larger monitor for mac mini

Hello,
I have a intel core 2 duo 2.2 GHz Mac mini, currently using a 22-inch
Acer wide-screen display, which has a nice crisp picture...
....but...
I've been considering moving up to a larger display. I work with pdf and
Word side-by-side and I'd like to have just a little more screen real
estate because sometimes I have to increase the pdf display size to make
text large enough to read more easily. It would be nice to have a bit of
wiggle room.

I'm also not sure what kind of resolution to look for in a new monitor.
I've read that some people were disappointed to find that the larger
monitors had a fuzzy text appearance due to resolution issues. That
would be a huge problem for me, since 99% of my work is with text.

Any suggestions for a decent monitor replacement that's 24-27-inch range
in a $300-500 price range or should I be thinking more money than that?
Would 24-inch size be much bigger than the 22, or should I just bypass
24-inch and be looking for a 27-inch‹‹or maybe just bite the bullet and
buy a 27-inch Apple display and be done with it?

TIA for suggestions, experiences.
--
Start every day with a smile and get it over with.

In article
<replytome-(E-Mail Removed)>,
Suze <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Hello,
> I have a intel core 2 duo 2.2 GHz Mac mini, currently using a 22-inch
> Acer wide-screen display, which has a nice crisp picture...
> ...but...
> I've been considering moving up to a larger display. I work with pdf and
> Word side-by-side and I'd like to have just a little more screen real
> estate because sometimes I have to increase the pdf display size to make
> text large enough to read more easily. It would be nice to have a bit of
> wiggle room.
>
> I'm also not sure what kind of resolution to look for in a new monitor.
> I've read that some people were disappointed to find that the larger
> monitors had a fuzzy text appearance due to resolution issues. That
> would be a huge problem for me, since 99% of my work is with text.
>
> Any suggestions for a decent monitor replacement that's 24-27-inch range
> in a $300-500 price range or should I be thinking more money than that?
> Would 24-inch size be much bigger than the 22, or should I just bypass
> 24-inch and be looking for a 27-inch‹‹or maybe just bite the bullet and
> buy a 27-inch Apple display and be done with it?
>
> TIA for suggestions, experiences.

The problem is that most inexpensive monitors today are just 1080p
TV monitors (aka 1920 x 1080 pixels). So while the physical size
gets bigger, they are still only 1080p so the pixels size gets
bigger (or to put it another way, the pixels per inch become less).

I would suggest finding a 24" 1920 x 1200 monitor. This will give
you more pixels per inch in a larger form factor. You should be
able to find one of those in your price range.

Now if you really want a beautiful monitor, the Apple 27" display
is wonderful with a 2560 by 1440 pixel resolution. However, even
the refurbished units are closer to $900. I have the 27" iMac,
but it is the same display. I "Want" to go into work so I can use
that monitor. :-)

Suze <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Hello,
> I have a intel core 2 duo 2.2 GHz Mac mini,

I assume you mean a 2.26 GHz Core 2 Duo, which makes it either an Early
2009 or Late 2009 model.

> currently using a 22-inch Acer wide-screen display, which has a nice crisp
> picture...

What resolution are you using on your current display, and is that the
native (maximum) resolution of the display?

If you aren't sure, go into System Preferences > Displays and have a
look at the settings available.

Typical maximum resolution for 23" or 24" displays is 1920 x 1200 or
1920 x 1080, but a 22" might be one step down from there, e.g. 1680 x
1050.

> ...but...
> I've been considering moving up to a larger display. I work with pdf and
> Word side-by-side and I'd like to have just a little more screen real
> estate because sometimes I have to increase the pdf display size to make
> text large enough to read more easily. It would be nice to have a bit of
> wiggle room.

Two options in general:

(a) A physically larger display with higher maximum resolution than your
current display, thus roughly the same pixel density as your current
display. Objects or text will the same size as they are on your current
display, but you will have more room to work with, so you can enlarge
some items (such as the PDF) and see more of them.

(b) A physically larger display with the same maximum resolution as your
current display, thus lower pixel density. Everything will be visibly
larger and still fully sharp, but you won't see any more information on
screen at once compared to your current display. The larger pixels may
be sufficient to avoid needing to enlarge the PDF.

The first option is more likely to achieve the results you want, and
gives you more flexibility.

> I'm also not sure what kind of resolution to look for in a new monitor.
> I've read that some people were disappointed to find that the larger
> monitors had a fuzzy text appearance due to resolution issues. That
> would be a huge problem for me, since 99% of my work is with text.

You need to operate the display at its maximum resolution to avoid
fuzziness.

A signigificant question there is the maximum resolution which your Mac
Mini can output.

The Mini-DVI port on the Mac Mini can output a maximum of 1920 x 1200.
This is the typical resolution of older 24" computer displays (16x10
ratio). More recent 24" displays may be 1920 x 1080 (16x9 ratio).

If you want to go above that resolution, you must use the Mini
DisplayPort output, and you might need to buy an expensive adapter,
depending on what input(s) the display has.

The Mini DisplayPort can output up to 2560 x 1600 if you use a Mini
DisplayPort to Dual Link DVI adapter (which is quite expensive), or if
the display supports DisplayPort or Mini DisplayPort as an input signal.

If you use a DVI, VGA or HDMI adapter, Mini DisplayPort is limited to
1920 x 1200.

> Any suggestions for a decent monitor replacement that's 24-27-inch range
> in a $300-500 price range or should I be thinking more money than that?
> Would 24-inch size be much bigger than the 22, or should I just bypass
> 24-inch and be looking for a 27-inch——or maybe just bite the bullet and
> buy a 27-inch Apple display and be done with it?

Need more information: what resolution is your 22" display running at,
and what resolution do you think you would like to run at given a larger
display?

--
David Empson
(E-Mail Removed)

In article
<replytome-(E-Mail Removed)>,
Suze <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Hello,
> I have a intel core 2 duo 2.2 GHz Mac mini, currently using a 22-inch
> Acer wide-screen display, which has a nice crisp picture...
> ...but...
> I've been considering moving up to a larger display. I work with pdf and
> Word side-by-side and I'd like to have just a little more screen real
> estate because sometimes I have to increase the pdf display size to make
> text large enough to read more easily. It would be nice to have a bit of
> wiggle room.
>
> I'm also not sure what kind of resolution to look for in a new monitor.
> I've read that some people were disappointed to find that the larger
> monitors had a fuzzy text appearance due to resolution issues. That
> would be a huge problem for me, since 99% of my work is with text.
>
> Any suggestions for a decent monitor replacement that's 24-27-inch range
> in a $300-500 price range or should I be thinking more money than that?
> Would 24-inch size be much bigger than the 22, or should I just bypass
> 24-inch and be looking for a 27-inch‹‹or maybe just bite the bullet and
> buy a 27-inch Apple display and be done with it?
>
> TIA for suggestions, experiences.

I've been reasonably happy with my NEC EA241WMs. 1920x1200, minimal
glare (not a high-gloss surface), good brightness. I could be happier
with the off-axis vertical performance, although it's fine when I stay
within recommended ergo use (eyes near top edge of screen). Off-axis
horizontal is good (no noticeable fade) to 30 degrees plus.

Steve

--
steve <at> w0x0f <dot> com
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to
skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, sidecar in the other, body thoroughly
used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"

In article <1k2stmh.isoq6qre91hwN%(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) (David Empson) wrote:

> Suze <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> > I have a intel core 2 duo 2.2 GHz Mac mini,
>
> I assume you mean a 2.26 GHz Core 2 Duo, which makes it either an Early
> 2009 or Late 2009 model.
>
> > currently using a 22-inch Acer wide-screen display, which has a nice crisp
> > picture...
>
> What resolution are you using on your current display, and is that the
> native (maximum) resolution of the display?
>
> If you aren't sure, go into System Preferences > Displays and have a
> look at the settings available.
>
> Typical maximum resolution for 23" or 24" displays is 1920 x 1200 or
> 1920 x 1080, but a 22" might be one step down from there, e.g. 1680 x
> 1050.
>
> > ...but...
> > I've been considering moving up to a larger display. I work with pdf and
> > Word side-by-side and I'd like to have just a little more screen real
> > estate because sometimes I have to increase the pdf display size to make
> > text large enough to read more easily. It would be nice to have a bit of
> > wiggle room.
>
> Two options in general:
>
> (a) A physically larger display with higher maximum resolution than your
> current display, thus roughly the same pixel density as your current
> display. Objects or text will the same size as they are on your current
> display, but you will have more room to work with, so you can enlarge
> some items (such as the PDF) and see more of them.
>

> (b) A physically larger display with the same maximum resolution as your
> current display, thus lower pixel density. Everything will be visibly
> larger and still fully sharp, but you won't see any more information on
> screen at once compared to your current display. The larger pixels may
> be sufficient to avoid needing to enlarge the PDF.
>
> The first option is more likely to achieve the results you want, and
> gives you more flexibility.

> > I'm also not sure what kind of resolution to look for in a new monitor.
> > I've read that some people were disappointed to find that the larger
> > monitors had a fuzzy text appearance due to resolution issues. That
> > would be a huge problem for me, since 99% of my work is with text.
>
> You need to operate the display at its maximum resolution to avoid
> fuzziness.
>
> A signigificant question there is the maximum resolution which your Mac
> Mini can output.
>
> The Mini-DVI port on the Mac Mini can output a maximum of 1920 x 1200.
> This is the typical resolution of older 24" computer displays (16x10
> ratio). More recent 24" displays may be 1920 x 1080 (16x9 ratio).
>
> If you want to go above that resolution, you must use the Mini
> DisplayPort output, and you might need to buy an expensive adapter,
> depending on what input(s) the display has.
>
> The Mini DisplayPort can output up to 2560 x 1600 if you use a Mini
> DisplayPort to Dual Link DVI adapter (which is quite expensive), or if
> the display supports DisplayPort or Mini DisplayPort as an input signal.
>
> If you use a DVI, VGA or HDMI adapter, Mini DisplayPort is limited to
> 1920 x 1200.
>
> > Any suggestions for a decent monitor replacement that's 24-27-inch range
> > in a $300-500 price range or should I be thinking more money than that?
> > Would 24-inch size be much bigger than the 22, or should I just bypass
> > 24-inch and be looking for a 27-inch——or maybe just bite the bullet and
> > buy a 27-inch Apple display and be done with it?
>
> Need more information: what resolution is your 22" display running at,
> and what resolution do you think you would like to run at given a larger
> display?

I do have the 2.26 GHz late 2009 Mini. I am running this Acer X223w
22-in wide monitor at 1440x900 resolution. Cost IS a consideration for
me. I work mostly text—some of the text is from OLD medical records
which were copied, and the quality sometimes is pretty sucky. Sometimes
they are small print too and I have to enlarge them to make them
readable.
--
Start every day with a big smile and get it over with!

Suze wrote:

> (E-Mail Removed) (David Empson) wrote:

>> Need more information: what resolution is your 22" display
>> running at, and what resolution do you think you would like to
>> run at given a larger display?
>
> I do have the 2.26 GHz late 2009 Mini. I am running this Acer
> X223w 22-in wide monitor at 1440x900 resolution. Cost IS a
> consideration for me. I work mostly textƒ "some of the text is
> from OLD medical records which were copied, and the quality
> sometimes is pretty sucky. Sometimes they are small print too and
> I have to enlarge them to make them readable.

You should be able to get 1680 x 1050 native resolution from your
current monitor (according to my Google search on this display). Not
a vast improvement, but better than what your present resolution is
set to.

We have the same model Mac Mini and have an NEC 2490WUXi with a
display res of 1920x1200 attached. This I think is the maximum
supported display res for this Mac model but it really is very nice.
This NEC was expensive, there are cheaper monitors with a 1920x1200
display.

--
dee

In article <Xns9F1CDCD45D23Bemteedee@46.4.82.166>,
Mike Dee <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Suze wrote:
>
> > (E-Mail Removed) (David Empson) wrote:
>
> >> Need more information: what resolution is your 22" display
> >> running at, and what resolution do you think you would like to
> >> run at given a larger display?
> >
> > I do have the 2.26 GHz late 2009 Mini. I am running this Acer
> > X223w 22-in wide monitor at 1440x900 resolution. Cost IS a
> > consideration for me. I work mostly textƒ "some of the text is
> > from OLD medical records which were copied, and the quality
> > sometimes is pretty sucky. Sometimes they are small print too and
> > I have to enlarge them to make them readable.
>
> You should be able to get 1680 x 1050 native resolution from your
> current monitor (according to my Google search on this display). Not
> a vast improvement, but better than what your present resolution is
> set to.
>
> We have the same model Mac Mini and have an NEC 2490WUXi with a
> display res of 1920x1200 attached. This I think is the maximum
> supported display res for this Mac model but it really is very nice.
> This NEC was expensive, there are cheaper monitors with a 1920x1200
> display.

Actually, I ended up buying a 24" wide HP Compaq LA2405wg from Newegg
for $280 shipped, which has the 1920x1200 resolution and it's really a
terrific buy for the money.
It has a *fully* adjustable stand (even rotates monitor 90 degrees),
feels very solidly built, and I absolutely love it.
Some of the folks who bought it didn't think the color and viewing angle
were quite as good, I found it was just as good as my old Acer 22" and
very adequate for my work which is mostly text.
The extra 2 inches of screen width and 1" of vertical has made an
appreciable difference for me, as I often type on a Word doc from pdf
files, and they fit very easily side-by-side on this one. (on the 22"
sometimes the pdf's were a bit cramped, as sometimes I have to enlarge
them to see the text well).
My desk is old and sits a tad higher than some of the new ones, and this
monitor has height adjustment also and can go as low as 3/4" from my
desktop, which allows me to still see the top of it at eye level. A must
for me as I have some neck issues.
Plus, the stand is already attached out of the box, all you have to do
is plug and play. It was so easy to get it up and running.
I really recommend this monitor for office work.
--
Start every day with a big smile and get it over with!

Suze wrote:

> Mike Dee wrote:

[...]
>> We have the same model Mac Mini and have an NEC 2490WUXi with a
>> display res of 1920x1200 attached. This I think is the maximum
>> supported display res for this Mac model but it really is very
>> nice. This NEC was expensive, there are cheaper monitors with a
>> 1920x1200 display.
>
> Actually, I ended up buying a 24" wide HP Compaq LA2405wg from
> Newegg for $280 shipped, which has the 1920x1200 resolution and
> it's really a terrific buy for the money.

_Now_ I notice when this topic was started :-[

Glad to hear that you got such a good price on a monitor with that size
display - You will be "over the moon" with the difference it makes going
from a 1440x900 screen :-)

All the best, Mike.

--
dee