Confused about Retina resolutions

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Drich290195, Nov 19, 2013.

  1. Drich290195 macrumors 6502

    Drich290195

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2011
    #1
    Im confused about retina resolutions. When i select best for retina for my mbpr 13 inch there seem to be not enough space on my desktop for multiple windows etc.

    My question is if i use a scaled resolution to get more desktop real estate am i getting what would be deemed retina quality images. If not why not.

    Thanks for your time searched many posts still don't understand it.
     
  2. PDFierro macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    #2
    On the 13" rMBP, the Best for Retina settings runs at a visible 1280x800 of working screen real estate. If you scale the resolution up, things will still look good but they won't be as sharp. Also keep in mind that the higher resolutions will require more CPU/battery power.

    Try scaling the resolution up and see if you notice a difference. If it satisfies you, then run it at that.
     
  3. Drich290195 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Drich290195

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2011
    #3
    i think best for retina is 1440 x 900

    what i mean though is the quality of the image higher at the lower "best for retina" resolution over the scaled but higher res 1620 x 1050.

    Because based on numbers the scaled should be better but apple are saying its not so confused
     
  4. PDFierro macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    #4
    On the 15-inch, yes. 13-inch, no. It's 1280x800 on the 13".
     
  5. kwokaaron macrumors 6502a

    kwokaaron

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2013
    #5
    Text and images won't be as clear in scaled resolutions. It'll still technically be retina quality but visually not as much.

    A good section in anandtech's article explains it in clear detail: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6023/the-nextgen-macbook-pro-with-retina-display-review/6
     
  6. Radiating macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    #6


    The Retina MacBook Pro 13", displays EVERYTHING at 2560x1600, because that is the resolution of the screen. It's always 2560x1600, so you're always getting retina resolution.

    Example:

    http://b2b.cbsimg.net/blogs/win8_default_scale.png

    The problem is that running any operating system whether is be windows or OS X at 2560x1600 is that every single icon and app is incredibly tiny. You cannot use the operating system at this resolution on a 13" screen. It would be ridiculous.

    So what Apple does is they enlarge the interface, example with windows:

    http://b2b.cbsimg.net/blogs/win8_custom_scaling.png

    This is called "scaling". The purpose of this is to make the interface operate as if you had a "normal" resolution, so instead of clicking on icons the size of ants, you're clicking on icons that are sized normally.

    This is confusing because instead of calling it "2x Interface Scaling", Apple likes to explain this by basically saying "It's going to look like an imaginary computer with the same screen size that has a resolution of 1680x900 with scaling set to 1 ". Except they don't tell you that this is "imaginary" and "like" and "default scaling set to 1", they just say "scaled resolution: 1680x900", which isn't very informative if you don't know what it means.

    The options under resolution just change the scaling, and explain the different scaling options in an extremely weird and misleading way they have nothing to do with display resolution at all whatsoever, you're always at Retina resolution of 2560x1600.

    Hope that helps.
     
  7. Orr macrumors 6502

    Orr

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2013
    #7
    The reason why there's not enough desktop space for multiple windows is because you're on a 13" laptop. Unless of course you want to sear your eyeballs out at true retina resolution.
     
  8. PDFierro macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    #8
    One can still work comfortably on a 13-inch, but heavy multitasking at 1280x800 obviously isn't the best option.
     

Share This Page