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.
A Closer Look at the New MacBook Pro's Retina Display
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You can disable HiDPI mode probably, but I don't think over 1900x1200 will be natively supported in the display settings, so you'd need some kind of hacking to accomplish that feat, though things would be so small it hardly seems worth it.
Why wouldn't it let you over 1920x1200, though? I don't see any inherent reason except for something blocking it in the HiDPI handling, and that's when it's in HiDPI mode. If it's working like I think it is, with HiDPI off, I think these may be the modes available:
2048x1280
2560x1600
2880x1800
3360x2100
3840x2400
Also, there is always booting into Windows and getting 2880x1800 native there, that's been confirmed as possible IIRC.
2048x1280
2560x1600
2880x1800
3360x2100
3840x2400
Also, there is always booting into Windows and getting 2880x1800 native there, that's been confirmed as possible IIRC.
Well the iPad 2 looks terrible terrible terrible compared to the iPad 3 so there's that
Hum... no. OS X is not resolution independent at all. It uses bitmap objects for the UI and the UI becomes smaller and smaller as you raise the pixel count.
Resolution independent would be using vectors to render buttons/windows/types, etc.. No OS does that. Some Linux window managers do support SVG in a few of their UI elements, but that's about it.
Really? I've used my father's 17" MacBook Pro and reading on it was fantastic, I'm not sure if I would mind it on the 15" MacBook Pro or not. I would have to see it. Might be too small.
I love my 1680x1050 Anti-Glare display, but sometimes I wish I had a bit more screen real estate. I don't plan on upgrading anytime soon, however.
I bet it's 1680x1050. Most 17" MBP are 1680x1050 (there were some BTO for high res)
MBP 17" Unibody: 1920x1200.
This conversation is quite interesting. I look at this from a different point of view. I don't typically use the display while at my desk. I like to keep the lid closed and use my 30" monitor.
Even with all the odd resolution nonsense (I'm an engineer, uggh); that just means that while traveling I could get the same workspace of the "Hi Res" 15" MBP. Ok, that seems alright.
The improved air flow sounds key (I've been waiting for them to figure out how to pull air from under the chassis for a long time) for running the machine while the lid is shut. Everyone knows all of the generations before have issues with pulling air in through the reduced opening when the hinge is in the shut position. If I can work with it using a ton of cpu power while shut and driving 2x 30" monitors or 2x 27 Apple displays. I would call it a winner.
Winner, even though I am going to have to cart around my emergency (now external) drive now. *sigh*
Regarding money. If you take the standard (2.3Ghz) MBP and add a 240GB SSD (349$ from OWC) and upgrade to 8gb of ram ($100) w/ HiRes Display ($100) you have a price of $2,348. Thats the same hardware sans the retina display for $148 more.
For that $148 more you get ethernet, cd rom and one less thunderbolt port. I already live without a cd rom drive in my MBP, its really a non issue.
Everything considered; if you use your MBP for work; the "MBP-R(etina)" is actually cheaper. They equal out in price if you move to 16gb of ram because Apple gets you there versus buying it from OWC.
Even with all the odd resolution nonsense (I'm an engineer, uggh); that just means that while traveling I could get the same workspace of the "Hi Res" 15" MBP. Ok, that seems alright.
The improved air flow sounds key (I've been waiting for them to figure out how to pull air from under the chassis for a long time) for running the machine while the lid is shut. Everyone knows all of the generations before have issues with pulling air in through the reduced opening when the hinge is in the shut position. If I can work with it using a ton of cpu power while shut and driving 2x 30" monitors or 2x 27 Apple displays. I would call it a winner.
Winner, even though I am going to have to cart around my emergency (now external) drive now. *sigh*
Regarding money. If you take the standard (2.3Ghz) MBP and add a 240GB SSD (349$ from OWC) and upgrade to 8gb of ram ($100) w/ HiRes Display ($100) you have a price of $2,348. Thats the same hardware sans the retina display for $148 more.
For that $148 more you get ethernet, cd rom and one less thunderbolt port. I already live without a cd rom drive in my MBP, its really a non issue.
Everything considered; if you use your MBP for work; the "MBP-R(etina)" is actually cheaper. They equal out in price if you move to 16gb of ram because Apple gets you there versus buying it from OWC.
