So… What distance do you sit from the screen? Feel free to provide a range. It doesn’t matter if it’s on a VESA mount or not.
Pixel density, resolution, and size are all kind of meaningless if you don’t have a seating distance listed in the mix.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
M4 Mac Mini with a cheap, around $100 Monitor
- Thread starter yustas
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Pixel density, resolution, and size are all kind of meaningless if you don’t have a seating distance listed in the mix.
FWIW, I'm with those who say you'll be fine. I don't have a Mini, but I have an M2 MacBook air. I use 2 monitors & the second one is a 1920x1080 & it looks fine. I have used more high Rez monitors & they are definitely nicer, but for day to day usage (internet, watching videos, office apps, etc), a 1920 x 1080 will be absolutely fine.
And I wouldn't worry about it being a cheap monitor, but I would make sure that it gets good reviews on Amazon or somewhere else reputable.
And I wouldn't worry about it being a cheap monitor, but I would make sure that it gets good reviews on Amazon or somewhere else reputable.
OK that makes sense. 32" 4K is 138 ppi, which is considered "Retina" at > 25" seating distance. However, a lot of people sit closer than that, but YMMV.
Sure and I've used (and own) ~100 ppi screens too, and I'm also still alive. It doesn't mean they're a good match for macOS though unless you sit really far from the screen, or if you don't view much text on the screens. YMMV of course, but they're definitely off the recommended list for most who spend a lot of time with text, especially considering how cheap much higher dpi screens are these days.
Exactly, I for example detest non-pixel-perfect rendering. I'll stick to native @1x until either macOS learns to do proper scaling or I find a retina-class display that I'm willing to buy. Or my eyesight worsens and a 27" 3840x2160 in "looks like 1920x1080" becomes the best option.
2009 user and not a 4k or 5k monitor yet?
Wish I could hold onto my money that long.
Wish I could hold onto my money that long.
Flickering or Disconnections: I have reported flickering or brief disconnections when using HDMI connections with certain monitors.
It will work. I’ve got two old acer gaming monitors connected and it all works great - one direct HDMI, the other via TB-HDMI cable. Both 1080P, sound works on both no screen flickering etc.
If you are currently shopping for a monitor definitely consider a higher resolution since you can get 1440P and even some decent 4K monitors at a great price.
If you are currently shopping for a monitor definitely consider a higher resolution since you can get 1440P and even some decent 4K monitors at a great price.
As I said, I like to vary my position quite a bit. Have never cared to measure and I won`t. Whatever suits my mood and what I do. I use both the lift desk and the LX arm actively, and have chair without arm rests to allow for free movement. Sometimes I stand, sometimes I lower the desk, tilt low and almost lean over the screen.
Beyond believing a curved 32 with some radius is preferable to flat, I have no issues with colors, text rendering, dpi or what not. No fatigue
I have. It looks okay, but text seems crisper using the monitor's standard resolution. I don't mind the smaller screen elements, for now. I'm looking to either upgrade the monitor and my M1 Mini for a bigger monitor and M4 Mini, or jump to an iMac after the holidays.
Thanks for the notes! Great info. I noticed you are not tracking the refresh rate. Not important to you?
Also, looks like Apples own displays are at 218 ppi, so you’d have a really good visual experience by matching that with another brand. But you havent tracked exact ppi. Any reason?
I had a 1080p, 21 inch monitor and hated it compared to looking at my M1 macbook pro. I stopped using it and took it off my desk. MacOS seems to be made for 218 ppi, which is the ppi of their own displays. That’s what they look amazing on. My next display will match that ppi, regardless of screen size, other wise I feel like it will be a waste of money, because it will such a difference/ step down from my macbook that I wont be nice to use, and I’ll stop using it.
Here’s an awesome ppi calculator I found:
Last edited:
because I only consider monitors with 163 or higher PPI as suitable for Macs and only listed those. I had one with 103 PPI under the Budget category by mistake and deleted it now. Also added PPI for all monitors.
I do not care about the refresh rate in monitors. 60Hz is fine for productivity/office work imo.
Last edited:
Non-"retina" monitors look like trash on macOS because macOS is trash at scaling and can't properly handle fractional scaling. 2k and 4k monitors that look like "trash" on macOS look perfectly fine on Windows and Linux. It's not a monitor problem, it is a macOS problem.
Had to spit-take at that one.
Partially agree.
Yes, regarding monitors with ~109 PPI (some may disagree; it is subjective).
No, regarding monitors that have ~163 PPI. They may not have retina pixel density, but they are good enough/decent for most people.
He's not wrong - I get all sorts of formatting problems in Word and Excel if switching between fractional scalings under Windows 11. So I'm forced to pick one and stick with it, lest I have to redo margins, etc. It's friggin' stupid.
Not that I'm a fan of Apple's typical 'my way or the highway' attitude, but I understand why they avoided the whole mess and stuck with 2x.
Don't get a 1080p HD screen, period. Too many other cheap options, and unless it's a 13" screen, it's antique at this point.
It's doable at $50. but if you have a m4 Mini, you are already WAY out of that class. I suppose if you are a student, and it's that or a meal ticket (literally), but even then: Don't get a 1080p.
It's doable at $50. but if you have a m4 Mini, you are already WAY out of that class. I suppose if you are a student, and it's that or a meal ticket (literally), but even then: Don't get a 1080p.
You're running it at 4k, it's just saying that there's 1920x1080 of screen real estate for you (at 200% scale, aka retina).That screenshot has much more pixelated text than what I experience.
This is what 1920x1080 looks like on my OLED:
Skjermbilde 2024-11-18 kl. 21.10.31.png
drive.google.com
Check the resolution of that screenshot you posted – it's 4k. it would have been way rougher otherwise.
A 22" 1080p just looks exactly like a 27" 1440p. Same dpi. Going 24" makes it a little lower, but nothing really serious. Anything around 110 dpi will look fine. Going for 220 dpi is rather expensive, and anything betweennthe two will have scaling issues.
macOS looks mostly horrible on sub 4k panels (due to Apple not supporting it as well as they could)
That’s not his monitor that is jpeg compression. For screenshots, 1080p will look the same no matter what monitor is connected. You can screenshot with a headless Mac.That screenshot has much more pixelated text than what I experience.
This is what 1920x1080 looks like on my OLED:
Skjermbilde 2024-11-18 kl. 21.10.31.png
1440p at 24” is quite functional and looks and nice if you have a tight desk like me. I have been trying to find a 24” 4K but they are apparently no longer in production and it’s hard as hell to get your hands on anything left
You can use a 27" 1080p display, if you must.
BUT...
Spend a little more for a 27" 4k display, and things will look A LOT BETTER...
Get one that has more connections than [only] HDMI -- that is, it also has either displayport, or USBc, or both.
BUT...
Spend a little more for a 27" 4k display, and things will look A LOT BETTER...
Get one that has more connections than [only] HDMI -- that is, it also has either displayport, or USBc, or both.