No it is not. Monitor in 24 inch size is way too small and it is ill idea of someone who does not understand principles of human vision. It is the same as marketing foolishness from years ago about 32 millions of colors while human eye can recognize about 300,000. Selling on technical specs does not pay off.
If you really want to squeeze more information on screen that is expressed with 4K resolutions then you need minimum 27 inch monitor or better: 32 inch monitor. Tiny fonts do not work when you have to start using eyeglasses to see them. 24 inch monitor is for 1080/HD resolutions and it is old standard at this point, but popular with many applications including some office work.
Haven’t read past this comment yet so don’t know if anyone else has commented on this but my thoughts are…
Sigh… not this ignorant rhetoric again. Have you ever even seen any retina Mac (or the LG Ultrafine ~220+ ppi) displays? Do you even own or use any Mac from the last 5+ years?
If you did you’d understand Apple’s pixel doubling process and the impressive algorithms behind that that effectively gives all of those 220+ppi displays resolution independence.
Text too small? You’re doing it wrong. A 4K display in/attached to a Mac is not supposed to be set to 4K resolution and it’s not even possible out of the box (you need one of a number of third party extensions to pull that off). It’s supposed to be set to “1920x1080 HiDPI”.
Today’s retina displays have the same point resolution as all Apple’s older displays pre-2012. They just show each point with a 2x2=4grid of independent pixels resulting in extraordinarily crisper and clearer textfor close to the kind of fidelity you get out of a laser printer. This shows everything (text, UI elements, etc) at the same visible size as the old 1080p 21” 4K iMac, just with very visibly improved clarity and crispness. The 2880x1800 15” retina MBP is by default set to “1440x900 HiDPI” and shows everything the same size as the pre-2012 1440x900 non-retina MBP. Likewise the 13” MBPs and MBAs (2560x1600 = 1289x800 HiDPI). And and all of that is before you start changing to the higher dpi (not ppi) resolutions that are standard options in the Displays system preferences (eg 1920x1200 HiDPI on 15” retina MBP or 2560x1440 HiDPI on a 21” iMac 4K that yes, make text and UI smaller but is still perfectly usable if you have the need for the extra dot resolution (equates to extra desktop real estate. 4K at 27 or 32 inches (compared with 21 inches) is noticeably fuzzy or blurry when you set the display to the correct resolution for the inches (which for a Mac is about 110dpi).
The correct resolution stats for some of Apple’s displays are: Display inches | ~220 ppi* | ~110 dpi**
(*physical pixels per inch, **UI-correct dots per inch.
^ new iMac)
If you really can’t see the difference between the old non-retina models at ~110ppi and today’s retina ~220ppi Macs or displays (set to the default HiDPI resolutions) then you need to make some appointments with your optometrist.
And that said, there is no way you can not have experienced this if you’ve owned or even used any Mac with a built-in or attached Retina display in almost the last decade. I suspect you’re basing your comments on Windows’ comparatively woeful handling of hi res displays and haven’t experienced just how impressively maxOS handles this.
So yeah… pretty much every point your comment makes is incorrect, and absurd.
Only if you get the Intel Mini now while you still can.
There's a reason it's more expensive than the M1 junk. It's worth it.
(And go for a bigger monitor. 24" is kinda tiny these days.)
Omg.
Have you even tried an M1 Mac? For the last year I’ve had a maxed out latest model 16” MBP (8-core, 16 threads, 64GB RAM) which in some tests benchmarks better than the current 8-core Mac Pro. Both are high end Intel, obviously.
I recently bought the M1 MBP. With translated x86 apps it keeps up with the 16”. With native ASi apps it smokes the 16” on everything except the most intense graphics related tasks. And this is Apple’s low end chip with the effective equivalent of 5 cores.
And it does all that without batting an eyelid — meaning without it heating up so much I need to sit it on two ice packs to stop it throttling down and literally grinding to a halt. Doing that has been the only way to get my 16” to even come close to what the M1 MBP can handle.
Yes the M1’s graphics is lower end and doesn’t compete with dedicated high end AMD graphics, but it was never supposed to. It still runs rings around every Intel integrated graphics, which is its competition.
My 16” is now in a corner playing file server and FileMaker database server for my home network thanks to its 8TB drive, the fact that my use of those devices aren’t exactly taxing processes, it has a portable fan pointed permanently at it, and it sits on a compartment I put ice packs into when it does start throttling. It just doesn’t hold a candle to my M1 for day to day usage.
Laugh at the M1 tech specs - or whatever else you’re doing here - if you want but without actually using one you can’t observe just how astounding it is compared to Intel’s offerings so you have no basis for calling it junk. And if you have used one — for it’s intended purpose (eg. not editing and rendering Hollywood movies) — and still want to call it junk then you’re being paid to lie, or you’re brainwashed.
DarkVader, with some of the complete nonsense you spout, I’ve been thinking for a while you must be a shill (and every time I’ve called you out on said nonsense you’ve never replied with anything remotely meaningful, if at all - because you can’t). Your “M1 junk” line really nails it. Prove me wrong.
Sharpness (pixel pitch) is my priority, having been spoiled by my 5K iMac. With this in mind, I would accept the smaller real estate of a 24" 4K monitor over a larger size 4K monitor.
Too bad the 4K monitors shown are so ugly.
Too bad 5K monitors are still so expensive (you can get a new 24" iMac for the price of a 5K monitor!). I would put up with some ugly for a reasonably priced 27" 5K.
Too bad there isn't a separate 24" 4.5K monitor yet. Hopefully soon (but please don't be ugly or expensive!).
Interesting to note that Dell's 32" 8K is lower price than Apple's 32" 6K (not that I would pay that kind of money for either). The Dell actually looks decent too, but as near as I can tell, 8K support on Macs not a given yet.
It’s possible to get the Dell 8K to work - at least I did at one point - but even if you do, it is only 350nits. Why can’t anyone but Apple (or Apple via LG) make any hi-res monitors with decent brightness.
On the other hand I tried a decent 8K TV with my Mac at one point and it comes out pretty nice. If I recall correctly it was upscaling a 4K input but it did so very well and the clarity and precision was quite astounding - my primary use, and test, was as a developer, viewing large amounts of source code.
I nearly pulled the pin on it except it’s just too big. I don’t want a 55” monitor and no one makes any 8K display (monitor or TV), at any sensible size for computer use, except the Dell one, but it’s dimness just sucks.
Sharpness (pixel pitch) is my priority, having been spoiled by my 5K iMac. With this in mind, I would accept the smaller real estate of a 24" 4K monitor over a larger size 4K monitor.
Too bad the 4K monitors shown are so ugly.
Too bad 5K monitors are still so expensive (you can get a new 24" iMac for the price of a 5K monitor!). I would put up with some ugly for a reasonably priced 27" 5K.
Too bad there isn't a separate 24" 4.5K monitor yet. Hopefully soon (but please don't be ugly or expensive!).
Interesting to note that Dell's 32" 8K is lower price than Apple's 32" 6K (not that I would pay that kind of money for either). The Dell actually looks decent too, but as near as I can tell, 8K support on Macs not a given yet.
It’s possible to get the Dell 8K to work - at least I did at one point - but even if you do, it is only 350nits. Why can’t anyone but Apple (or Apple via LG) make any hi-res monitors with decent brightness.
On the other hand I tried a decent 8K TV with my Mac at one point and it comes out pretty nice. If I recall correctly it was upscaling a 4K input but it did so very well and the clarity and precision was quite astounding - my primary use, and test, was as a developer, viewing large amounts of source code.
I nearly pulled the pin on it except it’s just too big. I don’t want a 55” monitor and no one makes any 8K display (monitor or TV), at any sensible size for computer use, except the Dell one, but it’s dimness just sucks.
How did you get the Dell 32" 8K to work? Were you actually able to drive it at its native resolution?
I'm very interested to hear why you require more than 350 nits for a desktop monitor. Seems like viewing large amounts of code on a white screen would be harsh on the eyes, and if it were reversed with light text on a dark background, you'd be throwing away a lot of light. I find 350 nits or so plenty for CAD work and the usual office productivity apps. I even had to turn down the brightness of my iMac because it was like staring at a lightbulb all day.
PS: That was a good response to maciekskontakt regarding how the Mac handles the HiDPI display. I would add that for graphics and photos, no text or UI sizing is obviously required, so those can be displayed pixel for pixel (if it fits within the display native resolution). Things like line drawings in AutoCAD or PDFs are very sharp too!
PPS: That was also a good and informative --but I suspect a totally wasted-- response to darkvader. He has made so many uninformed and just plain idiotic comments that I had to block him a while back.
Sharpness (pixel pitch) is my priority, having been spoiled by my 5K iMac. With this in mind, I would accept the smaller real estate of a 24" 4K monitor over a larger size 4K monitor.
Too bad the 4K monitors shown are so ugly.
Too bad 5K monitors are still so expensive (you can get a new 24" iMac for the price of a 5K monitor!). I would put up with some ugly for a reasonably priced 27" 5K.
Too bad there isn't a separate 24" 4.5K monitor yet. Hopefully soon (but please don't be ugly or expensive!).
Interesting to note that Dell's 32" 8K is lower price than Apple's 32" 6K (not that I would pay that kind of money for either). The Dell actually looks decent too, but as near as I can tell, 8K support on Macs not a given yet.
It’s possible to get the Dell 8K to work - at least I did at one point - but even if you do, it is only 350nits. Why can’t anyone but Apple (or Apple via LG) make any hi-res monitors with decent brightness.
On the other hand I tried a decent 8K TV with my Mac at one point and it comes out pretty nice. If I recall correctly it was upscaling a 4K input but it did so very well and the clarity and precision was quite astounding - my primary use, and test, was as a developer, viewing large amounts of source code.
I nearly pulled the pin on it except it’s just too big. I don’t want a 55” monitor and no one makes any 8K display (monitor or TV), at any sensible size for computer use, except the Dell one, but it’s dimness just sucks.
How did you get the Dell 32" 8K to work? Were you actually able to drive it at its native resolution?
I'm very interested to hear why you require more than 350 nits for a desktop monitor. Seems like viewing large amounts of code on a white screen would be harsh on the eyes, and if it were reversed with light text on a dark background, you'd be throwing away a lot of light. I find 350 nits or so plenty for CAD work and the usual office productivity apps. I even had to turn down the brightness of my iMac because it was like staring at a lightbulb all day.
PS: That was a good response to maciekskontakt regarding how the Mac handles the HiDPI display. I would add that for graphics and photos, no text or UI sizing is obviously required, so those can be displayed pixel for pixel (if it fits within the display native resolution). Things like line drawings in AutoCAD or PDFs are very sharp too!
PPS: That was also a good and informative --but I suspect a totally wasted-- response to darkvader. He has made so many uninformed and just plain idiotic comments that I had to block him a while back.
Thanks for the feedback. Yeah DV is … bizarre to say the least. Wasted? Who knows. He posts here a lot. I wonder if he’ll ever reply to me, or indeed any of us, directly. To me it’s a good test. If he continues spouting the rubbish he spouts but never engages in an actual conversation to discuss those perspectives I can more and more comfortably conclude he’s a shill. I have tried blocking people in the past but then when someone else replies to someone I’ve blocked I’ve lost context… besides sometimes other people’s idiocy is entertaining. Lol.
And yes good point about graphics and scaling. Still, I don’t get it. I now have read all the comments on this thread and I’m baffled by the number of people (not a lot but still a few) who know nothing of Apple’s Retina pixel doubling and complain with such authority about how hi res screens show everything too tiny. It makes no sense to me. If that’s how it came by default sure, but a 4K display comes pixel doubled by default. You have to go out of your way to get the “raw, native” tiny resolution they’re complaining about.
I’m sorry to say I honestly can’t remember how I got that 8K display to work or whether it was full res or not. It was a few years ago now. As for brightness, maybe I’m just blind or maybe just spoiled by Apple. Most of Apple’s displays have been 500 nits for years. I agree all the white can be a bit much and I’ve found dark mode to be much more comfortable but either way (light or dark mode) the brightness adds to the crispness, contrast, color range, etc. it’s kinda like the difference between SDR and HDR more recently.
Comments
Sigh… not this ignorant rhetoric again. Have you ever even seen any retina Mac (or the LG Ultrafine ~220+ ppi) displays? Do you even own or use any Mac from the last 5+ years?
Text too small? You’re doing it wrong. A 4K display in/attached to a Mac is not supposed to be set to 4K resolution and it’s not even possible out of the box (you need one of a number of third party extensions to pull that off). It’s supposed to be set to “1920x1080 HiDPI”.
Display inches | ~220 ppi* | ~110 dpi**
15” | 2880x1800 | 1440x900
21” | “4K” 3840x2160 | 1080p
24” | “4.5K” 4480x2520^ | 2250x1260
27” | “5K” 5120x2880 | 2560x1440
(*physical pixels per inch,
**UI-correct dots per inch.
If you really can’t see the difference between the old non-retina models at ~110ppi and today’s retina ~220ppi Macs or displays (set to the default HiDPI resolutions) then you need to make some appointments with your optometrist.
I'm very interested to hear why you require more than 350 nits for a desktop monitor. Seems like viewing large amounts of code on a white screen would be harsh on the eyes, and if it were reversed with light text on a dark background, you'd be throwing away a lot of light. I find 350 nits or so plenty for CAD work and the usual office productivity apps. I even had to turn down the brightness of my iMac because it was like staring at a lightbulb all day.
PS: That was a good response to maciekskontakt regarding how the Mac handles the HiDPI display. I would add that for graphics and photos, no text or UI sizing is obviously required, so those can be displayed pixel for pixel (if it fits within the display native resolution). Things like line drawings in AutoCAD or PDFs are very sharp too!
PPS: That was also a good and informative --but I suspect a totally wasted-- response to darkvader. He has made so many uninformed and just plain idiotic comments that I had to block him a while back.
And yes good point about graphics and scaling. Still, I don’t get it. I now have read all the comments on this thread and I’m baffled by the number of people (not a lot but still a few) who know nothing of Apple’s Retina pixel doubling and complain with such authority about how hi res screens show everything too tiny. It makes no sense to me. If that’s how it came by default sure, but a 4K display comes pixel doubled by default. You have to go out of your way to get the “raw, native” tiny resolution they’re complaining about.