15" rMBP, who uses retina resolution?

[conkerbot]

If I'm just reading/watching YouTube, lightly coding or so forth I usually stick with 1440*900 as I don't need much space for that. I will quite often switch to 1680*1050 too if I need a bit more space, and I find that perfectly comfortable.

I occasionally use 1920*1200 but that's usually when I'm using a tool like Unity3D, in which case I always force it to use dedicated graphics. The system animations can be a tad jutter-y but I don't ever find Unity has performance issues at that resolution

Oh, and I genuinely don't see any loss in sharpness at the two higher res options.

 

[2499723]

I just use 'Best for Retina', because I'm bugged by the blurriness of the other settings. In a perfect world, I'd have a bit more screen space, but I'm not keen on sacrificing the clarity.

 

[Northgrove]

then why did you buy a retina display, if you are not using the retina resolution?
if you switch to 1900x1200, is it still retina? i am new to this

You're mixing up the physical resolution (always 2880x1800) and the simulated resolution (1440, 1680, 1920, etc).

The Retina display always outputs a crystal-clear resolution by using 2880x1800 physical pixels, regardless if you have configured OS X to use "maximum space" or "maximum size" for the user interface.

If you switch to 1900x1200, OS X internally renders the user interface at 3800x2400 and then resizes it down to 2880x1800 and displays the results. This sounds a bit weird, but it's to avoid upscaling 1900x1200 to 2880x1800 which would make things blurry. As you might have noticed when resizing photos, it's always a better idea for the quality to take something big and make it small than doing the opposite.

If you use the "1440x900" setting ("Best for Retina"), it's actually simply drawing that directly at 2880x1800 pixels (and of course using pretty large user interface elements and text to make it all legible and as large as if you ran it at 1440x900 on a non-Retina display) with no subsequent resizing, which will boost performance somewhat when compared to the modes giving you more space.

 

[hawon]

Yeah I wish after done the better job on this. Best for retina setting is crisp and all but I feel like it offers not enough landscape for anything other than watching videos.

Native 1920*1200 retina will be a dream come true but anyone over 40 might have some problems.
Definitely 1920x1200 is the reason I can survive without an external monitor. Retina display spoiled my eyes and any external monitors seem blurr now

 

[vseera]

I use 1680x1050 myself. I find the 1920 setting to be too small and 1440 just to be really really limiting!

With so many 1920s in this thread, I might give it another try although I am happy and comfortable with 1680 right now.

Honestly, I find 1680 to be as smooth as 1440 retina. Don't see any performance loss as well, but then, all I do is browse, documents and image editing.

 

[gotzero]

When I am using the laptop display, I usually start my day on 1920x1200 and work my way down from there depending on how long I am working. Most days I end up on 1680x1050, long days 1440x900. It turns out that this flexibility was actually more valuable to me than more pixels in the first place.

At home and at the office I have identical docking stations of two 30"s and a 20" and I do not use the laptop display at all.

 

[ScholarsInk]

I'm surprised by how many people who own the thing and don't get this.

You're mixing up the physical resolution (always 2880x1800) and the simulated resolution (1440, 1680, 1920, etc).

The Retina display always outputs a crystal-clear resolution by using 2880x1800 physical pixels, regardless if you have configured OS X to use "maximum space" or "maximum size" for the user interface.

If you switch to 1900x1200, OS X internally renders the user interface at 3800x2400 and then resizes it down to 2880x1800 and displays the results. This sounds a bit weird, but it's to avoid upscaling 1900x1200 to 2880x1800 which would make things blurry. As you might have noticed when resizing photos, it's always a better idea for the quality to take something big and make it small than doing the opposite.

If you use the "1440x900" setting ("Best for Retina"), it's actually simply drawing that directly at 2880x1800 pixels (and of course using pretty large user interface elements and text to make it all legible and as large as if you ran it at 1440x900 on a non-Retina display) with no subsequent resizing, which will boost performance somewhat when compared to the modes giving you more space.

 

[MTD's Mac]

You're mixing up the physical resolution (always 2880x1800) and the simulated resolution (1440, 1680, 1920, etc).

The Retina display always outputs a crystal-clear resolution by using 2880x1800 physical pixels, regardless if you have configured OS X to use "maximum space" or "maximum size" for the user interface.

