Apple says that macOS Golden Gate greatly improves ultrawide monitor support, Reddit says it doesn't, and an AppleInsider staffer simply can't tell.
Considering the hours I spend in front of this 49-inch ultrawide monitor, you would think that I'd notice if Apple improved anything. And I thought I did.
Right after installing the very first developer beta of macOS Golden Gate, and I mean immediately, I thought my screen looked better. It seemed a little crisper, and while I don't mean it ever flickered, it somehow seemed more stable, and still does now that macOS 27 has seen its first major patch.
My display is a discontinued Samsung curved gaming monitor, the memorably named LC49RG90SSUXEN, known as the C49RG9x both for short and in my Mac's Display settings. The width is fantastic because at this moment, for instance, I can have four wide app windows open and I've been known to have six.
Where the width is brilliant, the height isn't great because it feels a bit squashed.
And until that June day when I installed macOS Golden Gate, the best I would've said about the resolution is that it was better than whatever the headache-manufacturing junk was that I had before. Bought an unbelievable seven years ago, it's 5,120 pixels by 1,440 pixels at 120Hz.
That's 5,000-odd pixels spread out over a 49-inch diagonal display so it looks far from fantastic. You would only call it Retina if you were Mr Magoo.
It's also not HiDPI, where displays are sharper because they cram in more pixels into the same space.
To be 5K, a monitor has to be 5,120 pixels by 2,880 pixels, which is double what I have. And the difference is stark enough that I have to avert my eyes when I pass by monitors in Apple Stores.
"Now you can get higher resolutions on ultra-wide displays," says Apple in its description of macOS Golden Gate, "such as 5K at 120Hz."
That's nice. And that's presumably what I saw. Without my doing anything at all, conceivably macOS Golden Gate suddenly supported my monitor at its maximum 120Hz instead of whatever it was before.
You have to Control-Click on the "Larger Text," "More Space," or middle option to switch to a list of resolutions.
But not only did I do nothing this time, I've barely ever gone into the Display section of System Settings. Even when I did, I don't remember doing anything more than picking from the Larger Text, More Space or a middle-ground option.
If you Control-click on any of those options, you do get a list of supported resolutions. Plus you can click a button to see all resolutions, whether or not they're supported.
I struggle to see the benefit of that, but looking at it now, my monitor is at its maximum. The refresh rate was set to variable and I've just this minute changed it to be always 120Hz, without seeing a difference.
There's also an option to show High Dynamic Range, which I did turn on. And immediately turned off again because it looks horrible.
I am of the school that changes the defaults only as I come across a reason to, rather than experimentally trying out every option. So I can well understand that if the default changed in macOS Golden Gate, that is why I noticed.
Look closer
It was a nice surprise that first morning and it's made me like my monitor a little more than I did. Except there's now a discussion on Reddit that is about Apple's claims for improved ultrawide support in macOS Golden Gate, and is rather short in every sense.
"This is a load of bollocks," says Reddit user kasakka1. "It seems like the only thing Golden Gate changes is [to] make it more compatible with more ultrawides so e.g. 'looks like 3840x1620' scaling is not missing on some 5120x2160 screens."
They're using a 57-inch Samsung Neo G9 G95NC, which is 7,680 pixels by 2,160 pixels, running at 240Hz. It's 140 pixels per inch, compared to mine's 109ppi.
To see both what your monitor resolution and its "looks like" display figure, hold down the Option key as you click the Apple menu. Choose System Information and then click on Graphics/Displays
Perhaps the second important specification is how much I now want this. The first most important specification being that the monitor sells for about $2,000, in a year when I've already spent that on an iPhone Duo.
Looks like versus actual resolution
That business about "looks like" and scaling is because monitors have a specific, fixed number of pixels but macOS can shrink or grow its icons and menus and buttons. If you had an incredibly high resolution monitor without this, the macOS buttons would be tiny.
This is specifically what Apple controls with its simplistic three choices of Larger Text, More Space, or the compromise in the middle. Regardless of what display resolution you've picked, though, you can also find out what macOS is displaying.
Hold down the Option key as you click on the Apple menu and the About this Mac section changes to System Information. Choose Graphics/Displays in the window that appears, and you'll see both the actual and the "looks like" resolution of your monitor.
In my case, they are both 5,120 pixels by 1,440 pixels. If I choose the other extreme available, Larger Text, my screen's physical resolution obviously doesn't change, but macOS displays at 2,560 pixels by 720 pixels.
User kasakka1 on Reddit has options built into his Samsung monitor, which I now learn I don't. They have chosen to use a Samsung Picture by Picture mode.
That's different from the more familiar Picture-in-Picture because it doesn't create a floating window, it splits the monitor into two halves. It's an interesting option if you have it, and they argue it's the only way to get proper HiDPI scaling such as 140ppi on a single monitor.
They also describe it as an unnecessary workaround forced on them by Apple's decisions in macOS. Consequently while the Reddit discussion has barely started, so far they are persuasive about claiming Apple "has done literally nothing to allow higher HiDPI options."
Who cares
It's obviously a problem for this user and enough that they have gone to lengths to mitigate it as best they can. At the other end of the scale, it's unlikely that iMac users with their built-in 24-inch monitors even think about this.
So it happens that I am unusual in having an ultrawide monitor, but also then unusual in just accepting whatever my Mac Studio throws at it.
I'll be asking AppleInsider staffers about their monitors and whether I'm missing out. But I'd be really curious to know if you say macOS Golden Gate has improved your ultrawide or not.
