Is it worth it to use a Mac Mini if you're using a 1080p monitor?

[Toutou]

Have you used a Retina style display and then went back to a non-high DPI? It is truly night and day difference, and I cannot use for an extended period of time a non high DPI monitor anymore.

I literally switch between a MacBook display and a 102 DPI (!) screen I stare at 8+ hours a day, programming. Some people just don't care that much. Sure, fonts look nicer in HiDPI, but for me it's far from "cannot use'.

 

[Apple Crusader]

There is no difference using a Mac Mini with a 1080p monitor and a PC with a 1080p monitor, similarly with a 4k.

I will tell you that, like everyone else, a 4k monitor is great but you might need to scale the text if you have issues seeing (my mom always told me if I kept staring at the screen like that I'd go blind lol).

I use 2x2.5k monitors and scale them 125% on Windows, I am debating whether I'm going to buy a Mac Mini or 13" MBP. I'm probably going to hold off until the 16" MBP because I need the extra screen.

Edit: I forgot to mention: If you are fine with 1080p, then stick with it. Just because some people here want the latest and greatest tech doesn't mean what you have and use isn't okay to compute with.

 

[FNH15]

PPI matters, too. A 27” 1080p display is awful (I have one from work which I never use), whereas a 17” 1080p display is perfectly fine.
The standard DPI display on my 15” PowerBook is totally fine, as it’s of sufficient PPI to not be a problem.

 

[Project Alice]

If you want to punish yourself, that's perfectly fine. Right now I have a 27" 4k display sitting next to an old 24" ACD with a 1920x1200 resolution. I can move any window around and the difference in text is night and day between the two monitors. The only reason why I still keep the ACD is because my wife bought it for me a long time ago and she gets upset if I get rid of gifts that she bought.

I cannot and would not recommend not using a retina display resolution to anyone. I think telling people that it's perfectly fine is disingenuous and has little to do with "that's like your opinion, man". Anybody with half decent eyesight will be able to tell the difference and agree that a higher resolution monitor running in a scaled retina mode is far more pleasing to work with. You admit that you have not used a "retina" screen with a computer. Why spread false claims that 1080p ought be good enough for everybody when you genuinely don't know. Your experience with "retina" screens on phones is not relevant here.

For the second time; I have used them on computers. I was stating that I own those phones. I simply do not own any of those displays. This does not mean I haven't or am unable to use, or see one. There is an Apple store close to where I live, and best buy also usually has all the new Macs set up too. It's also possible that I know people with those types of displays and have used theirs. I do own multiple vehicles, on occasion I get in one of them to leave my place of residence not only to go to work, but I also am able to see and use things I may not happen to own.

Basically nobody I know in real life is a computer geek, enthusiast, whatever we call ourselves now. I can guarantee you that none of them give a sh*t about the resolution their computer is if they even have one. My coworkers seem to be able to read their emails and submit reports just fine on the 10 year old Dell displays the office mostly has.

Also, nowhere did I recommend anything one way or another. I was simply stating my opinion that I do not need nor care to have anything other than I already have. I didn't tell the OP to do anything. They asked for opinions, and that's what they got. Apparently any opinion other than yours is illegal here.

(sent from a 17" PowerBook G4)

 

[weckart]

Have you used a Retina style display and then went back to a non-high DPI?

Yes and meh. Using low-DPI goodness right now.

 

[tripleburst]

I've been using an Acer 21" 1080p monitor with my launch Mac M1 Mini and edited videos with it and it's just fine. Of course 4K is better but that doesn't make a FHD monitor useless; far from it. Color accuracy is probably a higher priority for what I use it for.

 

[JouniS]

The issue of text sharpness might be personal. Some people don't care as long as they can read the text.

Text size is a major factor. I use 14pt to 18pt fonts for most texts, and they already look good on a 1080p display. Smaller fonts look better on a retina display.