If you switch to 1900x1200, OS X internally renders the user interface at 3800x2400 and then resizes it down to 2880x1800 and displays the results. This sounds a bit weird, but it's to avoid upscaling 1900x1200 to 2880x1800 which would make things blurry. As you might have noticed when resizing photos, it's always a better idea for the quality to take something big and make it small than doing the opposite.

If you use the "1440x900" setting ("Best for Retina"), it's actually simply drawing that directly at 2880x1800 pixels (and of course using pretty large user interface elements and text to make it all legible and as large as if you ran it at 1440x900 on a non-Retina display) with no subsequent resizing, which will boost performance somewhat when compared to the modes giving you more space.

Thanks for this very well-worded explanation. It gives me hope that I can get a rMBP running at 1920 x 1200 to match my 24-inch Cinema Display at its native resolution.

 

[Hpye]

I'm surprised by how many people who own the thing and don't get this.

Hey genius, nobody was Born with full knowledge. That's why we came here on this forum to learn new things. You don't have to look down at others!

----------

You're mixing up the physical resolution (always 2880x1800) and the simulated resolution (1440, 1680, 1920, etc).

The Retina display always outputs a crystal-clear resolution by using 2880x1800 physical pixels, regardless if you have configured OS X to use "maximum space" or "maximum size" for the user interface.

If you switch to 1900x1200, OS X internally renders the user interface at 3800x2400 and then resizes it down to 2880x1800 and displays the results. This sounds a bit weird, but it's to avoid upscaling 1900x1200 to 2880x1800 which would make things blurry. As you might have noticed when resizing photos, it's always a better idea for the quality to take something big and make it small than doing the opposite.

If you use the "1440x900" setting ("Best for Retina"), it's actually simply drawing that directly at 2880x1800 pixels (and of course using pretty large user interface elements and text to make it all legible and as large as if you ran it at 1440x900 on a non-Retina display) with no subsequent resizing, which will boost performance somewhat when compared to the modes giving you more space.

Thanks man

 

[mslide]

I don't have a retina MBP but if I did, I'd use the max resolution possible. There's no such thing as having too high a resolution (ie text too small) for me.

IMO, Apple messed up their Retina displayed. The "Best for Retina" setting is not enough real estate. It should be the next one up.

 

[vpro]

Just switched to 1900 x 1200 after reading this thread. WoW so much more screen real estate!!

What is the benefit of using 1400x900??(retina suggested)

benefit of best for retina, wow, the text is in your face, it is like true paper print, like thin paper or ink on silk in the thin glass screen, pops out and greets your eyes with a hug!

but i get the same effect with 1920 x 1200 on both my glossy and anti-glare 17" MBPs, I'm near sighted so I can sit a whole arms length from the screen and be really comfortable to read super sharp, crisp, clear text with such great impact. even with the "more space" resolution on retina screen doesn't show as much content or real estate as 17" MBP resolution, you still lose quite a bit...


i bought 2 retina macbooks, a 13" and 15" for my niece they have really bad far sighted vision but with these they are crying for joy literally and their grades already reflect great improvements also !!

 

[rinodrops]

I'm currently using 2560 x 1600 (HiDPI), which is available to select when 5120 x 3200 pixels is added as Scaled resolution in Custom Resolutions tab on SwitchResX Preferences.

1920 x 1200 (HiDPI) is good, but I need more space when I work on Adobe CS.
2880 x 1800 is awesome but texts and icons are so small that I have to enlarge texts and icons.
2560 x 1600 is the best resolution for my eyes but it is noticeably blurred without HiDPI support.

Recently I found the way to make 2560 x 1600 with HiDPI support. Since then, it became the best one for me.

 

[Hpye]

I'm currently using 2560 x 1600 (HiDPI), which is available to select when 5120 x 3200 pixels is added as Scaled resolution in Custom Resolutions tab on SwitchResX Preferences.

1920 x 1200 (HiDPI) is good, but I need more space when I work on Adobe CS.
2880 x 1800 is awesome but texts and icons are so small that I have to enlarge texts and icons.
2560 x 1600 is the best resolution for my eyes but it is noticeably blurred without HiDPI support.

Recently I found the way to make 2560 x 1600 with HiDPI support. Since then, it became the best one for me.

Where are these options located, do I need to tweak anything?

 

[Moshe1010]

Where are these options located, do I need to tweak anything?

http://www.madrau.com/download/latest/latest.html

 

[rinodrops]

Where are these options located, do I need to tweak anything?

