Calling Mac/computer nerds

[quikky]

In my dumbness what I took from this:

Unless I’m using my mini with a 55” display I don’t need 4K and mini won’t work as hard

1080p is ok. 1440 (qhd) is much better, easy on the mini, and I won’t see the difference from 4K unless 55” or bigger.

Hz is backwards compatible so I should buy a higher refresh rate so that when I upgrade my Mac……

No point in a Thunderbolt Display (6k @60hz) unless display is 55” or bigger

I always thought a bigger display needed more resolution. Does it matter going from 24” display to a 32” display?

The point of a bigger display is to have multiple apps open?

This can be a surprisingly complex topic that I am grossly simplifying.

Resolution: 4K, 6K and 8K is bullshit. And will be for another decade. Why? Because the majority of the US (and world) does not have internet speeds that will support media at those resolutions. And the infrastructure needed to support that at scale is not in place. The quality of the media streaming is somewhere between 1080p or QHD.

It was a bit misleading regarding the 55" TV. People normally are 8' or greater from a TV. Making 4K pointless on smaller than 55" screens. People are ~2-3' from monitors. I don't see a big difference but that could be with the above.

If you are big on physical media (you own hard copies), the you can get 4K, 6K, and 8K media.

We are discussing resolution in shorthand. Not the actual pixels in the screen. so HD, QHD, 4K, 6K, and 8K all provide a set resolution in a set area.

Framerate: conventional wisdom is 24 fps is enough. It's not. Especially for a monitor and how close people sit to monitors. 60hz is the minimum. I see a big difference between 60hz and 120hz. This is a preference thing.

Screen Size: This is preference but yes, more real estate allows for multiple apps. I am an engineer and most offices I have worked in have dual monitor setups(2-22" or 24" monitors). I bought my 32" to work at home. I prefer the 32" over the dual monitor setup. There are some pretty cool snap tools that let you put apps in different sized windows in your screen. And who doesn't want to watch media/games/view images on a bigger screen! Can change the experience significantly.

Example: the main advantage of a console was to game on your TV. Especially after the availability of large flat screens. But now, with a 32" monitor, I prefer to game on my monitor versus TV. My PS5 is collecting dust.

Are all 32” monitors 16:9? Some list it in their descriptions, some don’t. Do I need it?

There’s some 3440x1440 displays. Yes/no? Or is 2560x1440 enough?

Best Buy has the 32” dell you linked in stock ready for pick up. 400 CDN. Half price. Should I just go buy the damn thing?

My daughter is Leary of a curved monitor, and other than “ I haven’t heard anything good” she didn’t really have a reason.

What does a curved display do that a flat won’t?

Just to clarify something @aurelius mentioned: the refresh rate, i.e. something like 60hz is not the same as the frame rate. The refresh rate is simply how fast your monitor can refresh the screen. Having a 120hz monitor is not any more or less taxing on your system than a 60hz monitor. All a fast refresh is good for is potentially alleviating eye strain (your brain can detect subtle blurring and flickering) if you spend a lot of time in front of the screen, or help fast frame rate applications appear smoother, such as games. Which brings us to the frame rate part: this is how fast your computer is outputting frames to the monitor. Since you do not play games or do any 3D type of editing, this part is irrelevant for you.

In terms of refresh rates for your needs, if you never have any eye strain issues, I would not worry about the refresh rate.

In terms of resolution, it does two things: how "crisp" things appear on screen, and how much real estate you have. For monitors smaller than 32", 1080 is going to be sufficient based on what you are describing. 32"+ you definitely should go with 1440. 3440 vs 2560: do you want a more widescreen monitor? Do you do a lot of side-by-side type of work, looking at two things at once? If not, just get 2560.

In terms of curved, it matters more with larger screen like 32"+. Essentially, your vision is "spherical", and when your monitor is large and flat, your eyes have to slightly refocus looking at the sides vs the middle since they are at different distances. A curved monitor alleviates that by making the middle and the sides a similar distance from your eyes. In simple terms: it's a nice to have if your monitor is at least 32". I would not bother one way or another if you go with a 27".

The Dell monitor is good. I have a very similar model and enjoy it. Only caveat is that it is large, so make sure you not only have the room for it, but that you can put it a few feet away from you.

