Does retina display fit more on the screen?

[dk808]

Hi guys, I currently own a 13 inch 2010 macbook pro. I havent had the chance to see a retina mbp in person but I was wondering how different the screen resolution is. The max resolution on my 13 inch mbp is 1280 x 800.

The resolution on the retina 2015 13 inch mbp is 2560 x 1600.

Does that mean the retina macbook pro will be able to fit more onto the screen compared to my 2010 mbp?

 

[PaulWog]

Hi guys, I currently own a 13 inch 2010 macbook pro. I havent had the chance to see a retina mbp in person but I was wondering how different the screen resolution is. The max resolution on my 13 inch mbp is 1280 x 800.

The resolution on the retina 2015 13 inch mbp is 2560 x 1600.

Does that mean the retina macbook pro will be able to fit more onto the screen compared to my 2010 mbp?

In terms of detail per unit of space on the screen, then yes. There will be more pixels on the screen. Don't expect to be more productive with 'more' on your screen. Think of the Retina display as an upgrade in screen quality. If fitting more on the screen is what you're worried about, then screen size is what you should be looking at.

The benefits of the Retina display really are these:
- Better colour (more vibrant, more accurate, good for professional work even)
- Better resolution (clearer/good clarity, you can't really see pixels at all so everything is in excellent definition)
- Probably some other stuff that I haven't thought off... energy efficient, etc

I have had the chance to compare the 13" Macbook Pro non-retina screen from 2010 to the 13" Macbook Pro Retina screen from 2015. The difference is substantial... the older non-retina screen looks washed out in comparison.

 

[abta1]

If you use a third party program to run the screen at the max resolution, then you can indeed fit a lot more on screen. However, everything will be very small.

 

[dk808]

In terms of detail per unit of space on the screen, then yes. There will be more pixels on the screen. Don't expect to be more productive with 'more' on your screen. Think of the Retina display as an upgrade in screen quality. If fitting more on the screen is what you're worried about, then screen size is what you should be looking at.

The benefits of the Retina display really are these:
- Better colour (more vibrant, more accurate, good for professional work even)
- Better resolution (clearer/good clarity, you can't really see pixels at all so everything is in excellent definition)
- Probably some other stuff that I haven't thought off... energy efficient, etc

I have had the chance to compare the 13" Macbook Pro non-retina screen from 2010 to the 13" Macbook Pro Retina screen from 2015. The difference is substantial... the older non-retina screen looks washed out in comparison.

I see, so the new retina screen will look much nicer but everything on screen will be the same size as my current mbp?

----------

If you use a third party program to run the screen at the max resolution, then you can indeed fit a lot more on screen. However, everything will be very small.

How do you like the mbp? Does it ever lag when you open apps or loading gifs? My current mbp lags like a mofo everytime gifs pop up :/

 

[leman]

You can run a 13" retina in 1680x1050 mode, so yes, it will give you substantially more real screen estate then the non-retina model. You can fit as much on its screen as you could with an older hi-res 15" MBP. And by using hacks you can run it in a higher resolution yet, but that is probably not practical for most people.

 

[JTToft]

I see, so the new retina screen will look much nicer but everything on screen will be the same size as my current mbp?

- By default yes, it will be the same size. I has exactly four times as high resolution but it also uses four times as many physical pixels for each user interface element as your current machine.

In System Preferences, you can change the effective resolution to up to 1680x1050 and get about 70 % more screen real estate.

 

[dk808]

- By default yes, it will be the same size. I has exactly four times as high resolution but it also uses four times as many physical pixels for each user interface element as your current machine.

In System Preferences, you can change the effective resolution to up to 1680x1050 and get about 70 % more screen real estate.

What screen resolution is default/recommended?

----------

You can run a 13" retina in 1680x1050 mode, so yes, it will give you substantially more real screen estate then the non-retina model. You can fit as much on its screen as you could with an older hi-res 15" MBP. And by using hacks you can run it in a higher resolution yet, but that is probably not practical for most people.

What resolution do you usually use?

 

[abta1]

What screen resolution is default/recommended?

Default is 1280x800. As others have said, this can be increased to 1680x1050 in system preferences and further if you use a third party program. However, the higher the res you run it at, the more likely you will encounter sluggishness.

I'm loving the rMBP, coming from a 2013 11" MBA. The screen is like night and day in terms of sharpness and quality. That was my main reason for upgrading, I was getting sick of the MBA screen, despite it's great portability. So far I haven't encountered any sluggishness at all running at the default resolution. I'm also liking the use of preview in Safari in combination with the force trackpad.

 

[Samuelsan2001]

What screen resolution is default/recommended?

----------



What resolution do you usually use?

the default setting is the same as your old MBP 1280 x 800. There are other settings that give 1440x900 and 1600 x 1050.

I mostly use default unless i need some large excel file or something up.

 

[dk808]

Thanks guys!

Im going to go to the apple store sometime this week and check them out

 

[leman]

What resolution do you usually use?

I don't own a 13" model But I run my 15" at 1680x1050, the 1920x1200 is a but too small for my eyes.

 

[Queen6]

On my 13: Retina I run the display scaled 100% of the time @ 1440x900, sometimes upping to 1680x1050. Being able to swap resolutions is one of the major benefits to Retina on the Mac.

Q-6

 

[T5BRICK]

I also run my 13" rMBP at 1680x1050 most of the time. I hear there is a slight performance hit, but I don't notice it.

 

[TechZeke]

I don't own a 13" model But I run my 15" at 1680x1050, the 1920x1200 is a but too small for my eyes.

1680 x 1050 is definitely the sweet spot on the 15". 1920x1200 gets a little small, but it's nice to have the option of 17" cMBP class real-estate when you need it.

 

[redheeler]

What resolution do you usually use?

Native 1280x800 HiDPI. It's enough screen space most of the time, and there is some quality loss with scaled resolutions. However, if you do decide to run it at a scaled resolution, it will still look a lot crisper than a non-retina MBP.

 

[darngooddesign]

In terms of detail per unit of space on the screen, then yes. There will be more pixels on the screen. Don't expect to be more productive with 'more' on your screen.

I disagree. In Photoshop, for example, I had more space for the actual image because the palettes were smaller; and since there was more vertical space so I could see more layers. By the same token, you can fit two windows next to each other where they would normally overlap. I suppose it depends on what you do, but I found myself more productive because there was less zooming and scrolling.

 

[Naio]

Native 1280x800 HiDPI. It's enough screen space most of the time, and there is some quality loss with scaled resolutions. However, if you do decide to run it at a scaled resolution, it will still look a lot crisper than a non-retina MBP.

Have you turned off LCD font smoothing?

I always hated how "fuzzy" text looked when using any resolution that wasn't 'Best for Retina', but turning off LCD font smoothing made a huge difference. Text no longer looks "fuzzy" when using 'Scaled'.

I'm currently running with a 1536 x 960 resolution and I love it.