Which monitor would be good for my new Mac mini M2?

Personally, I would not go USB-C to USB-C for a display. I would rather connect directly to the Mini with HDMI to HDMI. HDMI ss designed to connect to video devices and not a "jack of all trades" like USB-C interface.

USB-C to USB-C displays can often have issues connect to a desktop computer as they are generally expecting to be charging a laptop when connected this way. Some displays seem to work OK when connected to a desktop and others are fraught with problems.

KLPWF Said:

“I have a new Mac mini M2 using Sonoma 14.5.1. I am planning on getting a new monitor. I would like to use the USB-C to USB-C. Which of these monitors would work best. The Acer SH242Y Essential or the HP E27UG4? The HP is on sale until 5/27. Thanks“

———-

Using USB-C - to USB-C Cable:

Googling this, You’d need a display with DisplayPort Alternate Mode. The HP on has it, according to the site’s specs. I do not see that on Acer’s Site: AcerSH242Y - Acer.

HP E27UG4 - HP

Screenshot:

I'm not a big fan of either one of these.

The Acer monitor is small (23.8") and low-resolution (1920x1080). There is no mention of an IPS panel, no mention of how well the monitor covers sRGB. Although photographs sometime look for high-end monitors that have near-100% coverage of wide gamuts (Adobe RGB, DCI-P3), near-100% coverage of sRGB is a fairly easily cleared bar for color accuracy.

The HP monitor is larger (27") and has an IPS panel, but again, there is no mention of sRGB coverage. Usually when vendors other than Apple omit that, it means that the coverage is nowhere close to 100%.

KLPWF wrote:

Currently I have an old HP W2071d monitor.

https://support.hp.com/us-en/product/details/hp-pavilion-20-inch-displays/model/5173333

That's a 20", 1600x900 pixel monitor with VGA and DVI-D inputs. I would think that you could drive this monitor easily with either a HDMI to DVI adapter or a USB-C to DVI adapter cable.

There's an HDMI2 port on the machine and most newer monitors and TVs have HDMI2 ports on them as well. I don't know how many monitors have USB-C ports as that would require additional circuitry inside to convert it to HDMI. So just use HDMI.

The vast majority of video displays all use the same logic, which I'm guessing is optimized for HDMI, whether their target audience is for watching TV and movies or connecting them to computers as "monitors".

The difference I've found is that the "smart OS" added to devices used as TVs has some logic that lets them perform better when you're viewing content that's constantly updating the entire screen, like when you're watching most TV shows and movies. The screen of a computer only updates a very small portion of the screen, even when scrolling. To use a device intended for TV and movies on a computer, all you need to do is go into the settings and adjust a few of them to turn off the stuff that, oddly enough, makes a lot of on-screen motion appear smoother while making static content (spreadsheets, program code, etc) look more blurry.

Also, things called "computer monitors" cost a lot more than things called "TVs" even though they have less logic on them.

Personally, I use a 55" 4k TV as my computer monitor. I have 14 "spaces" (desktops) set up where I keep open windows of things that are related, and the screen is big enough where I can spread things out and see parts of most windows rather than having everything shrunk down or stacked on top of each other.

The resolution of a 55" 4k TV is the same as a 2x2 arrangement of 27" HD monitors, at a fraction of the price.

Also, if you want to use a TV for your computer, you should buy one that's "dumb" -- it, one that's really cheap because it doesn't have a "smart OS" on it. You don't need any of that additional crap unless you also want to use it to watch TV and movies and get the best possible viewing quality. (I watch a lot of YouTube videos on my computer, mainly b/c I can't get YT on my TV. They look great in an HD-sized (1/4 screen) window.

Seriously, the only difference between a "TV" and a "monitor" is there's more stuff inside of the "TV" devices, even though they're typically a lot cheaper.

thetoolwiz2 wrote:

Personally, I use a 55" 4k TV as my computer monitor. I have 14 "spaces" (desktops) set up where I keep open windows of things that are related, and the screen is big enough where I can spread things out and see parts of most windows rather than having everything shrunk down or stacked on top of each other.

The resolution of a 55" 4k TV is the same as a 2x2 arrangement of 27" HD monitors, at a fraction of the price.

Standard definition for a 27" monitor is 2560x1440 pixels – not 1920x1080 ("Full HD"). Your 55" 4K TV has the same resolution as a 2x2 grid of 24" 1920x1080 monitors. But given the large diagonal, it has a pixel density of only 80.1 PPI. That's less than the pixel density of a 24" 1920x1080 or 27" 2560x1440 monitor, and it translates into large text that lacks Retina detail.

To some extent, you might not notice that the text is large because it is not comfortable to sit quite as close to a 55" TV set as you would to a smaller TV set or monitor.

A 27" 4K monitor offers 163.2 PPI. Slightly over twice as many pixels in each linear inch, or roughly 4.2 times as many pixels per square inch, as your 55" 4K TV set.

A 27" 5K Apple Studio Display, with a resolution of 5120x2880 pixels, offers 217.6 PPI. About 2.7 times as many pixels in each linear inch, or 7.4 times as many pixels per square inch, as your 55" 4K TV set.

Well, 27 x 2 = 54, which is almost 55. All I know is there's no horizontal and vertical line between the four quadrants; I only need one video port, not four plus a large mounting thing that costs more than any one of the monitors. Also, my eyes don't do math. They just take in the view.

I do sit about 40" from the screen's center, tho. It's hard to sit much closer. And FWIW, I don't like watching videos full-screen. They look fine in an HD-sized window.

OTOH, as a "monitor", I have the benefit of seeing a very large "desktop" area, and I've gotten quite fond of it vs. smaller "frames". Laptops feel very confined. And at full 4k resolution, I can't read much of anything unless it's expanded to look like it's HD or so format, meaning the screen only displays ~1/4 of the possible area. (I have a 15" MBP with the hi-res screen. Even it's hard to read.)

Regardless of the math, a 55" 4k TV works quite well for me.

I had a 43" 4k TV that I used for a few years, but it got to the point where the normal sized font was just too small to read.

I've got reading glasses adjusted for a 40" focal length, and they help quite a bit.

[Edited by Moderator]