Am I the only one that can't see the difference between

[surjavarman]

So... am I the only one that just can not see the difference between the scaled modes and the best for retina mode.

I have been using best for retina for a couple of days now and I recently switched back to 1920x1200. Both look very crisp and clear to me. I just can't tell even if my life depends on it. The added benefit of 1920x1200 is that I get more screen real estate. Even 1680x1050 looks very neat.

So whats the fuss?

 

[Dangerous Theory]

What do you mean what's the fuss? One of them sacrifices estate for UI size, the other UI size for estate. Take your pick.

 

[surjavarman]

What do you mean what's the fuss? One of them sacrifices estate for UI size, the other UI size for estate. Take your pick.

No I mean that the majority here prefers best for retina. And they all are raving about it and trashing the scaled modes because it doesn't look good at all. Looks blurry, pixelated. Well I really can't see any difference between the 3 modes.

 

[Dangerous Theory]

No I mean that the majority here prefers best for retina. And they all are raving about it and trashing the scaled modes because it doesn't look good at all. Looks blurry, pixelated. Well I really can't see any difference between the 3 modes.

I've only seen complaints about certain unupdated apps looking pixelated so you've seen something I haven't.

 

[Panini]

No I mean that the majority here prefers best for retina. And they all are raving about it and trashing the scaled modes because it doesn't look good at all. Looks blurry, pixelated. Well I really can't see any difference between the 3 modes.

No, the only reason people even use the best for retina and not 1680 or even 1920 is because of performance issues. If everything (especially scrolling) was perfectly fine on 1920 I'm sure everyone would use that.

1680 and 1920 render at double the resolution and scale down, so they're still in HiDPI mode - i.e it's still basically retina, and it's almost just as crisp.

 

[Slivortal]

There's no reason any resolution that uses all 2800x1880 pixels should look less crisp than the others... As long as your dealing with stuff that can run at native res, it's the same amount of pixels.

Maybe if one leans in because the text starts getting so small? That's all I can think of...

 

[Fortimir]

I run almost exclusively in 1920x1200 because I'm an image editor.

Looks super fantastic to me.

 

[gentlefury]

So... am I the only one that just can not see the difference between the scaled modes and the best for retina mode.

I have been using best for retina for a couple of days now and I recently switched back to 1920x1200. Both look very crisp and clear to me. I just can't tell even if my life depends on it. The added benefit of 1920x1200 is that I get more screen real estate. Even 1680x1050 looks very neat.

So whats the fuss?

The only difference is the size of the UI. All modes are 2880x1800. You are not changing the resolution by changing those settings.

 

[whateverandever]

So... am I the only one that just can not see the difference between the scaled modes and the best for retina mode.

I have been using best for retina for a couple of days now and I recently switched back to 1920x1200. Both look very crisp and clear to me. I just can't tell even if my life depends on it. The added benefit of 1920x1200 is that I get more screen real estate. Even 1680x1050 looks very neat.

So whats the fuss?

If you look closely the 1920x1200 scaled mode is noticeably "softer" than the native 2x mode. It's not really something that bothers me, but I can see how other people could be annoyed by it.