A question about the resolution.

[Charlie Carcinogen]

I know this might seem like a dumb question, but I’m just trying to understand the resolution thing.

The native display resolution of the MBA 13 is 2560‑by‑1600. Generally it would be optimal to use a resolution half of that. But 1280-by-800 is not a good choice for a 13” display (not enough screen real estate, everything is too big).

So the resolution that the MBA is factory set to is 1440-by-900, which makes sense because that’s the same native resolution of my 2013 non-retina 13 inch MacBook Air.

My question is, if Apple knows that 1440-by-900 is the optimal resolution for that size display, why didn’t they make the display 2880-by-1800 this way no scaling would be necessary and you would get the optimal clarity?

 

[jdb8167]

My question is, if Apple knows that 1440-by-900 is the optimal resolution for that size display, why didn’t they make the display 2880-by-1800 this way no scaling would be necessary and you would get the optimal clarity?

Cost. Entry level is $999 ($899 educational). Higher pixel density is more expensive.

 

[/V\acpower]

The "true" reason is that the "retina screen resolutions" for 13 inch and 15 inch were fixed in 2012 with the first Retina MacBook Pro, and at the time, the "standard non retina resolution" in Apple laptops was 1280x800 for 13 inch and 1440x900 for 15 inch.

Of course, Apple could change that, but that would make the screen more expensive.

(I'm actually surprised that the 2013 MBA had 1440x900.)

 

[jav6454]

As others have said, cost. But the other reason is related to tech and viewing. You gain no benefit at higher resolutions in a small screen. Also, the smaller the screen and more pixels, the more complexity you add.

 

[Bought]

But aren’t you adding more complexity by having to scale a resolution that isn’t native? Isn’t that slowing down the computer?

I always thought it was a really bad thing to use an LCD monitor outside of its native resolution. It seems very odd that Apple is shipping the computers this way. Especially when with their other computers they are doubling the resolution and fitting four pixels into one.

 

[jav6454]

The native resolution is how many pixels there are in LxH. In other words, in the 13" MBP case, the native resolution is, as you mentioned, 2560x1600. Apple does a scaling to make text look finer and more detailed scaling to 1280x800. Scaling has nothing to do with forcing four pixels to one. It is using four pixels to emulate one.

I haven't heard where an LCD cares about a non-native resolution that is lower.

 

[Bought]

But with the MacBook Air, it’s not fitting four pixels into one because the native resolution isn’t a multiple of the default resolution they ship the computer set to.

So now the computer has to work to scale it to this uneven resolution.

I don’t know what you mean about an LCD caring about a non-native resolution, but I do know that the computer has to work harder to produce one.

The MBA has a native resolution of 2560‑by‑1600. It comes set to 1440-by-900 which is the reasonable final resolution to display. But that doesn’t work with the native resolution and the computer has to use processing power to make up for it and still provides less final clarity.

 

[5097842]

But aren’t you adding more complexity by having to scale a resolution that isn’t native? Isn’t that slowing down the computer?

I always thought it was a really bad thing to use an LCD monitor outside of its native resolution. It seems very odd that Apple is shipping the computers this way. Especially when with their other computers they are doubling the resolution and fitting four pixels into one.

Yes, I agree with you. It's always bothered me that Apple utilized scaling in their laptops. Desktops, on the other hand, have always been at a native 2X retina resolution.

Apple finally fixed this with the new 14" and 16" MBPs. Text on the new MBPs looks slightly but noticeably sharper to me. I hope they do the same with the next iteration of the MBA.

 

[eRondeau]

Not really an answer to your question, but sort-of relevant. For over a year I used a new Samsung 28" 4K monitor with my M1 Mac Mini. It looked "okay" but not "amazing". A couple of months ago I splurged for the Apple Studio 27" Display 5K and now the Mac Mini looks "amazing". I then connected the Samsung 4K via HDMI-2.1 as an external monitor for a low-end HP Windows 11 laptop -- and it looks "AMAZING!!!". Like it honestly blows away the Apple Studio Display in terms of clarity & sharpness. I can't explain how or why but yup this $400 (CDN) Samsung 4K beats a $2,000 (CDN) Apple 5K hands down. Maybe it's better scaling, maybe it's ClearType, maybe it's magic -- but I was definitely not expecting this result.

 

[jdb8167]

But with the MacBook Air, it’s not fitting four pixels into one because the native resolution isn’t a multiple of the default resolution they ship the computer set to.

So now the computer has to work to scale it to this uneven resolution.

I don’t know what you mean about an LCD caring about a non-native resolution, but I do know that the computer has to work harder to produce one.

The MBA has a native resolution of 2560‑by‑1600. It comes set to 1440-by-900 which is the reasonable final resolution to display. But that doesn’t work with the native resolution and the computer has to use processing power to make up for it and still provides less final clarity.

My M1 MacBook Air is native resolution of 2560x1600. I usually use it on 1680x1050 which is close to a 1.52 ratio. Not exactly integer scaling but I haven't noticed any slowdowns or problems. The 227 PPI is very clear for text which is what I care about. The default of 1440x900 is about a 1.78 ratio and works fine too. The 1280x800 2x scaling mode is ridiculously large unless you have vision problems.