For those questioning screen real-estate/size

[bobsaget123]

I had mentioned this in my other thread, but felt it could be helpful to post in its own thread as I know I had some concerns regarding this topic.

Before I had seen a new MacBook, I thought the 12'' screen would be a deal-breaker as I was coming from a non-retina 15''. I actually had no intentions in buying the new MacBook, however, I stopped by the Apple store to take a look and instantly knew it would be my new laptop. I think the thing that sold me was the fact that at the highest resolution (1440x900) on the new MacBook is actually the same as that on my old 15'' MacBook, and the screen real-estate is actually identical (things are just a bit smaller). Of course, having things smaller is a small sacrifice, but the new MacBook is so much lighter in my bag and easier to carry, as well as with a brilliant retina screen, which makes it a very fair trade-off in my opinion.

Anyways, wanted to include this comparison picture of the same website loaded up so you can get an idea of what convinced me to get the new MacBook, and I hope it helps some of you.

 

[snapper64]

Any chance you take another picture with the macbook resting on some paper or something so that the base of the displays line up?

I'm thinking of switching from my 15" Pro too

 

[blulegend]

I made the same switch. Going from 5.6lbs to a hair over 2lbs is amazing. The battery seems to last a similar amount of time unfortunately. I was hoping for it to be much longer but oh well. I'm also having a bit of trouble getting used to the 1440x900 on my rMB because it is a tad hard to see for me. Overall, a nice switch. Every once in a while, I think about that 13" MBA for more battery and a larger screen. But the retina and lighter package keeps the rMB ahead.

 

[xmichaelp]

Is there much difference in clarity between best for retina and scaled resolutions?

 

[TEBnewyork]

I made the same switch. Going from 5.6lbs to a hair over 2lbs is amazing. The battery seems to last a similar amount of time unfortunately. I was hoping for it to be much longer but oh well. I'm also having a bit of trouble getting used to the 1440x900 on my rMB because it is a tad hard to see for me. Overall, a nice switch. Every once in a while, I think about that 13" MBA for more battery and a larger screen. But the retina and lighter package keeps the rMB ahead.

The footprint of a MBA is actually bigger than a 13" MBP. I have them both and was very surprised. If I needed a new 13" machine today I would get the rMBP over the MBA. Never thought I would say that but the size of the MBP came down. Battery got better and of course you get the retina display which is WAY better. I replaced the 13" MBA with the 12 MacBook and I'm very happy about it.

 

[PDFierro]

I completely agree. I'm coming from the 13" rMBP and thought maybe a 12" display would be too small. But as soon as Istarted using it in the store, I knew I was wrong.

 

[matt2053]

Is there much difference in clarity between best for retina and scaled resolutions?

No, it isn't noticeable to me.

 

[ptdebate]

I think the thing that sold me was the fact that at the highest resolution (1440x900) on the new MacBook is actually the same as that on my old 15'' MacBook.

Wait, but I thought the native resolution of the rMB was 2304x1440, not 1440x900...

 

[PDFierro]

Wait, but I thought the native resolution of the rMB was 2304x1440, not 1440x900...

They were talking about the 'Looks like' resolution, which can indeed go up to 1440x900.

 

[Mcdevidr]

This thing is an amazing device, here is a shot of my desktop at 1920x1200. Runs great without slowdowns. Things are a bit small but I can't stop using it at this res it is great to have this many things open on such a small screen and have them this sharp.

 

[saifrc]

This thing is an amazing device, here is a shot of my desktop at 1920x1200. Runs great without slowdowns. Things are a bit small but I can't stop using it at this res it is great to have this many things open on such a small screen and have them this sharp.

This looks great. Which tool are you using to set this resolution? It looks like there are multiple options; not sure which is best. Thanks!

 

[Mcdevidr]

Switch res x. I can't imagine I'll keep it at that all the time but for doing side by side stuff it may eliminate me needing to use Duet.

 

[Nicky G]

I'm running in "apparently 1152 x 720" mode to get the crispest possible display, and frankly so far everything is fine. I don't feel constrained.

 

[3bs]

I'm running in "apparently 1152 x 720" mode to get the crispest possible display, and frankly so far everything is fine. I don't feel constrained.

