Untangling monitor resolution and size -- how to pick the best display for home and office...

Posted:
in General Discussion edited February 21
If you're just diving into external monitors, the vast array of options and resolution spread before you can be enough to make you give up and buy an iMac just so that your monitor choice is made for you. AppleInsider talks about the three biggest and most important factors for a daily-use monitor for general use -- screen size, resolution, and scaling.

Size, resolution and scaling all make huge differences to your display
Size, resolution and scaling all make huge differences to your display


As a general rule, the average consumer cannot pick a monitor off Amazon and know that it's going to be perfect for him or her. It isn't possible. You can tell what the physical size is going to be -- though we all tend to underestimate how big something will be once it's on our desk -- and you're rock solid clear about the price.

Even when the listing says it's for a 4K monitor and you know 4K is good, that's little to no help. It's because 4K, like most monitor standards, is utterly useless on its own. You need to know that 4K on a 21-inch monitor will look great and that 4K on a 49-inch one will be bad.

And if only it were that simple. It's easy to appreciate that 4K at 49-inches is going to be fuzzier than the sharpness of that 21-inch 4K monitor. But, that latter one is likely to make everything so small that it's unusable too.

Much of the time, that's going to be because you simply can't read the display when it's at maximum resolution -- but often it's also because your Mac can't handle it either.

So the physical size of the screen is one fact. The resolution is a completely separate one. What your Mac can cope with is a third fact. Any one of these is at least reasonably easy to find out or understand, but you have to juggle all three.

What you can do, though, is go in armed with information, and know what to look for. Go in to searching any store or site's monitors and know what the problems are, know where you need to spend time comparing -- and knowing what you really have to compare.

A note before we go much further. This article doesn't delve into color spaces, and calibration options on any given monitor -- this piece is intended as a primer for the beginner monitor purchaser. Calibration and similar are topics for another day.

Jason and the monitor

If you're buying an iMac or a particular MacBook, you've got no option about the physical size of the display. When you need a separate monitor, though, start with a 27-inch model such as the BenQ PD2710QC or Asus Designo MX27UC. We've included screen grabs from 23-inch and even 19-inch displays for comparison but there's now not even a price benefit to buying a monitor that size.

For comparison, the text on the far left is from a 28-inch 4K monitor. Middle is a 23-inch display and on the right is a 19-inch one, both at their highest resolution.
For comparison, the text on the far left is from a 28-inch 4K monitor. Middle is a 23-inch display and on the right is a 19-inch one, all at their highest resolution.


A 27-inch model might be slightly overkill if you're only ever going to be working on one Word document at a time. Nonetheless, the only times you'll ever regret getting a larger monitor are when you have to pay for it and when it won't fit on your desk.

Our illustration of different screens is really one of different resolutions. It happens that we took them across a complete range of monitor sizes but what a screenshot shows is the resolution, not how it looks stretched out over inches of glass.

Even so, there is one screen resolution that stands out by being practically invisible. Wedged between the screens from a MacBook Air and a MacBook Pro, you can see a thin sliver of what is actually a 4K display.

Where 4K displays used to be something you'd yearn for, now they're distinctly lost in the pack and so should be considered a minimum. Rather than using the term 4K or its various synonyms like Ultra HD, let us be more specific. Don't accept a monitor with a resolution of less than 1920x1080 pixels.

If this is to be your main monitor, regard 27 inches and 1920x1080 as the minimum requirements.

Resolution

Search Amazon for 27-inch monitors that run at 1920x1080 and you now know that they will all look the same to your eyes. There will differences in quality from different manufacturers and at different price points, but a Mac icon or menu on one will be the same size and clarity on all of them.

More importantly, you now also know that a 32-inch monitor at the same 1920x1080 resolution will be fuzzier, will show these Mac screen elements at a larger size.

You rather guessed that but it's one thing understanding the numbers, it's another when you see it in front of you.

Here's an example of the difference resolution makes. This is a screenshot from an iMac 5K at its highest resolution of 6400x3600 pixels. Inset to the bottom right is the screen from a 2012 iMac which is 2560x1440. They're both 27-inch screens.