 

[retta283]

I've been using an Acer 21" 1080p monitor with my launch Mac M1 Mini and edited videos with it and it's just fine. Of course 4K is better but that doesn't make a FHD monitor useless; far from it. Color accuracy is probably a higher priority for what I use it for.

This all the way. I'd much rather have a lower pixel density display with excellent color than a dull Retina density display. For media (especially motion) the difference is almost nonexistent.

 

[leman]

There is no difference using a Mac Mini with a 1080p monitor and a PC with a 1080p monitor, similarly with a 4k.

I will tell you that, like everyone else, a 4k monitor is great but you might need to scale the text if you have issues seeing (my mom always told me if I kept staring at the screen like that I'd go blind lol).

We shouldn't forget that display resolutions are merely a byproduct of less than optimal technology. In an ideal world, the concept of resolution just wouldn't exist, but since we rely on spatial sampling to represent image data it is a necessary evil. I think the world of computing would get better if we talked about PPI and physical image sizes and treat resolutions instead as an implementation detail. A 12pt text should have the same exact baseline size on every display, regardless of the resolution.

Anyway, ranting aside, Apple is quite opinionated about their displays, and that's why HiDPI makes a huge difference in Apple land. For macOS, a 4K screen is basically an 1080p screen, it's just that you get subpixel rendering precision. Size of text and UI are identical on a 24" 1080p or 24" 4K display if you use macOS default settings.

Windows has a very different approach to high-DPI screens.

I literally switch between a MacBook display and a 102 DPI (!) screen I stare at 8+ hours a day, programming. Some people just don't care that much. Sure, fonts look nicer in HiDPI, but for me it's far from "cannot use'.

It's interesting how people are different. I literally can't look at text on a lowDPI display anymore, anything under 200 PPI causes me physical discomfort...

 

[rui no onna]

There are actually two different problems.
Screen estate and pixel density.
The screen estate of a FullHD screen is nothing to scoff at. 1920x1080 points is larger than most laptop screens, it's much larger than the default MacBook desktop of 1440x900, it's wide enough to display basically all websites ever made and all Mac apps ever made, including the heavy ones like IDEs or photo editors.

If you go from a FullHD screen to a larger one (QuadHD or even 4K) without changing your scaling, you're only getting more screen estate, nothing else. The image is not more detailed, sharper or anything. And there are even downsides: I use a huge 43" 4K screen with 100 % scaling, so the screen estate is equal to FOUR FullHD screens, and that's ridiculously too much for a single app, so fullscreen mode goes basically unused on my machine.

Then there's pixel density, or scaling. The amount of pixel different screen elements (fonts, buttons) are drawn with is constant, whether you use a pre-retina MacBook or the crazy 43" panel that I use.
But most OSes out there allow you to choose your own SCALING, that is, they allow you to trade screen estate for more pixels per every button, letter or icon. This makes the elements larger as the usable screen estate shrinks.
Retina Macs used to use 2x scaling (200 % in Windows) but now they default to slightly more than that.

Whether you're going for screen estate or more details depends mainly on how big your screen is, physically.
I COULD make my display look like a FullHD screen in 200 % scaling, but that would rob me of the screen estate I need and enjoy.

So the questions you have to ask yourself are:
Do you feel constrained by the screen estate of a FullHD screen?
Would you pay money to have your letters drawn with more pixels?

If one of the answers is YES, you will probably need a larger screen, maybe a QuadHD one. If both of the answers were YES, well, you'll likely need a 4K or larger screen, so there's enough pixels to give you more screen estate AND more pixels to draw everything with.

Well said. There's viewing distance as well.

At a viewing distance of 3-4 ft, a pixel density of 90-100 ppi on a 19-24" doesn't bother me.

At 1-1.5 ft, the 132 ppi on the iPad bugs me a lot.

For 27", I'd prefer at least WQHD at the same viewing distance (no scaling, just native res for more real estate).

The M1 MacBook Air with retina display, I also disabled scaling and just use at its native resolution.

