Running the Retina MacBook Pro at Full 2880x1800 Resolution

[killmoms]

But since the CTM is for scaling, rotation and translations, the system will apply it regardless of any scaling factors. Unless Apple has some logic in there to see that points map 1:1 unto device dependant pixels/dot without any of the 3 possible transformations being applied.

It's not that the code doesn't run, it's that if there is no transform to apply (AKA a scaling factor of 1, no rotation, and no non-integer translation) then the data will pass through unchanged—surely anything else would be a bug and incorrect behavior.

 

[mkoesel]

But since the CTM is for scaling, rotation and translations, the system will apply it regardless of any scaling factors. Unless Apple has some logic in there to see that points map 1:1 unto device dependant pixels/dot without any of the 3 possible transformations being applied.

If the transformation matrix simplifies to the identity matrix then it is an effective NO-OP.

Even if there is a translation or rotation factor (I don't know when those come into play), the scaling may very well be a seperate process that is not applied when not needed.

 

[KnightWRX]

It's not that the code doesn't run, it's that if there is no transform to apply (AKA a scaling factor of 1, no rotation, and no non-integer translation) then the data will pass through unchanged—anything else would be a bug and incorrect behavior.

Anything else would be saving cycles by not performing those checks and depending on how compute intensive those checks are vs just applying the CTM itself, it might just be quite an appropriate solution.

Things you learn as a programmer : sometimes, the most obvious solution might just not turn out to be the best one.

Anyway, all pure speculation and quite irrelevant.

----------

If the transformation matrix simplifies to the identity matrix then it is an effective NO-OP.

Even if there is a translations or rotation factor (I don't know when those come into play), the scaling may very well be a seperate process that is not applied when not needed.

Read the Quartz doc. Scaling, Translating and Rotating are all done to a single matrix. Page 10 of this thread for the direct link to the appropriate material.

 

[mkoesel]

Read the Quartz doc. Scaling, Translating and Rotating are all done to a single matrix.

Like I say, it's easy to check for the identity and just exit.

Page 10 of this thread for the direct link to the appropriate material.

Not every user has the same page size. Here's a link to the appropriate material:

https://forums.macrumors.com/account/preferences



But I have the link and will the Quartz docs on my light reading list.

 

[gnasher729]

The iPad 3 isn't comparable to this story though, is it? The iPad UI has been scaled up to work at that resolution and obviously it looks a lot better than the previous two Gens because of the pixel density.

Try running OS X natively at 2800 x 1800 inside 15" and then come back to me. The UI on the 27" is too small as it is and that's only 2560x1440 pixels, inside a physical space that is 12" bigger diagonally.

I'm not saying the 2880 x 1800 Retina display (which is 1440 x 900 workable space) is too small. I'm saying that flat out 2880 x 1800 workable space will be far too small for that physical area.

And nobody except some hacker trying to show how clever they are tried to do this.

 

[doh123]

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).

Apple only lets you run 2880x1800, so its not false. it really is running that resolution, no matter what scaling you choose. If you choose the regular "best" settings, then it runs like its 1440x900 in the size everything is drawn at, but its still 2880x1800. If the app is made to understand retina, then it can use all the pixels like a full normal 2880x1800 screen would.

These work-a-rounds just knock it into a normal resolution with no scaling

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

Because its not... its 2880x1800, but things that are not made for Retina are drawn on it just like its a 1440x900 screen by default setting.

 

[gnasher729]

Because its not... its 2880x1800, but things that are not made for Retina are drawn on it just like its a 1440x900 screen by default setting.

Cocoa applications that are not specifically designed for Retina displays will to a large extent make use of the 2880 x 1800 pixels, without the developer doing anything. All text, all standard UI elements (buttons, checkboxes, menus etc. ), all high resolution images, like photos, will automatically use the additional pixels on the screen.

 

[Piggie]

Doesn't seem likely, if the lcd panel breaks and they do not bother to replace the panel itself they could just replace the lid with a screen already fitted. Also, the SSD and air port are removable. If some other component on the logic board breaks, they likely just replace the logic board.

What I am saying is, it COULD make economic sense for Apple to just end up doing that it does with iPads for macbooks also in the future.

All faults models go away to a place that refurbs machines by the thousands, and Apple just swap your machine out for a second hand one that's been fixed.

