would be 201 ppi.

 

[Basic75]

How can a ppi count be too high? Too low looks ugly and is noticeable, but when you go higher it'll only get clearer and sharper. Scaling in macOS is great

If you had say 300ppi then everything would be way too small. macOS scaling is not great at all, macOS only natively supports 100% aka @1x intended for ~110ppi display, and 200% aka @2x intended for ~220ppi. Everything else requires non-pixel-perfect scaling because the UI can't be natively rendered at other sizes.

 

[George Dawes]

I’ve got a Sony 65x95j tv as monitor for my m1 mini and set at 1080p the screen looks great , tbh any higher res and it starts to look too small

At 4K native it’s ridiculous 😂

 

[Boyd01]

You are using a 65 inch TV at 1080p? How far away do you sit?

 

[1885507]

I'm using a 1080p monitor (main) with a 720p HDTV (video/YouTube/etc.). No issues.

 

[kyjaotkb]

I'm using a 27" 4K monitor (LG UL550) as my main monitor and a vertical 21" 1600x1200 monitor (NEC Spectraview 2190) as my secondary, with a 2021 14" M1 Pro MBP.
I regret not having bought a 5K display or a second hand LG Ultrafine 21.5 (4096x2304 @21.5") as my main: 4K at 27" just doesn't work naturally with mac OS and I am constantly switching between scaled resolutions depending on my work. The vertical display still has awesome colour reproduction (it's a pro monitor from 2006, the bets of the best back then) but it would be so much more useful if Apple had kept sub-pixel antialiasing in the OS. It's a bit of a blurry mess.

tl;dr monitors are hard with mac OS, stick to 5K/6k displays