What do you mean by crispest? I am on 1440x900 on mr 13" rMBP and I honestly can't tell the difference from the default 1280x800 other than the change in size of things obviously. I don't see any pixelation.

----------

I'm running in "apparently 1152 x 720" mode to get the crispest possible display, and frankly so far everything is fine. I don't feel constrained.

I only recently found out you can do this on retina screens and tbh I got used to the switch from 1280x800 > 1440x900 pretty fast. I'm not sure if your experience will be the same but I do suggest you give it at least a day to see if you can get used to it. I am using a 13" rMBP though so it makes a difference have a bigger overall screen with those dimensions.

 

[EnderTW]

I'm running in "apparently 1152 x 720" mode to get the crispest possible display, and frankly so far everything is fine. I don't feel constrained.

Hmm not technically true, even the 1152 x 720 mode is not a true 1/2th on the x and y. Apple is using their scaling software to simulate the resolution. Whereas the 13 inch mbpr had 2560 x 1600 which was a perfect 1280x800 (1/2 on x and y).

Honestly, Apple did such a good job you can't tell a difference either way.

I didn't explain that correctly, yes, if they offered a 1152 x 720, that would be the 1/2 split on x and y, but they don't, unless you're manually setting that? Which could be better. However Apple does a great job already, i would leave it as is. tbh.

 

[Beau10]

Hmm not technically true, even the 1152 x 720 mode is not a true 1/2th on the x and y. Apple is using their scaling software to simulate the resolution. Whereas the 13 inch mbpr had 2560 x 1600 which was a perfect 1280x800 (1/2 on x and y).

Err...

1152 * 2 = 2304
720 * 2 = 1440

2304 x 1440 is the native res.

 

[Nicky G]

Hmm not technically true, even the 1152 x 720 mode is not a true 1/2th on the x and y. Apple is using their scaling software to simulate the resolution. Whereas the 13 inch mbpr had 2560 x 1600 which was a perfect 1280x800 (1/2 on x and y).

Honestly, Apple did such a good job you can't tell a difference either way.

I didn't explain that correctly, yes, if they offered a 1152 x 720, that would be the 1/2 split on x and y, but they don't, unless you're manually setting that? Which could be better. However Apple does a great job already, i would leave it as is. tbh.

They DO offer an "apparent 1152 x 720" mode -- it's the scaling option one to the left of the "default" setting.

 

[212rikanmofo]

Switch res x. I can't imagine I'll keep it at that all the time but for doing side by side stuff it may eliminate me needing to use Duet.

Wow, 1920x1200 on the new MacBook? At this resolution can you still call it "RETINA"? I mean is it still sharp and clear?

 

[Nicky G]

What do you mean by crispest? I am on 1440x900 on mr 13" rMBP and I honestly can't tell the difference from the default 1280x800 other than the change in size of things obviously. I don't see any pixelation.

I do find the other modes to be a little more fuzzy than the 1/2 x, 1/2 y mode.

 

[Hieveryone]

Seems to be pretty decent real estate to me. 12" wasn't as small as I thought.

IMO there's not too much a difference between 12" and 13"

But there's a big diff between 12" and 11"

The 11" to me is just awful (MBA)

 

[Mcdevidr]

Wow, 1920x1200 on the new MacBook? At this resolution can you still call it "RETINA"? I mean is it still sharp and clear?

It's as sharp as the 15.4 at the same resolution. It's not as sharp as 1440x900. It is still decent though.

 

[vanimal]

Seems to be pretty decent real estate to me. 12" wasn't as small as I thought.

IMO there's not too much a difference between 12" and 13"

But there's a big diff between 12" and 11"

The 11" to me is just awful (MBA)

Maybe I'm adding wrong, but isn't the 11" 11.6"? So that would be closer to the 12". Where the 13 is 1.3" bigger than the 12" MBR.

I think i got that right. I have had a 13" MBA and a 11". And had a chance to play with the 12" MBR in store numerous times. I found the 13" screen to be Noticeably bigger than the MBR 12". The bigger bezels add to the equation but 1.3" adds up.

Off the top of my head i don't know all the resolution numbers, just physical screen to screen.