Please help with my desktop choice

[RecentlyConverted]

My use case -
- Spreadsheets, spreadsheets, spreadsheets
- Maintaining my websites
- Producing very occasional video for YouTube (1 - 10 per year)
- Research (browsing)

Needs
- 3 Separate screens connected (3 different images).

I think for my needs the basic Mac Mini M2 Pro is OK. I would like the Basic Mac Studio, but can't see the advantage for me. Its €800 more, money I could use at a later date with the sale of the Mini M2 Pro to buy a newer M2 Pro down the line (ultimate future proofing).

Any advantage for me getting the Studio that I may have missed?

I am coming from an Intel iMac so I am hoping for an amazing improvement in experience, whichever I select.

 

[Sheepish-Lord]

FYI the cheapest Mac mini doesn’t support three monitors, you have to get the $799 one.

 

[Richard10250]

Suggest you closely review the apple support page on the topic...Apple Support Page

There is also the option to use DisplayLink technology via a special hub, but this is a work around that consumes CPU and cannot display Copy Protected content (e.g., Netflix movie). Synapatic Display Link Page

 

[vladi]

I guess you already have those three displays you are talking about. In case you do not have them yet please consider ultrawide displays instead. Dont waste you money on stripped Studio, its not worth it in any case scenario not just yours. Make sure you just add faster SSD to your Mac Mini and you are good to go (16GB RAM is welcome addition too)

 

[RecentlyConverted]

FYI the cheapest Mac mini doesn’t support three monitors, you have to get the $799 one.

Which is the $799 Mini that supports 3 screens? I thought the Mac Mini M2 Pro was the basic one that supports 3 screens. Here that is €1,568.85 (basic config 16GB/512GB).

 

[RecentlyConverted]

I guess you already have those three displays you are talking about. In case you do not have them yet please consider ultrawide displays instead. Dont waste you money on stripped Studio, its not worth it in any case scenario not just yours. Make sure you just add faster SSD to your Mac Mini and you are good to go (16GB RAM is welcome addition too)

Yes, I have Apple Thunderbolt and Cinema displays. Good enough for me. I like the new Apple monitors, but couldn't justify €5,337 or €16,347.
The ultra wide monitors you suggest, would mean I could have 3 applications displayed simultaneously on one screen? I didn't think of that. I could then get the Basic Mac Mini upgraded to 16GB and save myself about €600, and with the new monitor save desk space, save electricity and work in front of a cooler (temp) display.

Thank you for the suggestion.

 

[vladi]

Yes, I have Apple Thunderbolt and Cinema displays. Good enough for me. I like the new Apple monitors, but couldn't justify €5,337 or €16,347.
The ultra wide monitors you suggest, would mean I could have 3 applications displayed simultaneously on one screen? I didn't think of that. I could then get the Basic Mac Mini upgraded to 16GB and save myself about €600, and with the new monitor save desk space, save electricity and work in front of a cooler (temp) display.

Thank you for the suggestion.

Technically you can cram 3 apps on 34" ultrawide but in practice it will be only 2 unless you go for a 40" LG 40WP95X-W which is superb 21:9 5K display but it is pricey. If you ever decide to switch to 21:9 just make sure you at least get a display with 3440x1600 resolution, anything below that uses crap panel.

 

[wegster]

Which is the $799 Mini that supports 3 screens? I thought the Mac Mini M2 Pro was the basic one that supports 3 screens. Here that is €1,568.85 (basic config 16GB/512GB).

I don’t think there is one - am looking at the US shop, but you need the Pro for 3 external displays without jumping through some hoops as someone mentioned previously.

Unless there’s some strong reason to keep your current displays, the Ultrawide is a good option given your mention of spreadsheets and more spreadsheets. I currently use an LG 38” 3840x1600 display, but previously had one of the LG 34” 3440x1440 displays, which wasn’t bad, but wasn’t enough vertical resolution for my use. You can find higher res 34” options now, a few 38” models, and the 40” @vladi mentioned above (which I’ve been eyeing myself on and off).

On the 38”, you’re probably looking around $1K US, although there’s an Acer and Alienware out there that are probably using the same panel as the LG. https://www.amazon.com/Acer-CB382CUR-bmiiphuzx-Zero-Frame-UltraWide/dp/B09MFXZBSF

If price is the biggest concern, you can find some of the older 34” for as low as $400 or so, although they will be 1440p vertical resolution. You can find some cheaper, but then they’re not even USB-C. This is probably the cheapest I’d go on a 34” - has USB-C (not TB however), power delivery, and is an LG IPS panel. Again, especially with your mention of spreadsheets, and for my own use, it may be surprising but the difference in 1440 vs 1600 vertical is real so I’d still nudge towards a higher priced/higher res UW.

