13" MacBook Pro – do you use display scaling?

[Nozuka]

I think they also improved something with the displays since the first generation.
In my 2012 MBPR it looks really bad when i use a scaled resolution.

with the 2018 13'' i can take 1440x900 and it still looks good.

But i do hope they will increase the resolution of the 13'' to 2880x1800 or 3360x2100 with the next redesign, so i can take a non-downscaled resolution. Because 1280x800 is just not practical.

But the resolution scaling and Application Support is still much better in MacOS than in Windows. Many Windows Applications (some even built in and from MS...) still look terrible on a high resolution display. Some applications even cut off parts of the UI because it's not handled well. That's why most business laptops are still ordered with a Full HD display.

 

[MrGimper]

All the resolutions result in 2x rendering (except presumably 2560x1600 on the 13"). It is the downscaling that you can avoid by using 1280x800 on the 13" and 1440x900 on the 15". Today's "Default for Display" actually causes downscaling! I presume they picked the default to compete with Windows laptops that have HighDefinition (but not retina) displays.

Indeed! The "new" default out-of-the-box for the 13" is 1440x900, which is downscaled. Sneaky little trick! Guess it's one way to finally counter the 8 year argument of why has the 13" Air got a higher resolution than the 13" Pro

 

[unobtainium]

It is the downscaling that you can avoid by using 1280x800 on the 13" and 1440x900 on the 15". Today's "Default for Display" actually causes downscaling! I presume they picked the default to compete with Windows laptops that have HighDefinition (but not retina) displays.

For me the decrease in image quality is pretty noticeable when I use the new “default” resolution. Everything looks much crisper at 1280x800. Apple shouldn’t cheat — if they want to promote increased resolution, they need to increase the actual resolution.

 

[redheeler]

1440x900 is the new default. I prefer the 1680x1050.

It's the default, but still scaled. 1280x800 HiDPI (or 2560x1600) is still the native res.

 

[Nozuka]

For me the decrease in image quality is pretty noticeable when I use the new “default” resolution. Everything looks much crisper at 1280x800. Apple shouldn’t cheat — if they want to promote increased resolution, they need to increase the actual resolution.

I don't see any cheating. The specs are very clear about the native resolution being 2560 x 1600 and then it lists the scaled resolutions.

 

[Lennyvalentin]

Is the improved performance on Mojave due to the removal of sub-pixel AA?

What?! Why would they do that? *boggle*

 

[estabya]

For me the decrease in image quality is pretty noticeable when I use the new “default” resolution. Everything looks much crisper at 1280x800. Apple shouldn’t cheat — if they want to promote increased resolution, they need to increase the actual resolution.

I agree. I run 1440x900 scaled mode on my rMB. Everything is noticeably crisper on 1152x720, but then everything is huge and I have no space.

Sure would be nice if apple would increase resolutions as follows (or more of course ):
12" rMB: 2560x1600
13" rMBP: 2880x1800
15" rMBP: 3360x2100

 

[BayouTiger]

It's the default, but still scaled. 1280x800 HiDPI (or 2560x1600) is still the native res.

Apple has always liked to run the retina displays at half. They value the sharpness over the real estate. I like it somewhere in the middle.

 

[cman-uk]

After using my 2018 13" MBP with a 27" monitor (LG UK850), its very difficult to switch back to the default of 1440 x 900. I'm going to be using the "More Space (Looks like 1680 x 1050)" ...however, after reading this thread, 1920 x 1200 appears tempting. Just tested it and everything really is tiny....

....maybe "More Space (Looks like 1680 x 1050)" is best for now.

 

[macintoshmac]

After using my 2018 13" MBP with a 27" monitor (LG UK850), its very difficult to switch back to the default of 1440 x 900. I'm going to be using the "More Space (Looks like 1680 x 1050)" ...however, after reading this thread, 1920 x 1200 appears tempting. Just tested it and everything really is tiny....

....maybe "More Space (Looks like 1680 x 1050)" is best for now.

Let your eyes get used to 1680. Then, when that happens, get on the 1920 bandwagon if you feel like. Mojave 10.14 has a better window server I believe, the UI choppiness and lag I observed on 10.13 is gone in 10.14, and now it's been a month since I am on 1680 and I am not going back to 1440 on the 13.

 

[cman-uk]

Let your eyes get used to 1680. Then, when that happens, get on the 1920 bandwagon if you feel like. Mojave 10.14 has a better window server I believe, the UI choppiness and lag I observed on 10.13 is gone in 10.14, and now it's been a month since I am on 1680 and I am not going back to 1440 on the 13.

Funnily enough, in the 41min since my post, I've stepped up to 1920. Some websites aren't designed well for it, but after spending a whole day in front of the 27" at 3840 x 2160, I'm becoming accustomed to 1920 x 1200 easier than I anticipated! No choppyness noticed thus far.

Incidentally, I used SwitchResX to select 1920 x 1200 ...is that the correct method or is there a native-to-MacOS method to achieve this?

 

[macintoshmac]

Funnily enough, in the 41min since my post, I've stepped up to 1920. Some websites aren't designed well for it, but after spending a whole day in front of the 27" at 3840 x 2160, I'm becoming accustomed to 1920 x 1200 easier than I anticipated! No choppyness noticed thus far.

Incidentally, I used SwitchResX to select 1920 x 1200 ...is that the correct method or is there a native-to-MacOS method to achieve this?

https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/2ia242/enabling_1920_x_1200_hidpi_resolution_on_the_13/

This is a great way to do it, if you are adequately familiar with jumping into the internals. This is how mine looks like, after this simple hack.

 

[cman-uk]

^ very smart, thanks for the link - great to know there is indeed a method that doesn't require additional software.

I'm going to trial 1920 for a couple of days. If it requires me to squint more often than not, I'm going to hop back to 1680. Hope I get used to it, as its rather similar to 3840 x 2160 on the bigger screen - and I much prefer a consistent UI feel between the two.

 

[macpanzer]

1920x1200 looks really good on 13", usable text size, and a lot of screen estate.
I use QuickRes (link) to change the resolution.

E: just tried the method linked from Reddit, works like a charm. And I don't even need a third-party app anymore, 1920x1200 is now one of the options in macOS's own Display Preferences panel.

 

[macintoshmac]

^ very smart, thanks for the link - great to know there is indeed a method that doesn't require additional software.

I'm going to trial 1920 for a couple of days. If it requires me to squint more often than not, I'm going to hop back to 1680. Hope I get used to it, as its rather similar to 3840 x 2160 on the bigger screen - and I much prefer a consistent UI feel between the two.

1920x1200 looks really good on 13", usable text size, and a lot of screen estate.
I use QuickRes (link) to change the resolution.

E: just tried the method linked from Reddit, works like a charm. And I don't even need a third-party app anymore, 1920x1200 is now one of the options in macOS's own Display Preferences panel.

The method works great, and at worst, you will have to do it again if the file gets overwritten, that's it. Very simple and feels like a native hack. Paradox, I know.

1920 is great on the 13, but 1680 is ideal in my opinion, no lag whatsoever now. Coming from 1680, 1920 looks okay and liveable, but I feel 1680 is ideal for readability. 1920 feels slightly off-putting to me, maybe a little fuzzy at first. It settles, but I think that is my eyed doing extra work. That is not what I want them to do, they are already helping me out in the world so much. 1680 is fine.

 

[cman-uk]

How's everyone getting on with this?

I've remained at 1920x1200 and it's become 'normal' now. Some websites suffer from it (they occupy the middle 60% of the screen only) but other than that, no issues. That said, maybe 1680 may be better on the eyes...

 

[BigMcGuire]

I went back to 1680. Had to for my eyes. lol. I think if I didn't use external keyboards so much I could do 1920.

 

[sgtaylor5]

1920 on the external monitor and 1680 on the MBP 13”. When I use QuickRes and reconnect the external on HDMI, the 13” sometimes it resets to 1280, but it’s easy to fix. We’ll see if it acts differently when I get my TB1 dock (what I could afford).

 

[Ploki]

Isn't the default setting 1440*900 now?
In any case, I run it at that.
I was running my 15" at 1920*1200 mostly, but it was my main computer and the 13" isn't.
Running UltraFine 4K at native. And I'm so happy, i always loved how 15" looked at native but it was just not enough screen real-estate.

 

[tjleonard]

Isn't the default setting 1440*900 now?
In any case, I run it at that.
I was running my 15" at 1920*1200 mostly, but it was my main computer and the 13" isn't.
Running UltraFine 4K at native. And I'm so happy, i always loved how 15" looked at native but it was just not enough screen real-estate.

That’s where screenresx shines.

 

[Ploki]

That’s where screenresx shines.

why?

 

[avxkim]

I use 1440x900 on my 15” because the integer scaling (or non-scaling) looks way better with super sharp text, even though I do like the extra screen real estate of 1680x1050. I just wish the retinal panel’s native resolution was 3360x2100 instead of 2880x1800.

1680x1050 is way to small for my eyes, dunno how the guys use it on 13", it's super tiny on 13", because even on 15" it's hard to read whole day.