It’s less of a problem with newer machines than older ones. I have a 2016 MBP and 2017 iMac Pro and both their coatings are still like new.

Also helps to not use cleaners when cleaning the screen… I only ever use a microfiber cloth, occasionally getting it damp first for particularly stubborn smudges.

I generally prefer matte too, but the antiglare coating on Apple displays is worlds better than what most laptops and glossy monitors use. Seems like damn near every other laptop with a glossy screen has little to no coating making them practically mirrors, even if the display itself is great (400+ nit IPS/OLED). I get the appeal of gloss but would it kill these manufacturers to spare a few cents on decent AG coating?

The density difference is still visible, just not as visible, plus as noted in other comments 4K 27”-32” screens require fractional UI scaling which is problematic under some circumstances. 5k 27” or 6k 32” can run usably with integer scaling, e.g 2x instead of 1.5x.

Nobody is going to buy this exclusively for use with a console, but it’s a nice value add for a work-play home office setup where the monitor is doing double duty. Have it hooked up to the company provided MacBook during the day, and then flip over to your PS5 or whatever in the evening. The monitor obviously won’t run at the console’s native resolution but with its pixel density that’s not too much of a problem.

> But why mini DisplayPort rather than a full-sized one?

Hard to say but I’d guess due to space constraints.

> And shame about only having one HDMI port despite it being advertised as being able to have 2 computers connected at once.

You can still have two computers connected, one through Thunderbolt and one through miniDP + upstream USB. Could add a third with the HDMI port but that’s more suited to a streaming box or game console than it is for a computer.

A lot of people still prefer 2-3 regular width screens. I’m in this camp, because I’m an ardent user of virtual desktops in macOS and Linux, and that setup allows each monitor to have its own set of virtual desktops, which then allows for instant, independent switching between primary and secondary sets of windows by just switching virtual desktops.

I’m sure it depends on the workload, though. My use case has me switching between numerous different apps over the course of the day, but I could see how someone who mainly needs a single large set of windows onscreen at all times would prefer an ultrawide.

Yeah, I’ve got one desk set up with an iMac Pro (27” 5120x2880) alongside a 27” 2560x1440 monitor and the difference between the two is quite visible at normal sitting distance. It’s by far the most visible with a screen full of text, with letterforms being notably less defined and more blobby on the lower DPI monitor, whereas the iMac’s screen looks almost like paper that emits light.

I share your distaste for 16:9 though, I’d love for there to be HiDPI screens at 16:10 (my personal favorite), 3:2, 5:4, etc that allow running your UI at a perfect 2x, but I don’t see that happening for a few more years at least. Hopefully the trend laptops have seen toward 16:10 and other tall aspect ratios spreads to desktop monitors sooner than later.