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.
Monitor For The Mini
- Thread starter iMas70
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I've actually ordered the Dell S2340L - the same model with Hdmi, and will be arriving tomorrow
. The 2440l isn't an IPS-panel, which would make the 2340l much more pleasing for the eye. Also the almost edge to edge glass.Ive got a 24" Iiyama which I've had had for several years, it's been superb i used it with my MBP but its now used as my Gaming monitor.
I thought long and hard about what monitor to get for my new mac Mini. My previous system was a 1920x1200 24" iMac so I really wanted to get a 27" display, but there were two problems with this.
The first is that the high res 2560x1440 27" on the iMacs is too high resolution. Text, icons and menus are too small for some of my family who have intermediate-poor eyesight. On the other had most of the third party 27" monitors are only 1080p vertically so I'd actually end up with a bigger display but less working area.
27" displays with 1920x1200 barely seem to even exist, I've only seen them available rarely and then at silly prices. Even then, you're getting a bigger display but no more actual usable working area. Then of course 30" displays are also very expensive.
I settled on a Dell U2412M 24" IPS. It's the same size and resolution as my old iMac but much clearer and with better colours. As a bonus, the Logitech C920 HD Webcam I bought at the same time fits on the top perfectly, a concern as most webcam 'clips' are utter rubbish. This one's not great but just happens to fir the monitor well. I may also consider getting a second display at some point.
The first is that the high res 2560x1440 27" on the iMacs is too high resolution. Text, icons and menus are too small for some of my family who have intermediate-poor eyesight. On the other had most of the third party 27" monitors are only 1080p vertically so I'd actually end up with a bigger display but less working area.
27" displays with 1920x1200 barely seem to even exist, I've only seen them available rarely and then at silly prices. Even then, you're getting a bigger display but no more actual usable working area. Then of course 30" displays are also very expensive.
I settled on a Dell U2412M 24" IPS. It's the same size and resolution as my old iMac but much clearer and with better colours. As a bonus, the Logitech C920 HD Webcam I bought at the same time fits on the top perfectly, a concern as most webcam 'clips' are utter rubbish. This one's not great but just happens to fir the monitor well. I may also consider getting a second display at some point.
I was originally waiting for a late late late 2012 iMac but bought the late 2012 Mini
with my 2012 Mac mini I'm also using a Dell U2412Mb, with the matching AX150 sound-bar, I chose an eBay secondhand firewire
iSight webcam - via a 6 FW 800/FW400 adapter. I've upgraded to 10GB RAM. I went with a WD MyBook 2TB '1140 Media' USB3 backup system.
it's perfect for home use, everyone loves the Dell display.
with my 2012 Mac mini I'm also using a Dell U2412Mb, with the matching AX150 sound-bar, I chose an eBay secondhand firewire
iSight webcam - via a 6 FW 800/FW400 adapter. I've upgraded to 10GB RAM. I went with a WD MyBook 2TB '1140 Media' USB3 backup system.it's perfect for home use, everyone loves the Dell display.
I've actually ordered the Dell S2340L - the same model with Hdmi, and will be arriving tomorrow
Anyone getting a hdmi only monitor should be aware that Intel drivers probably won't output colors correctly to the monitor. There have been reports on the PC side of things that the 2440l will have lowered contrast/washed out colors, unless a hack is used with the graphics driver. I am not sure if this applies to the mac drivers too, but seeing as they typically are worse than the PC ones, I suspect the same problem exists. The exception being if you have a mac mini with discrete graphics... then it may be fine (if ATI). If Intel or Nvidia, hdmi monitors may not work quite right.
The Dell 2412 is a nice monitor for the price, if you can live with the very heavy AG coating. It will mute some of the colors and cause sparkle on whites, which bothers some people (including myself).
Monitor for a MacMini 2012
Hi.
I decided to get a monitor for my MacMini.
I have a non HDMI TV set and would like to avoid cables and converters.