Do they really want to send your machine away to be expertly unglued and glued all back together again, one at a time just for you?

It's not like they are just undoing a few screws unpopping a cover and replacing an item anymore.

 

[Slogan]

And nobody except some hacker trying to show how clever they are tried to do this.

Yeah... so what I was originally saying (regardless of who has done it) wasn't so devoid of knowledge after all. 2880 x 1800 native inside 15" is too small.

 

[KnightWRX]

Yeah... so what I was originally saying (regardless of who has done it) wasn't so devoid of knowledge after all. 2880 x 1800 native inside 15" is too small.

That's your opinion. Regardless of who has done it, running 2880x1800 at a 1:1 scaling factor (1 point to 1 pixel) can be fine and can be too small, depending on the individual viewing it.

Your opinion is your own. That you think it would be too small means it might be too small for you. Let others come to their own conclusions and form their own opinions.

 

[Slogan]

Your opinion is your own. That you think it would be too small means it might be too small for you. Let others come to their own conclusions and form their own opinions.

I can't disagree with you. Just to be clear, I was reaffirming my opinion in the last sentence (having explained my reasoning for saying as much) rather than stating it as a fact.

 

[doctor-don]

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).

Looking at that posted image, I thought maybe I was looking at my Apple Cinema Display (23 inch) - until I read the text and saw the icons at the top.

My HTC Sensation has an excellent display, so I wonder if that is enhanced (retina?). My posted image (below) is 100% on a 4.3 inch display. HTC refers to this as QHD resolution.

All of the recent displays are much improved since I last saw a Windows display a few years ago. I had been sharing photos with a relative who thought they were great, but then I saw her display and had to wonder what she has been missing all those years. Her husband has am iPad, so he can see real quality.

 

[kalsta]

I know that, but in addition to the slider thing, you should be able to change your actual screen resolution.

But as I said, an LCD display simply isn't capable of changing its resolution. It has a fixed resolution. Maybe you think I'm quibbling over semantics here, but evidently there is a lot of confusion regarding this topic, and what Apple has done here is to finally create a user interface that better reflects the fact that all you can really do is scale the size of what is being rendered to screen.

Sometimes, you need to do that with certain applications or displays.

Really? I haven't seen an app that requires you to change your screen resolution for years—long before the switch from Power PC. Do they even still exist?

 

[KnightWRX]

Really? I haven't seen an app that requires you to change your screen resolution for years—long before the switch from Power PC. Do they even still exist?

Games for performance reasons. The smaller frame buffers makes it so the GPU can render more frames in a given period of time.

 

[kalsta]

That's your opinion. Regardless of who has done it, running 2880x1800 at a 1:1 scaling factor (1 point to 1 pixel) can be fine and can be too small, depending on the individual viewing it.

Your opinion is your own. That you think it would be too small means it might be too small for you. Let others come to their own conclusions and form their own opinions.

But of course, Apple is in the business of making certain decisions on behalf of the user, which cater to common sense and the needs of the majority. That's always been their design philosophy, and what it leads to (when those decisions are well made) is a system that is far easier to use and administer for the majority of users.

Now if you happen to live on the very outer fringes of the bell curve regarding your computing needs—well, you'd better start getting familiar with the Terminal, or third-party apps. And I think that's not a bad system really. Otherwise we end up with preference panels that look like Microsoft's old IE settings—long, long lists of nested tick boxes with every setting you could ever think of. 90% of users should not be forced to wade through that river of effluent to find the 10% of settings applicable to their needs. Just my opinion.

----------

Games for performance reasons. The smaller frame buffers makes it so the GPU can render more frames in a given period of time.

Okay, well I'm not a huge gamer, so perhaps I'm out of touch here. But don't games that require a smaller canvass automatically scale up these days? What I'm saying is, it's been a very long time since I've seen one of those dialogs pop up when you try and start an app, saying that you need to change your screen resolution. I even remember the ones that used to tell you to change your colour bit-depth. Thank goodness we've moved beyond those days!

 

[KnightWRX]

But of course, Apple is in the business of making certain decisions on behalf of the user, which cater to common sense and the needs of the majority. That's always been their design philosophy, and what it leads to (when those decisions are well made) is a system that is far easier to use and administer for the majority of users.

