Mac Mini + 30" ACD = ?

[island]

I have my super duper Core 2 Duo Mac Mini setup on my 30" ACD and I noticed the resolution can go to the max at 1280x800 due to the Intel Graphics Card. The question is how can this be the max on this screen when on a 23" ACD, the resolution is much higher? Is there a third party program to adjust things or am I screwed!?!

 

[rogersmj]

Someone should have read the product compatibility notes...

The 30" display requires a capability called dual-link DVI to be present on the video card. The GMA950 (and hence the Mac mini and MacBook) are incapable of driving the 30" at anything more than half its native resolution -- which is actually only giving you 1/4 of the viewing space (total pixels). Quite a waste.

Also, how do you have a Core 2 Duo Mac mini? Upgrade it yourself?

 

[Chundles]

I have my super duper Core 2 Duo Mac Mini setup on my 30" ACD and I noticed the resolution can go to the max at 1280x800 due to the Intel Graphics Card. The question is how can this be the max on this screen when on a 23" ACD, the resolution is much higher? Is there a third party program to adjust things or am I screwed!?!

The 30" ACD requires a dual-link DVI card to push the requisite pixels. The Mac mini does not support working with the 30" ACD.

1280x800 is the clearest resolution you can get on the 30" ACD if you're incapable of running at it's native resolution (which the mini cannot) because four of the screen's physical pixels are representing one pixel (two across, two vertically). You could run at the higher resolution but it would look awful as the screen would need to interpolate the resolution.

The question should be "why are you running a 30" ACD off a mini when you know it won't work?" You'd get a much better result running a 23" ACD which is fully supported.

 

[island]

I took the Mini off of my 42" LCD until I get the new Macbook Pro coming out this summer. I got the 30" from a friend that didn't use it anymore so I just didn't want it to sit around and not use it. The mini works fine on it but the res isn't what I would like it to be. I know the limitations on it already but it's not going to blow up by using it anyway...

As for the Core 2 Duo, I swapped the chip out myself. Pretty easy, low cost too so why not!

 

[rogersmj]

So, let me understand this...you're going to use a mini on a 30" ACD at 1280x800?! That must look atrocious. I would probably want to gouge my eyes out after a few minutes. Not to mention you have the same usable "screen space" as a MacBook, which means it's horribly cramped.

I'd just as soon sell the 30" and get a 23 or 24" display...at least then you'd have a decent resolution. Hell, even a 20" would be better. But I guess since you're holding off for your MBP, the 30" will be really nice with that.

 

[MacBass]

I would say hold off on selling the 30 until you get the MBP. However, if you sell the 30, you could get a large monitor (23"+) and use the analog input with a DVI to VGA adapter for the mini.

 

[SkyBell]

So, let me understand this...you're going to use a mini on a 30" ACD at 1280x800?! That must look atrocious. I would probably want to gouge my eyes out after a few minutes. Not to mention you have the same usable "screen space" as a MacBook, which means it's horribly cramped.

I'd just as soon sell the 30" and get a 23 or 24" display...at least then you'd have a decent resolution. Hell, even a 20" would be better. But I guess since you're holding off for your MBP, the 30" will be really nice with that.

Wow, not to be really rude, but you people like everything to be at it's max, don't you? (Yeah, I'm not presenting a very good argument, because If I spoke my true argument, I would be banned.)

Pitiful.

 

[RojoLeo]

Wow, not to be really rude, but you people like everything to be at it's max, don't you? (Yeah, I'm not presenting a very good argument, because If I spoke my true argument, I would be banned.)

Pitiful.

Wow. WTF?

This has more to do with native resolution than anything else. Running an LCD in anything other than its native resolution results in piss poor performance.

 

[SkyBell]

Wow. WTF?

This has more to do with native resolution than anything else. Running an LCD in anything other than its native resolution results in piss poor performance.

Yeah, says you. Many of us have never had anything better then piss poor performance.*Coughmecough*

I'm just saying, maybe you think it's bad, but that doesn't mean everyone does.

 

[RojoLeo]

It's not really a subjective thing. Seriously, are you running an LCD outside of its native resolution? I've never seen one that wasn't extremely blurry. It's not as though you have to stare it scrutinizingly to determine there's a slight disadvantage - it's a big difference.

 

[dukebound85]

It's not really a subjective thing. Seriously, are you running an LCD outside of its native resolution? I've never seen one that wasn't extremely blurry. It's not as though you have to stare it scrutinizingly to determine there's a slight disadvantage - it's a big difference.

on that note, why would anyone run an lcd besides native? is there any situation that would benefit from this?

 

[rogersmj]

Wow, not to be really rude, but you people like everything to be at it's max, don't you? (Yeah, I'm not presenting a very good argument, because If I spoke my true argument, I would be banned.)

Pitiful.

Pitiful? Speak for yourself. Like the other poster said, LCDs aren't meant to be run at anything other than their native resolution. It's like a car's tires...you CAN run them underinflated, but...why would you? If you don't run an LCD at its native res, the result is a fuzzy image and, of course, everything on the screen is excessively large. And my point stands: 1280x800 on a 30" isn't just a little off, it's WAY lower than the native res on that panel. Do you like your menu bar to be an inch high? Because that's how huge it would be at that resolution on a 30".