My question are:
What should I aim for?
What specific features will I need to look for (aside, obviously, from HDMI!)?
I haven't switched the MacMini on yet, so I know little about it.
What resolution is "optimal"?
More than a specific model or brand, I'd like advice based on "avoid a monitor that doesn't have THIS" or "make sure it has THAT", if possible.
I don't have a big budget, something around 150-200EUR, but there should be many options, I hope.
Sorry for the potentially dumb questions, but I know next to little about it!
Thanks!
Hi.
I decided to get a monitor for my MacMini.
I have a non HDMI TV set and would like to avoid cables and converters.
My question are:
What should I aim for?
What specific features will I need to look for (aside, obviously, from HDMI!)?
I haven't switched the MacMini on yet, so I know little about it.
What resolution is "optimal"?
More than a specific model or brand, I'd like advice based on "avoid a monitor that doesn't have THIS" or "make sure it has THAT", if possible.
I don't have a big budget, something around 150-200EUR, but there should be many options, I hope.
Sorry for the potentially dumb questions, but I know next to little about it!
Thanks!
I will repeat myself. You bought a repackaged TV set.
You should have purchased a proper computer monitor. Dell U2412M
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=829236&Q=&is=REG&A=details
They run 294 bucks. I have several of these, great monitors.
Avoid monitors that are 24inch and are 1080, those are just TV panels shoehorned as monitors. They fail in that regard and are only good for casual computing.
If you spend time on the screen you want a proper monitor and invest a little more and get the 2412M
NEC displays usually have DisplayPort, HDMI, DVI-D and VGA inputs so there are plenty of connection options.
Here is a 27" display that lists for $499 U.S.: http://www.necdisplay.com/p/desktop-monitors/ea273wm-bk
Here is a 27" display that lists for $499 U.S.: http://www.necdisplay.com/p/desktop-monitors/ea273wm-bk
Dude, that monitor has an even lower resolution then the much smaller Dell u2412M monitor. This NEC has the same resolution as the 23" monitors that are out there, so you can count on having some giant pixels. Thanks, but no thanks.
Dude...
There are over 50 NEC displays to choose from; this is just one option. This particular display is an excellent value for the price but if a person wants higher resolution then there are alternatives. NEC displays beat Dell when it comes to quality of construction, length of warranty and customer service. You get what you pay for...
Frankly, I think that there is too much importance placed on resolution these days. Higher resolution isn't always as important as consumers think but it has become the focal point of computer company advertising and consumer desire since CPU speed has ceased to be a viable method for differentiating computer models.
There are over 50 NEC displays to choose from; this is just one option. This particular display is an excellent value for the price but if a person wants higher resolution then there are alternatives. NEC displays beat Dell when it comes to quality of construction, length of warranty and customer service. You get what you pay for...
Frankly, I think that there is too much importance placed on resolution these days. Higher resolution isn't always as important as consumers think but it has become the focal point of computer company advertising and consumer desire since CPU speed has ceased to be a viable method for differentiating computer models.
I'm not going to argue with you that NEC's are good displays, they are, but so are the Dell Ultrasharp displays. I would never go for a non-Ultrasharp Dell, which to me competes with this low end NEC. Resolution to me IS very important, as I see more and more people paying extra for a large monitor, when in reality it's the same as a smaller monitor. In fact, I would say resolution is very important to consider as I believe a 27" monitor with the same resolution as a 21" monitor would look worse as you would just have giganitic pixels starting at you.
Take a look at the ipad 1/2 compared to the 3/4. Would I saw that the iPad 1/2 screen is garbage? Absolutely not. Does it look anywhere near as good as the 3/4 look? Absolutely not. I think too many people are overpaying for large monitors and not getting anything more then if they just saved and got a smaller one. That being said, I would love a nice high resolution 27" monitor, but anything worth buying is just too expensive.
I feel the same about the EA273WM - a display that large at that resolution is bound to disappoint. In that price range, I'd opt to go smaller with a similar resolution.
I think the only 27" Dell and NEC's that are directly comparable are the U2711 and the PA271W. At the same price, I'd probably go with the NEC, but I wouldn't argue with anyone who chose the Dell.
Actually, at that price, I'd end up with a Thunderbolt Display, even though the color accuracy probably isn't up to the same level as the other two. That, or I could see someone wanting to save a few hundred and go with the Dell U2713.
I think the only 27" Dell and NEC's that are directly comparable are the U2711 and the PA271W. At the same price, I'd probably go with the NEC, but I wouldn't argue with anyone who chose the Dell.
Actually, at that price, I'd end up with a Thunderbolt Display, even though the color accuracy probably isn't up to the same level as the other two. That, or I could see someone wanting to save a few hundred and go with the Dell U2713.
I don't disagree with your basic premise. But I do take issue with how you choose to describe the differences between lower and higher resolution displays: "giganitic (sic) pixels" and "Does it look anywhere near as good as the 3/4 (iPads) look? Absolutely not."
Depending on the displays being compared it isn't always as big a difference as you make it out to be. And what is unacceptable to one person may be perfectly fine to another. I use an early 2011 13" MBP that is regularly denigrated on this forum as being way behind the curve resolution-wise. And yet I find its resolution to be fine for my uses: I prefer the 13" MBP size over a 15" MBP (I replaced my 15" with the 13"). I don't miss the extra screen real estate nor the higher resolution.
If we were talking about the resolution of the original iBook compared to current MacBookPros, well yes, those iBook pixels do look "gigantic" in comparison. But when I use my 1280X800 MBP and 1920X1200 24" NEC display I don't notice the pixels... I'm focused on my work. I've never had a problem using either display.
Unfortunately, a lot of people are being suckered into paying a premium for resolution that they don't really need. If you have the $$$ and require a Retina or similar high-resolution display, then more power to you. Otherwise, you are better off saving your presumably hard-earned money or using it for other things such as a RAM upgrade, external/offsite backup, etc.
Depending on the displays being compared it isn't always as big a difference as you make it out to be. And what is unacceptable to one person may be perfectly fine to another. I use an early 2011 13" MBP that is regularly denigrated on this forum as being way behind the curve resolution-wise. And yet I find its resolution to be fine for my uses: I prefer the 13" MBP size over a 15" MBP (I replaced my 15" with the 13"). I don't miss the extra screen real estate nor the higher resolution.
If we were talking about the resolution of the original iBook compared to current MacBookPros, well yes, those iBook pixels do look "gigantic" in comparison. But when I use my 1280X800 MBP and 1920X1200 24" NEC display I don't notice the pixels... I'm focused on my work. I've never had a problem using either display.
Unfortunately, a lot of people are being suckered into paying a premium for resolution that they don't really need. If you have the $$$ and require a Retina or similar high-resolution display, then more power to you. Otherwise, you are better off saving your presumably hard-earned money or using it for other things such as a RAM upgrade, external/offsite backup, etc.
dell 2412 here too
would have loved a 27" cinema display for the 2012 mac mini for my wife. but at $1000 + tax (and used ones with no warranty still $650-750) it just wasn't in the budget (<$1500). the new imacs look great but i really wanted a ssd or fusion drive and it wasn't possible with our budget. we had iPads to buy for christmas too ;-)
while i've installed drives in previous macs and powerbooks, the closed design of the new imacs (and the delay and possibility of not getting it before christmas), just took them out of the equation. we paid around $1100 for her base 21" imac a few years ago. i spent that much on the mac mini with fusion.
and we wanted to try a non-glossy screen, since we have a skylight right behind her desk...
for $295 (no tax, free ship from b&h photo), it seems to a solid value. wish it didn't say dell on it but she doesn't care even if it bothers me some aesthetically.
add $50 for 16gig ram (gskill via newegg) and $40 ext dvd (samsung via amazon) and she should be set for a while...
