IMHO, The best (retina) setting looks awful. Too big..

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Alexjones, Nov 6, 2013.

  1. Alexjones, Nov 6, 2013
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2013

    Alexjones macrumors 6502

    May 28, 2010
    I think Apple should of made the display setting 1650x 1050 the best (retina) setting. Again, Just my opinion. Any thoughts?
  2. ano0oj macrumors 6502

    Apr 20, 2010
    agreed...stopped using Retina display settings after the first day, changed it to 1650
  3. shortcut3d macrumors 65816

    Aug 24, 2011
    How is the lag at 1650 over the long haul?

    I've noticed it primarily opening Disk Utilities and randomly in Launch Pad.
  4. Shubbeh macrumors member

    Nov 2, 2013
    I'm very interested to know this as well, as the 13" rMBP's native resolution of "pretty 1280x800" has me concerned that I'd lose real estate from my 11" MBA's 1366x768.
    I'd also be interested to know the same thing about the performance at 1440x900 as that's the native resolution of the 13" MBA and I'm hesitating between the MBA and the rMBP at this point.
  5. AlecMyrddyn macrumors 6502

    Dec 5, 2008
    Southern Maine
    I agree, I think both the 13" and 15" should bump up their panels. 2880x1800 for the 13" would be great, and 3300x2100 on the 15 too. Maybe in the next couple years Apple will consider it.
  6. shortcut3d macrumors 65816

    Aug 24, 2011
    So far I've never experienced UI lag at 1440 in the two days since receiving the rMBP. I really prefer 1650, so I've been trying to get over the UI lag. It seems to be in certain utilities and Launch Pad.
  7. chrizzz09 macrumors regular

    May 18, 2013
    Are these other resolutions really better?

    I tried setting my 13" to this higher res but it looks little blurry compared to the best for retina option ( in terms of text sharpness etc.)

    Or is it just a matter of time until my eyes get use to it?
  8. mankymanning macrumors regular

    Jul 18, 2008
    A few years back I would have said 1440x900 was too low but these days I like it in Retina. Perhaps my eyes are getting worse as I get older but it is ceratinly more acceptable to me in Retina format than old school low-res 1440x900.
  9. AlecMyrddyn macrumors 6502

    Dec 5, 2008
    Southern Maine
    Best for Retina is always going to look the best in terms of clarity. The other resolutions display more information on the screen, at a cost of some blurriness.

    "Better" depends on the user.
  10. FrozenDarkness macrumors 65816

    Mar 21, 2009
    i haven't had any issues running 1440x900 on 13".
  11. mangotears macrumors member

    Jun 29, 2012
    I think most people would prefer the 1650x1050 resolution. I'm guessing Apple just had to make a compromise. The lower resolution screen had 3 things going for it (easier to read/more usable for a bigger range of people, cheaper to manufacture, better performance), versus 1 for the natively higher res retina screen (more real estate)
  12. mthos macrumors member

    Oct 23, 2013
    I use my 15" Haswell rMPB at 1920x1200... I prefer the extra real estate and it doesn't bother me in the slightest, nor have I noticed any kind of "UI lag" people are talking about. It could be the Iris Pro 5200 with the 128mb eDRAM though, over other people with Air's or 13" 5000/5100.

    Looks and works great for me. Use whatever works great for you. :D
  13. ano0oj macrumors 6502

    Apr 20, 2010
    haven't notice any issues as of yet...and to me looks just as sharp
  14. auero macrumors 65816

    Sep 15, 2006
    Surprisingly I find myself using "best". I just switched over from a 17" mbp. When I'm doing work in photoshop or coding I'll change it to a higher resolution but otherwise the "best" setting is more comfortable for me otherwise. Truthfully, I was expecting to bump the resolution as soon as I opened it up because I was afraid that I'd have trouble converting to a 15".
  15. johnnylarue macrumors 6502a

    Aug 20, 2013
    I do generally like the 'Best for Retina' setting for reading long articles/documents. Easier on the eyes. But for working/multitasking, 1920x1200 is where it's at.
  16. edfoo macrumors 6502

    Oct 31, 2013
    What do you mean by "too big"? Do you mean the icons and text are too big? Personally I think those icons and text size is fine on my 13" rMBP, no noticeable difference from my early-2008 white Macbook (with screen res of 1280x800). I would not want them to be any smaller and having to squint at my screen.
  17. akdj macrumors 65816


    Mar 10, 2008
    I run my 2012/2.7/16 in 1920. Either I'm used to it or it's not there. This thing flies. And since the Mavericks update, the shut down is two or three seconds!

    I've never noticed ANY 'blurriness'. I run as mentioned earlier @1920/1200 and it's quite the opposite of 'blurry'. It's impressive, still after a year of usage the clarity of these displays.

    Right with you. On an older machine;)

  18. kh3khalid macrumors regular

    Dec 2, 2012
    My brother received his 15" rmbp today and when I first looked at it I was shocked. I immediately told him to set it to 1650x1050 (I have a High-Res cMBP).
  19. nateo200 macrumors 68030


    Feb 4, 2009
    Northern District NY
    The best for retina option should have been 1680x1050...1440x900 looks clear but is way to big for a 15" screen...I mean the Matte cMBP High res screen at 1680x1050 is perfect resolution wise. I run at 1920x1200 and don't have any lag issues at all...I tried 1440x900 but it felt terrible even coming from a 1280x800 13" cMBP....Unfortunetly 1440x900 plays into the fact that the panel is 2880x1800 so math is in the game but 1920x1200 looks great, I liked 1680x1050 but it was slightly less clear and I really enjoy a full HD screen.
  20. Alexjones thread starter macrumors 6502

    May 28, 2010
    1650x1050 was the preferred resolution of of my 2012 MBP w/o retina. Nothing wrong with the best ( retina) setting, It just looks makes everything look a little "fluffy"
  21. Macshroomer macrumors 65816


    Dec 6, 2009
    I just don't get the 1680 x 1050 setting, my god is that small, too much eye-strain and I need my eyes for my living as a photographer.

    I am using mine on Best for Display ( Retina ) and it looks plenty sharp. I do get more thumbnails in using the higher setting with Capture One Media Pro or Photo Mechanic but I can effectively do the same thing by shrinking the thumbnail size.

    I'm not sure I am understanding the need to go to scaled display settings, especially how small things are at 1680x1050...
  22. Mac.User macrumors 6502

    Aug 25, 2013
    On both the 13 i have for work and my personal 15in I set them for 1920x1200 since it matches my external display resolution and it looks great for me on both screen sizes.
  23. actuallyinaus macrumors regular

    Feb 13, 2013
    this is why 4k igzo is going to be amazing, we can run it at hdpi giving us 1920x1200 and everything will be clear, 1920x1200 looks a bit blurry currently
  24. Doward macrumors 6502a

    Feb 21, 2013
    Strange, my 1920x1200 resolution is crisp, sharp, anti-glare, and everything is well sized.

    Oh wait, silly me, that's because I'm on a 17" MBP, not a rMBP ;)

    Now a Retina 17"....

    OT, I compared my 17" Anti-glare vs a 15" 2012 rMBP, and had a very difficult time with it. At 1920x1200, everything was too small, and at 'best of retina' it looked amazing - just not enough real estate.
  25. dgdosen macrumors 65816


    Dec 13, 2003
    Another vote for 1920x1200 for the 13" - Looks great to me. Just make sure to use f.lux for nighttime...

Share This Page