Now if you happen to live on the very outer fringes of the bell curve regarding your computing needs—well, you'd better start getting familiar with the Terminal, or third-party apps. And I think that's not a bad system really. Otherwise we end up with preference panels that look like Microsoft's old IE settings—long, long lists of nested tick boxes with every setting you could ever think of. 90% of users should not be forced to wade through that river of effluent to find the 10% of settings applicable to their needs. Just my opinion.

I don't get what any of this has to do with my post...

Okay, well I'm not a huge gamer, so perhaps I'm out of touch here. But don't games that require a smaller canvass automatically scale up these days? What I'm saying is, it's been a very long time since I've seen one of those dialogs pop up when you try and start an app, saying that you need to change your screen resolution. I even remember the ones that used to tell you to change your colour bit-depth. Thank goodness we've moved beyond those days!

You don't do it manually. The game does it for you. You just select the resolution at which you want to run the game from the in-game menus.

Been like this since forever. I don't think I've ever had a game ask me to manually use the OS facilities to set the display resolution.

 

[kalsta]

I don't get what any of this has to do with my post...

I was just furthering the conversation about individual preferences and how Apple's design philosophy relates to that. You said everyone is entitled to an opinion, no matter how extreme—I simply pointed out that it's not Apple's habit to try and cater to the 1% of users who might actually use a 50% scaling down of the UI. Lighten up—I wasn't attacking what you said, just sharing some related thoughts.

You don't do it manually. The game does it for you. You just select the resolution at which you want to run the game from the in-game menus.

Been like this since forever. I don't think I've ever had a game ask me to manually use the OS facilities to set the display resolution.

Well in that case I don't see what your previous comment had to do with my post.

 

[faroZ06]

Really? I haven't seen an app that requires you to change your screen resolution for years—long before the switch from Power PC. Do they even still exist?

None of them really "require" it, but some old games have issues if you don't change your screen resolution. Screen recording applications like Screenflow don't perform as well at high resolution and don't let you change the recording resolution, so that also requires you to change the screen res. Also, if you connect your computer to a TV using an adapter to composite or something, you usually have to manually change your resolution to fit the TV.

One of the things that's just annoying about Mac OS is the lack of settings you can change. Sure it's a lot easier to mod than Windows and has a way better settings system, but you don't have to mod so many things in Windows to do what you want. Just give us the options and an "advanced" mode for System Prefs!

 

[Judas1]

That's your opinion though about your capabilities. To me, a 15" 1920x1200 display is perfectly usable with the size of elements. 2880x1800 would be stretching it I agree.

Not my opinion. Our eyes are not made to distinguish one tree from a forest of trees. Its made to recognize shapes and forms, not one element within the whole picture. Thats why the whole idea idea behind retina, based on our eyes resolving one pixel, is hogwash. Yeah, I agree 1920x1200 would be fine, but the retina display native is 2880x1800, a resolution that is almost impossible to use on a 15' screen comfortably.

 

[kalsta]

Screen recording applications like Screenflow don't perform as well at high resolution and don't let you change the recording resolution, so that also requires you to change the screen res. Also, if you connect your computer to a TV using an adapter to composite or something, you usually have to manually change your resolution to fit the TV.

Ah, okay. There are certainly some valid reasons you might want to output to a different resolution, particularly when output is destined for a different kind of display. Perhaps it would be better though for these scenarios to be handled separately from the settings which define the physical size of elements. It has me thinking… I have my MBP hooked up to a 30 inch display. I wonder how the Retina MBP would handle that. I'm assuming it would handle it with all the grace and refinement I expect from Apple, recognising that the 30 inch display has half the resolution, and I would still expect UI elements to look the same physical size.

One of the things that's just annoying about Mac OS is the lack of settings you can change. Sure it's a lot easier to mod than Windows and has a way better settings system, but you don't have to mod so many things in Windows to do what you want. Just give us the options and an "advanced" mode for System Prefs!

As I discussed in another recent comment, Apple's approach to UI design certainly makes many decisions to simplify things for (hopefully) the vast majority of users. The idea is that you put the settings that most users want to adjust front and centre, and then progressively tuck things out of the way which less people will want to change, and/or which they will only want to change occasionally. Mostly I think Apple get this pretty right, and I have always found Apple's settings to be far more logical than Microsoft's, but that's just my subjective opinion. One example where I think Apple got it wrong is with brightness setting on the iPhone—adjusting the brightness manually is something I find myself wanting to do a lot, and it's a little frustrating to have to go into settings every time you want to do that. I guess you're saying that some settings you wish you had simply aren't there at all, and I can understand how that would be frustrating.

 

[faroZ06]

Ah, okay. There are certainly some valid reasons you might want to output to a different resolution, particularly when output is destined for a different kind of display. Perhaps it would be better though for these scenarios to be handled separately from the settings which define the physical size of elements. It has me thinking… I have my MBP hooked up to a 30 inch display. I wonder how the Retina MBP would handle that. I'm assuming it would handle it with all the grace and refinement I expect from Apple, recognising that the 30 inch display has half the resolution, and I would still expect UI elements to look the same physical size.



As I discussed in another recent comment, Apple's approach to UI design certainly makes many decisions to simplify things for (hopefully) the vast majority of users. The idea is that you put the settings that most users want to adjust front and centre, and then progressively tuck things out of the way which less people will want to change, and/or which they will only want to change occasionally. Mostly I think Apple get this pretty right, and I have always found Apple's settings to be far more logical than Microsoft's, but that's just my subjective opinion. One example where I think Apple got it wrong is with brightness setting on the iPhone—adjusting the brightness manually is something I find myself wanting to do a lot, and it's a little frustrating to have to go into settings every time you want to do that. I guess you're saying that some settings you wish you had simply aren't there at all, and I can understand how that would be frustrating.

I can just install some kind of mod or go into the system files to accomplish a lot of things I want to do, but it's a pain no matter how experienced you are. I like Apple's plan of hiding stuff that most people don't want to see, but they hide it too well. How about some kind of "advanced mode" in System Preferences that unlocks all the stuff like that?

Of course, very few people will ever need to manually set the resolution, and those few people will only need to do it a couple of times. But that one time when you need to change it and you can't will be an extreme annoyance.

 

[Renzatic]

Not my opinion. Our eyes are not made to distinguish one tree from a forest of trees. Its made to recognize shapes and forms, not one element within the whole picture.

Quite the opposite. The most detailed portion of our vision is a rather small space at the center of our field of vision, roughly the size of the moon in the sky. Our eyes are incredibly good at separating and focusing on small details within a large amount of visual noise.

 

[faroZ06]

Quite the opposite. The most detailed portion of our vision is a rather small space at the center of our field of vision, roughly the size of the moon in the sky. Our eyes are incredibly good at separating and focusing on small details within a large amount of visual noise.

My eyes without glasses will make everything look like impressionist art unless I am looking at something very close. I'm pretty sure everyone in my extended family has glasses.

 

[Renzatic]

My eyes without glasses will make everything look like impressionist art unless I am looking at something very close. I'm pretty sure everyone in my extended family has glasses.

Assuming normal 20/20 vision, of course. Though when you put your glasses on, you're able to discern small details, rather than generalized shapes.

What he seems to be saying is that if you look at a forest from a distance, you can only see the collection of trees. You're not able to focus on an individual detail and say "there's a poplar, there's a maple, there's a spruce, there's a hawk on a branch on that third tree to the right of that big white one". Anyone can tell you that isn't true.

...which makes me think. Maybe the guy needs glasses.

 

[faroZ06]

Assuming normal 20/20 vision, of course. Though when you put your glasses on, you're able to discern small details, rather than generalized shapes.

What he seems to be saying is that if you look at a forest from a distance, you can only see the collection of trees. You're not able to focus on an individual detail and say "there's a poplar, there's a maple, there's a spruce, there's a hawk on a branch on that third tree to the right of that big white one". Anyone can tell you that isn't true.

...which makes me think. Maybe the guy needs glasses.

Well, the human eyes have a big depth of field compared to cameras on certain settings, so literally "focusing" on just one tree is usually impossible. Now, if you're talking about discerning details, I'm not sure whether or not the human eye is good at it. I've only had 20/20 vision with glasses for small portions of my life.

----------

...which makes me think. Maybe the guy needs glasses.

It may be true. For a while, I thought my vision was normal.