Two images, both from 27-inch iMacs. The main one is a 5K iMac where the inset, at the same pixel scale, is a 2012 pre-Retina iMac
Two images, both from 27-inch iMacs. The main one is a 5K iMac where the inset, at the same pixel scale, is a 2012 pre-Retina iMac


When you're comparing two monitors, do note the screen size but also calculate the dots per inch. You're rarely given this information and that's probably because it would make comparisons too easy. Yet somewhere in the details of every monitor's listing on every store's website, there will be the pixel dimensions.

They are always given as the horizontal number of pixels first, then the vertical. Unfortunately, screen sizes are done in a different way. They're measured diagonally instead. You could use that or you could look for the physical dimensions of the monitor and just accept that any stated width and height includes some bezels.

There's no way to be precise here, so use either figure and divide the number of inches you get by the horizontal number of pixels. Even though it won't be the correct number of dots per inch, it will be a comparable one. You'll be able to see that this monitor is going to be fuzzier than that one because it has significantly fewer dots per inch.

You could do the same calculation with the vertical number of pixels but it won't be any more use. Vertical pixels are a concern, though, as any lack of height to the display is one of the first things you'll notice when you use a new monitor.

Scaling

When you've picked a size of display and have chosen the highest-resolution monitor your budget can withstand, check that your Mac can drive it. It's easiest to check when your Mac is one that's currently on sale as Apple lists the specifications for what monitor sizes each machine can handle.

Apple is good at detailing the specifics of what displays different Macs can drive
Apple is good at detailing the specifics of what displays different Macs can drive


It's surely got to be a waste buying a monitor when your Mac can't drive it to its highest resolution. Except your monitor might outlast your current Mac. Plus that highest resolution is likely to get you icons, menus and so on that are far too small and finely detailed to be able to read easily.

In which case a monitor that displays more than you can usefully use is definitely a waste -- except that there is this scaling.

The idea is easy enough to grasp but harder to visualise and apparently also harder for technology firms to handle. Windows is far less able to successfully alter the size it shows icons and text at than Macs, for instance.

Broadly speaking, you take your gorgeously high-resolution monitor and tell it to pretend it is a less gorgeous and less high-res display. The only thing that stays the same is the physical size of the monitor.

Apple does work to make this as easy to figure out as possible -- but only once you've realised you need it. We've seen people squinting at their MacBook screens, unaware that with a click or two they could be saving an opticians' bill.

Regardless of your size or resolution of monitor, you can go to System Preferences, Displays and chose Resolution: Scaled. Below a certain resolution, typically 4K, you'll see a list of which resolutions the monitor can handle - probably. In that case you would pick from the list and examine how each one looked -- but that try-and-see approach is hopefully behind us all now because we won't buy a monitor under 4K.

When it is a 4K or better monitor, Apple shows you a graphical representation of how scaling works.

Depending on the monitor and the Mac, that representation will show you either four or five possible settings.

Above a certain high resolution, Apple shows a simplified system for choosing how much to scale down your display
Above a certain high resolution, Apple shows a simplified system for choosing how much to scale down your display


Apple doesn't give any figures or pixel counts, it just has a range going from Larger Text to More Space.

The difference one stop on Apple's Larger Text to More Space makes
The difference one stop on Apple's Larger Text to More Space makes


Don't go getting a tape measure out on this one, but just to give you an idea of what difference scaling makes, here's an example. It's two side-by-side images from the LG 34-inch monitor and while they are cut down so you can see them, they're displaying different scaled resolutions.

Specifically, it's one step difference in the range from Larger Text to More Space and you can see that it's significant.

This far and no further

What you can't see, and nobody can show you, is precisely how all this looks on every monitor you consider. Armed with this knowledge and hopefully a decent returns policy, though, you'll on your way to getting the ideal combination of size, resolution and scaling for your needs.

It may not be worth your trouble finding it, but there is an Open in Low Resolution option for every application
It may not be worth your trouble finding it, but there is an Open in Low Resolution option for every application


There is just one more thing, though. Maybe this is the most obscure feature in macOS or maybe we've just never needed it before, but you can tell an individual application to display in lower resolution. By itself.

Go to your Applications folder, right-click on any app and press Command-I choose File, Get Info.

You'll find a tick-box marked Open in Low Resolution. As ever, Apple doesn't give any pixel dimensions, but otherwise this does work. So if you need high res for your Final Cut Pro X work but that makes Microsoft Word too fine and small to use, you can get Word to open in lower res.

