Hacker News

points by zarzavat 2 days ago | 0 comments

That 32" monitor will have a crappy pixel density. It's incredibly hard to find good external monitors that are not made by Apple, definitely not for $800. Apple will give you a display with a high pixel density and glass front.

[–] porphyra 2 days ago

There are some 32" 6144x3456 monitors nowadays and they occasionally dip to the $800 range when on sale [1]. But for a more direct comparison, the Kuycon P20 looks very Apple-like, matches the 4.5K resolution of the iMac, and is $799 for its regular price [2].

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapcsales/comments/1v87f6i/moni...

[2] https://kuycon.us/monitors/P20

[–] lukeify 2 days ago

Many people report poor colour and uniformity with the panels Kuycon use. Also just on the specs alone the brightness is dismal.

[–] tonyedgecombe 2 days ago

The P20 is a 28" display so is much lower pixel density than the iMac.

[–] sparkling 2 days ago

Never heard of this brand up until now. Design is indeed Apple-ish, are the panels any good?

[–] rsynnott 2 days ago

I think they at least used to be literally the same panels (though potentially a downrated version with higher dead pixel tolerance etc)

[–] labcomputer 2 days ago

The Dell is only 450 nits, and the Kuycon site says the it costs $1050 delivered to the US with a stand ($950 if you BYO VESA stand).

Even using the sale prices, an iMac is still cheaper than a Mini with the Kuycon.

[–] mrpippy 2 days ago

Specifically the iMac has a 24" 4.5K panel (4480x2520), and supports P3 color. And if the glass front is a problem, nano-texture glass is available for an extra $200 (although only on the higher-end config).

[–] Symbiote 2 days ago

A glass front is a negative. Reflections always get in the way, and they therefore don't comply with worker safety rules in some countries.

[–] zarzavat 2 days ago

If you do creative work, including frontend development, you need to have a hidpi glass display because a fuzzy plastic display will not faithfully represent what your viewers/users will see on their devices.

Apple's solution to reflections is to overpower them. I use my MacBook in some bright public spaces and reflections have never been an issue. For an iMac which is more likely than a laptop to be used in an environment with controlled lighting, it's just a non-issue.

[–] lelandbatey 2 days ago

> you need to have a hidpi glass display because a fuzzy plastic display will not faithfully represent what your viewers/users will see on their devices.

That literally cannot be true, unless you're saying that your users are ALSO going to have a 218ppi desktop. If you're developing for phones, sorry, a 218ppi display is woefully inadequate for replicating what the phone looks like because phones (modern iPhones) have 450+ ppi, more than TWICE the ppi of the display you're using.

An apple display is nice. But it's absolutely NOT absolutely required for anything no matter the creative work you're doing, because there's nothing it matches except developing stuff for display on that exact display.

[–] prmoustache 2 days ago

> a fuzzy plastic display will not faithfully represent what your viewers/users will see on their devices

Looks to me like it would be the opposite unless a majority of your users are on a Mac. MacOS has a 30% market share in the USA and only around 15% globally.

[–] wolvoleo 2 days ago

Overpowering them leads to eyestrain though in some people

[–] al_borland 2 days ago

Nanotexture is an option now, to get a matte finish and cut down on reflections.

[–] labcomputer 2 days ago

And it's almost impossible to find ones that get as bright as Apple monitors for less than Apple charges!

My absolute favorite feature of Apple displays is that I don't need to have the brightness cranked to max all the time, even when sitting next to a window. Some of them are, dare I say it, too bright for a normal office at maximum brightness (yet still dim for comfort in a pitch black room).

There are some good alternatives if your budget stretches to $1000, though: Samsung's 27" ViewFinity S9 comes to mind, with 2880p and 600 nits.

[–] cardanome 2 days ago

Fair point but do people really need high pixel density at 32"?

I have bought a 32" 4k monitor like five years ago and have really regretted it. Sure fonts are slightly crisper but I would rather have preferred to have a higher refresh rate. Newer games will barely run on 4k if you don't have top of the like hardware or will need frame generation trickery. Plus the odd app that still doesn't support hidpi displays properly.

I feel like 1440p is already the sweet spot.

[–] rsynnott 2 days ago

I’ve got a 32” 4k monitor at work, and a 27” 5k at home (the rather problematic LG one; got it just as it was being taken off the market in Europe over emissions rules). The 27” is so much nicer.

[–] seanmcdirmid 2 days ago

A 6K 32 inch from LG like $1200. You can get a 5K for $800 now, although it might be Asus.

[–] pdimitar 1 day ago

What's the particular model from LG that's 6K? Is it more than 60Hz?

[–] seanmcdirmid 1 day ago

I don’t think you’ll find better than 60Hz for $1200.

Edit: Samsung 32 inch 6K at 165 MHz refresh is on sale now for $1349.

[–] fg137 1 day ago

Most people, i.e. people that are not on HN, can't tell the difference between 27" 1440p vs 4k monitors, unless you ask them to look really carefully.

Lots and lots of people use 15.6" laptop with 1080p screen and are perfectly happy.

Every time I see people talk like this, I have to wonder who it is for.

[–] zarzavat 1 day ago

All of Apple’s operating systems are designed for high PPI displays. There’s no font hinting, no subpixel AA. Apple decided long ago that a high pixel density is a baseline requirement for any device they sell, including computers, since the 2010s. You can use a low PPI external but it will not look good.

Given that the smartphone industry also adopted high PPI displays as a minimum standard, it’s actually the external display industry that is the odd one out here. Low PPI displays should have gone the way of CRTs, but they cling on.

[–] recursive 1 day ago

Game consoles, which constitute large deployed numbers, generally have gameplay at lower resolutions.

[–] carlosjobim 1 day ago

It's incredibly easy to see the difference. Cell phones used to have low-DPI displays, and I don't think you can find anybody who wouldn't be able to easily see the difference.

Retina displays have been around for more than 10 years now and are just much better than low-DPI displays. Especially for text and user interfaces. For movies or gaming it doesn't matter so much.