Monitor help - I'm in Dell Hell!
 

Mid 2011 Mac Mini, Mavx, 16Gb RAM:

My new U2713HM was just delivered, albeit with a (wrong) single link MDP-DVI-D adapter which won't give me the correct highest resolution.

The current problem is that the monitor is showing me nothing.

In Setup on the monitor, I selected the DVI-D input, but the monitor is blank.

The message when I press the Input Source button on the monitor is that there is no signal from the Mini.

Currently using the MDP-DVI-D adapter, but my reading suggests that this should work, albeit at a less than optimal resolution.

Any help appreciated!

I should add that the display shows up in System Report as follows:

Displays:
DELL U2713HM:
Resolution: 1920 x 1080 @ 60 Hz
Pixel Depth: 32-Bit Color (ARGB8888)
Display Serial Number: 7JNY53AF326L
Main Display: Yes
Mirror: On
Mirror Status: Master Mirror
Online: Yes
Rotation: Supported

OK, I'm up and running on an HDMI cable, so now need to find a Quality Mini DisplayPort to DisplayPort adapter, so suggestions welcome please!

http://www.amazon.co.uk/StarTech-com.../dp/B002XVYZ82

Not used DP on those Dells only DVI.

http://blog.centurio.net/2013/05/23/...i-displayport/

What do you think about these Lindy CROMO cables?

Displayport is the way to go. DL DVI is hell. Monoprice is one good choice. Not sure about shipping to you my friend.

http://www.monoprice.com/Search?keyw...i+display+port

Yup, ok, just ordered the Lindy CROMO from a UK seller on ebay. Five quid shipping from the UK and gets here in five days.

That works. Off to Chiangmai Mai for a few days, so hopefully waiting for me when I get back.

You would think display port is the way to go ;-)
However we had some issues with mini display port to display port with some older MacBook Pros and Dell screens. However i think these issues are resolved.

MDP-DP (mini display port to display port) cable is cheapest and best option rather than MDP to dual link-DVI

Fingers crossed!

I just bought a Dell U2412M display with a display port connection. It was hell to get the DP - Mini DP cable here in India. Finally managed to find one and it didn't work. Dell refused to acknowledge it. Ended up having to get a Mini DP to DVI, which works fine. This to connect to 17" MBP ( early 2011 )

Hardly surprising. The Dell site doesn't even acknowledge the existence of OS X.

That sounds like issue we had. Personally the blame lies with Apple IMHO as we have had PCs working with DP connections albeit only a few.

The main distinction is the 24inch runs off single link DVI never an issue where as the 27 inch needs dual link DVI which can be a bit temperamental and often more expensive route.

Samsung monitors present the same problem. Mine runs perfectly via mini DP to DVI.

Any idea why the 24" worked like that and the 27" didn't?

I have seen plenty of Issues with PCs and Dual Link DVI. IMHO Dual Link DVI does not sync well. Couple this with Conversion from MiniDisplay Port to Dual Link and your asking for less reliability.

I have found on Average Display port, Mini Display port and HDMI to be more stable connectivity.

TO answer part of the question regarding 24/27 DVI is less of an issue then Dual Link again IMHO. Most 24 Inch Monitors are something like 1920x1200/1000 and do not need Dual link. Once you get into the 27-30 Inch range there mostly Higher resolutions like 2500x1600 and require Dual link if DVI.

And HDMI will not support full native resolutions of 27inch screens.

As I said I think there are issues with apples display port spec that makes it not work with most display port screens ! Others may chime in but who has got mini display port to,display port working ?

So you don't think the cable I just ordered will work?

I did a fair bit of Googling and found that as a solution on three fora, so I hope it will work..

I hope so. I am just echoing issue i had in past with MacBook Pro and Mini Display Port to Display port on Dell screens and what the guy from India said.

Of course it should work but only time will tell...I hope it does.

Maybe that's why dell don't mention OS X then?

We use Dozens of Macbook Pro, Air and Retina with Mini Display Port to Display Port and HDMI without issue on Dell U24 Series monitors.

You get full res on the Dells?

