In all the years, we mostly use the maximum size resolution. Now to use that resolution to control quality and viewing at a lower size will seem strange.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Running the Retina MacBook Pro at Full 2880x1800 Resolution
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- "not authorized by Apple"?
If I buy the hardware I will do with it as I please.
It's changing the Operating System that you don't own. You only license it.
How so ? It says right there (Retina). Retina 2880x1800 means your UI is rendered the same size as a 1440x900 screen, just using more pixels and thus looking sharper.
There is nothing false there.
The specs are absolutely not false. The resolution is 2880x1800. Is just the size in which the elements are displayed in the screen that change. They are showed to you in a size that makes them similar to 1440x900, but that doesn't mean is not 2880x1800
I dont get it, the desktop is normally 1440x900, I guess doubled up? So why not just use a normal 1440x900screen in it?
Because it looks much better.
Here's the neverending waiting game when I want to buy a newer macbook.
I'm guessing retina will be available for the 13' sometime next year, and it makes just that. Guess.
I'm guessing retina will be available for the 13' sometime next year, and it makes just that. Guess.
It's not "changing the operating system" in any way
If it was recompiling the kernel or something then maybe...
This makes it sound like the Display is 2880x1800, but the image being produced is 1440x900 stretched across 2880x1800, which is so unfathomably stupid it defies logic.
Of course the thing is running at full resolution! Otherwise you'd get an effect similar to running a non-retina App on a retina iDevice: ****** image quality. That's not what you want from your Macbook with Retina Display.
There's a huge difference between using high-resolution image elements to display an image the same physical size as it's low-res counterpart and taking a low resolution image and stretching it across a high resolution display.
A screenshot will be shown on your screen's PPI. Unless you can mimic the proper PPI ratio of the 15 MBP on your own screen, you won't be able to see it "at full quality" without simply seeing it straight on the device.
- "not authorized by Apple"?
If I buy the hardware I will do with it as I please.
Exactly. I just ordered mine and figured this would probably require a hack, but I'm kind of disappointed to see that I'm right once again. The audacity...
It's not "changing the operating system" in any way
If it was recompiling the kernel or something then maybe...
Ok misread the original article, I thought this was enabled by a "hack" not a simple app. It's not authorized simply because Apple doesn't want to take responsibility in case it screws up.
No. Read again. As you wrote "2880 by 1800 pixels (Retina). Not scaled. What the article described is scaling the resolution, for real estate, to 2880 x 1800.
You also have to remember that these computers are running a modified version (patch) of Lion to support the retina display for just a few short weeks until Mountain Lion is released. That should have full retina display support and scaled resolution support. That upgrade for these machines is free.
This entire discussion and the amount of confusion about this just goes to show that for decades we've been using the wrong word. "Resolution" should mean the pixels per inch of a display. But instead we use it to describe the number of pixels horizontally and vertically.
*sigh*
*sigh*
It improves the overall sharpness.I dont get it, the desktop is normally 1440x900, I guess doubled up? So why not just use a normal 1440x900screen in it?
For example, text will render much smoother, even though the individual characters might be the same height on the Retina MBP and the non-Retina MBP.
This benefits certain people more than others, particularly people who use logographic character systems (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Arabic, etc.).
Same thing with the Retina display on the iPhone 4/4S versus the non-Retina display of earlier handsets (or the iPad 1/2 versus the third-generation iPad). There's a pretty simple way to see the benefit. Fire up Safari on both an iPhone 3G/3GS and an iPhone 4/4S and visit a website like http://www.nikkei.co.jp. The characters will look remarkably better on the Retina displays.
Of course, Westerners will see improved sharpness, but not quite as dramatically as those international users in Asia/Middle East.
I dont get it, the desktop is normally 1440x900, I guess doubled up? So why not just use a normal 1440x900screen in it?
You are joking right? or freshly awake from a coma!
Apple is been doing this resolution X 4 (2x horizontal and 2x vertical) with the iPhone, iPod touch, the iPad and now with the Macs.
Retina display means in Apple terms "We give you the same screen physical size but with 4x the resolution"
Thats pixel x2 both horizontal and vertical, so a 1440x900 is 2880x1800 Retina.
Since the screen real state is the same everything has the same size onscreen but we get a lot more detail:
The specs are absolutely not false. The resolution is 2880x1800. Is just the size in which the elements are displayed in the screen that change. They are showed to you in a size that makes them similar to 1440x900, but that doesn't mean is not 2880x1800
Your sound logic and reason are not welcome on this thread of moronic posts.
Guys, the resolution is 2880x1800... no one is getting sued... the UI elements are just doubled in size in retina mode.
I do hope for some different UI scaling options in Mountain Lion (not sure if that's planned or not), but it's MUCH NEEDED in OSX. I'm not sure the reasoning behind not offering it.
Yes, I realize that. What I am looking to see is the size relationship between the elements on the screen.
Hum... "number of pixels horizontally and vertically" is 2880x1800. I think you mean "96 PPI pixel count equivalent scaled UI size". That's why we use "Resolution" even though it's not proper
.----------
That's exactly what you won't be able to see, unless you have a 1440x900 15.4 MBP. If you do, you can already get the size of elements without a screenshot from a MBPR. Grab a fullscreen shot of your 1440x900 desktop, use photoshop to scale it down to 720x450. make the zoom 100%. The size of icons/windows/buttons on the 720x450 image is what you'd get on a 15.4 MBPR at 2880x1800.
I can already see how small the menubar is compared to the other screen elements (and compared to my current screen resolution. I just wanted to see it as a screenshot.