Apple's new butterfly keyboard

[scottc]

@Scott: I get where those "oh noes, the keyboard's different!" guys are coming from. It's different from before, for sure. In a very positive way, from my perspective. But I'm not as used to the old one as them, because I do everything I can to avoid using it! So horrible. The new one could well shake things up for me completely.

As for comparisons to the MacBook Air and Pro, the Air is shockingly dated now. Their displays aren't even IPS, let alone Retina. I'd advise anyone to stay away from the Airs and either go up to a MacBook or shop second hand if the price is too much. The Airs are old technology.

The Airs might be old, but they're still leagues ahead in performance. This in itself is a bit of a joke, since the Airs typically have crap performance in comparison to Pros anyway. Yet somehow, this new Macbook is actually the same price as a base spec retina Pro? That's without factoring in the price of the "optional" adapter.

[bhtooefr]

OK, wow. I tried one.

Honestly, to my fingers, we're talking tactility on par with or slightly better than MX blues. (Not really noticeable at speed, but subtly there.)

Travel is almost nil, but for a laptop keyboard? I quite liked it.

[Redmaus]

OK, wow. I tried one.

Honestly, to my fingers, we're talking tactility on par with or slightly better than MX blues. (Not really noticeable at speed, but subtly there.)

Travel is almost nil, but for a laptop keyboard? I quite liked it.

In my opinion all laptop keyboards should be like this

Type Heaven In compact form

50795-006.jpg (39.72 KiB) Viewed 10810 times

I think the mechanism could fit in a laptop, and you could improve upon it to make it fit better. The switch feel on these is PERFECT for a laptop keyboard. This keyboard is also my fathers daily driver. He has used it for 10+ years.

[bhtooefr]

I actually own a laptop with that mechanism.

The Model M4 was actually designed for the PS/2 L40 SX, and then that eventually evolved into the Model M6, which was the same buckling rubber sleeve mechanism (although, interestingly, in the patent on transverse buckling spring, Lexmark merely refers to the Models M4/M6 as "an exemplary prior art low profile rubber dome keyswitch"), but in what we now know as the ThinkPad layout.

There's two problems with it. First, it's thicker relative to its travel (which reduces stabilization requirements) than modern scissor-stabilized rubber domes, and second, the keycap is what acts on the membrane, rather than the dome acting on the membrane. This means that you absolutely must bottom out every key to get actuation, and bottoming out has no cushion. It actually does feel pretty decent, though.

Lexmark's patent on transverse buckling spring does reference the thickness of the Model M6 (the prior art rubber dome) at 11 mm thickness for 2.5 mm travel, and their scissor-stabilized buckling spring was intended to be thinner (scissor-stabilized domes can do much better, though): https://www.google.com/patents/US5268545

When the entire MacBook is 13.1 mm thick at its thickest point, lid closed...

[stratokaster]

The 15 and 13" MacBook Pros have no USB C

Hardly a downside. I bet it won't be a downside even 5 years from now. FWIW, even USB 3.0 is still not ubiquitous, I'd say a vast majority of cheap PCs ship with USB 2.0 only.

I kind of hoped that the new MacBook would ship with USB 3.1 Gen 2, which enables 10 Gbps throughput. But it's USB 3.1 Gen 1 which is in fact EXACTLY the same thing as USB 3.0. Only the plug shape is different.

By the way, is it possible to buy a USB-C -> Lightning cable yet? No? Thought so.

still use the old keyboard

But does it really matter if you use your Realforce with it?

The 13" Retina MacBook Pro is a solid machine, but again it feels like a whale in bulk compared to the new hotness.

Which is to be expected, because its screen is bigger. And it has to dissipate 3 times more heat because it's CPU/GPU combo is roughly 3 times as powerful.

And, once more, you're on the wrong side of the USB divide

I actually doubt it, for reasons described below.

Apple's always going through transitions. Once they introduce something new, it spreads across the whole line. Intel, SSDs, Thunderbolt, it's all one way journeys. Retina is everywhere now besides the desktop displays (which I *really* want them to update so I can have a desktop setup as good as my laptop!) and they're surely going USB C native across the board soon enough.

They went with USB Type C because they only had space for one port. USB-C is the only port which can serve as a power, USB and video connector. It doesn't make sense to use them in places where you can have many separate ports, because ports = convenience.

I suspect in 15 years our computers will have rows of identical USB-C ports to connect everything, from displays to networking. But it will be in 15 years, and any laptop sold today will be completely obsolete in 3-4 years. Including the new MacBook.

It's always better to be on the right side of such a divide with Apple, than on one of the last machines before the jump. Not only for day to day convenience, but for future updates to the OS.

Well, USB Type-C is actually the same old USB 3.0, only in different package. The shape of the plug makes no difference to the OS.

[Mal-2]

Which is to be expected, because its screen is bigger. And it has to dissipate 3 times more heat because it's CPU/GPU combo is roughly 3 times as powerful.

Fortunately for everyone, this scaling law just doesn't apply, or we'd never have gotten past Pentium 4 Netburst speeds without achieving LHC-level cooling. I couldn't tell you without a reference what the TDP of the new CPU and GPU are, but I can say with a fair degree of certainty it isn't triple that of the previous generation.

[bhtooefr]

The MacBook 2015 uses the Core M 5Y31, 5Y51, and 5Y71.

5Y31 is a 900 MHz @ 4.5 W part, Apple's running it at 1.1 GHz, which is the full 6 W cTDP-up speed. Turbo is 2.4 GHz.
5Y51 is a 1.1 GHz @ 4.5 W part, Apple's running it at 1.2 GHz. Full 6 W cTDP-up is 1.3 GHz on that part. Turbo is 2.6 GHz.
5Y71 is a 1.2 GHz @ 4.5 W part, Apple's running it at 1.3 GHz, and full 6 W cTDP-up is 1.4 GHz. Turbo is 2.9 GHz.

Graphics on these is HD 5300, 300 MHz base, 850 (5Y31) or 900 MHz (5Y51, 5Y71).

However, I found a Japanese blog claiming that Apple's running all of these parts at a cTDP of 5 W. Intel could be giving Apple better binning 5Y31s for this, it's not the first time Apple's gotten better binned parts and ran them at higher clocks.

To compare with the MacBook Air (let alone the MBPR 13)...

i5-5250U is a 1.6 GHz @ 15 W part, turbo is 2.7 GHz.
i7-5650U is a 2.2 GHz @ 15 W part, turbo is 3.1 GHz.

Graphics on these is the HD 6000, 300 MHz base, and 950 (i5-5250U) or 1000 MHz (i7-5650U) turbo.

Literally three times the heat dissipation. And that's just the Air. And seeing as these CPUs are really the same architecture, just different bins, the top-of-the-line MacBook Air CPU is only twice the performance of the bottom-of-the-line MacBook CPU in multithreaded workloads. Thanks to the turbo speed, it's less of an advantage (only 1.3x) in single-threaded. Top-of-the-line vs. top-of-the-line, it gets worse, 1.7x in multithreaded, and barely rounding up to 1.1x in single-threaded with turbo. As far as GPU, twice the EUs, for twice the base clock performance, and a bit over twice the turbo performance.

And, now, let's pull out the MBPR 13" CPUs...

i5-5257U is a 2.7 GHz @ 28 W part, turbo is 3.1 GHz
i5-5287U is a 2.9 GHz @ 28 W part, Intel's not listing a turbo speed, but Apple's claiming 3.3 GHz
i7-5557U is a 3.1 GHz @ 28 W part, turbo is 3.4 GHz

Graphics on these is Iris 6100, 300 MHz base, and 1.05 (for i5-5257U) or 1.1 GHz (for the others) turbo.

So, now, we're to 5.6x the power draw, with (at best, using the i7-5557U vs. the M-5Y31) 2.8x the performance (and it gets worse on single-threaded workloads). So, not even 3x the performance, and almost 6x the power draw. GPU performance is going to be a touch higher than the MacBook Airs in turbo, it's the same number of execution units.

[stratokaster]

You can't actually compare performance like that. TurboBoost is operating within the power envelope of the CPU and I think it's very unlikely that the new MacBook (or any other passively-cooled laptop) is able to sustain turbo speeds for prolonged periods of time. TurboBoost is designed to provide short burst of performance, so your laptop doesn't stutter when you're scrolling complex web pages and things like that.

Remember that if you increase CPU clock by 50%, its power consumption increases roughly 3.3 times because power is proportional to the cube of the operating frequency.

[Muirium]

Well, I was at another Apple Store today with my 15" Retina MBP in tow, and ran Google's Octane benchmark on it and a MacBook simultaneously. My 2 GHz quad i7 was about 2x faster overall, in a significantly larger computer. Not bad for the tiny MacBook. I also pushed it hard with noise reduction etc. in the Photos app, which it handles very nicely, much like my own machine. I'm still impressed. Getting that kind of power into something that feels like a clamshell iPad is quite the technical marvel.

Why I was really there was to check the keyboard before I went to the Microsoft Store a few doors down to have my first try of a Surface Type Cover. Blech! I expected better from that. The Type Cover's keys are nice and big, with no gutter between them like on chiclet boards, but the feel is wobbly and mushy, like so many chiclet style scissor switch boards, including my Mac here. The new MacBook's pulled away from that, for sure.

Microsoft didn't have any 4k displays for me to try with my MacBook Pro, but they did have some HP projection screen that let you type on your desktop and do 20 point multitouch stuff like the huge Microsoft Surface table of old. Honestly, I prefer a projected keyboard to the mushy keyboards they have in there! Again, I like things being true to themselves instead of crappy imitations of something else.

Alas, the new MacBook has no way to hook up to a desktop display, quite yet. (Besides streaming to an Apple TV, I guess, but that's more lag than I can handle.) DisplayPort is promised over USB-C, but there's no adapter for now.

http://www.macworld.com/article/2894423 ... to-it.html


@stratokaster: 15 years? Make that 1.5 years for Apple. This isn't the 1990s. I'd love a 5k iMac, but these ports are almost surely Apple's chosen future, and it ain't got none. That sound you can hear is my mind's brakes screeching!

[stratokaster]

@stratokaster: 15 years? Make that 1.5 years for Apple. This isn't the 1990s. I'd love a 5k iMac, but these ports are almost surely Apple's chosen future, and it ain't got none. That sound you can hear is my mind's brakes screeching!

At least Thunderbolt isn't going away anytime soon, Apple built their entire professional lineup around this technology. I'm pretty sure we will see USB-C -> USB-A cables and dongles very soon, I also expect companies like Belkin and Griffin to start adding USB-C ports to their Thunderbolt port extenders/docking stations, so any machine with Thunderbolt should be OK even in the long run.

[Muirium]

That'd be convenient, and I hope it comes to pass. One of the advantages of using standards (like Thunderbolt and USB of course) is that others can plug the gaps. Apple's got a strange track record of going all in for transitions, and leaving some things on sale for years in a row. The Thunderbolt Display is the headscratcher. I'm far from alone in wanting a Retina update! 21" 4k would be marvellous, and eminently doable. Yet there's not even a little 4k iMac.

[Findecanor]

They went with USB Type C because they only had space for one port. USB-C is the only port which can serve as a power, USB and video connector.

They went with one Type C because they made it wedge-shaped like the MacBook Air but thinner than an Air. I think that most people can live with the MacBook being just as thick at the front as on the back.

A MacBook, without a "Air" or "Pro" name suffix, was supposed to be the entry-level Macintosh where the machine is used for everyday tasks. You use the Pro when you need performance and the Air when you need ultra-portability. Apple lost sight of that.
And BTW, the 2015 MacBook has the worst battery life in the current MacBook line. (actual runtime matters, not just mAh)

Sorry. I know you all know that. I'm just ranting for no good reason other than that I'm disappointed in them.

[Muirium]

Mark my words: every Mac will be as thin as this one in a few years. Even the iMac!

(Who even knows what will happen to the Mac Pro…)

[jacobolus]

No way it takes 15 years. Every cellphone and tablet (except those from Apple, ironically) is going to have USB type C ports within the next year or two. Every type of peripheral (external hard drives, printers, scanners, keyboards, digital cameras, graphics tablets, electronic instruments, ...) will start using Type C connectors within the next 3–5 years, tops, or else get rid of ports altogether and stick to inductive charging + wireless data transfers. Once there start being USB type C outlets widely available (e.g. in every college lecture hall, every airport lobby, every car, ...), I wouldn’t be surprised if many small appliances able to run on <100 watts DC start switching to USB for power and ditching their external (or internal) AC adapters. Within 10 years, I’m hoping modems, wifi routers, battery chargers, desk lamps, electric toothbrushes, clocks, radios, ... have all switched to USB. AC power will still be needed for more power-heavy tools and devices like blenders, amplifiers, and vacuum cleaners, but all the tiny devices that run on DC internally anyway can switch.

Thunderbolt is probably going to stick around for at least a while, for high resolution displays, very fast hard drives, pro video footage transfer, wired network interfaces, and stuff like external GPUs, etc. Most mainstream consumer use cases will be USB 3.1 though.