 

[Luposian]

I'm using an Acer 23" monitor (1080p) with my M1 Mac Mini and... YES! It's fine! Unless you have to have the latest/greatest, get what you can afford and what works, not the top end of everything all the time.

 

[Arctic Moose]

I literally can't look at text on a lowDPI display anymore, anything under 200 PPI causes me physical discomfort...

Same here, if someone asks me to read something on their crappy laptop and it is more than two or three paragraphs I have a physical reaction and need to ask them to send it to my phone.

For one of my projects I am forced to use a company-issued Dell with horrible performance. I tried it with a 27” 1080p monitor, but couldn’t stand it. I bought a 4K monitor and now need to put up with running it at 30 Hz with lots of lag, but it is worth it.

Besides not immediately getting a headache reading normal text I can use Excel at a zoom level where text is literally (in the true dictionary-defined sense of the word) unreadable at lower density.

 

[FNH15]

For the second time; I have used them on computers. I was stating that I own those phones. I simply do not own any of those displays. This does not mean I haven't or am unable to use, or see one. There is an Apple store close to where I live, and best buy also usually has all the new Macs set up too. It's also possible that I know people with those types of displays and have used theirs. I do own multiple vehicles, on occasion I get in one of them to leave my place of residence not only to go to work, but I also am able to see and use things I may not happen to own.

Basically nobody I know in real life is a computer geek, enthusiast, whatever we call ourselves now. I can guarantee you that none of them give a sh*t about the resolution their computer is if they even have one. My coworkers seem to be able to read their emails and submit reports just fine on the 10 year old Dell displays the office mostly has.

Also, nowhere did I recommend anything one way or another. I was simply stating my opinion that I do not need nor care to have anything other than I already have. I didn't tell the OP to do anything. They asked for opinions, and that's what they got. Apparently any opinion other than yours is illegal here.

(sent from a 17" PowerBook G4)

I will say eyestrain is reduced when moving to high DPI displays - but this is far more noticeable on PCs which overwhelmingly have horrid displays.
Case in point: Compare your 17” PowerBook to a contemporary Dell machine - the Dell is awful…
Even the standard DPI displays from Apple are quite usable (with perhaps the exception of the 13” non-retina MacBook Pros - they can get a little cramped)

But yes - there is no right answer on this.

 

[Apple Crusader]

We shouldn't forget that display resolutions are merely a byproduct of less than optimal technology. In an ideal world, the concept of resolution just wouldn't exist, but since we rely on spatial sampling to represent image data it is a necessary evil. I think the world of computing would get better if we talked about PPI and physical image sizes and treat resolutions instead as an implementation detail. A 12pt text should have the same exact baseline size on every display, regardless of the resolution.

Anyway, ranting aside, Apple is quite opinionated about their displays, and that's why HiDPI makes a huge difference in Apple land. For macOS, a 4K screen is basically an 1080p screen, it's just that you get subpixel rendering precision. Size of text and UI are identical on a 24" 1080p or 24" 4K display if you use macOS default settings.

Windows has a very different approach to high-DPI screens.



It's interesting how people are different. I literally can't look at text on a lowDPI display anymore, anything under 200 PPI causes me physical discomfort...

And don't even get me started on Linux lol.

 

[leman]

And don't even get me started on Linux lol.

Well, Linux reality directly reflects Torvald’s attitude of “I want high res screen to fit more code“. Linux devs don’t generally care about ergonomy, convenience or beauty of things.

 

[ChrisA]

Thanks for the opinions folks. Looks like people are pretty torn on it. It'll be in tomorrow morning so hopefully I don't notice it too badly. I appreciate everyone responding!

Yes, it goes like this: (1) "my old monitor is good enough and I don't want to spend money to upgrade" and the other side is (2) "I just bought a new $600 monitor and it is WAY BETTER than my old one."

I was in the first camp for a wile then bought a 27" 4K Dell monitor. My use is software development and I like to have many text windows open and still have space for a browser too. Ideally I'd have a second 27" 4K screen but I don't have space for it.

For smaller screen sizes like 24" or less, then maybe 4K is wasted. I don't know I don't use small screens

 

[dmccloud]

I used the DTK with a 1080p monitor. When I actually buy a Mac Mini for my office, I'll probably go with a 27" QHD display instead of a 4K screen, since I really won't need retina-type color accuracy or resolution for coding work.

 

[Santiago]

False. I've seen it. I've used new Macs, I own an iPhone, and my HTC 10 prior to that had a "retina" screen too. I just don't care. 1080 is plenty for me. My primary display is a 23" Apple Cinema Display circa 2001. 1920x1200. It works, and its more than big enough, and it still looks really good. Sitting next to it as the secondary is a much more modern 1080p monitor. They both look good, and I've got no reason to "upgrade" to invisible pixels.

In all seriousness, if you can't see a clear difference in text quality between retina and non-retina screens, I would recommend visiting an optometrist to make sure you're getting all you can out of your vision.

 

[retta283]

In all seriousness, if you can't see a clear difference in text quality between retina and non-retina screens, I would recommend visiting an optometrist to make sure you're getting all you can out of your vision.

Nowhere in there did he posit that he couldn't tell a difference, just that he didn't care about the difference. Certainly the better your vision is the more you notice it

 

[guzhogi]

I remember when I thought 1280x1024 was a high resolution...

My first Mac (an LC) didn't even have a 640 x 480 monitor. I also remember playing 16-color games, as well as text-based games. I'm old.

 

[guzhogi]

With questions like this, I always wonder where is the point of diminishing returns? IE at what resolution is it good enough and anything higher is just overkill? Same goes with refresh rates.

 

[guzhogi]

Nowhere in there did he posit that he couldn't tell a difference, just that he didn't care about the difference. Certainly the better your vision is the more you notice it

That's the thing with me, too. I might be able to tell the difference, but don't care too much. When reading something, I'm more interested in what's written, not how it looks.

 

[pldelisle]

With questions like this, I always wonder where is the point of diminishing returns? IE at what resolution is it good enough and anything higher is just overkill? Same goes with refresh rates.

Simple : Retina. If, from a reasonable distance, you cannot see the pixel, then, anything above this density is simply overkill. You stare at your phone closer, so usually a 350 PPI is required (average on iPhones too, even go as high as 475 on iPhone 12 Pro I think).

Viewing distance for a computer monitor is usually higher than your phone. So you can go a bit lower ([200, 250] range). That’s exactly why MacBooks have this PPI.

TVs are even higher viewing distance, so density can be much lower.

That’s why Retina displays tend to be in the [210-220] range. Pro XDR is 218, just like iMac 5k 27’’ and LG 5k.

To achieve the same performance:
24” should be 4k
27” should be 5k
32” should be 6k
43” should be 8k

 

[abhi182]

The catch is that the point of diminishing returns can vary significantly from one person to the other.
Personally, I don't care for 4K Videos - At the distance from which I watch TV/ projection, I genuinely don't see a major diff between 4K and 1080p for regular video/movie playback.

Computer screens are another matter altogether given a) the much shorter viewing distance and b) the level of detail expected from rendered text as compared to video

It's just two somewhat conflicting goals (display scaling/HiDPI rendering vs amount of information rendered) make it a slightly confusing topic .
With a PC monitor, I would prefer to buy at least 4K at the largest affordable/VFM size to gain a good mix of gains from both HiDPI and rendered resolution - something that cannot be achieved on a 1080p monitor

 

[dryjoy]

I use a 1080p monitor and a quite nonstandard 1050p second monitor with my Mac Mini (2018, Catalina), no problems at all.

It’s fine, I’m sure I’d prefer 4K if I had it, but I’m a musician, so I tend to cheap out on things like monitors and spend my money on things that make cool noises.

Certainly no technical issues with it though.