As in "I doubt if it'll be long before this becomes possible through the hacking community"...
I'd give it a week.
No, it's 1920x1200 as it's a 2010 Unibody model. Different preferences, I guess.
The smart-ass answer: It comes that way out of the box. (Resolution is a measurement of the ability to resolve detail, not of how much content you can put on a screen.)
The answer you're looking for (and was answered already on this page): Not yet, at least not within OS X, but there may be (read: almost certainly will be) a hack for this. (Within Windows, it is already possible.)
Nothing about the concept of resolution independence requires vector graphics. It's about graphics appearing the same physical size on displays of differing resolutions. Looking at that new display preferences panel, it would appear that Apple has given us that. Presumably, when a Retina display is set to 'Best (Retina)', all the UI elements are very close to the same size that they appear on a lower-resolution display set to its default scaling. That is an implementation of resolution independenceusing a combination of bitmap graphics (UI elements) and vectors (fonts).
Small Fonts = Blindness if not Eye Strain
How small are the Fonts going to go?
How much eye strain is this display going to cause?!?
There's a reason people pick the 17 inch,
Not just more desktop,
but bigger more readable Fonts.
----------
Exactly, who is designing these, someone with eyesight better then eagles?
- Smaller Icons.
- Smaller Font Text sizes.
There's a Reason people pick the 17 inch.
And Apple SUPPRESSES the sale of the 17 inch, by always releasing the 15 inch FIRST, hurting the 17 inch sales numbers.
----------
The applications used in the demo's have VERY small icons now.
How small are the Fonts going to go?
How much eye strain is this display going to cause?!?
There's a reason people pick the 17 inch,
Not just more desktop,
but bigger more readable Fonts.
----------
Exactly, who is designing these, someone with eyesight better then eagles?
- Smaller Icons.
- Smaller Font Text sizes.
There's a Reason people pick the 17 inch.
And Apple SUPPRESSES the sale of the 17 inch, by always releasing the 15 inch FIRST, hurting the 17 inch sales numbers.
----------
The applications used in the demo's have VERY small icons now.
It is entirely possible that the pixel density is high enough that the pixellation and/or fuzzing is not readily noticeable. Think about how pictures look when scaled down - it's really not all that bad. And since OSX is apparently handling text rendering independently of the desired resolution, it probably looks pretty good
With pixel doubling the UI elements should be the same size as before. The icon sizes have always been customizable - they probably just made the limits even lower since they can still be displayed without losing out on a whole lot of information
Does anybody tried to use "new display settings" for old 17"mbp, the font size of UI and some software its a bit small, the native resolution display 1900x1200.
Apple didn't give us that. The slider isn't analog, I can't set it to about any resolution and still get the desktop displayed at the same size.
I can't run the screen at 640x480 and 2880x1800 and get the same UI size with the elements being drawn pixel perfect at each 1 pixel increment on each axis. The UI is very much dependent on the pixel count.
That's not resolution independence. Brute forcing bitmap elements of varying size or scaling them and using filtering to make them look good is not resolution independence. It's still quite dependent on the resolution. It just happens to work at a couple of different ones.
----------
Yes it is possible. Hence what I've been saying this whole thread : we'll need to see it to know.
I'm not saying it's good or bad, I'm saying Anand isn't providing the material needed to pass proper judgement. The technique he describes seems like quite the ingenuous one, remains to see what the results are like (and what the performance hit is in rendering a huge buffer and downscaling it in real-time).
----------
I'm sorry, there's no "eagle" eyesight here. 1440x900 on a 15" display is atrociously big pixels and UI elements. It's just god awful.
Around 160 PPI is the sweet spot for OS X I find, with the 11" MBA's 135 and the 13" MBA's 127 PPI being about the minimum I can tolerate before everything becomes "fischer price" looking.
1920x1200 on a 15" screen is 147 PPI, if you can't read on that, your eyesight needs fixing by corrective lenses, the resolution isn't the problem.
That's what I'd like to know too I would think it should be possible, but knowing Apple, what if they might have just said "This doesn't look good, so we're not allowing it".
Exactly, it's currently not allowed. Perhaps it will be in Mountain Lion if enough people want it, or there will be some 3rd party tool that enables it, seeing that Apple likes to restrict possibilities for the best of the user...