ecka84

OMG .. here it goes .. The Almighty Apple Silicon! )))
This "omnipotence per watt" of yours doesn't impress, because its wattage is very low.

Yeah, like I said .. it's OK for not doing much ..
It's plenty for almost everyone, because most people are hardly doing anything with their computers. But not everyone needs an overpriced laptop...

32GB of RAM seems so 2012.
96GB is more like it. Unless you are not doing much with your Mac.

Oh, no! Not the APS-C! No God, Please No!.. No!.. No!.. Noooooooo!

Don't you know what a "working distance" is? It's not a TV, it's a monitor.

"sitting far away from a big, but low ppi screen is essentially the same thing as holding a small, but high ppi screen...

Well, 220PPI is worse, exactly because I can see more detail on larger 100/110/120 PPI panels than on a 32" 6K. And 293PPI laptop is even worse than that. What's your excuse? You don't want to see...

"I created a 4K all-white image and made a few random pixels black"
- BS charts don't prove anything, just like this kind of experiments don't either. I can see stars in the night sky. So what? I...

@aramando People lie.
"I can certainly see the fine detail at 220 PPI"
- No, you cannot. Try reading the smallest readable (100PPI) text on your 32" 6K panel (4pt or something) and then we'll...

It doesn't matter if the scaling is ON or OFF on your overkill PPI displays. You can't see your images in full glory, because the pixels are too small. You physically can't see 6K on a small 6K...

@aramando Because you are using 200% scaling, to fit 3K resolution on your 6K monitor. It doesn't matter what's the original image resolution, when you are viewing it in 3K on a 6K panel. And you...

@aramando If you put a 3K image on a 6K monitor it doesn't become 6K ... You are simply wasting 75% of your screen resolution, because 6K is 4 times more than 3K. Proper UHD panels do not require...

"nobody runs them with display scaling set to 100%"
- It doesn't change anything. The pixels are being wasted either way .. when your camera produces 24mp (6000x4000) images and your screen shows...

"No one runs those displays at native resolution"
- Which makes them pointless.

It has been tested over and over again ... and the results were the same. Basically, 90-140PPI is what we need. Less than 90PPI is bad. More than 140PPI is overkill and a waste. 120PPI is around...

Don't tell me that you don't use scaling on your Apple XDR Display ))

Yeah, you would pick the 4K (2160p) on 27" (163PPI), because you can see like 3K (1600p)(122PPI) on it, which is a bit more than 2.5K (1440p)(109PPI) and 1080p (2K) is clearly too low-res for 27"...

It should have been 50" 6K or 55".

I enjoy looking at photos on high resolution displays too. I'm just saying that a 27" monitor can't possibly show you all the detail of a high resolution image. You just can't see those tiny...

Except that you can't see 5K on 27".

Are you sure that you can actually see the whole 4K resolution on a 27" monitor? Perhaps it is closer to 2.5K? Isn't the whole point of such tiny "Retina" pixels to not see them as well as the...