As i said we had issues with a fleet of Macbook Pro's and MDP-DP. I think they were MBP 5,5.
I am glad it is obviously resolved now. We have lots of 24inch Dells in service. I am sure on next refresh we will use MDP - DP cables.

Display port is supposed to be a new standard for high res displays to replace VGA & DVI.

1.0 to 1.1[edit]
DisplayPort 1.0 allows a maximum of 8.64 Gbit/s data rate over a 2 meter cable.[10] DisplayPort 1.1 also allows devices to implement alternative link layers such as fiber optic, allowing a much longer reach between source and display without signal degradation,[11] although alternative implementations are not standardized. It also includes HDCP in addition to DisplayPort Content Protection (DPCP).

1.2[edit]
DisplayPort version 1.2 was approved on December 22, 2009. The most significant improvement of the new version is the doubling of the effective bandwidth to 17.28 Gbit/s in High Bit Rate 2 (HBR2) mode, which allows increased resolutions, higher refresh rates, and greater color depth. Other improvements include multiple independent video streams (daisy-chain connection with multiple monitors) called Multi-Stream Transport, facilities for stereoscopic 3D, increased AUX channel bandwidth (from 1 Mbit/s to 720 Mbit/s), more color spaces including xvYCC, scRGB and Adobe RGB 1998, and Global Time Code (GTC) for sub 1 µs audio/video synchronisation. Also Apple Inc.'s Mini DisplayPort connector, which is much smaller and designed for laptop computers and other small devices, is compatible with the new standard.[12][13][14][2][15]

1.3[edit]
DisplayPort version 1.3 is not finalized yet, but the ultimate goal of DisplayPort v1.3 [16] is to support 8K resolution, which will either be 7680 × 4320 (16:9) (33.1 megapixels) or 8192 × 4320 (~17:9) (35.3 megapixels) or 4K 3D over a single cable. This results in a cable with a maximum theoretical bandwidth of 32.4 Gbps. With overhead removed, this will probably be closer to 29 Gbps. Other improvements include Display Stream Compression,[17] HBR3 and data channel

The Dell 24inch Displays are either 1920 x1024/1200 which HDMI can display no problem.
However HDMI out from MacMini will be set at 1920 x1080 thats why it won't work at full native resolution for your display.

I get 1920x1280 from MDP to HDMI no problem on Both 13 Inch 2010 MBP or 2013 Retina. Also drove 1 Mini that came in for a Visit it was probably a 2010.


On the 24s Full Resolution is 1920x1280. I also have a 27 HangG Monitor at home though its the same res. We have a few 30s around I can try that are higher resolution. The only issues I have seen (mostly with Dell PCs and HP) are with Dual link Video. DVI as your probably aware has no less then a Dozen connector types. In any case I avoid DVI where I can. That said the majority of our 150 PACS systems have two Video Cards. One to Drive 4 Dell 24 Inch DVI monitors (our newer ones use Mini Display port directly also) and Pair of Barco Medical Monitors.

TBH never had an issue with DVI or Dual link DVI on Mac. Yes on PC a bit but TBH our PCs get bog standard displays for Admin using VGA or DVI. We have one or two programmers who has 4 x 24 inch screens off 2 cards on PC. The MD's have thunderbolt displays for their MBA/MBPs. Pretty much everyone else with laptops have Dell 2410/2412 in my deployments using MDP-DVI.

MY point was Ant that HDMI will not display full res on a 27inch screen.

Agreed...
Think were mostly saying the same thing, feel free to correct me:)
Generally on a Mac:
1) I would recommend going with MDP to MDP/DP
2) Use HDMI port where necessary http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4214
On a Mini it maxes out at 1280x1200 1080P
3) Use DVI or Dual Link DVI if you have to but I avoid it
4) USE MDP to HDMI where necessary should not have same resolution limitation as the HDMI port on the MINI but will follow Cable and Monitor spec limits (EDIT)

LOL i agree we are ;-)

I'm living in hope and expectation! Quaffing a few London Prides up here in Chiang Mai, so it can't be all bad... ;-)

Please see (EDIT) 4) Above. Some could confuse MDP to HDMI Cable/Adapter and HDMI Monitor Port for HDMI port on Mac Mini the results can be different.

