Sidebar Sidebar
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

a.gomez

a.gomez

macrumors 6502a
Oct 10, 2008
924
726
as useless as 1440X900 doubled up at retina level.

sweet spot on 15 is 1680X1050 that you can get on the regular Pro and not have a performance hit like on the retina. Again this is like a Mahogany Drawing pencil - cool, but no real point to it.
 
Last edited:
N

NetJunkie

macrumors newbie
Mar 6, 2010
29
1
Don't say it's useless until you try it. My normal res on my rMBP is 1920x1200 but at times I do switch it to full native. It's very readable and usable...but it does get tiring after a while so I only use it when I'm doing large spreadsheets or something that needs a lot of space. But you get a LOT of options with the rMBP and they all look great.
 
M

manu chao

macrumors 604
Jul 30, 2003
7,219
3,031
iVoid said:
Actually, this is apple's description in the rMBP specs:

Supported resolutions: 2880 by 1800 pixels (Retina); scaled resolutions: 1920 by 1200, 1680 by 1050, 1280 by 800, and 1024 by 640 pixels


So if you can't set it to 2880x1800 directly without the hack, then the specs are false.

Lawyers have sued over much, much less. (eg. the recent fine from the Aussie government).
Click to expand...
With this logic it would also be illegal to mention the processor speed in turbo mode. Because you cannot set the processor to run at that speed, it only runs at that speed when the software decides it makes sense and is safe.
 
KnightWRX

KnightWRX

macrumors Pentium
Jan 28, 2009
15,046
4
Quebec, Canada
Apple Key said:
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.
Click to expand...

Like I said, unless you have an actual 15.4 MBP, getting a screenshot is quite futile. You'd have to calculate the size ratio of your screen's PPI to the MBPR's PPI, and properly set the zoom or scaling on the image so that items show up the proper size on your screen.

And if you do have a 15.4 MBP running 1440x900, I gave you the recipe. ;)
 
Swift

Swift

macrumors 68000
Feb 18, 2003
1,827
964
Los Angeles
I think people are misunderstanding Retina when it comes to the new MacBooks. There are many objects to consider. Why use up the horsepower just drawing a teeny-tiny desktop? You have 4K! You can drive 4 1080p monitors! (With no lag.) Ultimately, apps, and websites, need to be updated so its windows and buttons look great. Then there's windows: FCP X has a 1080p Preview window! Text is beautiful. If you have a 4K movie file, watch it. But when you leave the movie, I want to have a normal resolution. You want 1/4 size apps? Not me.
 
E

echobucket

macrumors newbie
Jun 29, 2010
4
0
The word "Resolution" insinuiates that it's talking about how much detail there is on the screen.. How much detail your eye can "resolve" (the root of the word after all).

Pixel Dimensions shouldn't mean the same thing as "Resolution", but we've been using the word incorrectly for so long that it's absolutely hopeless to try and change it now.
 
NY Guitarist

NY Guitarist

macrumors 68000
Mar 21, 2011
1,585
1,581
Didn't Apple mention that in FCPX you could display a 1920x1080 video in the viewer window at a FULL native 1920x1080?

Or is that not available yet and coming in ML?
 
S

So Random

macrumors member
May 29, 2012
42
0
Don't worry about size. Run the display at its native resolution. Now get the same Macbook Pro that is non-Retina, and run at its (obviously the same) native "resolution." Compare the image quality.

The difference you see is the difference between Retina and non-Retina displays.

Same idea applies to the difference in image quality between an iPhone 3GS and an iPhone 4.

And this difference is like night and day.
 
GenesisST

GenesisST

macrumors 68000
Jan 23, 2006
1,802
1,055
Where I live
I sometimes regret the HD option of my MBP. Too small for my eyes (I hit 40 this year)... So imagine this...

IF I ever get a rMBP, it would be for the "crisper" 1440x900 resolution not the "kill my eyes in 2 months resolution".

But that's just me. To each his own!
 
S

So Random

macrumors member
May 29, 2012
42
0
MacRumors said:
[url=http://cdn.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogodarkd.png]Image[/url]


While Apple's new Retina MacBook Pro includes a display measuring 2880x1800 pixels, the default display options do not allow users to run their systems at that full resolution.
Click to expand...

Which is cool in a way, but why would you want to? This article is causing a lot of confusion.

The whole point of Retina is not more screen real estate (which you can probably get and even "force" in certain cases, Retina or non-Retina display), but the image quality of the screen real estate native to the display.
 
Apple Key

Apple Key

macrumors 6502a
Jan 4, 2012
561
0
KnightWRX said:
Like I said, unless you have an actual 15.4 MBP, getting a screenshot is quite futile. You'd have to calculate the size ratio of your screen's PPI to the MBPR's PPI, and properly set the zoom or scaling on the image so that items show up the proper size on your screen.

And if you do have a 15.4 MBP running 1440x900, I gave you the recipe. ;)
Click to expand...

Shows more than you might think... (found this on another thread).

https://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=343627&d=1339822160
 
E

Eddyisgreat

macrumors 601
Oct 24, 2007
4,851
2
Apple Key said:
Shows more than you might think... (found this on another thread).

https://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=343627&d=1339822160
Click to expand...

Actually I posted that but yeah.

I also posted all of the CS 6 UI Elements in rMBP native resolution as some individuals had asked for it. I've been running in this config for a few days and i'm going back and fourth. The amount of elements you can put on the screen is jaw dropping and my productivity is definitely enhanced. The obvious drawback is the size of the elements. I do find myself straining at some times which is why I keep going back and fourth. For those who can handle it though it really is a premium option. More real estate than the 27" cinema display and looks better too (i have both).
 
J

jcpb

macrumors 6502a
Jun 5, 2012
860
0
Also keep in mind that conventional Macbook Air/Pro models use TN panels like most everyone else in the laptop game, the only difference being Apple's TN panels are a bit better quality than the industry average. Look at the screen from anywhere but head-on and you can still see the problems common in the TN display tech.

Imagine the furor - and the sound of trolls flooding out of the woodwork - if Apple still uses TN for the Retina MBP :p

edit: some of the posters before post #25 are trolls, not surprisingly.
 
ghostface147

ghostface147

macrumors 601
May 28, 2008
4,163
5,133
I am quite happy with my 17" Sandy Bridge MB Pro at 1920x1200. Curiously though, people sometimes look at me funny when I take out this monstrosity of a laptop. At least that's what they call the size.

Interestingly enough, the default resolution chosen for me is Best for built-in display in ML. Of course I can manually change it if I choose scaled resolution, but at least Lion gave me all options to choose from by default. Not a big deal since I never use a lower resolution anyways.
 
Apple Key

Apple Key

macrumors 6502a
Jan 4, 2012
561
0
Eddyisgreat said:
Actually I posted that but yeah.

I also posted all of the CS 6 UI Elements in rMBP native resolution as some individuals had asked for it. I've been running in this config for a few days and i'm going back and fourth. The amount of elements you can put on the screen is jaw dropping and my productivity is definitely enhanced. The obvious drawback is the size of the elements. I do find myself straining at some times which is why I keep going back and fourth. For those who can handle it though it really is a premium option. More real estate than the 27" cinema display and looks better too (i have both).
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting it!

The Adobe CS UI does seem very small. Of course I'd have to test it and see if I can handle it like that all the time. I definitely think Apple should allow it as an option though.
 
P

pil0tflame

macrumors member
Apr 19, 2011
62
0
London, Ontario
Swift said:
I think people are misunderstanding Retina when it comes to the new MacBooks. There are many objects to consider. Why use up the horsepower just drawing a teeny-tiny desktop? You have 4K! You can drive 4 1080p monitors! (With no lag.) Ultimately, apps, and websites, need to be updated so its windows and buttons look great. Then there's windows: FCP X has a 1080p Preview window! Text is beautiful. If you have a 4K movie file, watch it. But when you leave the movie, I want to have a normal resolution. You want 1/4 size apps? Not me.
Click to expand...

The Retina MBP screen is not 4k. Although there is variation in what 4k resolution is exactly, it's generally accepted to be around 4096x1714 (or 3840x2160). Too much to watch a 4K movie file at full resolution on the RMPB, although it'll look very nice none the less. :)
 
S

spartig

macrumors member
Jan 9, 2012
49
0
GenesisST said:
I sometimes regret the HD option of my MBP. Too small for my eyes (I hit 40 this year)... So imagine this...

IF I ever get a rMBP, it would be for the "crisper" 1440x900 resolution not the "kill my eyes in 2 months resolution".

But that's just me. To each his own!
Click to expand...

You can change your resolution down to 1440x900 on your MBP if you want, or even smaller to make it easier on your eyes. There should be no reason to regret the HD option.
 
B

b0fh

macrumors regular
May 14, 2012
152
62
GFLPraxis said:
Actually surprised this requires a hack.

I have great eyesight so I would actually love this.
Click to expand...

Exactly!! I've been blessed with 20/10 eyes. Finally, I don't have to run Terminal.app in 6 point fonts... :D:D:D:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom