Option to Change the REAL Resolution on a Retina MBP to 1440x900? (1/4)

[pismodude2]

Is there any third-party application or terminal command to change the actual resolution to 1440x900?

This is for when you want the same graphics performance offered on the low-resolution models. This would not be scaled (so none of the retina graphics would be used). Every four pixels would act as one pixel, and the screen and everything on it would look and act like a normal 15" MacBook Pro, with the same performance as well, because (and I cannot make this clear enough): I am talking about changing the actual resolution to a fully-downgraded version for intensive operations where retina quality would be detrimental to performance, and normal resolutions would be preferable (1440x900). With no scaling or retina graphics used like it offers out of box.

Is there a way to do that? Thank you.

 

[melterx12]

switchresX?

 

[iMacDragon]

Is there any third-party application or terminal command to change the actual resolution to 1440x900?

This is for when you want the same graphics performance offered on the low-resolution models. This would not be scaled (so none of the retina graphics would be used). Every four pixels would act as one pixel, and the screen and everything on it would look and act like a normal 15" MacBook Pro, with the same performance as well, because (and I cannot make this clear enough): I am talking about changing the actual resolution to a fully-downgraded version for intensive operations where retina quality would be detrimental to performance, and normal resolutions would be preferable (1440x900). With no scaling or retina graphics used like it offers out of box.

Is there a way to do that? Thank you.

Well, there would still be scaling, from 1440x900 to the full panel size. It would alas not look 'pin' sharp, as graphics cards seem to ignore perfect scaling factors and still apply filters to the scaling. The only reason they do on iphone/ipad is because apple take care of the scaling themselves.

It should be possibly to get the resolution using the same tools people are using to set 2880x1800 as the resolution, though.

 

[stevelam]

Is there any third-party application or terminal command to change the actual resolution to 1440x900?

This is for when you want the same graphics performance offered on the low-resolution models. This would not be scaled (so none of the retina graphics would be used). Every four pixels would act as one pixel, and the screen and everything on it would look and act like a normal 15" MacBook Pro, with the same performance as well, because (and I cannot make this clear enough): I am talking about changing the actual resolution to a fully-downgraded version for intensive operations where retina quality would be detrimental to performance, and normal resolutions would be preferable (1440x900). With no scaling or retina graphics used like it offers out of box.

Is there a way to do that? Thank you.

Um you do realize if it isn't scaled, 1440x900 will only be half the size of the screen right?

 

[brand]

Um you do realize if it isn't scaled, 1440x900 will only be half the size of the screen right?

I think it would be a fourth of the size, not half, of the physical screen.

 

[Slivortal]

Um you do realize if it isn't scaled, 1440x900 will only be half the size of the screen right?

It would be one-quarter of the screen, but I think the OP was talking about finding a way to treat each 4-pixel square on the RMBP as one giant pixel to "scale" it, as opposed to the current method, which is more graphically intense, but uses more graphics power.

 

[pismodude2]

It would be one-quarter of the screen, but I think the OP was talking about finding a way to treat each 4-pixel square on the RMBP as one giant pixel to "scale" it, as opposed to the current method, which is more graphically intense, but uses more graphics power.

This is precisely what I meant! Thank you for taking the time to read my original post!

Well, there would still be scaling, from 1440x900 to the full panel size.

The definition of "Scaling" as Apple uses it now simply refers to the ability to display retina-quality graphics in different sizes, in order to emulate a true change in resolution while still remaining truly 2880x1800 (if the actual resolution was 1440x900, it would not be possible for the computer to output higher-resolution graphics anywhere on the screen, everything would be pixel-doubled by 4:1 and less graphically intense at 1440x900 [or even 1050x1680 and others would work to some extent]).

Your display will never show your screen content in only 1/4 of the screen. On older Macintosh (or Windows, or anything else) computers, you can choose a lower resolution for internal or external monitors. This will then take up your full screen space, while only outputting what it would on a screen with that exact resolution. Technically, this may or may not be referred to as "scaling," but it does not maintain the graphically intense Apple-style of Retina MBP scaling.

Example: My mid-2010 MacBook Pro struggles to output 1920x1080 on my external monitor when playing games, so I lower the resolution to 1280x720, and it no longer struggles when I play games like Assassin's Creed 2.

 

[kfscoll]

Good question! I'm also curious as to whether/how this is possible.

 

[Fortimir]

So the OP wants to know if there's a way to flat-out make each group of four pixels act as one... essentially "pixel binning."

 

[jeremyshaw]

This is precisely what I meant! Thank you for taking the time to read my original post!




The definition of "Scaling" as Apple uses it now simply refers to the ability to display retina-quality graphics in different sizes, in order to emulate a true change in resolution while still remaining truly 2880x1800 (if the actual resolution was 1440x900, it would not be possible for the computer to output higher-resolution graphics anywhere on the screen, everything would be pixel-doubled by 4:1 and less graphically intense at 1440x900 [or even 1050x1680 and others would work to some extent]).

Your display will never show your screen content in only 1/4 of the screen. On older Macintosh (or Windows, or anything else) computers, you can choose a lower resolution for internal or external monitors. This will then take up your full screen space, while only outputting what it would on a screen with that exact resolution. Technically, this may or may not be referred to as "scaling," but it does not maintain the graphically intense Apple-style of Retina MBP scaling.

Example: My mid-2010 MacBook Pro struggles to output 1920x1080 on my external monitor when playing games, so I lower the resolution to 1280x720, and it no longer struggles when I play games like Assassin's Creed 2.

I know on windows, it was a not a plug and play process (gaming @ 1280x720 on a 2560x1440 monitor), since, as someone mentioned above, *something* still screwed with the scaling and applied filters over it, so it would be a blurry mess, instead of a perfect 4 pixels serving one pixel. I remember the same question was asked on [H] forums (a PC forum) before, and it got nowhere.

 

[pismodude2]

I know on windows, it was a not a plug and play process (gaming @ 1280x720 on a 2560x1440 monitor), since, as someone mentioned above, *something* still screwed with the scaling and applied filters over it, so it would be a blurry mess, instead of a perfect 4 pixels serving one pixel. I remember the same question was asked on [H] forums (a PC forum) before, and it got nowhere.

Hmm.. hopefully this question will become more relevant as time progresses. I am certain in a couple years the first Retina MacBook Pro will be known as "the one with the bad graphics card" because high-quality 2880x1800 games struggle a lot. Even if there was simply a way to trick the computer into thinking the display was 1440x900 for gaming (ex: just in one dedicated "gaming" boot camp partition) that would be immensely utilitarian.

Luckily, the Retina is way ahead of its time at the moment in this regard, so I don't see this issue needing a convenient solution for quite a while