My understanding is:
"HiDPI" means first draw on double-sized canvas, then resize to fit the physical screen.

Assume using 15" Retina MBP. Its physical screen size is 2880 x 1800.
If you choose 1920 x 1200 (HiDPI), UI is drawn on 3840 x 2400, then shrunk to 2880 x 1800.
If you choose 2560 x 1600 (HiDPI), drawn on 5120 x 3200 canvas, shrunk to 2880 x 1800.
When a screen size is available, OS X automatically adds HiDPI version for the half size of the screen size.
In other words, double-sized resolution must be listed in the display resolution in order to use HiDPI mode.

Since rMBP doesn't have 5120 x 3200 originally, you have to add it manually in order to use 2560 x 1600 with HiDPI support.
For adding custom resolution, I used fancy €14 shareware, SwitchResX.
http://www.madrau.com/indexSRX4.html
In its Preferences, select "Color LCD" from the list, then open "Custom Resolutions". Press + button, choose "Scaled resolution", "Scaled to 5120 x 3200" and press OK. Then restart computer.
You will see both 2560 x 1600 (HiDPI) and 5120 x 3200 (without HiDPI) are available to select in the Display Preferences.

 

[scenox]

My understanding is:
"HiDPI" means first draw on double-sized canvas, then resize to fit the physical screen.

Assume using 15" Retina MBP. Its physical screen size is 2880 x 1800.
If you choose 1920 x 1200 (HiDPI), UI is drawn on 3840 x 2400, then shrunk to 2880 x 1800.
If you choose 2560 x 1600 (HiDPI), drawn on 5120 x 3200 canvas, shrunk to 2880 x 1800.
When a screen size is available, OS X automatically adds HiDPI version for the half size of the screen size.
In other words, double-sized resolution must be listed in the display resolution in order to use HiDPI mode.

Since rMBP doesn't have 5120 x 3200 originally, you have to add it manually in order to use 2560 x 1600 with HiDPI support.
For adding custom resolution, I used fancy €14 shareware, SwitchResX.
http://www.madrau.com/indexSRX4.html
In its Preferences, select "Color LCD" from the list, then open "Custom Resolutions". Press + button, choose "Scaled resolution", "Scaled to 5120 x 3200" and press OK. Then restart computer.
You will see both 2560 x 1600 (HiDPI) and 5120 x 3200 (without HiDPI) are available to select in the Display Preferences.

You don't need to restart. Just apply the changes. Works great!

 

[JellyFish]

Yeah I wish after done the better job on this. Best for retina setting is crisp and all but I feel like it offers not enough landscape for anything other than watching videos.

Native 1920*1200 retina will be a dream come true but anyone over 40 might have some problems.
Definitely 1920x1200 is the reason I can survive without an external monitor. Retina display spoiled my eyes and any external monitors seem blurr now

I use Best for Retina on my 13 inch. I've found that working on a laptop (as opposed to a 27 inch iMac) requires changing how I use applications. I tend to work with applications maximized or full-screen. In an odd way it helps me to keep focused, rather than hopping around the way I do with the big iMac (since it can fit a bunch of app windows on one desktop.

 

[Orlandoech]

I go back and forth from 1680x1050 and 1440x900.

Right now I'm liking the 1680x1050 more since it gives me more screen space to work with when photoshopping and looking at high res porn.

 

[ScholarsInk]

Hey genius, nobody was Born with full knowledge. That's why we came here on this forum to learn new things. You don't have to look down at others!

I'm not suggesting that I was. I'm just saying that this keeps coming up on the forum and elsewhere (where people trash Apple for supposedly releasing a laptop that can't reach its full resolution).

 

[a3vr]

then why did you buy a retina display, if you are not using the retina resolution?
if you switch to 1900x1200, is it still retina? i am new to this

Sounds like someone has no clue what retina is

 

[JohnDoe98]

Sounds like someone has no clue what retina is

Hence the "I'm new to this" part. What is the point of your post?

 

[mogzieee]

I'm 1920x1200 all the way. A long term 15" MBP user on non-retina, so when I upgraded to the rMBP I jumped on the real estate! More space is more useful to me than higher resolution for things like video editing, animating, graphics, etc.

 

[a3vr]

Hence the "I'm new to this" part. What is the point of your post?

It was in response to my first post. I said I use the 1440x900 resolution all the time

 

[wlossw]

1440x900 all the time

This. The ui scales nicely with my TBD.