[Oldandfat]

In my dumbness what I took from this:

Unless I’m using my mini with a 55” display I don’t need 4K and mini won’t work as hard

1080p is ok. 1440 (qhd) is much better, easy on the mini, and I won’t see the difference from 4K unless 55” or bigger.

Hz is backwards compatible so I should buy a higher refresh rate so that when I upgrade my Mac……

No point in a Thunderbolt Display (6k @60hz) unless display is 55” or bigger

I always thought a bigger display needed more resolution. Does it matter going from 24” display to a 32” display?

The point of a bigger display is to have multiple apps open?

This can be a surprisingly complex topic that I am grossly simplifying.

Resolution: 4K, 6K and 8K is bullshit. And will be for another decade. Why? Because the majority of the US (and world) does not have internet speeds that will support media at those resolutions. And the infrastructure needed to support that at scale is not in place. The quality of the media streaming is somewhere between 1080p or QHD.

It was a bit misleading regarding the 55" TV. People normally are 8' or greater from a TV. Making 4K pointless on smaller than 55" screens. People are ~2-3' from monitors. I don't see a big difference but that could be with the above.

If you are big on physical media (you own hard copies), the you can get 4K, 6K, and 8K media.

We are discussing resolution in shorthand. Not the actual pixels in the screen. so HD, QHD, 4K, 6K, and 8K all provide a set resolution in a set area.

Framerate: conventional wisdom is 24 fps is enough. It's not. Especially for a monitor and how close people sit to monitors. 60hz is the minimum. I see a big difference between 60hz and 120hz. This is a preference thing.

Screen Size: This is preference but yes, more real estate allows for multiple apps. I am an engineer and most offices I have worked in have dual monitor setups(2-22" or 24" monitors). I bought my 32" to work at home. I prefer the 32" over the dual monitor setup. There are some pretty cool snap tools that let you put apps in different sized windows in your screen. And who doesn't want to watch media/games/view images on a bigger screen! Can change the experience significantly.

Example: the main advantage of a console was to game on your TV. Especially after the availability of large flat screens. But now, with a 32" monitor, I prefer to game on my monitor versus TV. My PS5 is collecting dust.

Are all 32” monitors 16:9? Some list it in their descriptions, some don’t. Do I need it?

There’s some 3440x1440 displays. Yes/no? Or is 2560x1440 enough?

Best Buy has the 32” dell you linked in stock ready for pick up. 400 CDN. Half price. Should I just go buy the damn thing?

My daughter is Leary of a curved monitor, and other than “ I haven’t heard anything good” she didn’t really have a reason.

What does a curved display do that a flat won’t?

Just to clarify something @aurelius mentioned: the refresh rate, i.e. something like 60hz is not the same as the frame rate. The refresh rate is simply how fast your monitor can refresh the screen. Having a 120hz monitor is not any more or less taxing on your system than a 60hz monitor. All a fast refresh is good for is potentially alleviating eye strain (your brain can detect subtle blurring and flickering) if you spend a lot of time in front of the screen, or help fast frame rate applications appear smoother, such as games. Which brings us to the frame rate part: this is how fast your computer is outputting frames to the monitor. Since you do not play games or do any 3D type of editing, this part is irrelevant for you.

In terms of refresh rates for your needs, if you never have any eye strain issues, I would not worry about the refresh rate.

In terms of resolution, it does two things: how "crisp" things appear on screen, and how much real estate you have. For monitors smaller than 32", 1080 is going to be sufficient based on what you are describing. 32"+ you definitely should go with 1440. 3440 vs 2560: do you want a more widescreen monitor? Do you do a lot of side-by-side type of work, looking at two things at once? If not, just get 2560.

In terms of curved, it matters more with larger screen like 32"+. Essentially, your vision is "spherical", and when your monitor is large and flat, your eyes have to slightly refocus looking at the sides vs the middle since they are at different distances. A curved monitor alleviates that by making the middle and the sides a similar distance from your eyes. In simple terms: it's a nice to have if your monitor is at least 32". I would not bother one way or another if you go with a 27".

The Dell monitor is good. I have a very similar model and enjoy it. Only caveat is that it is large, so make sure you not only have the room for it, but that you can put it a few feet away from you.

My mini is limited to 60hz.