Drink your London pride forget about cables and resolutions until the damn thing arrives ;-)

Ok, but AFAIK, that works (I'm using HDMI NOW) that works, but not at max res, right? Seriously cold here now!

I will agents, but since, as I'm sure you know, Fullers bought George Gale and Co., it's just a shame they don't bring in HSB, As it's available in Honky Fid and Japan. :-(

Hdmi will work but you limited with resolution. Cannot run it native res.

Mmm HSB :-)

You two make cause me to do UK related research to follow some of your posts:) We all learn new things everyday.

Education is no bad thing anth, me old mate, me old cock sparra!

HSB is the ultimate real ale! IMNSHO!

The MDP-DP cable supports full res though, yes? That's what my Googling told me anyway. If it doesn't, then it looks like the monitor purchase was a waste of time and loads of money.

Its been fun. Some of the two of you posts I am able to deduce at least after some back and forth. Others I have had to google. The Pride thing had me going for a minute:)

Yes the MDP port and cable will support the full resolution. HDMI can support higher resolutions too just not from the Mini HDMI port. The Dell 27 2560x1440 should be no problem.

How about you go visit England around late June, early July and agentx and I will show you how to lie on the floor without holding on? That's a necessary skill after a handful of HSBs. ;-)

So, Christmas postal delays allowing, this cable should achieve my desired res then?

Yes to the cable:) Nice thought about the Visit. Harder to coordinate with Spouse and Kids.

Bring them too! Expensive proposition. I had a month in England in June 2012 and it cost me ten thousand quid. Find a taxi that can take 5 passengers was a good game as well.

The monitor supplier just sent me an MDP-DVI cable - not dual link.

Should it work? It doesn't.

I assumed it ought to work at the lower res, as with the HDMI, no?

Nope. DVI can be fussy and Dual link more so:

MDP to DP is really the only sane way to go. Regular DVI is not a listed option...

CONNECTIVITY
1 Dual Link Digital Visual Interface connectors (DVI-D) with HDCP
1 DisplayPort 1.2 (DP)
1 High Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI)
1 Video Graphics Array (VGA)
USB 3.0 Hi-Speed Hub (with 1 USB upstream port and 4 USB downstream ports)
1 Audio out
DC power connector for Dell Soundbar (AX510)

He was trying to be helpful, bless him - and not lose the cable sale!

Still waiting for the "correct" cable to arrive from the UK.

So, here we are a month later and the MDP>DP cable has arrived. It's the Lindy Cromo one.

It's connected and the resolution is fabulous!

However, I have a problem now and that is that everything on the screen is so bloody small!

For instance, I need to increase the size of system text, Safari tab sizes and just about everything.

I know I can do this with Cmd & +, but I'd like to know if there is a way of making this permanent?

Glad the cable solved "the original" problem....

.... Interface interaction. Happens to me to, mostly on PC laptops with silly high resolution on very small screens. From the finder You can use View options for the Desktop where you can control Icon and Font sizes. System Prefs general also has Side Bar Font Size which you can choose large instead of Medium.
The rest of controls /Zoom, etc.. other then monitor resolution itself is under Accessibility.*

other tips
http://www.macworld.com/article/2026...r-in-os-x.html

***
I suspect you will find the most pleasure in lowering the resolution to something your more comfortable with. Everyone's comfort level is different. I have a 27 Inch Monitor with a 1900x1200 resolution, not sure I would have liked it if it was native at 2500x1400 like yours. Probably would want a 30 or greater then.
****
For quick changes to resolution use Option Brightness, up or down (F1 or F2). Since Apple banished the Monitor menu from the Menu Bar this is the only fast way other then one of several 3rd party utilities that adds their own monitor menu back to the finder window. The one i tired i did not like because it gave other screen resolutions that made the system unusable.

Dropping the resolution kinda defeats the purpose of buying that monitor, no?

How dangerous is Tinkertool? I see it will apparently do what I want, but at what risk?

I do not like SysMods. I believe Tinker tool is ok though. I do not expect you will find the results completely satisfstory. It should be reversible. Many tinker tool settings are just an interface to command line chnages.

As to changing resoultion, no i think changing the resolution is probably the best solution if the non native resoultion looks sharp, non native res sometimes does not.

I'll give it a go when I get home tomorrow. Now in the quietest Bangkok I have ever seen! All these political protests are keeping the tourists away and many residents seem to have relocated until things calm down a bit. Lovely! The hotel is nearly empty, the bars (and the girls) must be hurting for business badly. Never seen the place as quiet as this in 28 years.

The belief look I had at Tinkertool before I left yesterday showed me a Reset Defaults button, so "should" be ok...

Not at all. This is a common misconception coming from a failure to understand the important difference between "points" and "pixels"

A "pixel" is short for "picture element", the smallest part of a picture that can have its own color. A "point" is a unit of length, like "inch", "mile", "micron", or "light year". The conversion factor is that 72.28 standard points = 1 inch.

In the olden times, there was much confusion between these two terms. The original Macintosh had a screen that was exactly 512 pixels wide and 342 pixels high; each pixel could have either of the colors black or white, completely independent of the colors of all other pixels. (Remember that that's the definition of "pixel": the smallest part of a picture that has its own color.)

That original screen was 7 1/9 inches wide, and 4 3/4 inches high. That meant each pixel was 1/72 of an inch, close enough to the 1/72.28 inch size of a standard point, that Apple shrugged off the difference and said that a point was exactly 1/72 inch, and the size of each pixel was exactly one point square. That led to the notion that "pixel" and "point" were synonyms, a notion that has caused all sorts of confusion.

When a printer asks for a 12-point font, they're asking for a font that looks good at 6 lines per inch, so that each line is (approximately) 12 points high. That's points, not pixels. Printers dealt with movable type, actual pieces of lead that could be lined up to make text. Printers do not deal with pixels. (Well, not then anyway.)

When a program asked for a 12-point font, though, what it got was a font designed to fit in 12 pixels, because somehow the word didn't get out that pixels and points weren't the same thing. That was OK as long as real computer screens had pixels that were 1 point square.

But then along came multi-scan CRT monitors. Such a screen had a fixed physical size, but you could tell it how many pixels should fit in that size. The reason you needed to do that was that the computer didn't know how big the screen was until you told it. If it was 10 inches wide, you needed to say it was 720 points wide, because that's how many points there are in 10 inches. But everybody carelessly assumed that meant the screen needed 720 pixels on each row, and the multi-scan monitors were happy to oblige. Even if the monitor was capable of many more pixels than that.

What happened was that the program would ask for a 12-point font, it would get one designed for 12 pixels, and the CRT would display it that way, and it would look yucky. The screen could have displayed the same character at the same actual size but using, say 24 pixels for 12 points, but the program (and the programmers) didn't understand. They'd still try to draw a 12-point font using only 12 pixels, and the text would be tiny on the screen. The only way to get good-looking text was to lie and say there were, say, 144 points per inch, and get the program to use a 24-point font. The two lies would cancel out, and you'd get very pretty 12-point text on the screen.

But what a wondrous web we weave / When first we practice to deceive.

There were always programs (and programmers) who were just one lie out of step with everyone else, and you could never get decent and readable text on screen across all applications.

Along comes "resolution independence". Apple began trying to set right the mess they'd brewed, and they started hammering on developers to abandon the notion that "pixel" and "point" were synonyms. It took a long time (programmers being such a stubborn bunch), but we're finally pretty much there. The next stage in the battle is to get users to understand the difference. They still think they need to tell the computer how many pixels the screen has, when it already knows that, instead of how big it is in points.

The new rules are what they should have been all along:

• There are 72 points per inch. (Should probably be 72.28 points per inch, but close enough.)
• A pixel is the smallest part of a picture that has it's own color
• There is no a priori relationship between these two things
• When specifying a screen resolution, give the actual screen size in points. (The screen knows how many pixels it has, and so does the OS. You don't need to say how many pixels there are.) If the screen is 20 inches wide, you should say it's 1440 points wide, because that's how many points there are in 20 inches.
• Since the computer knows how many pixels wide the screen is, and you've told it how many pixels wide it is, the computer now knows how many points (or inches) there are in a pixel. This may be a fraction.
• When a program asks for a 12-point font, it wants one that looks good at 6 lines per inch. The OS figures out how many pixels high that is, and selects a font that is beautiful with that many pixels. (For example, if there are 300 pixels per inch, a 12-point font will try to fit characters into a 50-pixel high box.)
• The ratio between points and pixels well depend on the output device. If you have multiple monitors, the calculation will be repeated for each monitor. Move the image from one monitor to another, or to a printer, or send it as a fax, and your 12-point font will look as good as it can be in each place, but always the same size.

Now, you can lie about how big your screen is if you want. If it's 20 inches wide, you can lie and say it's 1920 points wide. 1920 points is actually 26 2/3 inches. The computer will render everything on that monitor as if it were 26 2/3 inches wide, but you see that shrunk down to 20 inches wide. That is, if you want, you can use the resolution setting to magnify/shrink the image on the screen.

If you say the screen has more points than it really has, everything will look smaller. Text will be tinier and more ragged, but you'll see more of it. If you say the screen has fewer points than it really has, everything will look bigger. You won't see as much text at one time, but what you do see will be larger and smoother.

But whatever you say, the computer knows exactly how many pixels your screen has, and will use every one of them to best effect. Set the "resolution" to whatever you find most pleasing, without fear that you're wasting your monitor's talents.

@ganbustein: I'll read that when I have a spare hour... ;-)

Tinkertool has messed up the View in Mail.app...

Any suggestions? the name of the sender is truncated laterally in message preview.

Tinkertool didn't help, as far as I could tell.

I wanted my Safari tabs and Email headers and bodies bigger, but it didn't seem to work and the email header was partially obscured by the first preview line.

Anyone know this utility well enough to point me in the right direction?

@ganbustein:

OK, I read your post and I "think" I get it.

As such, do I just cop out and leave it at the "Best for Display" option in System Preferences>Displays?

Sure, I can use Command>Plus, but my big problem is with the email Headers and preview lines in Mail and Safari tab size. Ideally, I'd have my menus identically larger across the system, but those 2 are my main bugbears at the moment.

Safari and Mail have their own fixes for Font Size...

Safari Under Preferences, Advanced, Never use a Font Smaller then... X to Render Pages
Mail: Mail lets you change the Size of Fonts, List, Column, and Email itself. Of course changing it for email itself makes the font bigger so you send out email in 14 or 16 point but heck of a lot easier to read.

* If the above does not do enough then your back to lowering the Res.

In Safari, that didn't see to help with the tabs, or anything else up along the toolbar though - did I miss that?

In Mail, this actual list of messages/preview line isn't getting any bigger and I'd like it to if possible.

Mail, Message List Size and Message Size should do the trick. Agree Tab Headers do not get bigger, but the Web page text does.

Now I have some websites displaying very narrowly (is that a word?), so does that have anything to do with font size, or just screen res?

As in some lists that I visit frequently for fund prices are centred on the centre ⅓ of the screen.

Any ideas?

Hmm. Well I would use Tinker tools Reset functionality to put things back as they were if you have not already. I do not believe those things stemmed from the Browser minimum font size settings.

OK, that made no difference.

Could it be the websites just not liking the res I am using?

Perhaps you have to reboot after un-tinkering. There is also no harm in putting the minimum font size back to where it was. That happened on the fly for me which impressed me, live on what ever page I had open.

Good Luck

I logged out, but didn't reboot.

OK, I'll have an, er, tinker then..

Is it possible to run BOTH the new Dell and the old Samsung S23B550 off this mac Mini, whilst preserving the 2560 x 1440 output to the Dell monitor?

I plugged in the Sammy via HDMI and both monitors are set to "best for display" resolution.

This may come in handy. Why Apple took away options i know not.
Check you have extended desktop not mirror setup.

https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/disp...49083868?mt=12

Thanks!

I'm not mirroring, just have extended with the Menu Bar visible at the top of each screen.

For some reason the Menu Bar is very pale and translucent in the old Sammy display - is that just because I have become used to the Dell now?

On a two-monitor setup in Mavericks, only one menu bar will be "active" at any one time. The other one will appear very faint. You can still click on it, but it's not the "current" one.
Whichever monitor has the front-most window with focus, has the active menu bar.