I just got a 32”, 4K, 120hz monitor for $1000.

I got a 32" 4k 144hz monitor for $1000 and given how few of these there are odds are it's a similar panel

It's nothing compared to the XDR. I have no idea why this person thinks the XDR is bad for everyday users.

- I got one as a programmer who mostly looks at text. If you didn't tell me it has HDR always enabled I wouldn't have known, they've done an excellent job with managing bloom on non-HDR content.

- The resolution makes text milky smooth in a way that I always though 4k was this whole time

- 60hz has never bothered me despite regularly switching between this, the 144hz monitor, and a 360hz monitor....

- Accelerometer is neat enough, I have mine on a gas spring monitor arm and can be occasionally helpful to rotate

- Build quality is unmatched by all the gamer aesthetic stuff out there. Remove "backlight bleed" from your vocabulary.

4K isn't dense enough for proper 2x scaling at that size though. You have to go fractional, which is okay, but not great.

Yeah, who could ever imagine using a 1080p 32” monitor…

It's pretty awful.

I got Dell's "5k" ultrawide before the XDR, and at the time M1 Macbooks couldn't do fractional scaling at that high of a resolution.

The result was essentially a wider 32" 1080p screen. And while the text was crisp, the space efficiency was absolutely awful.

I can't even imagine the 16:9 version of that...

I was originally making a snide joke (sorry) since it’s a popular form factor, and I can’t think of a better common option for 2x scaling than 4k 32”… but on review, I actually take your point on space efficiency, if we’re talking about it as a primary display.

I find 1080p at 27" to be comically big, let alone 32". Maybe my eyes are still young though.