[bhtooefr]

However, Thunderbolt actually causes some problems with high-resolution displays. See, Thunderbolt has to encapsulate the DisplayPort protocol, and encapsulates outdated versions of it.

USB-C Alternate Modes, on the other hand, can just give the two spare high-speed lanes (or even all the high-speed lanes, and fall back to USB 2.0 for USB traffic) to the graphics controller, to run DisplayPort at native DisplayPort speeds. And, the USB-C spec also specifically mentions PCIe as an alternate mode possibility.

If the hardware supported it (allegedly the MacBook doesn't), one could hypothetically run one lane of PCIe (assuming 3.0, that's 8 GT/s bidirectional, so you're already nearly at full Thunderbolt 1 speed, and the only thing you're missing to get close to Thunderbolt 2 speeds is unidirectional support) along with two DIsplayPort lanes, while USB falls back to a dedicated 2.0 path. Or, one lane of PCIe and full USB 3.x speeds. Or, two DisplayPort lanes and full USB 3.x speeds.

Or, for a real mindfuck, there's enough lanes to just run Thunderbolt on the damn connector. But, why do that when PCIe and DisplayPort can be run without encapsulation?

I think Thunderbolt over Mini-DisplayPort connectors at the very least is dead, and to be honest, Thunderbolt as a protocol is dead, because it's holding back Apple's display tech now (a Thunderbolt Display can't happen until DisplayPort 1.3 is supported, which means Thunderbolt 3 for Apple, whereas everyone else just has to wait for the GPUs to support it).

[jacobolus]

So what do you imagine the future port for high resolution displays will look like? I don’t think anyone’s going to get a 6–8k display working over USB type C connectors, and the dual-mini-displayport method of the Dell 5k display is super hacky. Is there a planned connector for Displayport 1.4?

[Muirium]

You need only look at the state of the Thunderbolt DIsplay to tell these things aren't exactly a priority for Apple. The MacBook's tempting me badly, but true enough I'd much rather be able to dock it occasionally and use an external display with my keyboards. There'll be an answer to that question in good time, once the whole Mac platform goes the way of the new connector. But not quite yet.

Ach, transitions!

[bhtooefr]

So what do you imagine the future port for high resolution displays will look like? I don’t think anyone’s going to get a 6–8k display working over USB type C connectors, and the dual-mini-displayport method of the Dell 5k display is super hacky. Is there a planned connector for Displayport 1.4?

I haven't seen any rumors of a different connector for DisplayPort 1.4, which means they're sticking with 4 lanes, I'd guess.

USB-C Alternate Modes are designed to support whatever the Alternate Mode can shove down the cable, and it offers 4 high-speed lanes. So, you can treat a USB-C connector that supports the DisplayPort Alternate Mode as a completely standard protocol-wise 4-lane DisplayPort port, just with a funny connector (with some very modest requirements in the cable to signal that the DisplayPort Alternate Mode is requested) and a USB 2.0 connection along for the ride.

Also, DisplayPort 1.3 (which is already out, hardware just has to support it now) supports 5k displays at 60 Hz on a single connector.

So, with DisplayPort Alternate Modes, unless there's a signal integrity issue at very high speeds (and I'd imagine USB IF thought of this already), I'd imagine that DisplayPort 1.4 will work just fine on USB-C, and an 8k monitor would therefore work fine.

[jacobolus]

You need only look at the state of the Thunderbolt DIsplay to tell these things aren't exactly a priority for Apple.

I don’t think that’s a fair assessment. It’s not that it isn’t a priority, it’s that the ecosystem (software, GPUs, display panels, in-display processing, connectors and protocols, ...) was relatively stagnant for a long time, but is finally starting to get moving again in the last few years. I’m sure they’d love to release something ASAP (there have to be people at Apple with Mac Pros who want a retina-iMac-quality external display), but it would be a tragedy if they released one thing this year and a totally incompatible different thing next year.

Also, DisplayPort 1.3 (which is already out, hardware just has to support it now) supports 5k displays at 60 Hz on a single connector.

I was just reading the DisplayPort FAQ. Apparently the choices for 8K displays at 60Hz on one connector with DisplayPort 1.3 are either to use 4:2:0 chroma subsampling or at some point in the near future use “visually lossless” Display Stream Compression. It’s not clear to me what the story is for 5K displays.

After reading through VESA’s various DisplayPort material, my impression is that they’re pretty well lined up behind USB Type C being the main next-gen DisplayPort connector, at least for the next few years. It sounds like many 4K displays will come with a USB Type C cable and people with Mini DisplayPort jacks will need an adapter for those. So you’re probably right that MiniDisplayPort is on the way out. I wonder what will happen with Apple and the next generation of Thunderbolt then.

[bhtooefr]

DisplayPort 1.3 offers an effective 25.92 Gbit/s.

5120 x 2880 @ 59.94 Hz (video optimized, you see) with CVT-RBv2 timings (the tightest in the spec) is 923.221 MHz, at 24 bits per pixel that's 22.1573 Gbit/s. No compression involved. Even at the old CVT-RB timings, that's 938.25 MHz, or 22.518 Gbit/s. Fits in the standard juuuuuust fine. That's half the point of that standard, in fact, that it can do that.

7680 x 4320 @ 59.94 Hz at CVT-RBv2 timings is 2066.593 MHz, or @ 24 bpp, 49.598232 Gbit/s. That is well beyond DisplayPort 1.3's capability. Now, let's say they're compressing the blanking out (which is simply, in RPN, 7680 4320 * 59.94 * 24 * Gbit/s), that would get it down to 47.728 Gbit/s. Still nowhere where it needs to be for DisplayPort 1.3. (Let's face it, though, blanking is less important, and VESA could probably get away with eliminating it, which would reduce the performance requirements for DisplayPort 1.4.)

There's a few other things that VESA can do, though, to cram an 8k signal into DisplayPort 1.3's bandwidth. The first thing is something that eDP 1.4 (which is, due to a version mismatch, the embedded version of DisplayPort 1.3) brings to the table - Selective Frame Update, an addition to the (power reducing) Panel Self Refresh feature. Essentially, as long as 54.31% or less of the display is being updated in a frame, 59.94 Hz can be maintained, I believe. (Interestingly, this was a major feature of DisplayPort's predecessor protocol, DPVL. DPVL was mainly used in embedded displays, but IBM designed it for the T221, to drive 3840 x 2400 @ 48 Hz off of a single DVI link (which doesn't have enough bandwidth for that normally).)

Also, even if Selective Frame Update isn't enough, some tricks could be done to defer updates to a later frame to make it look like 59.94 Hz is being maintained. (Also, Freesync might be able to help here, if the GPU is running slow, there may simply be more time to get the frame into the monitor without trickery.)

Then, finally, VESA is giving a clue about the final option if all else fails. They've been working with JPEG on this. Translation? Eventually, it's lossy. They just hope you won't notice.

[Muirium]

Yeah. Like how you really shouldn't notice the < 8 bits per RGB channel either! Most people don't, so…

Thunderbolt's a pain. Intel controls it, the laggards they are, and Apple's squirming just dealing with those guys inability to ship new CPUs on time these days. I don't know what's up with Intel in recent years. They really had their shit together in 2005 when Apple switched to their Core architecture. But even simple things like Intel's CPU branding are confused now. Why are we still on Core i7 after all these years? Time was your next computer would have a whole different line of Intel CPU inside, guaranteed. I just don't get it. Let alone their real delays.

But Thunderbolt: I was in Frys earlier, looking at their 4k displays. The 24" Dell UP2414Q (great names, guys…) was fair cheap but quick and sharp, its disadvantage being no IPS. But I couldn't get the bloody thing to connect to my MacBook Pro. Frys uses full size DisplayPort cables on its demo hardware, and my Mac has mini-DP of course. HDMI didn't cut it at 4k resolution for me. One of the clerks was willing to bust open a new cable to help me out, but he picked a Thunderbolt cable, not a Mini DisplayPort. Apparently that doesn't work. For me, or according to the internet. You need a Thunderbolt to DP adapter? For goodness sake!

I for one welcome our USB C overlords. I really do.

[scottc]

The Dell 27 inch 1440p IPS monitors are absolutely sublime. I don't have a model number (I wonder why I can't remember it!) but it might be this one?

[Muirium]

Looks pretty decent. Well priced, too. If only I could squeeze them in my luggage!

[scottc]

A few friends of mine have gotten unbranded versions shipped directly from Korea for half that price. Something like 200 GBP. I was highly skeptical at first, but they're absolutely flawless. 1440p, IPS, 27 inch - the whole shebang.

The only problem is that you have to deal with the ridiculous name.

[bhtooefr]

The problem with Intel is that AMD has no CPUs worth buying unless you're on an extreme budget, can't afford discrete graphics, and don't care about power consumption. Therefore, why does Intel have to bother with actually meeting schedules outside of SoCs?

(My prediction is that Apple is going to counter that by "switching to AMD" for CPUs. And by "switching to AMD", I mean, paying AMD enough money to stay afloat, and slap an AMD logo on an Apple x86 design to make use of AMD's patent licenses. It's worth noting that Apple's already got the Cyclone core competitive with the ULV Haswell parts (when they were still current). Give them a couple generations, and an x86 front-end, and we could see Apple going directly against Intel in x86 performance.)

Also, as I understand, the UP2414Q is an oddball with how it actually supports display standards, and my understanding is that the P2415Q is better behaved (but with a smaller color gamut). (The UP2414Q actually is IPS, by the way.) I would've just gotten a DP to Mini-DP adapter (or a DP to Mini-DP cable), but part of the problem with Macs is that Thunderbolt 1 only speaks DisplayPort v1.1, regardless of what the GPU can do, regardless of what cable's plugged into it, as I understand. (Thunderbolt 2 speaks DisplayPort v1.2, I believe, though.) A straight Thunderbolt cable sounds wrong to connect any monitor other than the Apple Thunderbolt Monitor, too.

And, it may need liberal application of SwitchResX to actually manually set some settings that Apple doesn't make available, to get the timings right if OS X is reading the EDID wrong.

(Disclaimer: I work for Dell, but I've not touched any of these products. I'd like to, but I can't justify it, not when I've got a T221 already.)

[jacobolus]

The Dell 27 inch 1440p IPS monitors are absolutely sublime.

After you’re used to “retina” displays, 27 inch 1440p is sooooo blurry. Night and day difference between that and the 27" 5K iMac. 27" 1440p is pretty much the same PPI we had in 1995; depressing that it’s still the mainstream choice today.

The Dell 4K 24” UP2414Q is pretty nice, though I wish they’d do a 4K display at 21-inch size instead.

[Muirium]

You can tell by my short answer I was in a hurry earlier. IPS is great, but 1440p is no good at 27 inch. It's like 1080p at 21 inch: ye olde school. Fine if I take my glasses off, but I can't read with my glasses off!

I was in the Apple Store eyeing the Thunderbolt display again. Damn, if that thing looks dated compared to the iMacs all around it. But double damn if it looks more elegant than anything I saw at Frys. The Dell UP2414Q was okay specs wise (and my Thunderbolt 2 rMBP late 2013 ought to be able to drive it at 60 Hz with an appropriate cable) but the build quality and industrial design gave me flashbacks to my shitey old freebie Dell at home. 4k is almost enough to tip me to it, but it's outclassed in every other respect by that ancient Apple display that time forgot.

Bloody transitions.

[andrewjoy]

you can see pixels @ 1440p on a 27inch ? You must have super eyes.

[bhtooefr]

For someone with 20/20 vision, you can see pixels as far as 31.6" away on a 27" 1440p display.

OSHA's preferred viewing distance for computer displays is 20-40": https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/comput ... itors.html

Apple's typical standard for retina displays is that you shouldn't see pixels within a normal viewing distance, and an iMac Retina, you won't see pixels at 20/20 vision down to 15.8" away, significantly closer than that OSHA recommended viewing distance range.

[Mal-2]

For someone with 20/20 vision, you can see pixels as far as 31.6" away on a 27" 1440p display.

This doesn't even account for the fact that vision better than 20/20 (especially for those under 30, and after any necessary correction) is far from uncommon. I can still see pixels quite clearly at 1152 pixels high on a 23" display and a comfortable viewing distance. I don't get right up in it because I no longer have the focal accommodation to make this worthwhile unless I put on a set of reading glasses (which I have to wear for certain tasks like soldering, pulling a splinter, painting miniatures — basically anything that takes place inside of about 14 inches). Unfortunately, I picked +1.5 reading glasses, which leaves be unable to focus further than about 10 inches, so there is a band where I can't get clear focus no matter what I do (other than go buy some +1 glasses).

I don't get the screen door effect from using these monitors, but back when I had to use a pair of 17" 1280x1024 monitors all day, I did. I would be seeing the screen door effect superimposed over anything except a monitor for 15 minutes or so after I got off work. Oddly, I was able to tune out the effect while actually working, but its after-image was quite distracting.