Resolved Does running the MBPr at its native resolution resolve lag issues?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Edswr, Jul 8, 2012.

  1. Edswr, Jul 8, 2012
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2012

    Edswr macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2012
    #1
    As I wait for my baby to arrive, I plan to run it at its native resolution at least as a trial.

    I'm wondering whether the native resolution runs smooth as it doesn't require rendering at a higher resolution like the "More Space" settings and then downscaling.

    My guess is it's just the same as the recommended resolution set by Apple, better than the rendered+downscaled resolutions. Is this wrong?
     
  2. Free Ale macrumors member

    Free Ale

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2012
    #2
    I am running the base version right now actually. Also, I am using the native resolution. There is an update that was like 1gb. It did help and makes the system pretty close to flawless, and I know ML will also help!
     
  3. Edswr thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2012
  4. cathyy macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    #4
    Is there a way to run it at native resolution? (2880x1800)

    When I played with the MBPr at a shop they only gave me the following options:

    1024x600, 1280x,800, 1440x900 (best), 1680x1050, 1920x1200


    Regardless I didn't notice any lag issues at any of the resolutions though so you might not notice any either.
     
  5. gentlefury macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2011
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #5
    The rMBP is ALWAYS at 2880x1800. The scalable formats are NOT resolution changes....only scaling options for UI...that is ALL!

    the standard setting (looks like 1440x900) is using UI elements that are 4x larger than normal. So when they are scaled up they look amazing. 3rd party apps look like crap, because they are being scaled.

    If you find a 3rd party app to disable scaling, it might run a little faster, (not very likely) and nothing will be readable at that res.
     
  6. Ap0ks macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Location:
    Cambridge, UK
    #6
    That's over-exaggerated, the screen at native res is readable providing you have good eyes or sit closer. However it probably won't do your eyes any good long term ;)
     
  7. Xian Zhu Xuande macrumors 6502a

    Xian Zhu Xuande

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    #7
    I've heard that there are some lag issues of some sort or another at the highest resolution but I can't comment on that—I don't like using a computer with such small interface elements so I haven't given it a proper shot.

    As for the default resolution and the other steps up, the 'lag issues', as far as I can tell, are a product of concern from a review worried over by people who don't own the machine. At the next step up from default resolution the machine runs sexy-smooth for me and any worthwhile 'stutter' I may have encountered is nothing of the sort I even cared to take notice of or work to resolve.

    My advice would be to give it a shot first, as you would like to use it, and see if anything bothers you at all in the first place. And if it's no trouble, let us know what you think when you do. :)
     
  8. Xian Zhu Xuande macrumors 6502a

    Xian Zhu Xuande

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    #8
    I know some folks love this idea, but to be honest, I think many people significantly underestimate the productivity boost when everything on the interface is of a size that it can be recognized, read, and interacted with without any extended effort. It may not seem like much, but over time it adds up to extra mental fatigue, which is an issue of someone is working on the machine for eight hours. What people who use Mac laptops really should do is become more familiar with the OS X windows management features. They're phenomenal.
     
  9. Edswr thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2012
    #9
    True say. I will be coming from a 17in Windows laptop, and what appeals to me is having everything viewable at the same time.
    Perhaps the windows management will remove the need for having stuff side by side or tiled.
     
  10. gentlefury macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2011
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #10
    btw, if you are referring to safari when you say lag concerns...it is a safari issue...not a computer issue. My Mac Pro also lags like crazy in safari. It's how it is rendering pages. Doesn't matter what computer you are using.
     
  11. Ap0ks macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Location:
    Cambridge, UK
    #11
    I don't use native resolution because as you say it does increase fatigue on both the eyes and mind, was just pointing out that it's not completely unreadable. I myself use the "looks like 1920x1200(?)" setting as I'm used to that resolution on most other 15" laptops I've used and it provides a nice balance between screen estate and readability.
     
  12. houkouonchi macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    #12
    Maybe you are under-estimating how perfectly comfortable it is to some.

    I have been using a 204 PPI monitor (on linux/x-windows set at 75 DPI so even smaller than MAC os X) for many years 40 hours a week. My eye site deterioration rate has actually decreased since then (has more to do with age and my eyes stabilizing) and I have had absolutely no problem using this configuration for an extended period of time.

    Anyway to answer the OP UI responsiveness seemed very good at native resolution. significantly better than the upscaled -> downscaled modes with HiDPI.
     
  13. Xian Zhu Xuande, Jul 8, 2012
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2012

    Xian Zhu Xuande macrumors 6502a

    Xian Zhu Xuande

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    #13
    Yep. It is definitely readable. It is amazing how clear text can be on this display (though people who have used a HiDPI device before probably have an idea what to expect).

    Not really. I know plenty of people who do it regularly and they are indeed comfortable with it. That said, unless they have unusual eyesight which actually favors it, they're opposing the natural conditions which are best suited to the human eye. And I mentioned window management because the people I know who work exclusively with large screens or super high resolutions unusually haven't learned to use it well because it isn't important when you can fit everything on the screen at once.

    I mentioned nothing about eyesight because, in most cases, it is absurd for someone to assume changes in their eyesight have a strong relation to their screen, especially now that screen refresh rates are no longer a factor. Correlation does not imply causation, as is said. We've got too many other factors playing into the quality of our eyesight and studies about resolution, squinting, and eyesight aren't consistent with their findings.
     
  14. TheMacBookPro macrumors 68020

    TheMacBookPro

    Joined:
    May 9, 2008
    #14
    Just to answer the question, yes, you can set the resolution to 2880x1800. Just use an app like Retina DisplayMenu (formerly SetResX)
     
  15. BB.King macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Location:
    London UK
    #15
    What about running the screen at 2560x1600 resolution with 3rd party hack?
     
  16. terraphantm macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2009
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    #16
    Would there be any disadvantage to say... running it at 2880x1800 with no scaling, and then just increasing the icon sizes and font sizes in whatever apps you may be using? That way things would be of a readable size while also not having the overhead of HiDPI scaling
     
  17. Xian Zhu Xuande macrumors 6502a

    Xian Zhu Xuande

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    #17
    In terms of the interface, I suppose it would depend on the application and how a person used it. If a person interacted with it solely through text and keyboard shortcuts there's no need to even bother with its GUI elements and menus on a meaningful level. On the other hand, if many elements of the app can't be resized, or the app doesn't have great keyboard shortcut support (even of you can create keyboard shortcuts for the menus there may be nothing you can do with other interface elements, such as GUI menus in photography and image editing apps) you're only solving part of the problem.

    If the computer can be set up to perform specific tasks comfortably, though, say for someone who uses it for a specific line of work, that might work well.

    I just wonder about the whole exercise, though. Sure, someone can go through all that trouble to make individual applications usable at such an absurdly high resolution (relative to screen size) but ultimately they won't be as usable as the app would be at a size more compatible with our senses. And what's the benefit? Fitting more on the screen at once? I think a very good argument could be made that navigating between applications and content with a keyboard is significantly faster than using a mouse, and one can use a keyboard in OS X to jump between screen-monopolizing applications and separate spaces with incredible speed and efficiency if only they familiarize themselves with the involved features and processes.

    It was a learning experience for me when I went from using my cinema display to my mobile (recently sold) 13" MBP. I had to reimagine how I used my computer because I simply couldn't get things done in the way I once had on my massive monitor. But I learned and became familiar with it, and oddly now, back on my Mac Pro, I have absolutely no desire to manage my window sizes so I can tile different things on my screen. It's just so much easier to use the window management features in OS X.

    The only other consideration that comes to mind with using a third-party app to run the RMBP at native resolution would be whether it still carries out that screen-doubling-downzising routine. If so, that could have a legitimate impact on performance as well (even if small, it's another thing that adds up over time). But that should actually be a non-issue if that process is abandoned.
     
  18. AlexanderFC macrumors member

    AlexanderFC

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Location:
    Kittanning, Pennsylvania
    #18
    running the computer at the non-scaled 2880x1800 removes all lag, although everything is almost too small to read.
     
  19. Edswr thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2012
    #19
    This was the answer I was looking for.
    Thank you
     
  20. AlexanderFC macrumors member

    AlexanderFC

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Location:
    Kittanning, Pennsylvania
    #20
    You're welcome, it's just that Lion isn't really optimized (currently) to readily scale graphics on the go. It puts way too much conisistent stress on the CPU/GPU.

    Mountain Lion addresses this, with what I've heard, vector drawables, and is supposed to increase the scalability of the OS.

    The other posts are correct, what you see currently is just 2880x1800 with different DPI levels dependent on whichever scaled resolution you choose. But if you can read the 2880x1800 in OS X, it's seriously an incredible performance boost over the scaled resolutions. I use 2880x1800 in Windows and it's actually bearable to use at the "Medium" DPI setting.
     

Share This Page