Why the heck would anybody buy a 27" or 21.5" display for their Mac Mini?
Because a 27 inch monitor would allow the mini to be an iMac substitute. You know, the machine for which Tim Cook is far too busy doing other things to sign the approval form to release the next update.
Incremental CPU bumps are irrelevant. The iMacs have received so much love since my 2011 model it’s crazy. The pro or 5k just blow it out of the water.
And yet, even my old 2011 model, which was maxed out, still serves as my primary desktop. I’m an enterprise software engineer. This is what people mean when they talk about TCO and why Macs are cheaper than commodity PCs.
There's a second side to that comparison. By keeping a machine for several years you spread out the cost, but as you said, you also freeze performance. With a more frequent upgrade cycle you enjoy the benefits of speed, convenience, and capability that newer models bring.
Both considerations have merit and which matters more depends on the individual use case. I'm just saying the lower cost per year of a kong lasting machine isn't free money, it's trading performance for savings.
For a while I kicked around the idea of having one wide-format monitor instead of two with convention aspect ratios. in that format, curved screens seem to outnumber flat by about three to one. That surprised me a little, as I look at curved screens the same way as kneeling chairs -- a silly fad we'll be laughing at in ten years.
Does the large selection of curved screens just mean manufacturers are anxious to cash in on the trend before the novelty wears off, or is there some genuine advantage I'm not seeing? I find them annoying.
No 16:10 4K/5K monitors available, so I have no intention to buy a new one for my mini
What limitations are imposed on your work by a 16:9 aspect ratio that are overcome by 16:10? I'm wondering if it's something that may affect me that I haven't thought of.
For a while I kicked around the idea of having one wide-format monitor instead of two with convention aspect ratios. in that format, curved screens seem to outnumber flat by about three to one. That surprised me a little, as I look at curved screens the same way as kneeling chairs -- a silly fad we'll be laughing at in ten years.
Does the large selection of curved screens just mean manufacturers are anxious to cash in on the trend before the novelty wears off, or is there some genuine advantage I'm not seeing? I find them annoying.
They claim to help mitigate changes due to viewing angle t close range. I find them spatially immersive too.
For a while I kicked around the idea of having one wide-format monitor instead of two with convention aspect ratios. in that format, curved screens seem to outnumber flat by about three to one. That surprised me a little, as I look at curved screens the same way as kneeling chairs -- a silly fad we'll be laughing at in ten years.
Does the large selection of curved screens just mean manufacturers are anxious to cash in on the trend before the novelty wears off, or is there some genuine advantage I'm not seeing? I find them annoying.
They have to amortise all that sunk cost in R&D for those curved screen TVs nobody is buying somehow, so monitors it is. Although I suspect it might be potentially a bit more fun for gaming.
We all recognize that a large percentage of mini users have no need for any kind of graphics horsepower, so it makes sense that it doesn't include much out of the box. The question then is how best to provide graphics grunt to those who need it.
Building it in to the mini adds complexity to the thermal design, so having it external is both easier to engineer and easier for users to adopt. It's not a great solution for a laptop since it's not something one would want to carry around, but for a headless, desktop computer, it makes perfect sense. Just plug it in between the computer and the monitor.
We all recognize that a large percentage of mini users have no need for any kind of graphics horsepower, so it makes sense that it doesn't include much out of the box. The question then is how best to provide graphics grunt to those who need it.
Building it in to the mini adds complexity to the thermal design, so having it external is both easier to engineer and easier for users to adopt. It's not a great solution for a laptop since it's not something one would want to carry around, but for a headless, desktop computer, it makes perfect sense. Just plug it in between the computer and the monitor.
What don't you like about it?
When just the simple act of dragging windows around causes stuttering, I don't buy into that theory. It doesn't have to be the most latest and greatest of GPUs. Just a humble Nvidia or AMD GPU would have sufficed to keep the graphics smooth. My Mini ran me $2K. That's some serious change for what could have been a fully-polished mini.
I'm disappointed that an entire article devoted to choosing a Mini display left out one of, if not the most important thing to consider.
** Do you prefer matte or glossy?
**
Unlike all the current Mac laptops and iMacs, there is actually a choice when you're going to buy an external display for a Mini. And it's an important consideration, because unlike with your laptop, you may not have good options for positioning your display to minimize glare.
For me personally, I am literally unable to use the glossy screens for any length of time, which is why I'm stuck using a 2012 MacBook Pro, which is the best Apple-branded laptop that still works for me. Eventually the latest OS releases won't run on it, and then some time after that it will not longer get security updates, so it's really troubling to me that Apple closed off that option.
In any case, while it's a bigger headache for me than for most people, everyone should be at least paying attention and making sure they don't gloss over (heh) this very important display spec.
I'm disappointed that an entire article devoted to choosing a Mini display left out one of, if not the most important thing to consider.
** Do you prefer matte or glossy?
**
Unlike all the current Mac laptops and iMacs, there is actually a choice when you're going to buy an external display for a Mini. And it's an important consideration, because unlike with your laptop, you may not have good options for positioning your display to minimize glare.
For me personally, I am literally unable to use the glossy screens for any length of time, which is why I'm stuck using a 2012 MacBook Pro, which is the best Apple-branded laptop that still works for me. Eventually the latest OS releases won't run on it, and then some time after that it will not longer get security updates, so it's really troubling to me that Apple closed off that option.
In any case, while it's a bigger headache for me than for most people, everyone should be at least paying attention and making sure they don't gloss over (heh) this very important display spec.
I prefer matte displays too, BUT...
The colour is much, much better on a glossy display, and the dynamic range is much wider. Whites are brighter and blacks are darker. It's not even a subtle difference, it's huge. Back when Apple still offered a choice I set up two MacBook Pros side-by-side, one matte, one glossy, and compared a bunch of images. I was surprised by how badly the matte display was affecting image accuracy.
So while I share your frustration with reflections, I decided it was worth trying to control where I sit relative to ambient light sources in order to get the best image possible. It may not matter for text or spreadsheets, but it does for photos and video, since you can't accurately edit what you can't accurately see. With displays, especially Apple's, offering wider gamut and higher accuracy than ever before, it seems like a shame to mask that capability behind the filtering of a matte finish.
Why the heck would anybody buy a 27" or 21.5" display for their Mac Mini?
I know why I would, but I'm curious about why you wouldn't? What size do you think is better suited to the mini?
I was planning to use a pair of 32" displays, but after working in a studio that has a 32" beside a 27", I found the 27" more comfortable. The 32 required "looking around" to find stuff -- too big to take in everything in a single point of gaze. Plus it ties up a lot of space and is always in the way when trying to hear the centre speaker.
Because at those two sizes; just buy the dang iMac.
Comments
Both considerations have merit and which matters more depends on the individual use case. I'm just saying the lower cost per year of a kong lasting machine isn't free money, it's trading performance for savings.
Does the large selection of curved screens just mean manufacturers are anxious to cash in on the trend before the novelty wears off, or is there some genuine advantage I'm not seeing? I find them annoying.
We all recognize that a large percentage of mini users have no need for any kind of graphics horsepower, so it makes sense that it doesn't include much out of the box. The question then is how best to provide graphics grunt to those who need it.
Building it in to the mini adds complexity to the thermal design, so having it external is both easier to engineer and easier for users to adopt. It's not a great solution for a laptop since it's not something one would want to carry around, but for a headless, desktop computer, it makes perfect sense. Just plug it in between the computer and the monitor.
What don't you like about it?
** Do you prefer matte or glossy? **
Unlike all the current Mac laptops and iMacs, there is actually a choice when you're going to buy an external display for a Mini. And it's an important consideration, because unlike with your laptop, you may not have good options for positioning your display to minimize glare.
For me personally, I am literally unable to use the glossy screens for any length of time, which is why I'm stuck using a 2012 MacBook Pro, which is the best Apple-branded laptop that still works for me. Eventually the latest OS releases won't run on it, and then some time after that it will not longer get security updates, so it's really troubling to me that Apple closed off that option.
In any case, while it's a bigger headache for me than for most people, everyone should be at least paying attention and making sure they don't gloss over (heh) this very important display spec.
The colour is much, much better on a glossy display, and the dynamic range is much wider. Whites are brighter and blacks are darker. It's not even a subtle difference, it's huge. Back when Apple still offered a choice I set up two MacBook Pros side-by-side, one matte, one glossy, and compared a bunch of images. I was surprised by how badly the matte display was affecting image accuracy.
So while I share your frustration with reflections, I decided it was worth trying to control where I sit relative to ambient light sources in order to get the best image possible. It may not matter for text or spreadsheets, but it does for photos and video, since you can't accurately edit what you can't accurately see. With displays, especially Apple's, offering wider gamut and higher accuracy than ever before, it seems like a shame to mask that capability behind the filtering of a matte finish.