![]() ![]() It doesn’t have DisplayPort, so monitors have to rely on HDMI or USB-C/Thunderbolt will work flawlessly with it. ![]() One limitation of the Mac Mini M2 is its connectivity layout which is mostly due to its tiny size. You only need to add a high-quality monitor if you want a powerhouse setup for productivity or creative work. ![]() It’s a decently-priced solution that doesn’t take up too much space or power, plus Apple reduced its MSRP by $100 compared to its predecessor. ![]() The Mac Mini M2 is quite popular with professionals like photo editors and content creators. You can include one from Apple’s stores, but the choices are limited and expensive. They don’t come with displays, unlike the iMacs from before. There's so much misinformation on this topic that I almost never bought a 4k display, I'm now so glad I did.The best monitors for Mac Mini M2 should be your next buy if you already upgraded to Apple’s impressively compact yet powerful mini computer. Now, if you want your monitor to be scaled to look like a 1,440 display, then you might be better off with a 1,440 monitor rather than buying a 4k monitor, I didn't do this side by side and have now sold my Dell 1,440 monitor so can't answer that question. The final "proof in the pudding" is the 4k dell displays are way way sharper with fonts than my previous gen Dell which is a 1,440 display when they are both scaled to my preferred physical size which is 1,080 from a scaling perspective. To confirm again, side by side, the fonts on my 4k display connected to my mac mini are as sharp as the fonts on my 27" iMac when they are scaled to look the same physical size. The scaling is 2 for 1 and so I believe no font smoothing is needed vs scaling at say 1.5 to look like a 1,440 display.įor the 5k retina display, "Native" scaling makes it look like a 1,440 display, again the scaling is 2 for 1 going from 2,880 to 1,440 from a sizing / scaling perspective. When "Native" scaling is selected in the mac display settings it scales it to look like a 1920 x 1080 from a scaling perspective (not a 1,440 display). To confirm, I'm not using my 3840 x 2160 display in 1920 x 1080 mode. At my office I therefore have bought an extra wide 3440 × 1440 screen, which has correct fonts.Īre you saying that you are running a 3840x2160 display in 1920x1080 mode? That seems like a waste in that case, but maybe I misunderstand? If you have one of those 3840x2160 displays, MacOS will scale the fonts made for a 1440 height by 1.5 without any smoothing. In my experience there is no scaling and Apple in principle has bitmapped it's fonts. I can confirm that with native scaling on these monitors text is sharp, as sharp as my iMac. I’ve read a lot of threads on this and my understanding is this becomes an issue when using non native scaling, please comment if you think I’m wrong? So if you have a 4k screen but you want your scaling to look like a 1,440 screen then this may be an issue, however “native” scaling for a 4k display when connected to a mac makes it look like 1080 and this is perfect scaling for me, 1,440 is too small for me. It may not matter much for photo's, but if you intend to do anything else with the monitor you may want to consider this. The problem is that Apple removed "sub-pixel rendering". The Dell that was mentioned I have used at work and text is hard to read. I previously bought a 4K EIZO monitor for about $1000 and font rendering was ugly. An issue with Macs is that fonts are not scaled properly on random sized monitors. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |