![]() I had set my brother's 27” 5k iMac set to “looks like 2048 x 1152,” which is fairly close to 1920 x 1080, and the size of the elements/available screen real estate was just fine for me. ![]() This is a sincere question since like I said I have seen so much ink spilled about the terribleness of 27" 4k monitors, but if one is ok with the bigger size of elements/less screen real estate when set to "looks like 1920 x 1080", I want to make sure I am not missing out on something else. Imagine I don't mind all the fixed-size on-screen elements being slightly bigger on the 27" 4k vs the 27" 5k.Īside from the obvious loss of some pixels/clarity going from 5k to 4k, and assuming the available screen real estate is ok with me, do I lose anything at all by getting a 27" 4k monitor (that's set to "looks like 1920 x 1080")? It should very, very crisp, right, like pixel perfect? More so than the 1440p screen, since it's still using perfect integer scaling? No performance penalty or blurriness? Let's say a 27" 1440p or 5k screen (set to "looks like 2560 x 1440") both display the macOS menubar as 6 mm tall, just much more crisp on the 5k monitor.Īnd let's say the 27" 4k monitor (set to "looks like 1920 x 1080") displays the same menubar as 8 mm tall, and I am ok with that. The idea being that a 24" 4k or 27" 5k or even 27" 1440p would be much better, but I can't figure out exactly the issue with 27" 4k set to 2x scaling. ![]() I have read a lot about how it's a terrible idea to purchase a 27" 4k monitor for a Mac.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |