Haha. True. But don't forget, Apple also screwed "pros" who can't connect a dongle to a firewire or ethernet cable.
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.
Running the Retina MacBook Pro at Full 2880x1800 Resolution
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Haha. True. But don't forget, Apple also screwed "pros" who can't connect a dongle to a firewire or ethernet cable.
MacRumors;15096970As [url="https://twitter.com/stroughtonsmith/status/215181759980126208" said:
LOL - so true....
When people compare about the price of the rMBP, this is exactly what they need to know. Yes, it's expensive, but that doesn't mean that it's overpriced. It's probably the best laptop you can get for that price.
Which one of your 15" Wintel laptops has a 2880x1800 screen? Oh, none... that's right.
I need matte + 1900x1200 for me to have any use for it.
That means I would prefer 17" over 15".
Either way the new rMBP is as useful as a brick for me.
----------
Which one of your Mac laptops has a 17" screen? Oh, none ... that's right.
Bob each way
I need matte + 1900x1200 for me to have any use for it.
That means I would prefer 17" over 15".
Either way the new rMBP is as useful as a brick for me.
----------
Which one of your Mac laptops has a 17" screen? Oh, none ... that's right.
Bob each way
The 2011 17" MBP
The 2011 17" MBP
Yeah - I have a 2010 17" MBP and was dutifully waiting for the new releases (based upon the Buyer's guide up top).
Now I'm screwed... the 2010 17" MBP will be my last ever laptop
Is there a setting like this in OS X?
![fyR57.jpg]()
The "hack" is only required to switch to use 2880x1800 at 1:1 scaling which results in comically small elements on the display. So it isn't something that anyone would normally do... you know Apple is about presenting sensible things to users. They don't care if you use existing screen configuration API to do crazy things, they just aren't typically going to present the crazy thing to a normal user.
The following is what you are able to do and it presents several options that result in reasonable physical dimension.
Note my mouse was over the gray boarded "more space" on the right which triggered the gray text you see in various places. ...and yes if you click on this image you can see the real pixel dimension of the capture with is 2x (in each dimension) what it looks like on the display
Last edited:
Your comment actually helped me understand what the article was saying better than the actual article. I'n sure it's not a difficult concept but I'm not much of a computer person. I'm trying to decide between a retina and non-retina MBP right now.
Go see one if you can in an Apple store... it is the best way to understand how nice they are and how nice the screen is.
I am loving mine for code development with crisp text!
I need matte + 1900x1200 for me to have any use for it.
That means I would prefer 17" over 15".
Either way the new rMBP is as useful as a brick for me.
----------
Which one of your Mac laptops has a 17" screen? Oh, none ... that's right.
Bob each way
I remember some where Apple said they would have an update next year for their pro users.
This retina would be more useful to "Pro" users such as photographers and graphic designers if they had a bigger screen, more real estate to use without having to use a magnifying glass to read a normal page with out having to zoom in, put your face to the screen or change the resolution.
I have a good feeling something bigger than a 15" would be coming next year.
When people do this hack to use all the resolution to their new retina 15" they'll notice that they'll have to change something to read stuff, such as switch the resolution or make web browsers zoom larger.
This is probably why Apple did not allow for a simple way to use the full resolution without the hack. They like simplicity and doing all that extra work to complete a task other than surfing the net or watching a youtube video would be more work for consumers having to change settings all the time.
Something a little ironic, cell phone screen sizes are now in high demand of bigger screens and now the laptops are are getting smaller screens.
This explain why I set up a HDTV 1920x1080 frame in photoshop and I could not display it at 100%.
I asked the Mac genius and he could not explain why.
Seriously it's a joke Apple doesn't allow to simply set it up on the system preferences pane. The beauty of this screen is the amount of real estate the high resolution offers.
I asked the Mac genius and he could not explain why.
Seriously it's a joke Apple doesn't allow to simply set it up on the system preferences pane. The beauty of this screen is the amount of real estate the high resolution offers.
...and you get all of that real estate when looking at images, video, and countless other things that love having pixels all without having to change any settings (default retina mode).
Also in the default retina mode you get UI elements and text at normal sizes so you can actually see them and work with them again all while getting full access to all of the pixels for content that truly can use those pixels.
You can also adjust the scale if you want using the standard displays system control panel (not just up to 1:1) giving you more physical space by shrinking UI elements but you lose the fidelity gains of course and will have a harder time interacting with them.
Folks should play with the interactive image under the retina section on the following page if you don't fully get what is going on with this display. (of course real life use of it is the best to get a sense of what it is like)
http://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/features/
Last edited:
Pure UI space can only take you so far. It has to be comfortable to use as well. A 1440x900 might be a little cramped for some applications, but full on 2880x1800 scaled on a 15 inch screen? That's like...like
...I'm playing around in Photoshop right now, and I don't even want to think how microscopically tiny some of the smaller interface buttons would be on that.
For example, here's your adjustments layers tab...
.....
.......
.....
...find Hue/Saturation
I find 1900x1200 too small on my 17" Mbp. I can't imagine the higher resolution on a 15" screen as being useful for most things.
----------
A pro what? Wrestler? Oil rigger?
----------
A pro what? Wrestler? Oil rigger?
Ah, so you are a realist and think things exist in themselves somehow. That is a concept too! Sadly everything we know about the world is bound by our concepts and without them there is no understanding of what is. All you can say, perhaps, is what Parmenides did, that everything is one, or maybe that there is "stuff" out there. Notice, stuff and oneness are concepts... Perhaps you prefer utter silence, I dunno.
ML wasn't finished by the time WWDC rolled into town, it was still being sampled to developers to iron out bugs. Besides, there is no point for Apple to wait until ML hits RTM (to use a Microsoft term) to release its Macbook lines with the Ivy Bridge update, when every other company outed theirs after Intel officially launched its dual-core IvB chips.
Before June 11, most places were talking about the ASUS Zenbook Prime - what with 1080p on a 11" dual-core ultrathin - and whatever interesting laptops out of Computex e.g. Toshiba's IvB + 21:9 laptop. After June 11, it's all MBPR territory. Apple literally pulled the publicity rug from the underside of Computex.
Me too and I'm only 34. I change to blurry-but-bigger nonstandard resolutions whenever I use an external monitor as my main (and am viewing my laptop monitor from a slight distance). Luckily our MBPs remember recent monitor arrangements so I dont have to set it each time. I hope that the rMBP includes the new retina scaling options in the same workspace settings memory. At least in a year or so when I might consider upgrading.
Last edited:
Line producer commercial films 35mm 30 years and counting.. my needs go beyond the initial wow factor of a screen to gear that is not a liability. This was mac for me since they came on the market in the early 80's ..but sadly not anymore so it seems.
After reading the entire post, I can see what the author was trying to say here… but boy, that has to be one of the most confusing and potentially misleading descriptions of what Apple has done here with the new display and OS settings. No wonder there are so many arguments here amongst readers. It seems the idea of UI elements being fixed at a set pixel size is so entrenched in our way of thinking that we have trouble even describing a different system.
The new display will always display 2880 x 1800 pixels. That's all it can do. It's a question of how large or small the OS renders certain elements.
From the referenced screen shot it would seem that Apple at least has got it right by avoiding any reference to specific pixel dimensions, which would more likely only confuse users:
Instead, they have defaulted to a 'Best for Retina display setting' which makes the UI elements appear to be roughly the same size as the user is accustomed to seeing them on previous generations of Macs, by displaying that at twice the normal resolution. That is a form of resolution independence which means that users can get most of the benefits of crisp high-resolution graphics without all the UI elements becoming miniscule. (I say 'most' because it will take some time for developers to update their apps, and I imagine it will be a long time before most of the Web catches up with these advances.)
But the way this post was written kind of implies that Apple is somehow holding out on users by not delivering them the full capabilities of their new display, which is not true.