Does anyone else use a scaled resolution to display content bigger on their 15" MacBook Pro?

[Hieveryone]

I'm coming from a 13" late 2013 rMBP, and I feel like text was bigger on that (?).

I've scaled my 2019 15" model to display content bigger. It's pretty big but I think it's better in some ways because it utilizes more of this massive screen.

 

[pshufd]

I'm coming from a 13" late 2013 rMBP, and I feel like text was bigger on that (?).

I've scaled my 2019 15" model to display content bigger. It's pretty big but I think it's better in some ways because it utilizes more of this massive screen.

You could use EasyRes to get more options. I sometimes use the 15 in native (2,880x1,800) resolution.

 

[Crossbow.Wallaby]

Yeah I use 1440 x 900, the default was way too small for me.

When using my external monitor I use 2560 x 1440 across 4 windows if I need the real estate otherwise I just stick with 1920 x 1080 split across 2 windows

edit: external monitor is 43" LGUD something something, 4k, no hdr.

 

[one1]

The 13” uses larger font than other macbooks that are 13”, much less the higher resolution 15” model. On my macbook air, which is lower resolution than my retina mbp, the fonts, text boxes, and so forth are much smaller and harder to see. The 13” rMBP has the best viewing of all the macbooks so it will spoil you.

 

[ericwn]

Not sure why you need my opinion to selecta screen resolution. There is no wrong or right. Do what you like.

I personally prefer native resolutions.

 

[curnalpanic]

I use “looks like 1680x1050” on my 15-inch (2014). That’s the ideal resolution size-wise for me. They actually made this the default on recent MBPs, despite it making the UI a bit fuzzy but apparently it’s good enough.

I was recently reminded that the last generation before they went retina, back in 2012, could be had with a high resolution 1680x1050 display, which in my view is the sweet spot for 15 inches.

If there were such a thing as a 3360x2100 retina, that would be awesome. Or 4K on a 17 inch perhaps?

 

[pshufd]

I use “looks like 1680x1050” on my 15-inch (2014). That’s the ideal resolution size-wise for me. They actually made this the default on recent MBPs, despite it making the UI a bit fuzzy but apparently it’s good enough.

I was recently reminded that the last generation before they went retina, back in 2012, could be had with a high resolution 1680x1050 display, which in my view is the sweet spot for 15 inches.

If there were such a thing as a 3360x2100 retina, that would be awesome. Or 4K on a 17 inch perhaps?

I have used native resolution on my MacBook Pro but it was for a specialized application. I normally run 1920x1200. I have a 27 inch Dell 4K which I run at native resolution. It's a bit of effort to see but the resolution is useful for my trading. I think that QHD on a 17 inch would be great. 4K would be overkill on a 17-inch though I am looking at such a laptop. I'd run it in a scaled mode though. Perhaps at QHD.

 

[redheeler]

I've scaled my 2019 15" model to display content bigger. It's pretty big but I think it's better in some ways because it utilizes more of this massive screen.

If you've set it to "Looks like 1440 x 900" you're actually using the native resolution of the display. I always use this as the native resolution on my 2012 Retina MacBook Pro; the scaled resolutions are problematic in that elements become slightly blurry.

I wouldn't mind more screen space but Apple needs to increase the physical pixel count first. This is one of the things keeping me from upgrading to a newer model MacBook Pro, the physical pixel count is exactly the same as my current 7-year-old MacBook Pro.