Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Poll: What resolution are you using with your RMBP?
- Thread starter juicywaterhouse
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So, you're saying that the scaled 1680x1050 display looks worse to you than the native 1680x1050 HiRes (sincere question)? That's interesting--I'm quite puzzled by that. I compared them side by side in the Apple store and the Retina looked noticeably sharper/crisper to me. Of course--I'm talking about when running apps that have been optimized for the new display--not in Safari viewing non-optimized websites or when viewing non-updated applications, where of course the native HiRes is sharper.
i run a full 2880x1800. no scaling... a lot of people can't stand that high of a res, but I can use it. i made a lot of modifications so fonts are bigger and such, and I like it.
If you want an easy app you can double click and run to just knock your screen to its true highest res....
http://wineskin.doh123.com/Special/SetRes.app.zip
if you stick it in your user startup items it'll fix it for you on log in since OSX will knock you back to scaled 1440x900 on reboot.
you need to find the gfxCardStatus 2.2 version... i found a beta of it that seems to work, but the normal 2.1 download version won't work on the Retina.
You are incorrect. You do not understand how Apple does their scaling. You think someone saying "i'm running 1920x1200" is really running a lower res on their panel and they are not. All the options Apple gives you still run a fully native 2880x1800, you cannot change that without a 3rd party program. All of the scaling or getting things scaled to look right on 2880x1800. If your running the normal 1440x900 setting, your really running 2880x1800, and all non-Retina apps are quadrupling their pixels so it looks and works like a 1440x900 screen, but Retina apps use every pixel of the 2880x1800. Now if you choose the highest scaling they allow (the one that "looks like 1920X1200") then OSX is actually rendering everything at 3840x2400, and then scaling it down to fit in the completely native 2880x1800 screen, but its all scaled in a size so it would be around the same size if it really was a 1920x1200 screen... but the screen is really running 2880x1800. This is MUCH MUCH different than just like taking a 1920x1200 monitor and running it at 1440x900 where it can't draw it pixel for pixel right and things look bad.
I'm saying the default best for Retina display option (1440x900) looks better to me than any of the scaled options including 1680x1050. Pictures look fantastic no matter what... but text, icons, and such look significantly better to be in the default non-scaled setting. I just need to look at the dock when I toggle and the difference is clear.
I apologize -- I completely misread your post. My bad-guess I'm tired. I totally agree with that. I need the screen real estate, so I have to run at 1680x01050 or higher, like you mentioned. It almost hurts when I toggle back to the "Best for Retina" setting because it's so crisp! So you can definitely tell, like you said. Just don't ever toggle back to the "Best for Retina" setting! Ignorance is bliss! Ha
when you say the retina still looks sharper than the original MBP, is that in OSX only? is this the case in fullscreen applications in osx (games)? and what happens if you leave osx? because since the fancy scaling is happening in osx, I can only imagine what happens when you take the 2880x1800 resolution in windows and scales it down to 1680x1050 >.< ?
At that point youd just turn DPI scaling on at 175%. Not nearly as well executed in Windows as it is in OS X, but accomplishes the same rough goal.
fullscreen programs as far as i can tell do not use Apple scaling and really change the resolution of the screen. I'm sure games can be updated to not do that... but I haven't seen any. so if you set a game to run at 1680x1050, it'll really change the screen to that. Luckily since the pixels are so tiny, if you sit at a decent distance it doesn't look as bad as most monitors doing this, but its still not as god as a true 1680x1050 screen. if all your going to do with a Retina MBP is play fullscreen games, you better be able to run them at 2880x1800 so they look awesome, otherwise your wasting your money getting that screen. Most people getting a Retina screen probably won't use it primarily for a lot of fullscreen gaming.
Having run Skyrim at 1920 x 1200 on my MBPR with all the goodies on already, I have to say it looks really good. Is it perfect? No. But its not horrible. Its a fair sight better than running a lower res game on my iMacs panel, for sure. So I think even someone who does a lot of full screen gaming will be pretty pleased with the MBPReven when theyre not running games at the native panel res.
Yes, what I said was meant to apply for OSX only, not games or Windows 7. Windows 8 is supposed to support HiDPI displays though, so it probably looks awesome on the rMBP.
Eh, at the moment it uses the exact same DPI scaling as Windows 7 does, so it doesn’t look measurably better than W7 does now. Perhaps that’ll change before release, but I’m not holding my breath.
Ah, I just assumed they reworked it or provided additional functionality for Win 8. Thanks for the clarification.
W
WarrenFields
Guest
First off, no retina macbook out-of-the-box is allowing you to change resolution at all. So everyone is running at the same 2880x1800 resolution, all the time.
There is a setting in every single windows installation for every video card and for every monitor that you an adjust, it is called "DPI"... all thats being changed by users in OS X is the equivalent to that setting. Which simply increases fonts and bar sizes to make the high dpi screen give the OS UI some reasonable modes.
Windows equivalent:
http://www.lawfirmsoftware.com/learning_center/howto/dpi_settings_xp.JPG
Notice the 'looks like' message under the laptop picture here:
http://asia.cnet.com/story_media/62216502/main_600x450.jpg
Even when changing 'resolution' all apple says is this scaled mode 'looks like 1920x1200' etc... it 'looks like'. It isn't. It has just increased some font sizes and such (all of which are already vectorized so they look great when scaled up in OS X), to make them physically appear the same size they would have if you were running on a low-dpi screen at that res.
Today I started using the 1680 x 1050. I like it. For the past week I had been using the "Best for Retina" setting.