I sit about an arms length from the monitor, maybe a tad more. Sometimes a tad tad more if I have a guitar in hand, but at that point I’m not concerned about the display. Strike that, I,watch video for guitar lessons so I’m not always going angus in front of the computer.

I thought the display size determined “side by side” things, not the aspect ratio?

I don’t need side by side, but I’ve never used it. Maybe with a 32” I will use that feature” to go from 24” to 32” doesn’t seem that huge, or big enough for side by side.

[Oldandfat]

Best Buy has the 32” dell you linked in stock ready for pick up. 400 CDN. Half price. Should I just go buy the damn thing?

Yes.

My only caveat is Apple. Apple has a history of not playing well with others (essentially forcing you to buy there overpriced stuff). I don't like Apple. But the Dell monitor is a good monitor and I can't think of a reason it would not work with your computer.

My daughter is Leary of a curved monitor, and other than “ I haven’t heard anything good” she didn’t really have a reason.

What does a curved display do that a flat won’t?

Keep in mind how close you sit to the monitor versus a TV screen. The curve better matches the curvature of your eye. Which helps keep more of the screen within your 'focal' point. As the screen gets bigger (and wider) this becomes more important. Also may reduce eye fatigue.

Curvature of your eye is 1000R. The 32" Dell monitor is 1800R (so a slight curve). If you look at the monstrosity I want that is so wide it has 1000R curvature to match the actual curvature of your eye.

See? It gets complicated.

I’ll add that I use my computer to run Logic Pro, and to learn/play/practice guitar, and piano. While I’m at the computer I’ll check email, etc.

I don’t game, or watch anything other than some you tube videos on the pc.

Tv I use the big screen and to be honest most of my email/browsing is on the iPad

A larger screen will increase your enjoyment of other activities. I bet you will find more ways to use your computer with a larger screen.

When I bought my Mac Pro in 2007 I spec’s out a similar windows box, I.e server grade motherboard, and Xeon CPUs. Server grade ram, etc. the costs were about the same.

I used to build my own windows boxes, and there are thousands of different combinations of components. Many of them don’t play well together. And back in the day (may not be an issue anymore) pro sound cards were very chipset dependent and you had to pick the correct motherboard or there’d be issues.


I like Apple. I’m invested in the eco system, and more importantly Logic Pro is apple only. I like it, I use it and sometimes us musician types March to a different beat.

Sometimes our inspiration is dependent on things that don’t make sense to others. It is what it is. And I’ve tried other software and I just like logic.

And brown m&m’s

I’ve heard some displays don’t wake from sleep with the apple silicone.

Barring any other advice I think I will pick up the Dell you recommended. I can always return it if I don’t like it.

But Considering my display is from 2004 I think it will be fine

[quikky]

I thought the display size determined “side by side” things, not the aspect ratio?

I don’t need side by side, but I’ve never used it. Maybe with a 32” I will use that feature” to go from 24” to 32” doesn’t seem that huge, or big enough for side by side.

Wider aspect ratios, i.e. that have more width relative to height, simply have more horizontal space for viewing things side by side. They can also be nice for some games but that's not what you care for. For regular users, just get a standard 16:9 monitor. You can still view things side by side just fine if you need to.

In terms of size, I suggest just checking it out at a store. Try to sit in front of one and see if you like a 32". If you do, get one in 1440. If not, get a 27" in 1080.

[Oldandfat]

Im at my mini right now. Im an arms length + 12-18" away. If that helps.

[quikky]

Im at my mini right now. Im an arms length + 12-18" away. If that helps.

Arm length + 12-18" should make a 32" nice but only you can tell. There is no "wrong" size. Now that you know a bit more about the different specs, go to a store and check out the different monitors and see what makes sense for you.

[aurelius]

When I bought my Mac Pro in 2007 I spec’s out a similar windows box, I.e server grade motherboard, and Xeon CPUs. Server grade ram, etc. the costs were about the same.

But Considering my display is from 2004 I think it will be fine

That is interesting. I have never seen Apple at the same price point as PC with similar hardware. Always an Apple tax. But to your point, Apple has always just worked. I know of you discuss but PC has come a long way in regards to compatibility and such. Recently built my own computer and the level of difficulty was below IKEA instructions.

Barring some technical SNAFU, I think you will be happy with the 32" Dell.

@quikky makes a great recommendation. Just go to Best Buy and check them out. Yes, there are some technical things but it really is a preference.

