nht

sirozha said:

nht said:

smack416 said:

The trouble with basically any other monitor other than the 27" LG Ultrafine is the PPI. This BenQ is not retina resolution, nor is it well suited to MacOS as a non-retina display (reference: https://bjango.com/articles/macexternaldisplays/).

With the 27" Ultrafine, you're sacrificing a few inches of screen largeness for a noticeable amount of clarity (218PPI vs 138PPI on the BenQ), many more pixels (5120 x 2880 vs 3840 x 2160 on the BenQ), and the LG costs you just $100 more. To me, there's no contest given the value, unless extreme response time is a deal breaker for you.

The knock on the LG monitors is that they are not great in build quality, but the screens are as good as it gets. Simply put: the 27" LG Ultrafine monitor is the only option available today if you're looking for the clarity of a retina screen, and will be the only economical option when Apple releases their pro display. At least until a competitor else releases a +200 PPI monitor. In the meantime, this BenQ monitor doesn't compare.

Enjoy your 27" 218 ppi display running a 2650x1440 desktop because running native 5120 x 2880 makes everything too small.  That why I have a 43" 4K monitor running 3200x1800.

Only fonts and other screen elements are double pixeled. Any graphics editing software displays images in the pixel-for-pixel manner; hence, they are displayed in the 5k resolution even if you double pixel in macOS.

mdriftmeyer said:

nht said:

smack416 said:

The trouble with basically any other monitor other than the 27" LG Ultrafine is the PPI. This BenQ is not retina resolution, nor is it well suited to MacOS as a non-retina display (reference: https://bjango.com/articles/macexternaldisplays/).

With the 27" Ultrafine, you're sacrificing a few inches of screen largeness for a noticeable amount of clarity (218PPI vs 138PPI on the BenQ), many more pixels (5120 x 2880 vs 3840 x 2160 on the BenQ), and the LG costs you just $100 more. To me, there's no contest given the value, unless extreme response time is a deal breaker for you.

The knock on the LG monitors is that they are not great in build quality, but the screens are as good as it gets. Simply put: the 27" LG Ultrafine monitor is the only option available today if you're looking for the clarity of a retina screen, and will be the only economical option when Apple releases their pro display. At least until a competitor else releases a +200 PPI monitor. In the meantime, this BenQ monitor doesn't compare.

Enjoy your 27" 218 ppi display running a 2650x1440 desktop because running native 5120 x 2880 makes everything too small.  That why I have a 43" 4K monitor running 3200x1800.

It's called HiDPi scaling that is built into OS X, and actually works.

smack416 said:

The trouble with basically any other monitor other than the 27" LG Ultrafine is the PPI. This BenQ is not retina resolution, nor is it well suited to MacOS as a non-retina display (reference: https://bjango.com/articles/macexternaldisplays/).

With the 27" Ultrafine, you're sacrificing a few inches of screen largeness for a noticeable amount of clarity (218PPI vs 138PPI on the BenQ), many more pixels (5120 x 2880 vs 3840 x 2160 on the BenQ), and the LG costs you just $100 more. To me, there's no contest given the value, unless extreme response time is a deal breaker for you.

The knock on the LG monitors is that they are not great in build quality, but the screens are as good as it gets. Simply put: the 27" LG Ultrafine monitor is the only option available today if you're looking for the clarity of a retina screen, and will be the only economical option when Apple releases their pro display. At least until a competitor else releases a +200 PPI monitor. In the meantime, this BenQ monitor doesn't compare.

JokingJ said:

Inexpensive is relative, but... This it ain't it.

As nice and insular as Apple-land can be, the rest of the personal computing world deserves some consideration when talking about value, and Apple missed the mark big time here.

Consider that for $1299 USD you can get a Razer Blade Stealth 13 with a 256gb SSD, 16gb RAM, 8th Gen quad-core i7, and with dedicated Nvidia MX150 (not to mention niceties like, you know, other ports or a reliable keyboard). That's a premium laptop from a reputable company that even has Applecare-esque service options available.

Value doesn't exist in a vacuum, and it's exactly this sort of nonsense that's been pushing would-be "pros" in the Apple space to consider a switch. This underwhelming and over-priced base model isn't changing that, however comparatively "inexpensive" it may be.

MplsP said:

nht said:

MplsP said:

nht said:

MplsP said:

9secondkox2 said:

Honestly... EVERYONE should be doing USB-C now. 

Sure, manufacturers should PROVIDE adapters for about two years and then go full throttle. 

Its a great standard and does EVERYTHING. 

There is no drawback beyond “well... my old compooter on the farm don’t got that newfangled shape!”

thats what adapters are for. Only the luddites use them (as it should be. They have a different gadget for everything). NOT the ones using one port to save them all in order to clean it up and unify things. 

I wish Apple went full bore USB C only. 

It would make a lot a lot of things so much simpler. We use all Apple where I work. Having to get different types of cables for iMacs and MacBook pros is annoying. 

Why? What advantage is there to me getting a USB C keyboard? How about swapping out my car stereo (nope - I was just shopping for a new car stereo on Crutchfield and none of them are USB C) What about the old external hard drive I have? It’s USB 3, so plenty fast enough for all I need. Should I trash it and spend a bunch of money on a new one just because some technophile as decided that “USB C is the future and I want it NOW so everyone should have to change what they do to suit my views?” Many people said FireWire was the future, but that just stumbled along before dying with a whimper.

 Soli said:

jdw said:

Manufacturers aren't stupid.  What they do reflects what the consumer demand.  It's a fact that even now in July 2019 most computers and devices used worldwide still have USB-A.  It's a fact that cannot be denied.  And until the average consumer has ditched all those legacy USB-A devices, nothing will change.

You just said that manufacturers won't support USB-C until customers support USB-C which you claim won't happen until manufactures support USB-C. Do you not see a problem with your statement? Do you not see how all technologies have become a common standard?

Regardless of your disdain for USB-C the adoption and use grows every year.

Actually, what you said is exactly right. When USB (A) came along, it was clearly superior and easier and more flexible than the interfaces it was replacing. It took some time, but there was a natural driving force for its adoption. USB C doesn’t have that driving force. Sure, you can charge with it, but for charging, the MagSafe cable on my old MBA actually worked better. Yeah, I can use it for video, but my MBA had a thunderbolt port that worked for video, and I either get a thunderbolt capable USB C cable with an adapter for my non-thunderbolt monitor, or I use a thunderbolt cable - what’s the difference?

The lack of a real need or benefit of USB C for the majority of users is exactly what is going to slow the adoption. People won’t demand something they don’t need and manufacturers won’t respond to demand that isn’t there. (On the contrary, I know of many people who have specifically looked for devices with USB A ports because all their devices and cables are USB A)

The point of usb-c is that is both your MagSafe port and your video port and your high speed data port in one.  It is clearly superior to having separate power, video and data ports on a machine.

This is no different than moving from ps2, serial and parallel ports to USB.

Like I said earlier, USB had clear advantages over the PS/2 port for the majority of applications. USB C is clearly more capable but the vast majority of users don’t have a need for those capabilities and so there is not nearly the push. The PS/2 port was really only used for mice/keyboards and at the time USB A came out computers were rarely kept more than 3-4 years meaning there was a natural switch to USB. The installed base of USB A is orders of magnitude larger as is the number of things it’s used for so there is much more ‘inertia’ keeping USB A in use.

As far as having ‘one port, I have 4 USB C ports on my MBP. The vast majority of time I use one of them to charge it. The USB C cable that comes with the MacBookPros is a charging cable, so I can’t use it for data anyway. If you took that one port out and replaced it with a MagSafe it would make *zero* difference in the usability. It would actually make it more usable since the MagSafe was actually superior for charging (it was easier to connect, it had a charging indicator, it disconnected if someone tripped on the cord, the cord laid flat against the machine.) Ditto the video - replace one of the USB C ports with a thunderbolt for video. I have to have a separate thunderbolt-capable USB C cable anyway, so what’s the advantage of using the USB C port vs having a thunderbolt? I’d then have a MagSafe for charging, a thunderbolt for the rare occasions I actually connect to an external monitor and 2 USB’s which is one more than I ever use anyway.

I get that USB C can do it all; my point is that the number of people who need to do all that is very small and the number of people that need 4 separate ports to do it all is much smaller still. If the big advantage is flexibility but very few people actually need that flexibility then it really isn’t much of an advantage and the inconvenience of dealing with new connectors outweighs the supposed benefits.

Because genius, it’s not all about you.

Other folks 1 connection docking.

Others want dual monitors.

Others want eGPU + drives.

That YOU only need 2 high speed digital interconnects is immaterial.

Since you obviously are a genius, I'm surprised you have a hard time understanding that I was simply presenting examples of common use cases where there is no significant advantage. 

lorin schultz said:

MplsP said:
[...] - replace one of the USB C ports with a thunderbolt for video. I have to have a separate thunderbolt-capable USB C cable anyway, so what’s the advantage of using the USB C port vs having a thunderbolt?

Thunderbolt uses a USB-C connector. What you’re describing is removing the USB-C connector and replacing it with a USB-C connector.

I was referring to the previous, trapezoidal plug.

Regardless, everyone is missing my point - I'm not disputing that USB C has technical and convenience advantages over USB A, rather that for many, probably the majority of current uses those advantages are minimal meaning there will not be a significant push to change. As things progress, I'm sure the drive to change will increase.