It does make a difference, but you have to be on a really high resolution monitor to see a significant change.


Keep up with AppleInsider by downloading the AppleInsider app for iOS, and follow us on YouTube, Twitter @appleinsider and Facebook for live, late-breaking coverage. You can also check out our official Instagram account for exclusive photos.
raulcristian

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 15
    I’m a dual 24” LCD man myself, but it all depends on need.
  • Reply 2 of 15
    nhtnht Posts: 4,494member

    Even when the listing says it's for a 4K monitor and you know 4K is good, that's little to no help. It's because 4K, like most monitor standards, is utterly useless on its own. You need to know that 4K on a 21-inch monitor will look great and that 4K on a 49-inch one will be bad.

    And if only it were that simple. It's easy to appreciate that 4K at 49-inches is going to be fuzzier than the sharpness of that 21-inch 4K monitor. But, that latter one is likely to make everything so small that it's unusable too.
    This article is bogus.  
    • A 49" 4K display will not look "bad". I'm sitting in front of one at 30+ inches away.  It allows you to reduce the scaling and more desktop space while maintaining a very high level of readability.
    • DPI is also another "meaningless" spec because it gives you exact same data as 4K and size gives you.  The missing element is viewing distance which gives you Pixels per Degree.
    • At a normal 20-40 inch seating distance a 49" 4K display is between 30 PPD and 62 PPD.  60 PPD is the rule of thumb for a "retina display".
    pscooter63spliff monkey
  • Reply 3 of 15
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 4,869administrator
    nht said:

    Even when the listing says it's for a 4K monitor and you know 4K is good, that's little to no help. It's because 4K, like most monitor standards, is utterly useless on its own. You need to know that 4K on a 21-inch monitor will look great and that 4K on a 49-inch one will be bad.

    And if only it were that simple. It's easy to appreciate that 4K at 49-inches is going to be fuzzier than the sharpness of that 21-inch 4K monitor. But, that latter one is likely to make everything so small that it's unusable too.
    This article is bogus.  
    • A 49" 4K display will not look "bad". I'm sitting in front of one at 30+ inches away.  It allows you to reduce the scaling and more desktop space while maintaining a very high level of readability.
    • DPI is also another "meaningless" spec because it gives you exact same data as 4K and size gives you.  The missing element is viewing distance which gives you Pixels per Degree.
    • At a normal 20-40 inch seating distance a 49" 4K display is between 30 PPD and 62 PPD.  60 PPD is the rule of thumb for a "retina display".
    While you are welcome to your opinion on the applicability of the article, given the fact that we're talking about a desktop monitor, and viewing ranges are effectively the same from desk to desk, PPI is fine in this context.

    PPD as a metric makes more sense when comparing living room viewing distances, which can vary by feet, whereas viewing distances from desk to desk will vary by inches.

    While I appreciate your reading the article, given our previous conversations, I'm nearly positive that your tech acumen is a bit higher than who this article is aimed at. While it works for you, I don't think that you'd recommend a 49-inch 4K display to any given monitor purchaser.
    edited February 21 SoliMacPro
  • Reply 4 of 15
    Thanks!!!   That was helpful!

    Another 'trick' I use is in Safari.  In Safari Preferences select "Web Sites" / "Page Zoom".  You can control the zoom for every website you visit.  For instance, I have AppleInsider.com set to open at 125% zoom.
    macgui
  • Reply 5 of 15
    Disappointing there is no discussion re: aspect ratio. A 16:9 display is great for media (e.g. watching movies), but anyone doing office-type work (e.g. Excel spreadsheets) should consider a 16:10 display. The extra verticality is seriously appreciated when working with spreadsheets, or navigating the web, as it results in less vertical scrolling. 
    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 6 of 15
    Disappointing there is no discussion re: aspect ratio. A 16:9 display is great for media (e.g. watching movies), but anyone doing office-type work (e.g. Excel spreadsheets) should consider a 16:10 display. The extra verticality is seriously appreciated when working with spreadsheets, or navigating the web, as it results in less vertical scrolling. 
    Aspect ratio can be calculated from the resolution values provided. Most monitors will follow a 16:9 ratio as this seems to have become the standard. It applies to any of the HD, UHD, 4K standards.

    With regards to office-type work I perform plenty of work in Excel but often find wider works better for my workflows given the number of columns used in the spreadsheets I have to work on. When I need more vertical height I just simply move the window across to my second screen which is in portrait mode and I have all the height I need.

    This setup works great for writing reports and emails while referencing Excel based output. I also find the setup extremely useful for development as I can have the UI execute on the landscape screen while the code sits on the portrait screen.

    I think the article does a good job of explaining what the average consumer needs to know, but it ultimately comes down to personal preferences and our own way of working as to what works best for us.
    GeorgeBMacbaconstang
  • Reply 7 of 15
    nht said:

    Even when the listing says it's for a 4K monitor and you know 4K is good, that's little to no help. It's because 4K, like most monitor standards, is utterly useless on its own. You need to know that 4K on a 21-inch monitor will look great and that 4K on a 49-inch one will be bad.

    And if only it were that simple. It's easy to appreciate that 4K at 49-inches is going to be fuzzier than the sharpness of that 21-inch 4K monitor. But, that latter one is likely to make everything so small that it's unusable too.
    This article is bogus.  
    • A 49" 4K display will not look "bad". I'm sitting in front of one at 30+ inches away.  It allows you to reduce the scaling and more desktop space while maintaining a very high level of readability.
    • DPI is also another "meaningless" spec because it gives you exact same data as 4K and size gives you.  The missing element is viewing distance which gives you Pixels per Degree.
    • At a normal 20-40 inch seating distance a 49" 4K display is between 30 PPD and 62 PPD.  60 PPD is the rule of thumb for a "retina display".
    For average people, it’s around 80PPD.
  • Reply 8 of 15
    nhtnht Posts: 4,494member
    nht said:

    Even when the listing says it's for a 4K monitor and you know 4K is good, that's little to no help. It's because 4K, like most monitor standards, is utterly useless on its own. You need to know that 4K on a 21-inch monitor will look great and that 4K on a 49-inch one will be bad.

    And if only it were that simple. It's easy to appreciate that 4K at 49-inches is going to be fuzzier than the sharpness of that 21-inch 4K monitor. But, that latter one is likely to make everything so small that it's unusable too.
    This article is bogus.  
    • A 49" 4K display will not look "bad". I'm sitting in front of one at 30+ inches away.  It allows you to reduce the scaling and more desktop space while maintaining a very high level of readability.
    • DPI is also another "meaningless" spec because it gives you exact same data as 4K and size gives you.  The missing element is viewing distance which gives you Pixels per Degree.
    • At a normal 20-40 inch seating distance a 49" 4K display is between 30 PPD and 62 PPD.  60 PPD is the rule of thumb for a "retina display".
    While you are welcome to your opinion on the applicability of the article, given the fact that we're talking about a desktop monitor, and viewing ranges are effectively the same from desk to desk, PPI is fine in this context.

    PPD as a metric makes more sense when comparing living room viewing distances, which can vary by feet, whereas viewing distances from desk to desk will vary by inches.

    While I appreciate your reading the article, given our previous conversations, I'm nearly positive that your tech acumen is a bit higher than who this article is aimed at. While it works for you, I don't think that you'd recommend a 49-inch 4K display to any given monitor purchaser.
    20"-40" is the normal seating range for computer use.  At 20" a 27" 4K display is just shy of retina (57 PPD).  At 40" a 27" 4K display is overkill at 114 PPD from a resolution perspective.  That is less than 2 feet worth of variance that results in a large differences in resolution.  

    Distance IS the key factor in both required resolution and desktop size.  If you can reach out and touch the monitor screen you are closer to the 20" number.  If you can't touch your monitor without moving you are closer to that 40" number.  This is something that anyone can determine even without a ruler.  It's the difference between slouching back in your chair and standing (close) at a standing desk.

    27" is good for those that can easily touch their monitor.  
    43-49" is good for those that are more than a couple inches from touching their monitor.

    If you are short desktop real estate and are forced to drop to the middle scaled desktop (2560x1440) due to everything being too small on the 27" BenQ then a 43-49" UHDTV for $500 is a better option if can run at native resolution and still read everything.

    And yes, I do recommend using the Sony 43" UHDTV for $500 as a monitor for many folks...especially after they see mine.  For the college student, it doubles as a TV.  For a software dev it replaces the standard 2 24" monitors setup with more space for stuff. At home I use a 43" Samsung.  However, it depends on whether they like sitting close or far.

