• 4K screen resolutions on Mac Mini

    From Andy Hewitt@thewildrover@icloud.com to uk.comp.sys.mac on Tue Aug 11 18:29:00 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.comp.sys.mac

    OK, so got the new Mini M4, and a Philips budget 4K display (model: 27E1N1800A).

    So, having read more about it, after I got it, it seems that a 4K
    display isn't the best choice for a Mac (I had no idea), but the reading
    makes sense, and I understand the whys and wherefores. And I had
    forgotten about all the scaling calculations from the past (it's not a
    problem on the iPad, nor on the MacBook Pro I was using).

    Obviously its best native setting is 3840x2160, but it's only just
    usable at that, although superbly sharp. Otherwise, the Mac tries to
    default at 1920x1080.

    That's OK, and also equally sharp, although text and UI stuff is huge,
    even at minimum settings - although I'm starting my 60's, I can still
    see OK at small sizes, and prefer a little more screen real estate.

    I've tried it at a few different settings in between, offered by macOS,
    to be honest, they all seem equally clear to me. My favourite is
    probably 2560x1440, for day to day use.

    The only issue I have is when editing photos, at that resolution I don't
    get anything when doing a 100% zoom for sharpening. It's actually best
    at 1920x1080 for that.

    I have tried out BetterDisplay, but not really sure what it's offering
    me, other than a much larger lost of resolutions to try.

    I've also discovered they didn't seem to have fixed the
    USB-C/Thunderbolt - Displayport issues. I had been using a cable to
    connect to the display that way, but kept getting a blank screen during
    screen saver mode (it's Ok at full sleep though). Switching to HDMI
    seems to have fixed that. Any real world differences there, that's I'm
    likely to lose anything from it?

    Of course I appreciate there's a lot of trial and error, and personal preferences involved, but I'd appreciate any pointers anyway.

    Cheers.
    --
    Andy H

    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?J=C3=B6rg_Lorenz?=@hugybear@gmx.net to uk.comp.sys.mac on Tue Aug 11 19:33:46 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.comp.sys.mac

    On 11.08.26 19:29, Andy Hewitt wrote:
    OK, so got the new Mini M4, and a Philips budget 4K display (model: 27E1N1800A).

    So, having read more about it, after I got it, it seems that a 4K
    display isn't the best choice for a Mac (I had no idea), but the reading makes sense, and I understand the whys and wherefores. And I had
    forgotten about all the scaling calculations from the past (it's not a problem on the iPad, nor on the MacBook Pro I was using).

    Obviously its best native setting is 3840x2160, but it's only just
    usable at that, although superbly sharp. Otherwise, the Mac tries to
    default at 1920x1080.

    My Dell 27" runs perfectly at 3008 x 1692. Size of the icons and
    everything else fits perfectly.

    Go to Settings - Displays and play around.
    --
    "Roma locuta, causa finita" (Augustinus)
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From David B.@David@hotmail.co.uk to uk.comp.sys.mac on Tue Aug 11 20:12:22 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.comp.sys.mac

    On 11/08/2026 18:29, Andy Hewitt wrote:
    OK, so got the new Mini M4, and a Philips budget 4K display (model: 27E1N1800A).

    So, having read more about it, after I got it, it seems that a 4K
    display isn't the best choice for a Mac (I had no idea), but the reading makes sense, and I understand the whys and wherefores. And I had
    forgotten about all the scaling calculations from the past (it's not a problem on the iPad, nor on the MacBook Pro I was using).

    Obviously its best native setting is 3840x2160, but it's only just
    usable at that, although superbly sharp. Otherwise, the Mac tries to
    default at 1920x1080.

    That's OK, and also equally sharp, although text and UI stuff is huge,
    even at minimum settings - although I'm starting my 60's, I can still
    see OK at small sizes, and prefer a little more screen real estate.

    I've tried it at a few different settings in between, offered by macOS,
    to be honest, they all seem equally clear to me. My favourite is
    probably 2560x1440, for day to day use.

    The only issue I have is when editing photos, at that resolution I don't
    get anything when doing a 100% zoom for sharpening. It's actually best
    at 1920x1080 for that.

    I have tried out BetterDisplay, but not really sure what it's offering
    me, other than a much larger lost of resolutions to try.

    I've also discovered they didn't seem to have fixed the USB-C/
    Thunderbolt - Displayport issues. I had been using a cable to connect to
    the display that way, but kept getting a blank screen during screen
    saver mode (it's Ok at full sleep though). Switching to HDMI seems to
    have fixed that. Any real world differences there, that's I'm likely to
    lose anything from it?