[Oldandfat]

When I bought my Mac Pro in 2007 I spec’s out a similar windows box, I.e server grade motherboard, and Xeon CPUs. Server grade ram, etc. the costs were about the same.

But Considering my display is from 2004 I think it will be fine

That is interesting. I have never seen Apple at the same price point as PC with similar hardware. Always an Apple tax. But to your point, Apple has always just worked. I know of you discuss but PC has come a long way in regards to compatibility and such. Recently built my own computer and the level of difficulty was below IKEA instructions.

Barring some technical SNAFU, I think you will be happy with the 32" Dell.

@quikky makes a great recommendation. Just go to Best Buy and check them out. Yes, there are some technical things but it really is a preference.

I’ll head out to Best Buy.

And not to start a Mac/pc thing but one of the reasons I switched in 2007 was at the time windows got “flakey” after time. I was diligent on everything and other than music production the,pc did nothing, it still went wonky. I’d reformat and ghost back to new,every,6 months. Not with apple.

Then I discovered Logic so moot point. I. Not switching software so apple it is, overpriced or not.

I really like the newmini. Small and,quiet.

[aurelius]

I’ll head out to Best Buy.

And not to start a Mac/pc thing but one of the reasons I switched in 2007 was at the time windows got “flakey” after time. I was diligent on everything and other than music production the,pc did nothing, it still went wonky. I’d reformat and ghost back to new,every,6 months. Not with apple.

Then I discovered Logic so moot point. I. Not switching software so apple it is, overpriced or not.

I really like the newmini. Small and,quiet.

Apple has great stuff. There is a reason they are successful. Ignore my curmudgeonly comments. And paying for something that just works is getting something for your money.

*In 2007 PC's had problems. Windows didn't force updates. Which meant a lot different versions of Windows were in the wild. Different OS versions and hardware created a lot of driver issues. Apple had been forcing updates forever. Very few hardware configurations and one OS version. Windows itself wasn't great and bloatware from PC manufacturers made it worse. Microsoft went full Mafia on all involved to clean up a lot of the bloatware, started forcing updates, and 'gasp' made a better product.

[Oldandfat]

I’ll head out to Best Buy.

And not to start a Mac/pc thing but one of the reasons I switched in 2007 was at the time windows got “flakey” after time. I was diligent on everything and other than music production the,pc did nothing, it still went wonky. I’d reformat and ghost back to new,every,6 months. Not with apple.

Then I discovered Logic so moot point. I. Not switching software so apple it is, overpriced or not.

I really like the newmini. Small and,quiet.

Apple has great stuff. There is a reason they are successful. Ignore my curmudgeonly comments. And paying for something that just works is getting something for your money.

*In 2007 PC's had problems. Windows didn't force updates. Which meant a lot different versions of Windows were in the wild. Different OS versions and hardware created a lot of driver issues. Apple had been forcing updates forever. Very few hardware configurations and one OS version. Windows itself wasn't great and bloatware from PC manufacturers made it worse. Microsoft went full Mafia on all involved to clean up a lot of the bloatware, started forcing updates, and 'gasp' made a better product.

I still found windows 10 to be flakey. I looked after my ex deceased mother in law. She had a laptop and we facilitated weekly Skype sessions,with the ex. Laptop had no use age other than once weekly Skype and it still needed reformatting.

I was able to build a “working” system via internet boards trial and error. The problem was always Microsoft.

Apple does it all for you and limits what plays with apple. And yes paying for something that just works has value.

One,of my fellow musicians,is,an IT something or another and works on computers all day. He uses app,e computers for leisure. (He,also uses logic so,I’m,sure that factored into,the,decision)

He also,said that Microsoft uses Unix for their own servers (they don’t use their own software ) so that says something. OS X is,a,kind,of Unix or something. It’s too computer nerdy for me.

All I know is I like my new mini. Just going to take a look at that Dell!

[JonA]

*In 2007 PC's had problems. Windows didn't force updates. Which meant a lot different versions of Windows were in the wild. Different OS versions and hardware created a lot of driver issues. Apple had been forcing updates forever. Very few hardware configurations and one OS version. Windows itself wasn't great and bloatware from PC manufacturers made it worse. Microsoft went full Mafia on all involved to clean up a lot of the bloatware, started forcing updates, and 'gasp' made a better product.

2007 wasn't that great to own a mac either. They were just transitioning from PPC to Intel CPUs and you never new if something was going to be supported, work or perform like it should.

[Oldandfat]

*In 2007 PC's had problems. Windows didn't force updates. Which meant a lot different versions of Windows were in the wild. Different OS versions and hardware created a lot of driver issues. Apple had been forcing updates forever. Very few hardware configurations and one OS version. Windows itself wasn't great and bloatware from PC manufacturers made it worse. Microsoft went full Mafia on all involved to clean up a lot of the bloatware, started forcing updates, and 'gasp' made a better product.

2007 wasn't that great to own a mac either. They were just transitioning from PPC to Intel CPUs and you never new if something was going to be supported, work or perform like it should.

True, but I use logic. It’s always been supported. Always will as it’s their own. Kinda the same thing right now as they transition to apple silicone right? Logic works as does most legit software and drivers.

I have no complaints with my 2007 Mac. Got my 14 years out of it.

[Oldandfat]

I’ll head out to Best Buy.

And not to start a Mac/pc thing but one of the reasons I switched in 2007 was at the time windows got “flakey” after time. I was diligent on everything and other than music production the,pc did nothing, it still went wonky. I’d reformat and ghost back to new,every,6 months. Not with apple.

Then I discovered Logic so moot point. I. Not switching software so apple it is, overpriced or not.

I really like the newmini. Small and,quiet.

Apple has great stuff. There is a reason they are successful. Ignore my curmudgeonly comments. And paying for something that just works is getting something for your money.

*In 2007 PC's had problems. Windows didn't force updates. Which meant a lot different versions of Windows were in the wild. Different OS versions and hardware created a lot of driver issues. Apple had been forcing updates forever. Very few hardware configurations and one OS version. Windows itself wasn't great and bloatware from PC manufacturers made it worse. Microsoft went full Mafia on all involved to clean up a lot of the bloatware, started forcing updates, and 'gasp' made a better product.

What about “ultra wide”? Go big or go home right?

Can I drive a 21:9 with my mini? Still trying to understand pixels, resolution, etc. 21:9 is bigger than 16:9 so I’d need more “juice” from my Mac? It can do 4k so I don’t know what that is in resolution?

[aurelius]

I still found windows 10 to be flakey. I looked after my ex deceased mother in law. She had a laptop and we facilitated weekly Skype sessions,with the ex. Laptop had no use age other than once weekly Skype and it still needed reformatting.

I've used Windows 10 in the office since it has been out. Zero issues. Skype, Teams, Zoom all through the pandemic. Definitely the best Windows.

IT rule 1: people fuck up computers. And old people fuck up computers faster than anyone else. They start clicking and don't stop. Classic is they go to websites that are questionable and force the browser to continue. Or they click yes on everything "Do you want to install?" Now they have spyware, bloatware, malware, and what not. They have no clue what happened. Old people and internet do not mix well.

Example: My boss at my first company was looking at classic cars while at work. He somehow got to the 4th Google page and some Chinese website. He had to click like 3 or 4 separate warning boxes to go to the site so he could look at a picture of a '69 Mustang. A virus fried our server. Lucky we had offline backups that were only a couple of days old. He "didn't know what happened." I know this because the IT guys did a forensic investigation into how we got some weird ass Chinese virus.

Pro-tip when giving an older person a computer: setup their login so they are not a system admin.

Can I drive a 21:9 with my mini? Still trying to understand pixels, resolution, etc. 21:9 is bigger than 16:9 so I’d need more “juice” from my Mac? It can do 4k so I don’t know what that is in resolution?

I got you worried about something you should not be. Another poster covered it. Unless you game and/or use 3D applications, this won't be an issue for you. Almost everything the average user displays is preprocessed (streamed) or is a simple 2D render (low processing power).

[quikky]

What about “ultra wide”? Go big or go home right?

As I've mentioned before, wider aspect ratios are mainly good for viewing multiple things at once, and certain games. If you want to go bigger, just get a bigger 16:9 monitor. I don't think an ultra wide monitor is the right choice for most regular users.

[JonA]

What about “ultra wide”? Go big or go home right?