    Folks that like to sit at 20" not so much because it occupies too much of your field of view.  When I lean on my standing desk I can't see the whole screen at once.  That's too close or too big.
    raulcristian
  • Reply 9 of 15
    neilmneilm Posts: 637member
    nht said:
    nht said:

    Even when the listing says it's for a 4K monitor and you know 4K is good, that's little to no help. It's because 4K, like most monitor standards, is utterly useless on its own. You need to know that 4K on a 21-inch monitor will look great and that 4K on a 49-inch one will be bad.

    And if only it were that simple. It's easy to appreciate that 4K at 49-inches is going to be fuzzier than the sharpness of that 21-inch 4K monitor. But, that latter one is likely to make everything so small that it's unusable too.
    This article is bogus.  
    • A 49" 4K display will not look "bad". I'm sitting in front of one at 30+ inches away.  It allows you to reduce the scaling and more desktop space while maintaining a very high level of readability.
    • DPI is also another "meaningless" spec because it gives you exact same data as 4K and size gives you.  The missing element is viewing distance which gives you Pixels per Degree.
    • At a normal 20-40 inch seating distance a 49" 4K display is between 30 PPD and 62 PPD.  60 PPD is the rule of thumb for a "retina display".
    While you are welcome to your opinion on the applicability of the article, given the fact that we're talking about a desktop monitor, and viewing ranges are effectively the same from desk to desk, PPI is fine in this context.

    PPD as a metric makes more sense when comparing living room viewing distances, which can vary by feet, whereas viewing distances from desk to desk will vary by inches.

    While I appreciate your reading the article, given our previous conversations, I'm nearly positive that your tech acumen is a bit higher than who this article is aimed at. While it works for you, I don't think that you'd recommend a 49-inch 4K display to any given monitor purchaser.
    Distance IS the key factor in both required resolution and desktop size.
    Yes, distance is absolutely the key, and this article ignores it entirely.

    I use the LG-for-Apple 21.5" 4K monitor at its default resolution (same as scaled middle choice: "Looks like 2048x1152"). My chosen viewing distance is 18-20", which provides a decent field of view. Since I'm driving this display from a current form factor 4K MBP, I'm obviously used to a fairly close viewing distance. We also have an office full of 27" 5K iMacs whose users seem to sit anywhere from 20" to maybe 24" away from their screens, depending on personal choice.

    I can't really imagine using a 32" or larger monitor on a desktop, but it sure might be fun to find out.


  • Reply 10 of 15
    I investigated viewing distances vs dpi as well, and found out that Apple settled for the perfect combination: 21,5 inch for 4K and 27 inch for 5K. It will make the screen look gorgeously crisp, at about 260 dpi and 20” viewing distance. But a 5K monitor is still expensive, while 4K comes very cheap these days. 
    So I experimented with 4K screen resolutions on various screen sizes and found out that, 4K on 27” is looking too fuzzy for my liking.
    With 4K on 21,5 inch, although gorgeous, text will become small if you want to fit more data on your screen. 
    So I settled for 4K on 24”. It’s the sweet spot for me, with quite crisp text, which is legible if I scale it to fit more data on the screen. LG and Dell are offering 4K, 24” monitors for about $250 (with hardly any difference in price between the the same monitor, blown up to 27”). 
  • Reply 11 of 15
    nht said:

    Even when the listing says it's for a 4K monitor and you know 4K is good, that's little to no help. It's because 4K, like most monitor standards, is utterly useless on its own. You need to know that 4K on a 21-inch monitor will look great and that 4K on a 49-inch one will be bad.

    And if only it were that simple. It's easy to appreciate that 4K at 49-inches is going to be fuzzier than the sharpness of that 21-inch 4K monitor. But, that latter one is likely to make everything so small that it's unusable too.
    This article is bogus.  
    • A 49" 4K display will not look "bad". I'm sitting in front of one at 30+ inches away.  It allows you to reduce the scaling and more desktop space while maintaining a very high level of readability.
    • DPI is also another "meaningless" spec because it gives you exact same data as 4K and size gives you.  The missing element is viewing distance which gives you Pixels per Degree.
    • At a normal 20-40 inch seating distance a 49" 4K display is between 30 PPD and 62 PPD.  60 PPD is the rule of thumb for a "retina display".
    While you are welcome to your opinion on the applicability of the article, given the fact that we're talking about a desktop monitor, and viewing ranges are effectively the same from desk to desk, PPI is fine in this context.

    PPD as a metric makes more sense when comparing living room viewing distances, which can vary by feet, whereas viewing distances from desk to desk will vary by inches.

    While I appreciate your reading the article, given our previous conversations, I'm nearly positive that your tech acumen is a bit higher than who this article is aimed at. While it works for you, I don't think that you'd recommend a 49-inch 4K display to any given monitor purchaser.

    "When you're comparing two monitors, do note the screen size but also calculate the dots per inch. You're rarely given this information and that's probably because it would make comparisons too easy."

    So would the article benefit from more reference to DPI...?

    This calculator may be of interest to some: http://phrogz.net/tmp/ScreenDens2In.html#find:density,pxW:1920,pxH:720,size:12.6,sizeUnit:in,axis:diag,distance:31,distUnit:in

    I've done way too much anecdotal experimentation on this and had just about every mac monitor prior to retina, and spent some time at the Apple store trying to understand the 5K hype. I love sharp imaging, and I hate squinting... A 17" macbook pro I find essential for HD (1080p) resolution as a result.

    I find 110dpi per the pre-retina iMacs is about the smallest DPI scaling that seems comfortable, and at that res I find 4K 40" 110 dpi with a slight curve to be the best option. 4K 30 is even possible on a 2009 mini, and while not powerful enough for video, it seems good for static images, news websites, spreadsheets, etc. A 43" 4k was too big (for me) for a standard desk.

    I also use 27" Apple displays in portrait mode, which allows dragging or even spanning without a documents size change from the 40" and back, and adds even more vertical pixels for longer spreadsheets, etc and makes a news site like reading a newspaper.

    So yes I agree DPI is one of my most important metrics.

    Why I hope the next iMac will reinstate a user installable VESA mount like the iMac Pro, and I hope the rumour mill is wrong and Apple will offer 110dpi 4K and 8K pro retina options...

    edited February 21
  • Reply 12 of 15
    Curious how many Mac users go for dual monitors.

    I added a cheap 1080p 24” to my 27” iMac and really like how it separates out things for me now. (I had tried a couple years ago with a second 27” and didn’t like the workflow as well as I do now.)  I primarily use the small monitor for Stocks and Firefox (I call it my “distraction”monitor), and the big monitor for everything else. It is also helpful when running Remote Desktop, as it is easier for me to mentally associate one screen with Windows for keyboard shortcuts.

    Windows is still better at multiple monitor workflow though. 
  • Reply 13 of 15
    blah64blah64 Posts: 940member
    AppleInsider talks about the three biggest and most important factors for a daily-use monitor for general use -- screen size, resolution, and scaling.

    This article completely left out an issue that might be more important than all of the above:

    Glossy vs. Matte

    I will never pretend that others are as adversely affected by this issue as myself, but people definitely have preferences, and it's at least as important that they consider this as the three factors you've listed, which are all closely related. 

    There's plenty research that shows glossy displays cause more eye strain, so even if someone likes the highly saturated look of glossy displays there's good reason to do some comparison shopping with your own eyes.  Even that won't tell the tale entirely, because looking at a display in the store for 5-10 minutes isn't the same as staring at it for 8-12 hours/day.
  • Reply 14 of 15
    Curious how many Mac users go for dual monitors.

    I added a cheap 1080p 24” to my 27” iMac and really like how it separates out things for me now. (I had tried a couple years ago with a second 27” and didn’t like the workflow as well as I do now.)

    I have mostly the same. 27" iMac + 24" 1080p monitor.

    I love it. Great workflow separation, and useful for seeing some apps or text boxes in larger size when needed (I'm getting older, you know...) yet still taking advantage of the larger screen real state on the iMac.

    I love how MacOS handles virtual desktops and maximized apps.

  • Reply 15 of 15
    I have a secret hint; There is a program called Display Menu. It lets me choose the display scaling on my otherwise unsupported 4K display on the MBP10.1 (mid 2012 retina) to 100% scaling on 4K resolution (which unfortunately results in a refresh rate of 30 Hz, but its OK if you're doing stuff like coding and text editing).
    edited February 23 raulcristian
Sign In or Register to comment.