LG UltraWide QHD 34-Inch Curved Computer Monitor 34WQ73A-B, IPS with HDR 10 Compatibility, Built-In-KVM, and USB Type-C, Black

At 34 inches with a 21:9 screen ratio, this curved QHD (3440x1440) VA Display features realistic, accurate color, contrast, clarity, and detail at wide angles, with multiple features to upgrade your efficiency. sRGB 99% Color Gamut coverage with HDR 10 brings work and virtual worlds to life. Mult...

www.amazon.com

 

[goldpin]

I've got the binned (10 CPU core) M2 Pro Mini with 16 GB RAM and 1TB SSD. I have a single monitor, but it will support your needs. I've had a good experience with it and I appreciate the compact size since I have it mounted inside the table I use for an office. As a result, there is just a monitor, wireless keyboard/trackpad that's visible.

 

[meson]

Yeah, the cheapest you can go on the mini and get support for 3 displays is $1299 in the US. $799 only gets you a bump in SSD or ram on regular mini.

The last time I bought a monitor, I considered 27" 16:9, 32" 16:9, and ultra wide monitors. Previously, I used my MBP attached to up to 24" screens with resolutions up to 1920x1080 and found myself constantly shuffling windows around. I realized that I typically needed access to about 6 laptop sized screens to work comfortably without shuffling windows around constantly.

27" 16:9 (@4k, 5k, or 1440p) meant that I could put web based apps side by side and not have sidebars collapse, but other than than some more vertical pixels, it would have still required two monitors on my desk. I really wanted to reduce to 1.

Ultrawide brings the ability to put 2-3 windows side by side, but doesn't provide enough vertical real estate for the others. So, I would have still been wanting more real estate or a screen that took up my whole desk.

32" 16:9 at 4k ticked the boxes. I can fit 6 1280x1080 windows on the screen, the scaling is similar to my MBP in its default resolution. I've recently decided to bump up font sizes in some commonly used apps and find things a little easier on the eyes when leaning back in the chair. If I could have my ideal display, it would probably be 34"-35" at 4k or 8k (I would prefer 16:10 for the aspect ratio, but that seems to be going the way of the dodo bird). 43" 4k has the traditional 110ppi scaling that so many prefer for default or scaled resolutions, but when I played with using one of my tvs as a monitor, before I mounted it on the wall, it had me moving my head way too much to see different parts of the screen.

I'm hoping to not have to buy a new monitor until 8k displays reach desktop sizes at a price I can stomach. There should be enough scaling options at that resolution to satisfy just about any user.

 

[OrenLindsey]

Check on the apple refurbished store, if they have it in your country. You can probably find an M1 Max Mac Studio for about the same as the M2 Pro Mac mini. Otherwise, get the M2 Pro Mini. There's no other Mac minis that can support more than 2 displays.

 

[wegster]

The last time I bought a monitor, I considered 27" 16:9, 32" 16:9, and ultra wide monitors. Previously, I used my MBP attached to up to 24" screens with resolutions up to 1920x1080 and found myself constantly shuffling windows around. I realized that I typically needed access to about 6 laptop sized screens to work comfortably without shuffling windows around constantly.

27" 16:9 (@4k, 5k, or 1440p) meant that I could put web based apps side by side and not have sidebars collapse, but other than than some more vertical pixels, it would have still required two monitors on my desk. I really wanted to reduce to 1.

Ultrawide brings the ability to put 2-3 windows side by side, but doesn't provide enough vertical real estate for the others. So, I would have still been wanting more real estate or a screen that took up my whole desk.

32" 16:9 at 4k ticked the boxes. I can fit 6 1280x1080 windows on the screen, the scaling is similar to my MBP in its default resolution. I've recently decided to bump up font sizes in some commonly used apps and find things a little easier on the eyes when leaning back in the chair. If I could have my ideal display, it would probably be 34"-35" at 4k or 8k (I would prefer 16:10 for the aspect ratio, but that seems to be going the way of the dodo bird). 43" 4k has the traditional 110ppi scaling that so many prefer for default or scaled resolutions, but when I played with using one of my tvs as a monitor, before I mounted it on the wall, it had me moving my head way too much to see different parts of the screen.

I'm hoping to not have to buy a new monitor until 8k displays reach desktop sizes at a price I can stomach. There should be enough scaling options at that resolution to satisfy just about any user.

You're running the 4K at native resolution of 4K then with no Apple scaling?

Very similar desires, and why I dropped the 34" 3340x1440 ultrawide in favor of the 38" 3880x1600 - I can't get the multiple 1080p vertical, but pretty close at 800p x 2 high, while I can also still go full height and generally no problem going 3x across.

There definitely is a tradeoff on size vs scaled/resolution/UI elements. I've thought about putting a second 38" above my existing one, and considered another smaller screen to the side vertically, but you enter the realm of too much head movement as you mentioned. I run my MBP on the right side of the 38", and it's 'ok.' If I dropped my ultrawide slightly, I might be able to run 2 'stacked' but I think it might be too much head movement, so sort of waiting for something like a 42" Ultrawide in something like a 8K x 6K format honestly. I don't think it makes much sense to go much wider than my current ultra wide (~25" actual width) at my seating distance, other than for truly secondary displays like my MBP which generally runs Slack/Teams/todo app.

 

[meson]

You're running the 4K at native resolution of 4K then with no Apple scaling?

Very similar desires, and why I dropped the 34" 3340x1440 ultrawide in favor of the 38" 3880x1600 - I can't get the multiple 1080p vertical, but pretty close at 800p x 2 high, while I can also still go full height and generally no problem going 3x across.

There definitely is a tradeoff on size vs scaled/resolution/UI elements. I've thought about putting a second 38" above my existing one, and considered another smaller screen to the side vertically, but you enter the realm of too much head movement as you mentioned. I run my MBP on the right side of the 38", and it's 'ok.' If I dropped my ultrawide slightly, I might be able to run 2 'stacked' but I think it might be too much head movement, so sort of waiting for something like a 42" Ultrawide in something like a 8K x 6K format honestly. I don't think it makes much sense to go much wider than my current ultra wide (~25" actual width) at my seating distance, other than for truly secondary displays like my MBP which generally runs Slack/Teams/todo app.

Yes, I run the native 4k resolution with no scaling. It's great for what I do. And to think I remember when it seemed so spacious to code on a 1024x768 display and how amazing it was that they put that high of a resolution in the 12" G4 PowerBook.

I could definitely live with 800 pixel tall windows (I spent at least a decade on 1280*800 laptops) as well, but do appreciate the extra height I get with the 16:9 screen. I guess I never gave much thought to how much the curved displays bring the outer edges in. On my 32" flat panel, it's about 27.5" across for the viewable area. Like you, I wouldn't want to go too much wider at my normal viewing distance ~24" from the screen. With the screen taking up a similar field of view, I can see the appeal of an ultra wide a bit better. Stacking two ultra wides, unless the bottom one is basically sitting at desk level, would definitely start getting too high for my taste.

 

[wegster]

Yes, I run the native 4k resolution with no scaling. It's great for what I do. And to think I remember when it seemed so spacious to code on a 1024x768 display and how amazing it was that they put that high of a resolution in the 12" G4 PowerBook.

I could definitely live with 800 pixel tall windows (I spent at least a decade on 1280*800 laptops) as well, but do appreciate the extra height I get with the 16:9 screen. I guess I never gave much thought to how much the curved displays bring the outer edges in. On my 32" flat panel, it's about 27.5" across for the viewable area. Like you, I wouldn't want to go too much wider at my normal viewing distance ~24" from the screen. With the screen taking up a similar field of view, I can see the appeal of an ultra wide a bit better. Stacking two ultra wides, unless the bottom one is basically sitting at desk level, would definitely start getting too high for my taste.

Thx. Also lol, flashbacks to running a Linux distro that took me a week to download onto floppies (every night va modem.. ), was partially corrupt but eventually had dual booting, then writing custom X modeline entries trying to get to 1600x1200 on a 14” CRT..got there too, with a bit of occasional monitor whining while chasing it.

My eyes are still pretty good and don’t wear contacts or glasses for comp work, but can feel/see things starting to get blurry at my long-running font sizes in terminals and such, but also what makes resolution/scaling vs physical sizes more important. I could see running 4k native res and skipping retina/HiDPI but I’d need to do some math or probably bring my MBP and cable into a Best Buy to start trying on display sizes, as I think most just aren’t ideal (while of course the UW 21:9 oddball dimensions confuse things a bit further.

The UW curvature seems to have some up in arms, but after a day you dont think about it at all, except maybe on some of the disappointing-to-me 49” UW crazy things (iirc both samsung and lg) as their resolution is worthless/too low vertically for me, and ‘probably’ outside the realm of sanity for head movement with some 10-16 hour days.

I think I’m gong to go re-read your prior post again and maybe find a way to try a 32-34” set of 4k and 5k displays. Like trying to stack another 38”, I’m not sure if its really viable as a daily use solution, but may compare 1 horizontal and one vertical to my current setup (at least until some 8k-ish sub-$2K display of the future).

 

[RecentlyConverted]

I ordered a Mac Mini M2 Pro as no one came up with any reason for me to need a Studio with my use case. I picked the right day and got a discount. I will get it in a week. Looking forward to trying it out.

 

[meson]

I think you’ll be more than happy with your choice.

 

[wyrdness]

I ordered a Mac Mini M2 Pro as no one came up with any reason for me to need a Studio with my use case. I picked the right day and got a discount. I will get it in a week. Looking forward to trying it out.

It should be far more than capable for your requirements. To be honest, a M1 would probably be more than enough.

For multiple monitors, you can buy DisplayLink docks quite cheaply which will allow you to use several monitors with your Mac. We have them at work and they do a good job for office productivity tasks.