M4 Mac Mini with a cheap, around $100 Monitor

[Ben J.]

I have a philips 24" 1440p, good monitor, paid between 150 and 180 euros/dollars ...very usable imho with Mac computers

👍
@yustas : Don't be discouraged by the folks who tell you to worry about this and that, this is not difficult as some would have it. Get a monitor with a nice size in inches, (I'd say aim for 32) and a price you can afford. Test out some different resolutions, and if you can't find a res that you're happy with, return it and try again.

 

[EugW]

I’m using my thunderbolt display from 2011, still works after all this years!

Cinema HD Display from 2008

Just temporary though, so I had a screen to look at while migrating my M1 to my M4. The Apple Pro Mouse is even older.

 

[bapegg]

I'm still using a pair of HP V24i 24" monitors that I bought a few years ago. They worked fine with my 2018 Mac mini and they work fine with my new M4 Mac mini. I am using HDMI to Thunderbolt cables for both monitors since Apple never fixed the HDMI port issues on the 2018 mini.

 

[TechRunner]

I use a 24" Lenovo I bought on sale about six years ago for $189. It's 2560 X 1440, and I use it at native resolution. The macOS elements are a bit small, but you can scale up size on pretty much everything else by using the "cmd +" shortcut.

 

[Ben J.]

I use a 24" Lenovo I bought on sale about six years ago for $189. It's 2560 X 1440, and I use it at native resolution. The macOS elements are a bit small, but you can scale up size on pretty much everything else by using the "cmd +" shortcut.

Have you tried 1920x1080?
If you only see the "Large, small…" options in system settings, option-click to see the list of all available resolutions.

 

[jakey rolling]

Many non-Apple display will have some flickering especially in dark mode. But third party utilities (e.g,. BetterDisplay) can fix this flickering issue. Also some of the cables that ship free with the display are really junky, you might want to get a better HDMI cable if you have display artifacts.

WTAF? You seriously need to download a utility just to get a Mac Mini to run a third party display properly? I thought Apple was all about "build quality."

 

[Ben J.]

WTAF? You seriously need to download a utility just to get a Mac Mini to run a third party display properly? I thought Apple was all about "build quality."

Notice the poster doesn't say he has seen this problem himself. It's just another "apparently", "supposedly", hearsay post.

 

[Starfia]

That screenshot has much more pixelated text than what I experience.
This is what 1920x1080 looks like on my OLED:

I think the like renderings look about equally pixellated:

http://revontulet.org/2024/11/18/6d8cb423292541849ba970f3e3a54b65.png

But it looks like you might have increased the text size in "System Settings > Accessibility > Display > Text size", or something similar?

Plus, we've got resolution options in "System Settings > Displays", which… would probably yield the same or worse fidelity.

The one exception might be "960 x 540" for a 1080p display, which would give you full native fidelity but perhaps an impractically low amount of screen space for a primary monitor.

 

[abhi182]

Mac OS does not do display scaling on 1080P which makes the display look blurry relative to windows.
OTOH, with 4K, it does a 2X2 pixel scaling to 1x1 which makes text look very crisp relative to windows.

If you want to really experience your new machine as intended, get anything 4K but stay away from FHD

 

[EugW]

If you want to really experience your new machine as intended, get anything 4K but stay away from FHD

I'd recommend 4K as long as it's 27" or smaller. As mentioned, I don't think 4K 32" looks very good.

 

[Lift Bar]

I went with a $130 Costco 42” 4K Hisense tv for my m4 Mac mini and it’s very usable. There are some minor issues with some small images looking less than crisp (for instance profile pictures in iMessage) or some PDFs don’t look super crispy. For that I think you need a 5 or 6K display with Macs. They do something odd with anything less than 4.5k. But it’s not hugely bothersome for the price.

 

[srikat]

I am sharing my notes on monitors here: https://noteplan.co/n/42802DF9-EC8D-47D8-B037-FE3544081C01

 

[Entilzha]

Are there any issues using a cheap monitor with the new M4 Mac Mini?

For example, this monitor.

Thank you.

Just curious, but what possible issues do you think there would be? The higher resolution the monitor, the more detailed the image will be, but the Mac could hypothetically run with a 640x480 display if it had to.

 

[throAU]

WTAF? You seriously need to download a utility just to get a Mac Mini to run a third party display properly? I thought Apple was all about "build quality."

no

anecdotally, I've had flickering problems with cheap monitors in windows, and windows is so bad that I've had it simply refuse to display because its too brain damaged to fall back to the correct refresh rate after accidentally setting something out of range - I had to physically change the display output permanently to get my monitor back working.

 

[lsquare]

IMO, at a normal seating distance, a 32" 4K monitor has really bad text quality, at 138 ppi. Not recommended for macOS.

Do you have experience with this?

 

[lsquare]

Mac OS does not do display scaling on 1080P which makes the display look blurry relative to windows.
OTOH, with 4K, it does a 2X2 pixel scaling to 1x1 which makes text look very crisp relative to windows.

If you want to really experience your new machine as intended, get anything 4K but stay away from FHD

That's what I remember reading. Does anyone else agree with this?

 

[throAU]

That's what I remember reading. Does anyone else agree with this?

I agree with this.

Since about 2012-2013 the macOS UI and text rendering has clearly been designed with retina displays in mind, so anything not HiDPI or "retina" (i.e., 4k ish res in 20-30" displays or higher) looks like trash.

2560x1440 is better than 1920x1080 for sure, but if you can stretch to even a reasonably priced 4k panel it is worth it. Unlike Windows, macOS scaling works reliably.

 

[EugW]

Do you have experience with this?

Yes. I’ve purchased 138, 163, and 218 ppi monitors. I also own lower pixel density monitors like the 30” Apple Cinema HD Display at 101 ppi.

I sit at about 22-25” inches from the monitor, which is why 163 ppi works for me. 163 ppi is supposedly “Retina” at 21” or greater.

 

[nathansz]

IMO, at a normal seating distance, a 32" 4K monitor has really bad text quality, at 138 ppi. Not recommended for macOS.

I use a 32” 4k monitor, usually set to 2560x1440x2

Text looks fine

 

[TechnoMonk]

I have a 27inch LG 4K monitor I picked up at Costco on sale for like 149 bucks. You can get a good display if you shop around.

 

[brilliantthings]

What is the minimum resolution for MacOS to look better than 1920X1080?

What about this 4K monitor?

Fantastic monitor for MacOS.
There's a vocal minority that says MacOS should run on monitors no less than 5k. Most people don't feel this way.

 

[brilliantthings]

WTAF? You seriously need to download a utility just to get a Mac Mini to run a third party display properly? I thought Apple was all about "build quality."

I had this experience with a Dell monitor that didn't support Apple Silicon. I wasted a lot of time on it and ended up returning it and buying a LG 4k 27". No looking back.

 

[EugW]

I use a 32” 4k monitor, usually set to 2560x1440x2

Text looks fine

At what seating distance? IMO at 22-25", text on it looks pretty poor, especially with non 2X scaled resolutions. I had it for a week and just couldn't stand it - Asus ProArt PA329CV.

Fantastic monitor for MacOS.
There's a vocal minority that says MacOS should run on monitors no less than 5k. Most people don't feel this way.

I've mentioned it before elsewhere but my holy grail would be 30" 5K, instead of 27" 4K. However, since 30" 5K doesn't exist, I'm currently running the equivalent of 27" 4K. My monitor is actually 3840x2560 28.2" 4K+, but has the exact same pixel density as 27" 4K.

 

[Tago]

At what seating distance? IMO at 22-25", text on it looks pretty poor, especially with non 2X scaled resolutions. I had it for a week and just couldn't stand it - Asus ProArt PA329CV.

Seating distance will vary with a.o the user`s vision, but also preferences, posture and so on. Got the 32 on a Egotron arm and have placed it all sorts of positions depending upon what I`m at, mood or whatever. Some people prefer their monitor several inches above the desk, others want it to lick the desk. Which makes the stand and the adjustment range rather important to some, whereas it doesn`t matter to others.

There is no universal answer, people will figure out what`s good for them and adjust accordingly. Same goes with (related) scaling, monitor size and dpi. It`s difficult to suggest "the right monitor", as we might have grown accustomed to something which IS great, WAS great, or not brilliant at all. I`m accustomed to mine, but I bet I`d be wanting something else if doing a side by side comparison with a really good one.

I did try out the 30" Cinema Display back in the day, it was kind of a grail (Apple was always great at pushing DPI), but when I tested it I actually realized it was way too big and figured out 27 was the right size when they arrived with reasonable DPI and quality. And here I am, on a 32. People tend to adapt to what they have to work with, and when it works it kind of becomes the "new ideal".

No matter the size and dpi, I`d most of all believe it is wise to get a VESA monitor which doesn`t cause all sorts of strain to the eyes.

 

[kirbyrun]

I'd look at 27" 1440p displays for a cheap but workable option.

This is what I've done with my M2 mini -- I have two relatively cheap 27" 1440p displays. Honestly, after my 5K iMac, I thought I'd be ruined for screens and be condemned to splash out thousands for Studio Displays from now on...but I guess my eyesight is poor enough that the cheap 1440s are fine! LOL