Running the Retina MacBook Pro at Full 2880x1800 Resolution

MacRumors · Jun 21, 2012, 02:10 PM

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 raw resolution. Instead, the extra pixels are used to display a higher level of detail on a canvas representing the previous 1440x900 resolution. As a result, windows and user interface elements appear to be the same relative size as on a 1440x900 15" display, but with four times the detail. Users who wish to use a desktop with apparent resolution higher than 1440x900 can still do so, as System Preferences offers several different options ranging up to 1920x1200.

Those users who want even more screen real estate by tapping into the full 2880x1800 resolution mode of the display can also do so, but the option involves a workaround that is not authorized by Apple. Macworld has more details on the process, which involves using either a third-party app like the paid SwitchResX (as noted in our forums) or one of a number of free options that have sprung up such as Change Resolution.

Retina MacBook Pro running at 2880x1800
(Click for larger)

Running a 2880x1800 desktop on a screen measuring only 15.4 inches diagonally obviously results in very small text and user interface elements, but for those willing to sit close enough to their screens to make the onscreen content readable, it may be an interesting option.

As noted by developer Steven Troughton-Smith, users running Windows on the new Retina MacBook Pro can also take advantage of the full display resolution, simply setting the resolution in preferences within Windows.

Article Link: Running the Retina MacBook Pro at Full 2880x1800 Resolution

MultiMediaWill · Jun 21, 2012, 02:11 PM

laggy pos i heard

Dr McKay · 02:30 PM

This is what I wanted to see

Quote:

Originally Posted by MultiMediaWill

laggy pos i heard

You heard wrong.

gpat · Jun 21, 2012, 02:13 PM

I have been sooo waiting for this.

GREEN4U · Jun 21, 2012, 02:14 PM

The rMBP is definitely overrated.

jayhawk11 · Jun 21, 2012, 02:14 PM

Seems like this would be barely usable, but cool trick nonetheless.

mkoesel · Jun 21, 2012, 02:14 PM

It seems to me that if you adjusted your font size and icon size this would be quite usable.

GFLPraxis · Jun 21, 2012, 02:15 PM

Actually surprised this requires a hack.

I have great eyesight so I would actually love this.

WiiDSmoker · Jun 21, 2012, 02:17 PM

Requires a hack in Mac OSX, but a simple setting in Windows....not surprised.

8CoreWhore · Jun 21, 2012, 02:17 PM

I smell a lawsuit.

covertsurfer · Jun 21, 2012, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 8CoreWhore

I smell a lawsuit.

Seriously? I don't think so somehow.

QCassidy352 · Jun 21, 2012, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GFLPraxis

Actually surprised this requires a hack.

I have great eyesight so I would actually love this.

I'm surprised too. I figured this was a native option.

paul55br · Jun 21, 2012, 02:20 PM

The full display resolution will be available with Mountain Lion.

mohsy90 · Jun 21, 2012, 02:21 PM

damn that looks amazing, but I don't think my eyesight is that good

echobucket · Jun 21, 2012, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkoesel

It seems to me that if you adjusted your font size and icon size this would be quite usable.

Um, this is what the retina display does by default.

How can you make the font size bigger without making the UI elements that contain the fonts bigger as well?

Dr McKay · Jun 21, 2012, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WiiDSmoker

Requires a hack in Mac OSX, but a simple setting in Windows....not surprised.

Both OS's have their advantages and disadvantages.

Quote:

Originally Posted by echobucket

Um, this is what the retina display does by default.

How can you make the font size bigger without making the UI elements that contain the fonts bigger as well?

Is there a setting like this in OS X?

iVoid · Jun 21, 2012, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by covertsurfer

Seriously? I don't think so somehow.

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).

Mac2133 · Jun 21, 2012, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paul55br

The full display resolution will be available with Mountain Lion.

..and I suppose Tim Cook mentioned this to you?

RalfTheDog · Jun 21, 2012, 02:24 PM

When I look at the image on my screen, it looks the same. Are you sure it is any different?

e-coli · Jun 21, 2012, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MultiMediaWill

laggy pos i heard

Whaaaaa?

Anyhow...

The display looks pretty readable to me. Should be a native option.

cvaldes · Jun 21, 2012, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MultiMediaWill

laggy pos i heard

You clearly have self-confidence issues. You should seek professional help.

belltree · Jun 21, 2012, 02:28 PM

- "not authorized by Apple"?

If I buy the hardware I will do with it as I please.

Joe HS · Jun 21, 2012, 02:28 PM

Seeing that this is possible I could never be content running at a setting that fits less on screen.

Sensation · Jun 21, 2012, 02:28 PM

I dont get it, the desktop is normally 1440x900, I guess doubled up? So why not just use a normal 1440x900screen in it?

SeanMcg · Jun 21, 2012, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paul55br

The full display resolution will be available with Mountain Lion.

I'd be surprised if that resolution isn't supported with the next release of Lion.