    Of course I appreciate there's a lot of trial and error, and personal preferences involved, but I'd appreciate any pointers anyway.

    Cheers.
    Hi Andy,

    You've hit on one of macOS's long-standing quirks with 27-inch 4K
    (3840|u2160) monitors. Here is a breakdown of what's going on under the
    hood, how to get the most out of your setup, and answers to your
    specific points:

    1. Why 4K on a 27-inch Display acts "weird" on macOS
    Apple's Retina display system is built around a target density of ~218
    PPI (like the 27-inch 5K Studio Display or 24-inch 4K iMac). A 27-inch
    4K panel sits at roughly 163 PPI.

    Native 3840|u2160 (100% / 1:1 scaling): Crisp, but text and UI elements
    are tiny because macOS isn't scaling the interface up.

    1920|u1080 (2x HiDPI Retina): Perfect pixel-doubling (4 physical pixels
    for every 1 virtual pixel). Sharp and easy on the eyes, but feels cramped.

    2560|u1440 (Scaled HiDPI): To give you this UI size, macOS actually
    renders a virtual 5120|u2880 canvas in memory, draws the UI on it, and
    then downscales that image to fit your monitorrCOs 3840|u2160 physical pixels.

    The good news: On your M4 Mac Mini, the GPU handles this downscaling
    instantly without taking any perceptible performance hit.

    The bad news: Because 3840 isn't an exact mathematical multiple of 5120,
    there is a tiny amount of sub-pixel interpolation. Most people find
    2560|u1440 HiDPI at 27" to be the "sweet spot" for usable screen real
    estate vs text sharpness.

    2. Photo Editing & 100% Zoom
    When you are editing photos in Lightroom, Photoshop, or Photos at a
    scaled resolution like 2560|u1440, macOS is stretching/scaling the
    application interface, which can blur pixel-level critical evaluation
    (like checking noise or sharpness at 1:1 zoom).

    How to handle it: Many professional photo editing applications render
    the image canvas directly to screen pixels independently of the macOS UI scaling. However, if your editor relies on macOS UI scaling, switching
    to 1920|u1080 HiDPI (where 1 UI point = exactly 2|u2 physical pixels)
    gives you the cleanest pixel accuracy.

    BetterDisplay shortcut: If you stick with BetterDisplay, you can set up
    a global keyboard shortcut to toggle instantly between 2560|u1440 HiDPI (desktop mode) and 1920|u1080 HiDPI (photo editing mode) without digging
    into System Settings every time.

    3. HDMI vs. USB-C / DisplayPort
    For a budget 4K 60Hz display like the Philips 27E1N1800A, you lose
    virtually nothing by using HDMI instead of USB-C/DisplayPort.

    Bandwidth & Refresh Rate: HDMI 2.0/2.1 on the M4 Mini easily carries 4K
    at 60Hz with full 8-bit or 10-bit color, which is all that panel supports.

    Sleep/Wake Bugs: macOS has had intermittent DisplayPort MST/DSC sleep handshake issues across several macOS releases, particularly with budget display controller chipsets. If switching to HDMI resolved the blank
    screen / sleep wake issue, stick with HDMI.

    Recommendations Summary
    Daily Use: Keep macOS set to the 2560|u1440 scaled resolution. It's the standard productivity setup for 27" 4K displays on Apple Silicon.

    Display Cable: Stick with HDMI. It avoids the DisplayPort sleep bug
    without sacrificing image quality or refresh rate.

    BetterDisplay: You don't need it if macOS natively offers the 2560|u1440 scaled option, but it's great if you want quick resolution-switching
    hotkeys for photo work or smoother brightness controls.

    Hope that helps!
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Andy Hewitt@thewildrover@icloud.com to uk.comp.sys.mac on Tue Aug 11 23:02:22 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.comp.sys.mac

    On 11/08/2026 18:33, J||rg Lorenz wrote:
    On 11.08.26 19:29, Andy Hewitt wrote:
    OK, so got the new Mini M4, and a Philips budget 4K display (model:
    27E1N1800A).

    So, having read more about it, after I got it, it seems that a 4K
    display isn't the best choice for a Mac (I had no idea), but the reading
    makes sense, and I understand the whys and wherefores. And I had
    forgotten about all the scaling calculations from the past (it's not a
    problem on the iPad, nor on the MacBook Pro I was using).

    Obviously its best native setting is 3840x2160, but it's only just
    usable at that, although superbly sharp. Otherwise, the Mac tries to
    default at 1920x1080.

    My Dell 27" runs perfectly at 3008 x 1692. Size of the icons and
    everything else fits perfectly.

    OK, I hadn't tried that one. But have now, maybe a bit more than needed
    for me, and only available with BetterDisplay as non-HiDpi.

    Go to Settings - Displays and play around.
    Pretty much what I have been doing, but can't decide what works best
    yet. I might pony up for BetterDisplay Pro, and set a keyboard shortcut
    - or I can see a possible Automator option.

    Cheers
    --
    Andy H

    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Andy Hewitt@thewildrover@icloud.com to uk.comp.sys.mac on Tue Aug 11 23:12:20 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.comp.sys.mac

    On 11/08/2026 20:12, David B. wrote:

    [..]

    Of course I appreciate there's a lot of trial and error, and personal
    preferences involved, but I'd appreciate any pointers anyway.

    Cheers.
    Hi Andy,

    You've hit on one of macOS's long-standing quirks with 27-inch 4K (3840|u2160) monitors. Here is a breakdown of what's going on under the hood, how to get the most out of your setup, and answers to your
    specific points:

    1. Why 4K on a 27-inch Display acts "weird" on macOS
    Apple's Retina display system is built around a target density of ~218
    PPI (like the 27-inch 5K Studio Display or 24-inch 4K iMac). A 27-inch
    4K panel sits at roughly 163 PPI.

    Native 3840|u2160 (100% / 1:1 scaling): Crisp, but text and UI elements
    are tiny because macOS isn't scaling the interface up.

    1920|u1080 (2x HiDPI Retina): Perfect pixel-doubling (4 physical pixels
    for every 1 virtual pixel). Sharp and easy on the eyes, but feels cramped.

    2560|u1440 (Scaled HiDPI): To give you this UI size, macOS actually
    renders a virtual 5120|u2880 canvas in memory, draws the UI on it, and
    then downscales that image to fit your monitorrCOs 3840|u2160 physical pixels.

    The good news: On your M4 Mac Mini, the GPU handles this downscaling instantly without taking any perceptible performance hit.

    Yes, I had kind of got some of that with a bit of searching, and as you
    say, the M4 seems to handle it fine.

    The bad news: Because 3840 isn't an exact mathematical multiple of 5120, there is a tiny amount of sub-pixel interpolation. Most people find 2560|u1440 HiDPI at 27" to be the "sweet spot" for usable screen real
    estate vs text sharpness.

    Yes, 1440 is pretty much where I'm at I think, although it seems to work
    OK at all the supported resolutions that Apple show in the list.
    2. Photo Editing & 100% Zoom
    When you are editing photos in Lightroom, Photoshop, or Photos at a
    scaled resolution like 2560|u1440, macOS is stretching/scaling the application interface, which can blur pixel-level critical evaluation
    (like checking noise or sharpness at 1:1 zoom).

    That's not the issue I'm getting. It's that the image may not zoom in
    very far so see much better, particularly if it's been cropped.

    My main camera is 16MP, so doesn't take much to match the screen
    resolution when it's set higher.

    How to handle it: Many professional photo editing applications render
    the image canvas directly to screen pixels independently of the macOS UI scaling. However, if your editor relies on macOS UI scaling, switching
    to 1920|u1080 HiDPI (where 1 UI point = exactly 2|u2 physical pixels)
    gives you the cleanest pixel accuracy.

    I've actually backed away from the pro apps nowadays, and use more
    modest stuff.
    BetterDisplay shortcut: If you stick with BetterDisplay, you can set up
    a global keyboard shortcut to toggle instantly between 2560|u1440 HiDPI (desktop mode) and 1920|u1080 HiDPI (photo editing mode) without digging into System Settings every time.

    That's a good spot, have to pay for Pro though, but could be worth it
    (it's only about 20 quid I think). I noticed theremay also be an
    Automator link - so it might switch when a selected app is opened (not
    sure if that will work though).
    3. HDMI vs. USB-C / DisplayPort
    For a budget 4K 60Hz display like the Philips 27E1N1800A, you lose
    virtually nothing by using HDMI instead of USB-C/DisplayPort.

    Bandwidth & Refresh Rate: HDMI 2.0/2.1 on the M4 Mini easily carries 4K
    at 60Hz with full 8-bit or 10-bit color, which is all that panel supports.

    Sleep/Wake Bugs: macOS has had intermittent DisplayPort MST/DSC sleep handshake issues across several macOS releases, particularly with budget display controller chipsets. If switching to HDMI resolved the blank
    screen / sleep wake issue, stick with HDMI.

    I see BetterDisplay does have a switch that could fix it, but as it does
    just work, I'll stick with HDMI for now - besides it's useful to free up
    a USBC port.
    Recommendations Summary
    Daily Use: Keep macOS set to the 2560|u1440 scaled resolution. It's the standard productivity setup for 27" 4K displays on Apple Silicon.

    Yup, I guessed as much.
    Display Cable: Stick with HDMI. It avoids the DisplayPort sleep bug
    without sacrificing image quality or refresh rate.

    ... and with that too.
    BetterDisplay: You don't need it if macOS natively offers the 2560|u1440 scaled option, but it's great if you want quick resolution-switching
    hotkeys for photo work or smoother brightness controls.

    It does, but the keyboard switch might be an option, although the
    non-Pro version still does it from the menu bar.

    Hope that helps!

    It does actually. Thanks
    --
    Andy H

    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Alan B@alanrichardbarker@gmail.com.invalid to uk.comp.sys.mac on Wed Aug 12 04:36:31 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.comp.sys.mac

    Andy Hewitt <thewildrover@icloud.com> wrote

    [rCa]

    It does actually. Thanks

    Yes but not his own thoughts - all done via AI.
    --
    Cheers, Alan
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Andy Hewitt@thewildrover@icloud.com to uk.comp.sys.mac on Wed Aug 12 05:54:56 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.comp.sys.mac

    On 12/08/2026 05:36, Alan B wrote:
    Andy Hewitt <thewildrover@icloud.com> wrote

    [rCa]

    It does actually. Thanks

    Yes but not his own thoughts - all done via AI.

    Well, at least he got to interact with the AI, and not me ;-)
    --
    Andy H

    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Alan B@alanrichardbarker@gmail.com.invalid to uk.comp.sys.mac on Wed Aug 12 05:29:00 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.comp.sys.mac

    Andy Hewitt <thewildrover@icloud.com> wrote:
    On 12/08/2026 05:36, Alan B wrote:
    Andy Hewitt <thewildrover@icloud.com> wrote

    [rCa]

    It does actually. Thanks

    Yes but not his own thoughts - all done via AI.

    Well, at least he got to interact with the AI, and not me ;-)

    Thought for the day: Is posting something authored by an AI bot without acknowledgement a form of plagiarism?
    --
    Cheers, Alan
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From David B.@David@hotmail.co.uk to uk.comp.sys.mac on Wed Aug 12 08:15:38 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.comp.sys.mac

    On 11/08/2026 23:12, Andy Hewitt wrote:
    [....]
    It does actually. Thanks

    Great! Efya

    My whole conversation with Gemini, which contains yet more helpful advice,
    may be found here:-

    https://share.gemini.google/o1C9awQsjG3V
    --
    Kind regards,
    David
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From David B.@David@hotmail.co.uk to uk.comp.sys.mac on Wed Aug 12 08:57:36 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.comp.sys.mac

    On 12/08/2026 06:29, Alan B wrote:
    Andy Hewitt <thewildrover@icloud.com> wrote:
    On 12/08/2026 05:36, Alan B wrote:
    Andy Hewitt <thewildrover@icloud.com> wrote

    [rCa]

    It does actually. Thanks

    Yes but not his own thoughts - all done via AI.

    Well, at least he got to interact with the AI, and not me ;-)

    Thought for the day: Is posting something authored by an AI bot without acknowledgement a form of plagiarism?

    Hi Alan,

    It is a fair question and a topic that comes up regularly nowadays!

    In my view, it really comes down to intent, verification, and utility:

    Information vs. Creative Authorship: Plagiarism traditionally involves
    taking credit for someone else's artistic, academic, or literary work.
    When answering a technical support query on a newsgroup, the primary
    goal is delivering accurate, structured, and helpful advice to solve a specific problem.

    The Human in the Loop: Using an AI tool as a sophisticated technical
    research assistantrCowhere the user prompts, verifies the technical
    accuracy against their own experience, edits the output, and takes responsibility for the posted informationrCois more like using an
    advanced, curated search engine or draft compiler.

    Value to the Reader: If the information supplied is technically
    accurate, well-explained, and directly solves Andy's problem (as it did
    here with Retina scaling mechanics and cable handshakes), then the group receives genuine technical value.

    That said, transparency is always good practice. Different newsgroup participants have varying views on disclosure, but as long as the
    technical details are verified before hitting "Send", the group benefits
    from good troubleshooting!

    =

    Written by AI - and I agree with every word!
    --
    David B.
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Andy H@no_email@invalid.invalid to uk.comp.sys.mac on Wed Aug 12 08:42:48 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.comp.sys.mac

    David B. <David@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
    On 12/08/2026 06:29, Alan B wrote:
    Andy Hewitt <thewildrover@icloud.com> wrote:
    On 12/08/2026 05:36, Alan B wrote:
    Andy Hewitt <thewildrover@icloud.com> wrote

    [rCa]

    It does actually. Thanks

    Yes but not his own thoughts - all done via AI.

    Well, at least he got to interact with the AI, and not me ;-)

    Thought for the day: Is posting something authored by an AI bot without
    acknowledgement a form of plagiarism?

    Hi Alan,

    It is a fair question and a topic that comes up regularly nowadays!

    In my view, it really comes down to intent, verification, and utility:

    Information vs. Creative Authorship: Plagiarism traditionally involves taking credit for someone else's artistic, academic, or literary work.
    When answering a technical support query on a newsgroup, the primary
    goal is delivering accurate, structured, and helpful advice to solve a specific problem.

    The Human in the Loop: Using an AI tool as a sophisticated technical research assistantrCowhere the user prompts, verifies the technical
    accuracy against their own experience, edits the output, and takes responsibility for the posted informationrCois more like using an
    advanced, curated search engine or draft compiler.

    Value to the Reader: If the information supplied is technically
    accurate, well-explained, and directly solves Andy's problem (as it did
    here with Retina scaling mechanics and cable handshakes), then the group receives genuine technical value.

    That said, transparency is always good practice. Different newsgroup participants have varying views on disclosure, but as long as the
    technical details are verified before hitting "Send", the group benefits from good troubleshooting!

    =

    Written by AI - and I agree with every word!

    In hindsight, now knowing it was AI, it didnrCOt really give me any answers
    as such. Indeed, I am actually a bit more sceptical of the reply now. It
    did the old mind readers trick of telling me what I expected to get back as
    a response, based on the information I already gave it.

    My OP was intended to open a discussion with real people, and their real
    world use of the equipment IrCOm using (or as near to it as possible).

    IrCOm not a fan of AI, at least not for much of it. Some parts are clearly good. However, I want to know when IrCOm interacting with it.

    Plagiarism or not, itrCOs generally expected to include references to sources used for content in such an article.

    In the past, werCOve usually referred to things being of onerCOs own experience (IME), or previous conversations in the forum (or another).

    Personally I would not, could not, post anything without mentioning how I
    know it (not taking into account forgetting, or errors in judgement).

    So, yes, you should have at least started off with rCyaccording to GeminirCa.rCO

    Cheers

    rCo
    Andy H
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From David B.@David@hotmail.co.uk to uk.comp.sys.mac on Wed Aug 12 11:01:40 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.comp.sys.mac

    On 12/08/2026 09:42, Andy H wrote:
    David B. <David@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
    On 12/08/2026 06:29, Alan B wrote:
    Andy Hewitt <thewildrover@icloud.com> wrote:
    On 12/08/2026 05:36, Alan B wrote:
    Andy Hewitt <thewildrover@icloud.com> wrote

    [rCa]

    It does actually. Thanks

    Yes but not his own thoughts - all done via AI.

    Well, at least he got to interact with the AI, and not me ;-)

    Thought for the day: Is posting something authored by an AI bot without
    acknowledgement a form of plagiarism?

    Hi Alan,

    It is a fair question and a topic that comes up regularly nowadays!

    In my view, it really comes down to intent, verification, and utility:

    Information vs. Creative Authorship: Plagiarism traditionally involves
    taking credit for someone else's artistic, academic, or literary work.
    When answering a technical support query on a newsgroup, the primary
    goal is delivering accurate, structured, and helpful advice to solve a
    specific problem.

    The Human in the Loop: Using an AI tool as a sophisticated technical
    research assistantrCowhere the user prompts, verifies the technical
    accuracy against their own experience, edits the output, and takes
    responsibility for the posted informationrCois more like using an
    advanced, curated search engine or draft compiler.

    Value to the Reader: If the information supplied is technically
    accurate, well-explained, and directly solves Andy's problem (as it did
    here with Retina scaling mechanics and cable handshakes), then the group
    receives genuine technical value.

    That said, transparency is always good practice. Different newsgroup
    participants have varying views on disclosure, but as long as the
    technical details are verified before hitting "Send", the group benefits
    from good troubleshooting!

    =

    Written by AI - and I agree with every word!

    In hindsight, now knowing it was AI, it didnrCOt really give me any answers as such. Indeed, I am actually a bit more sceptical of the reply now. It
    did the old mind readers trick of telling me what I expected to get back as
    a response, based on the information I already gave it.

    My OP was intended to open a discussion with real people, and their real world use of the equipment IrCOm using (or as near to it as possible).

    IrCOm not a fan of AI, at least not for much of it. Some parts are clearly good. However, I want to know when IrCOm interacting with it.

    Plagiarism or not, itrCOs generally expected to include references to sources used for content in such an article.

    In the past, werCOve usually referred to things being of onerCOs own experience
    (IME), or previous conversations in the forum (or another).

    Personally I would not, could not, post anything without mentioning how I know it (not taking into account forgetting, or errors in judgement).

    So, yes, you should have at least started off with rCyaccording to GeminirCa.rCO

    Cheers


    I agree. *I also apologise*.

    Thank you for correcting this old man!
    --
    Kind regards,
    David
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From RJH@patchmoney@gmx.com to uk.comp.sys.mac on Wed Aug 12 11:05:09 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.comp.sys.mac

    On 11 Aug 2026 at 23:02:22 BST, Andy Hewitt wrote:

    On 11/08/2026 18:33, J||rg Lorenz wrote:
    On 11.08.26 19:29, Andy Hewitt wrote:
    OK, so got the new Mini M4, and a Philips budget 4K display (model:
    27E1N1800A).

    So, having read more about it, after I got it, it seems that a 4K
    display isn't the best choice for a Mac (I had no idea), but the reading >>> makes sense, and I understand the whys and wherefores. And I had
    forgotten about all the scaling calculations from the past (it's not a
    problem on the iPad, nor on the MacBook Pro I was using).

    Obviously its best native setting is 3840x2160, but it's only just
    usable at that, although superbly sharp. Otherwise, the Mac tries to
    default at 1920x1080.

    My Dell 27" runs perfectly at 3008 x 1692. Size of the icons and
    everything else fits perfectly.

    OK, I hadn't tried that one. But have now, maybe a bit more than needed
    for me, and only available with BetterDisplay as non-HiDpi.

    Go to Settings - Displays and play around.
    Pretty much what I have been doing, but can't decide what works best
    yet. I might pony up for BetterDisplay Pro, and set a keyboard shortcut
    - or I can see a possible Automator option.


    Same situation as you - M4 and a BenQ PD2705U. I just leave it at 2560 x 1440 and it's just about perfect for me. I don't come across the photos problem often. Couple of things:

    It's not as sharp as it could be - when connected to a Windows box for example it's noticeably sharper. It's still good but that doesn't stop me pining for a proper 5K monitor. I've a 2021 iMac sitting in a box - apparently a -u100 aliexpress board turns it into a 5K monitor . . .

    There is a performance hit - even if I don't notice it. IIUC - just using Activity Monitor - the windowserver process uses between 5 and 10% CPU at 1920 x 1080, and 25% to 40% at 2560 x 1440. I'm not sure if I've got this right but it'd need less processing at 5K(?).

    USB C generally works well - the monitor has a USB hub I use a lot. But it doesn't work fully - the monitor's (rubbish) speakers can't be controlled
    using the keyboard for example.

    TLDR I'd like a 5K monitor but can't afford it :-)
    --
    Cheers, Rob
    Sheffield, UK
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Andy Hewitt@thewildrover@icloud.com to uk.comp.sys.mac on Wed Aug 12 16:00:45 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.comp.sys.mac



    On 12/08/2026 12:05, RJH wrote:
    On 11 Aug 2026 at 23:02:22 BST, Andy Hewitt wrote:

    My Dell 27" runs perfectly at 3008 x 1692. Size of the icons and
    everything else fits perfectly.

    OK, I hadn't tried that one. But have now, maybe a bit more than needed
    for me, and only available with BetterDisplay as non-HiDpi.

    Go to Settings - Displays and play around.
    Pretty much what I have been doing, but can't decide what works best
    yet. I might pony up for BetterDisplay Pro, and set a keyboard shortcut
    - or I can see a possible Automator option.


    Same situation as you - M4 and a BenQ PD2705U. I just leave it at 2560 x 1440 and it's just about perfect for me. I don't come across the photos problem often. Couple of things:

    It's not as sharp as it could be - when connected to a Windows box for example
    it's noticeably sharper. It's still good but that doesn't stop me pining for a
    proper 5K monitor. I've a 2021 iMac sitting in a box - apparently a -u100 aliexpress board turns it into a 5K monitor . . .

    Yes, I've seen a few YT videos covering the convert an iMac into a
    monitor hack. Sadly I sold mine a couple of years ago, and it wasn't a
    Retina display anyway (2013 model).

    However, the Philips 4K I just got was reduced from -u180 to -u139 at
    Curries, so probably nothing else as a cheaper option anyway (there is,
    but much more of a punt).

    There is a performance hit - even if I don't notice it. IIUC - just using Activity Monitor - the windowserver process uses between 5 and 10% CPU at 1920
    x 1080, and 25% to 40% at 2560 x 1440. I'm not sure if I've got this right but
    it'd need less processing at 5K(?).

    That would make sense, as it doesn't have to scale up and down again.

    However, switching between the Mac HiDpi settings seems to appear
    similar, and all look equally sharp to me. I haven't noticed any
    performance difference, although it's hard to tell, I suspect there's a performance hit just for running at a higher res anyway (more pixels to
    push out).
    USB C generally works well - the monitor has a USB hub I use a lot. But it doesn't work fully - the monitor's (rubbish) speakers can't be controlled using the keyboard for example.

    Yeah, I found that with mine, but BetterDisplay does fix that - even on
    the free version).

    I find USB-C can be a bit flaky in general though. I have a couple of
    the multi-talented hubs that you get from Amazon for a few quid (I
    usually try and get Anker or Ugreen), they unmount USB hard drives
    sometimes, although I've found bunging a 20W PSU onto them might have
    fixed that.
    TLDR I'd like a 5K monitor but can't afford it :-)
    Yup, I did have a look, but there's quite a significant leap in cost.
    --
    Andy H

    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Andy Hewitt@thewildrover@icloud.com to uk.comp.sys.mac on Wed Aug 12 18:12:38 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.comp.sys.mac

    On 11/08/2026 18:29, Andy Hewitt wrote:
    OK, so got the new Mini M4, and a Philips budget 4K display (model: 27E1N1800A).

    [..]

    I have tried out BetterDisplay, but not really sure what it's offering
    me, other than a much larger lost of resolutions to try.

    Sorry for replying to myself, but I wanted a cleaner continuation here
    without the AI conversation!

    I looked a bit more at BetterDisplay, and got a Eureka moment. I decided
    to stump up for the Pro version, just about -u21 for a lifetime licence.

    Well, if it only does exactly what I needed.

    I got it set for some favourite resolutions, then gave them some
    keyboard shortcuts (that's a right old rabbit hole, trying to find ones
    that aren't already used, and easy to remember).

    Switching with that works great, and is instant. You have to look twice
    to see if it actually happened (depending on the jump you make of course).

    Next step, tried a Shortcut. Yup, BetterDisplay is listed there, and you
    can set any resolution you like (along with refresh rate and bit depth
    etc.), as well as loads of other settings it can handle. Added that to
    an Automation so it runs when you open the photo apps (or any others you need), and bingo, Photos opens at the right resolution.

    A similar Automation sets it back to normal when you quit.

    Sweet.
    --
    Andy H

    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Chris@ithinkiam@gmail.com to uk.comp.sys.mac on Sun Aug 16 07:56:54 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.comp.sys.mac

    Alan B <alanrichardbarker@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
    Andy Hewitt <thewildrover@icloud.com> wrote:
    On 12/08/2026 05:36, Alan B wrote:
    Andy Hewitt <thewildrover@icloud.com> wrote

    [rCa]

    It does actually. Thanks

    Yes but not his own thoughts - all done via AI.

    Well, at least he got to interact with the AI, and not me ;-)

    Thought for the day: Is posting something authored by an AI bot without acknowledgement a form of plagiarism?

    Not plagiarism, but misrepresentation/fraud.

    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2