As I've mentioned before, wider aspect ratios are mainly good for viewing multiple things at once, and certain games. If you want to go bigger, just get a bigger 16:9 monitor. I don't think an ultra wide monitor is the right choice for most regular users.

It's also pretty nice for audio production. You can view a greater length of each audio track.

Both audio and video editing can make great use of horizontal space.

[Oldandfat]

I still found windows 10 to be flakey. I looked after my ex deceased mother in law. She had a laptop and we facilitated weekly Skype sessions,with the ex. Laptop had no use age other than once weekly Skype and it still needed reformatting.

I've used Windows 10 in the office since it has been out. Zero issues. Skype, Teams, Zoom all through the pandemic. Definitely the best Windows.

IT rule 1: people fuck up computers. And old people fuck up computers faster than anyone else. They start clicking and don't stop. Classic is they go to websites that are questionable and force the browser to continue. Or they click yes on everything "Do you want to install?" Now they have spyware, bloatware, malware, and what not. They have no clue what happened. Old people and internet do not mix well.

Example: My boss at my first company was looking at classic cars while at work. He somehow got to the 4th Google page and some Chinese website. He had to click like 3 or 4 separate warning boxes to go to the site so he could look at a picture of a '69 Mustang. A virus fried our server. Lucky we had offline backups that were only a couple of days old. He "didn't know what happened." I know this because the IT guys did a forensic investigation into how we got some weird ass Chinese virus.

Pro-tip when giving an older person a computer: setup their login so they are not a system admin.

Can I drive a 21:9 with my mini? Still trying to understand pixels, resolution, etc. 21:9 is bigger than 16:9 so I’d need more “juice” from my Mac? It can do 4k so I don’t know what that is in resolution?

I got you worried about something you should not be. Another poster covered it. Unless you game and/or use 3D applications, this won't be an issue for you. Almost everything the average user displays is preprocessed (streamed) or is a simple 2D render (low processing power).

You mention hz is backward compatible. So I can buy it and not use it (future ready)

Can we say the same for 4K? I can buy a 4K monitor but run it at qhd to save computer resources? Not sure as I always thought you had to run a monitor at its native resolution.

[Oldandfat]

What about “ultra wide”? Go big or go home right?

As I've mentioned before, wider aspect ratios are mainly good for viewing multiple things at once, and certain games. If you want to go bigger, just get a bigger 16:9 monitor. I don't think an ultra wide monitor is the right choice for most regular users.

It's also pretty nice for audio production. You can view a greater length of each audio track.

Both audio and video editing can make great use of horizontal space.

Agree with this.

I’ve spent all day learning about displays. I feel like I know less and am more confused.

Why do they have to make it confusing?

[aurelius]

You mention hz is backward compatible. So I can buy it and not use it (future ready)

Can we say the same for 4K? I can buy a 4K monitor but run it at qhd to save computer resources? Not sure as I always thought you had to run a monitor at its native resolution.

Think of the hz as an up to. The monitor can display up that hz.

Same thing with 4K. Personally, I just don't think it as necessary for most consumers unless they are a big user of physical media. It will take years before the infrastructure is in place to support streaming true 4k or greater. For gamers, 4K is hard on the hardware (even high-end systems frame rates suffer). By the time 4K and greater resolutions becomes the standard, you will likely want a new monitor with true HD yada yada, whatever great colors and clarity with 480 hz and so forth.

Why do they have to make it confusing?

It's complicated!

[Oldandfat]

You mention hz is backward compatible. So I can buy it and not use it (future ready)

Can we say the same for 4K? I can buy a 4K monitor but run it at qhd to save computer resources? Not sure as I always thought you had to run a monitor at its native resolution.

Think of the hz as an up to. The monitor can display up that hz.

Same thing with 4K. Personally, I just don't think it as necessary for most consumers unless they are a big user of physical media. It will take years before the infrastructure is in place to support streaming true 4k or greater. For gamers, 4K is hard on the hardware (even high-end systems frame rates suffer). By the time 4K and greater resolutions becomes the standard, you will likely want a new monitor with true HD yada yada, whatever great colors and clarity with 480 hz and so forth.

Why do they have to make it confusing?

It's complicated!

Ya, I get it 4k places a higher demand on systems. But if I buy a 4K display and run it at a lower resolution? (This not taxing the system and allowing for future faster computer?)

No harm in running at a lower res?