4gb ram/250gb drive/c2duo/21" monitor+ ext 1tb drive --> 16gb ram/1tb fusion/i7/24" monitor
would have loved a 27" cinema display for the 2012 mac mini for my wife. but at $1000 + tax (and used ones with no warranty still $650-750) it just wasn't in the budget (<$1500). the new imacs look great but i really wanted a ssd or fusion drive and it wasn't possible with our budget. we had iPads to buy for christmas too ;-)
while i've installed drives in previous macs and powerbooks, the closed design of the new imacs (and the delay and possibility of not getting it before christmas), just took them out of the equation. we paid around $1100 for her base 21" imac a few years ago. i spent that much on the mac mini with fusion.
and we wanted to try a non-glossy screen, since we have a skylight right behind her desk...
for $295 (no tax, free ship from b&h photo), it seems to a solid value. wish it didn't say dell on it but she doesn't care even if it bothers me some aesthetically
. add $50 for 16gig ram (gskill via newegg) and $40 ext dvd (samsung via amazon) and she should be set for a while...
4gb ram/250gb drive/c2duo/21" monitor+ ext 1tb drive --> 16gb ram/1tb fusion/i7/24" monitor
Those commenting on resolution and how certain 27"ers aren't worth it... it depends entirely what you plan to use the monitor for. For some people, it's actually better to have a lower res/larger screen, just so text is more legible (and larger). Of course dpi settings in the OS can fix this somewhat (not sure about mac side of things, but in windows it can be set)... but not all software plays nice with OS DPI settings.
If using for movies or gaming, and you have the horsepower, then it probably would benefit people to get a 1440p screen. I'm not so sure a mac mini really qualifies as having a whole lot of horsepower, however.
As for the Dell S series of displays, they are a decent option if you want glossy. Just be aware they will all be 1080p, and with non-adjustable stands. The Dell 2412 isn't the 'best' monitor either, nor even necessarily better than the S series either ... it depends entirely on how you plan to use the monitor and your tolerance of heavily coated antiglare on IPS screens. If you prefer glossy, then the S series will be better for you, even if you have to go down to 16:9 instead of 16:10. I had the Dell 2412 at one time, briefly... my eyes couldn't stand reading text on white backgrounds... looked like the screen was covered in dust. Yet for others, they are fine with it. For general usage, I would recommend an IPS panel, as others gave mentioned, or at the least a VA. You can find TNs much cheaper, but you are getting a worse panel then -- only real benefit for TNs (besides price) would be for competitive gaming due to fast response times, but I somehow doubt any do that with a mac mini.
If using for movies or gaming, and you have the horsepower, then it probably would benefit people to get a 1440p screen. I'm not so sure a mac mini really qualifies as having a whole lot of horsepower, however.
As for the Dell S series of displays, they are a decent option if you want glossy. Just be aware they will all be 1080p, and with non-adjustable stands. The Dell 2412 isn't the 'best' monitor either, nor even necessarily better than the S series either ... it depends entirely on how you plan to use the monitor and your tolerance of heavily coated antiglare on IPS screens. If you prefer glossy, then the S series will be better for you, even if you have to go down to 16:9 instead of 16:10. I had the Dell 2412 at one time, briefly... my eyes couldn't stand reading text on white backgrounds... looked like the screen was covered in dust. Yet for others, they are fine with it. For general usage, I would recommend an IPS panel, as others gave mentioned, or at the least a VA. You can find TNs much cheaper, but you are getting a worse panel then -- only real benefit for TNs (besides price) would be for competitive gaming due to fast response times, but I somehow doubt any do that with a mac mini.
I'm looking at purchasing the same monitor for my 2012 mac mini. Did you wind up exchanging your monitor for a new one because of the dead pixel?
Last edited: