Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Why doesn't the new Retina MBP include a native resolution option

henrikrox

henrikrox

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 3, 2010
1,219
2
Hello

Before you bash me. Why doesnt the new retina mbp have a native resolution option.

Yes the icons would be small, put for people with good eyesight, it wouldnt be a problem. And looking at anandtech photos of windows 8 in native resolution.

it looks ****ing awesome

http://images.anandtech.com/doci/6008/DSC_7424.jpg
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6008/windows-8-on-the-retina-display-macbook-pro

"Even without a working NVIDIA driver, I was able to get a feel for what a 2880 x 1800 setting would look like on a traditional desktop under Windows 8. If you remember back to our scaling and display analysis articles, Apple doesn't offer a desktop resolution equivalent higher than 1920 x 1200 under OS X. The thinking being that unscaled 2880 x 1800 would just be too small for the desktop, icon text and default UI elements. The screenshot below shows the Windows 8 desktop at default (no DPI scaling) settings at 2880 x 1800:"

"Note that the Skyfall trailer is actually a full 1920 x 1080 window. Text is indeed very small, but I suspect those with very good eyesight could actually be ok with this. I would love to see Apple actually expose a native resolution option under OS X."
 
Apple typically doesn't offer options the majority of people won't need. If you're the type of person who wants it at full resolution you can find a way, there are already a few different ways available of doing it.
 
samac92 said:
Apple typically doesn't offer options the majority of people won't need. If you're the type of person who wants it at full resolution you can find a way, there are already a few different ways available of doing it.
Click to expand...

Lol, this is an option 'everyone' can benefit from. Don't use that 'majority of users don't care' excuse this time. It isn't applicable here, everyone has different eyesight, everyone can pick a resolution they're comfortable with.

It was oversight on their part, plain and short.
 
Icons in OSX are smaller than Windows, around 70 pixels vs around 90 pixels. It might look just ok on Windows for those blessed with 20/20 version, but for rest of us it will be too small at arm length.

I'm sure there will be a heck to release full resolution in OSX once more people gets their hands on it.
 
88 King said:
Icons in OSX are smaller than Windows, around 70 pixels vs around 90 pixels. It might look just ok on Windows for those blessed with 20/20 version, but for rest of us it will be too small at arm length.

I'm sure there will be a heck to release full resolution in OSX once more people gets their hands on it.
Click to expand...

Well that's the great thing about choice isn't it?

Everyone picks what works for them.
 
88 King said:
Icons in OSX are smaller than Windows, around 70 pixels vs around 90 pixels. It might look just ok on Windows for those blessed with 20/20 version, but for rest of us it will be too small at arm length.
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm mistaken but I thought OSX Icons supported up to 512x512 pixels? And OSX allows you to change their size to suit your prefs. Not sure where your 70x90 comes from to be honest.
 
henrikrox said:
Hello

Before you bash me. Why doesnt the new retina mbp have a native resolution option.

Yes the icons would be small, put for people with good eyesight, it wouldnt be a problem. And looking at anandtech photos of windows 8 in native resolution.

it looks ****ing awesome

http://images.anandtech.com/doci/6008/DSC_7424.jpg
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6008/windows-8-on-the-retina-display-macbook-pro

"Even without a working NVIDIA driver, I was able to get a feel for what a 2880 x 1800 setting would look like on a traditional desktop under Windows 8. If you remember back to our scaling and display analysis articles, Apple doesn't offer a desktop resolution equivalent higher than 1920 x 1200 under OS X. The thinking being that unscaled 2880 x 1800 would just be too small for the desktop, icon text and default UI elements. The screenshot below shows the Windows 8 desktop at default (no DPI scaling) settings at 2880 x 1800:"

"Note that the Skyfall trailer is actually a full 1920 x 1080 window. Text is indeed very small, but I suspect those with very good eyesight could actually be ok with this. I would love to see Apple actually expose a native resolution option under OS X."
Click to expand...

Having good eyesight doesn't mean you need to stress your eyes to prove it.
 
Those pictures are insane haha. They didn't include it because they assume (correctly) that most people would never want a resolution that high on a screen this small, but I'm sure there will be a hack that can enable it really soon.
 
I'd actually try this as well. I'm not sure I would like it but I would at least try it.

A lot of apps allows you to change text size independently of the rest and you can change OS X's desktop icons' size and text size.
 
pgiguere1 said:
I'd actually try this as well. I'm not sure I would like it but I would at least try it.

A lot of apps allows you to change text size independently of the rest and you can change OS X's desktop icons' size and text size.
Click to expand...

Exactly!

Even in windows u can scale and make things bigger, so i would hope there was a way to check this out soon
 
I'm sorry, but I'm in agreement here. The 'most users wouldn't want/need it' argument just doesn't work in this case. That would be like having a battery that could last for 10 hours, but restricting run-time in the OS to 8 hours because "most people" work an 8 hour day.
 
88 King said:
Icons in OSX are smaller than Windows, around 70 pixels vs around 90 pixels. It might look just ok on Windows for those blessed with 20/20 version, but for rest of us it will be too small at arm length.

I'm sure there will be a heck to release full resolution in OSX once more people gets their hands on it.
Click to expand...

icons in OSX are much bigger than the icons in Windows
 
panzer06 said:
I think that's the point. Apple once again deciding what users need/want instead of offering them the option to make the decision on their own.
Click to expand...

I think this has sort of solidified my views.

I think the problem is not that the MBPR is a bad machine; it's that it's a very nice machine which should have been called "MacBook Retina", not "MacBook Pro Retina". The "Pro" line used to be where you got the machines which offered you more choices and let you do things that "most" users wouldn't want.

As a MacBook, the Retina is a pretty awesome machine. As a MacBook Pro, it's a pretty harsh disappointment for many users.
 
therealseebs said:
I think this has sort of solidified my views.

I think the problem is not that the MBPR is a bad machine; it's that it's a very nice machine which should have been called "MacBook Retina", not "MacBook Pro Retina". The "Pro" line used to be where you got the machines which offered you more choices and let you do things that "most" users wouldn't want.

As a MacBook, the Retina is a pretty awesome machine. As a MacBook Pro, it's a pretty harsh disappointment for many users.
Click to expand...

You can bet the Apple bean counters are looking at the sales of this new machine with it's forced oem upgrades -- if it sells well I'm sure the "classic" MBP will be toast. If it is marginally successful perhaps we'll get to see another rev or 2 with some 3rd party upgrade capability.

Let's face it Apple wants to make money and they make more if you buy all your options during the initial purchase.

Cheers,
 
Two things I'd like to try if I had access to one:

- Try copying a control panel from an older computer, and see if that gives access to the normal list of resolutions.
- Try disabling HiDPI mode in the developer tools.
 
ipearx said:
Two things I'd like to try if I had access to one:

- Try copying a control panel from an older computer, and see if that gives access to the normal list of resolutions.
- Try disabling HiDPI mode in the developer tools.
Click to expand...

I would LOVE to see this. Also, would performance in 1x1 pixel mode be greater than scaled retina mode? I have really good vision close-up and would love to have such real estate for video editing.
 
goMac said:
Doubtful. It's still pushing the same number of pixels.
Click to expand...

True but I'd be using it in "More Space - Like 1920x1200" setting anyways which apparently renders at 3840x2400 before scaling down, and is causing laggy UI issues.

I need more space than 1440x900 usable area, especially if the screen is much more capable than that to display more usable real estate.
 
goMac said:
Doubtful. It's still pushing the same number of pixels.
Click to expand...

But it doesn't have to upscale non-retina enabled apps. Also retina enabled apps will be displayed using lower resolution assets, which should use less video memory.
 
Could someone with a retina MBP try SwitchResX? Someone on another forum mentioned it works, and allows selection of non HiDPI resolutions.
 
I would've done it more simple:
It should 99% of the times (1% when you're doing mirroring on TV, etc) be on 2880*1800

And there should be a slider, that allows me to change the DPI. That includes Icons, Text, etc. Images will look the same no matter what. So you can go to the basic DPI that's found on all other Macs (native res), or incrementally increase the DPI until you get to twice the standard DPI (aka Retina)

This way you can get the screen space you want, while maintaining the hi-res. Simple isn't it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back