Since this thread seems to be about niche asks for pro users, despite the product being targeted towards casual users who want an easy out of the box experience, I'll add my own to the mix.
I'd love a bigger/better screen on these, specifically an ultrawide variety. An iMac Pro with an 8k ultrawide would be a near-instant purchase for me. I find the ultrawide form factor so good for productivity. I love the apple "it just works" approach to their hardware, so if something was fully integrated I'd jump on it immediately.
Today I use a 49" CRG9, but the input and connection setup is somewhat finicky. Not a huge blocker, but it would be lovely to be able to simplify.
Why not the 55" 8K?
Also the checkerboard is because you're not using variable refresh rate. You need to turn on game mode for the TV and VRR in OS display setting.
I can't find any. The newer QN800D or whatever aren't available in 55". And they don't make the QN700B anymore.
EDIT: Also wow I've been using this QN800A for like 3 years with the checkerboard problem without realizing that enabling variable refresh rate solves the problem. Thanks for the pro tip!!!
> Unfortunately, as of writing, AMD GPUs do not have HDMI 2.1 so you cannot use an 8K TV in 8K 60 Hz mode unless you use a DisplayPort to HDMI adapter.
Interesting workaround! This hadn't occurred to me at all as a solution when I read about the HDMI 2.1 driver licensing issue.
It's been pretty widely supported that the "HDMI Forum" (licensing body) has blocked AMD from supporting HDMI 2.1 (necessary for 8k 60hz over hdmi) in their open source linux drivers - which I thought was the only set of drivers available. For example: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/02/hdmi-forum-to-amd-no...
My fault for omitting the context of a heading that said "AMD Linux drivers" immediately before the part I quoted then, sorry for the miscommunication.
Hey, I have a similar setup (https://kayg.org/uses) where I use a LG C148 as my primary TV and monitor. I do all work on it, however I am unable to use tiling window managers as you recommend because I always struggle to see windows / text that is placed above my eye-level.
For that reason, I prefer to use manual window management solutions instead.
I am curious how do you deal with that problem, one big TV user to another? or do you not have that problem at all?
You've convinced me, but it really shows the limitations for 16:9 when these are our options. Two largish 28" 4:3 monitors would be a nice middle ground.
The ultra wide trend has been terrible. Most content creation tasks are vertical space limited. An ultra wide is just having two monitors without a bezel. It's a significant cost increase for little benefit. Ideally there would be a 10k that's 4x 1440p but 8K is an acceptable compromise.
The ultrawide trend has been amazing. All of my apps open vertically the same amount as intended, so there are no issues. I can open several next to eachother - full documents, browser, server logs.
It’s an entirely different experience than having two monitors without a bezel. For marginally more cost, you get massive benefits.
The 16:9 aspect ratio was designed for cinema, not computers. The ideal ratio for computing is squarer which is why apple uses 16:10 and Microsoft/framework 3:2. Ultrawide is the Stockholm syndrome of aspect ratios.
> The 16:9 aspect ratio was designed for cinema, not computers
The 4:3 aspect ratio was pretty good for computers displaying a single document or the equivalent; two of those side by side is much better than one when you want side-by-side documents (say, two code windows, or code and related documentstion.) But a single curved monitor is better than one big flat one. In one monitor, that's 8:3, or 24:9. 21:9 isn't perfect for that, but it’s pretty good. 32:9 is equivalentto three side-by-side, which has its uses, too...
Documents are 1:sqrt(2) so side by side would be 2:sqrt(2). For code I find closer to 9:16 to be optimal. Two side by side would be 18:16, also squareish.
You can slice 16:9 into multiple appropriate ratio windows and the limitation becomes pixel density. The ultrawide wastes the extra pixels where you don't see them. Assuming you need at least retina pixel density you won't find it in any reasonably priced ultrawide. It's also just not feasible with current copper cables.
Ultrawides are intriguing, but I'm not sure it's more flexible than a multi-display setup. Not to mention we've had 2160 pixel height displays for well over 10 years now.
I'm the opposite: for me extra or bigger screens are overrated. I'm definitely the minority because almost all my colleagues have a second screen. I think DHH is the only one I have seen using a 13" because of the focus. And I agree with him: one maximized window at a time, all my focus in it. No neck craning etc. And I can work from anywhere, don't have to be at my (home) desk. I organize projects by desktop (Mac OS feature) and switch through them with 3 finger swipe.
I find the 3 finger swipe to be sub-optimal due to the animation time, and if you disable animations it switches to a fade animation that seemingly takes longer. The only way I can effectively use a low resolution screen is with a tiling wm like i3 or sway.
I have a Sony 43" 4K and would love a 55" 8K. I think that would be the perfect. I'm really disappointed there's no current option. I'm waiting. Everyone says 8K isn't worth it for movies especially at 55", but I don't want it for movies! It would make my computer "desktop" as big as my physical desktop. I seriously considered the QN700B. I wasn't sure if it would do 60Hz 4:4:4 and wasn't quite ready to buy a new Mac (my current Mac can't do 8K).
The QN700B does do 60hz 444. Unfortunately it's no longer sold. I use it with a M2 Max. In MacOS it's treated as 4k native with 2x scaling since macOS doesn't natively support non integer scaling.
It's a shame more people didn't buy them to keep the market alive for large format monitors. Ideally someone would sell the panel with a display port 2.0 input.
I also use and love the exact same 49" CRG9, but if you do the 2x retina math, to deliver the pixel pitch Apple customers expect on desktop in the 32:9 display form, that would realistically have to be a 10240x2880 display at a minimum of 60fps. Not sure if there are bandwidth considerations over displayport or similar as this is essentially two 5k Studio Displays (5120x2880) side by side at that point.
I love my CRG9 with MacOS, but there's no escaping the text rendering is significantly poorer than on Apple's own 2x retina stuff.
TB4 should be able to handle that resolution – I am running 2x Studio Displays + gigabit ethernet + countless USD devices in to one TB4 port on my MacBook via a TB4 dock.
Either Display Stream Compression or 4:2:2 chroma subsampling will easily make 8k120 fit into 80Gb/s with minimal added latency and artifacts that are barely visible to the trained eye.
Unfortunately the iMac Pro was a stopgap measure similar to the 16 inch iMac that had the escape key. Even the last MacBook Air with Intel is really a testbed for the design of the first M1 MacBook Air (the mainboard is the only thing that changed). Apple has taken the steps to make the Mac Studio and other display devices made by them but, curved displays don't seem to be a strategy that Apple would take because right now they might move to tandem OLED on all devices which means even considering something curved isn't on the drawing board.
Unfortunately, there aren't any ultra-wide panels with 200dpi resolutions (Apple's version of retina for desktop). Most top out around 140dpi and therefore need to be run at scaled resolutions (i.e. blurry) for macOS.
I decided to fix this by having my eyes go bad as I age. Icons taking up larger screen real estate isn't a big deal anyway when the monitor is so big--your eyes aren't as close to the edges, where those icons often live.
There's no advantage whatsoever unless you like the look of a display with a huge "chin" and hate cables with a firey passion. Using list prices, the iMac costs $300 less than a studio display with the same screen. You get a whole computer for negative money. Shows you how much money Apple makes on storage and RAM upgrades! But of course it won't remain useful for as long. I know people who are still using the Cinema Displays from over 10 years ago.
Oh, you are right, apologies. You can get a pretty nice 27" 4K IPS monitor for less than $250, but not from Apple. Would probably depend on whether your eyes are good enough to tell the difference between 163 ppi and Apple's practically proprietary 218.
I have the same monitor and honestly BetterDisplay.app has made the CRG9 a lot better - it fakes HiDPI so you have much larger readable text (my eyes ain't what they used to be).
Before that app, I was leaning into my monitor, now I sit back and enjoy.
I tried an ultrawide, but had trouble with window management - I need to make 4+ apps visible at the same time and found that a lot easier with 2 displays and the Rectangles app
> Or please tell me how to use the magic mouse while it's charging? Am I just holding it wrong?
is that really a deal-breaking decision to buy an iMac? Yeah, sure, I agree it's super silly design that they put the port under the mouse; but c'mon, does it really matter?
As far as I can tell, I have never had to explain to my 61 year old Indian mother how to use a Mac as much as I have had to debug every little thing on Windows PCs. Macs & Apple products _truly_ do "just work"
How can you say "does it really" matter to something as stupid as the chargig port under the mouse? It's in-your-face, outrageously bad design and very much in line with "not just works".
It's one thing to pay a comparative fortune for a mouse that's got mostly looks going for it; it's another to have to uproot your work/free time because your mouse ran out of batteries and you didn't routinely charge it like a phone overnight.
Yes, of course it matters. It matters because it's dumb and we pay the dumbness price. People paying for it regardless is the reason it continues the way it is.
Can you read? I guess not, because I literally even wrote that it's a great OS?
It just doesn't just work and has issues. That doesn't mean that windows or Linux dont have issues. They do, they all have their warts and that's fine. But that makes the slogan "it just works" idiotic.
It has the by far best vertical integration with the least issues switching devices, sure.
That still doesn't make "it just works" a reality, because that's an unachievable pipedream!
I'd love a bigger/better screen on these, specifically an ultrawide variety. An iMac Pro with an 8k ultrawide would be a near-instant purchase for me. I find the ultrawide form factor so good for productivity. I love the apple "it just works" approach to their hardware, so if something was fully integrated I'd jump on it immediately.
Today I use a 49" CRG9, but the input and connection setup is somewhat finicky. Not a huge blocker, but it would be lovely to be able to simplify.