Jun 21, 2012, 02:10 PM	#1
MacRumors macrumors bot Join Date: Apr 2001	Running the Retina MacBook Pro at Full 2880x1800 Resolution 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 raw resolution. Instead, the extra pixels are used to display a higher level of detail on a canvas representing the previous 1440x900 resolution. As a result, windows and user interface elements appear to be the same relative size as on a 1440x900 15" display, but with four times the detail. Users who wish to use a desktop with apparent resolution higher than 1440x900 can still do so, as System Preferences offers several different options ranging up to 1920x1200. Those users who want even more screen real estate by tapping into the full 2880x1800 resolution mode of the display can also do so, but the option involves a workaround that is not authorized by Apple. Macworld has more details on the process, which involves using either a third-party app like the paid SwitchResX (as noted in our forums) or one of a number of free options that have sprung up such as Change Resolution. Retina MacBook Pro running at 2880x1800 (Click for larger) Running a 2880x1800 desktop on a screen measuring only 15.4 inches diagonally obviously results in very small text and user interface elements, but for those willing to sit close enough to their screens to make the onscreen content readable, it may be an interesting option. As noted by developer Steven Troughton-Smith, users running Windows on the new Retina MacBook Pro can also take advantage of the full display resolution, simply setting the resolution in preferences within Windows. Article Link: Running the Retina MacBook Pro at Full 2880x1800 Resolution
	4

Jun 21, 2012, 02:11 PM	#2
MultiMediaWill macrumors 65816 Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Illinois	laggy pos i heard __________________ Click here for the iPhone 5 iOS 6.0 Jailbreak! MacBook Pro 15" 2011 , 2.2 GHz Quad i7, 750GB HDD, 8GB RAM, Anti-Glare iPhone 5 32gb iPad 3 16gb
	-80

Jun 21, 2012, 02:13 PM	#4
gpat macrumors 6502a Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Italy	I have been sooo waiting for this. __________________ 13" MBP 2011, Galaxy Note 2 (oh noes i automatically become an apple hater) (Sorry for bad english, not my mother tongue!)
	3

Jun 21, 2012, 02:14 PM	#5
GREEN4U macrumors 6502a Join Date: Mar 2010	The rMBP is definitely overrated.
	-79

Jun 21, 2012, 02:14 PM	#6
jayhawk11 macrumors 6502a Join Date: Oct 2007	Seems like this would be barely usable, but cool trick nonetheless. __________________ 15" MacBook Pro Unibody, 2.2 GHz Quad Core i7; 32 GB iPhone 5; 32GB iPad Mini Rock Chalk Jayhawk, Go KU.
	33

Jun 21, 2012, 02:14 PM	#7
mkoesel macrumors regular Join Date: Mar 2005	It seems to me that if you adjusted your font size and icon size this would be quite usable.
	8

Jun 21, 2012, 02:15 PM	#8
GFLPraxis macrumors 604 Join Date: Mar 2004	Actually surprised this requires a hack. I have great eyesight so I would actually love this.
	28

Jun 21, 2012, 02:17 PM	#9
WiiDSmoker macrumors 65816 Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Hermitage, TN	Requires a hack in Mac OSX, but a simple setting in Windows....not surprised. __________________ Windows 7 64 \| FreeNAS 30 TB \| White iPhone 5 32GB \| TV 3 \| iPad 3 White 32GB
	4

Jun 21, 2012, 02:17 PM	#10
8CoreWhore macrumors 65816 Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Big D	I smell a lawsuit. __________________ 2011 13" MBP 2.3Ghz 256GB Crucial M4-iPhone 4S iOS5 - AEBS - iPod Shuffle - AppleTV2 (JB aTV Flash [Black] )
	-78

Jun 21, 2012, 02:20 PM	#13
paul55br macrumors newbie Join Date: Feb 2012	The full display resolution will be available with Mountain Lion.
	19

Jun 21, 2012, 02:21 PM	#14
mohsy90 macrumors 65816 Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: New York	damn that looks amazing, but I don't think my eyesight is that good
	8

Jun 21, 2012, 02:24 PM	#19
RalfTheDog macrumors 65816 Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Lagrange Point	When I look at the image on my screen, it looks the same. Are you sure it is any different? __________________ Programming is much like blacksmithing. You just keep pounding on it until it looks good. Then you pretend it is done.
	0

Jun 21, 2012, 02:28 PM	#22
belltree macrumors 6502 Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Tokyo, Japan	- "not authorized by Apple"? If I buy the hardware I will do with it as I please.
	40

Jun 21, 2012, 02:28 PM	#23
Joe HS macrumors member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: United Kingdom	Seeing that this is possible I could never be content running at a setting that fits less on screen.
	-7

Jun 21, 2012, 02:28 PM	#24
Sensation Banned Join Date: Apr 2012	I dont get it, the desktop is normally 1440x900, I guess doubled up? So why not just use a normal 1440x900screen in it?
	-32

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode