Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
64,344
32,160



Just released earlier tonight, Apple's OS X Mavericks 10.9.3 beta appears to have built-in support that enables all compatible 4K displays to be set at a "Retina" resolution, with an option for 60Hz output. The compatibility was first discovered by Twitter user @KhaosT, and was tested with both the Late 2013 Retina MacBook Pro and redesigned Mac Pro in conjunction with Dell's UltraSharp 24 Ultra HD Monitor.

osx_1093_4k_support-800x493.jpg
To this point, OS X compatibility with 4K displays has been known to be somewhat erratic, as AnandTech revealed in December that Sharp's 32'' 4K display supported only one scaled resolution at 2560 x 1440. Furthermore, it was discovered that Apple had chosen to render text, menu and UI elements in the same manner as the Retina MacBook Pro, resulting in small and difficult to read on-screen elements on a 4K display. Various other 4K monitors were also found to be not properly supported.

Native support for 4K displays could also indicate that Apple is gearing up to release a higher-resolution Thunderbolt Display, as Apple last refreshed the monitor over two years ago. A number of other companies also introduced more affordable 4K displays at CES 2014 in January, with options from the likes of Lenovo, Asus, Seiki, and LG expected to hit the market throughout this year.


Article Link: OS X Mavericks 10.9.3 Beta Contains Native 'Retina' Resolution Option for 4K Displays
 

Watabou

macrumors 68040
Feb 10, 2008
3,425
755
United States
You guys would really pay a thousand bucks for a monitor? :eek:

Sure for a good quality one. I've had my share of LG and Dell displays and they're the worst. Washed out colors, blurriness, etc.

Well, let's hope it does actually start at $1000 and not higher, eh?
 

islade

macrumors newbie
Mar 6, 2014
26
8
Can anyone confirm compatibility with dell 31.5" 4k display?

And just to confirm, I can run at a virtual 2560x1440, which will be rendered at 5120x2880 internally then scaled to 2160p for monitor display, right?

Just checking as I have a Mac Pro on order, and am seriously looking at the dell monitor.

Thanks
 

ionjohn

macrumors 65816
Jun 5, 2013
1,185
10
Canada
Sure for a good quality one. I've had my share of LG and Dell displays and they're the worst. Washed out colors, blurriness, etc.

Well, let's hope it does actually start at $1000 and not higher, eh?

lol funny how you say that, apple panels are probably from lg haha
 

macnisse

macrumors 6502
Jun 26, 2010
395
1
"...indicate that Apple is gearing up to release a higher-resolution Thunderbolt Display..."

Ok man, can't wait to check it out and compare with the other displays out there. And, PLEASE, give us a true matte option! :D
 

Watabou

macrumors 68040
Feb 10, 2008
3,425
755
United States
lol funny how you say that, apple panels are probably from lg haha

Sure. Have you actually used an LG display? Compare that to a LG, yes, LG Display ACD. The difference is pretty astonishing. I'm not sure how Apple does it but the ACD are just better to look at.
 

LunaticSX

macrumors newbie
May 26, 2011
17
2
Note that the distance needed for the pixels on a 32" 2560x1440 display to not be visible to the average person ("Retina," in Apple terms) is 37.5". Most people don't sit that far away from their monitors.

For a 4K display to fit Apple's definition of "Retina" you'd want something like a 21" display at a more typical viewing distance of 24".
 

iamMacPerson

macrumors 68040
Jun 12, 2011
3,488
1,927
AZ/10.0.1.1
Kinda sad Apple releases a full 4k compatible computer THEN updates the OS. Oh well. At least its there.

Here come the "When will OS X 10.9.3 will be released?" threads. :rolleyes:
 

n-evo

macrumors 68000
Aug 9, 2013
1,806
1,614
Amsterdam
Personally I don't understand why Apple won't enable this for all screens. My mom really wants an iMac but with her eyes interface elements are just too small. Lowering the resolution or magnifying makes everything look blurry (waste of the iMac's screen) and increasing text size won't affect the interface.
 

laserbeam273

macrumors 6502
Sep 7, 2010
424
0
Australia
Can anyone confirm compatibility with dell 31.5" 4k display?

And just to confirm, I can run at a virtual 2560x1440, which will be rendered at 5120x2880 internally then scaled to 2160p for monitor display, right?

Just checking as I have a Mac Pro on order, and am seriously looking at the dell monitor.

Thanks

Yeah I'm keen to know what exact dimensions they'll be. Usable desktop of 2560x1440 at 2x is awesome, but if it's just 1920x1080, then as pretty as it'll look, I'll have to pass. Hopefully they'll be 30" screens... that'd be nice.

lol funny how you say that, apple panels are probably from lg haha

True, however one thing that makes me want to trade out my Dell monitors is the "antiglare" screen. The sandpaper texture means I lose accuracy of working with pixels. It's really rough! So keen for a glossy Mac thunderbolt display.
 

Serban

Suspended
Jan 8, 2013
5,159
928
i don't think this means Apple 4K display...its just an additional option in Maveriks
 

mw360

macrumors 68020
Aug 15, 2010
2,054
2,453
Note that the distance needed for the pixels on a 32" 2560x1440 display to not be visible to the average person ("Retina," in Apple terms) is 37.5". Most people don't sit that far away from their monitors.

For a 4K display to fit Apple's definition of "Retina" you'd want something like a 21" display at a more typical viewing distance of 24".

I don't follow. If the ratio 32"/37.5" qualities for retina at only 2.5K pixels, then the very similar 21"/24" ratio would also be 'retina' at only 2.5K pixels. At 4K you could have a 32" screen at 24" distance.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.