thats only the normal desktop settings. Fullscreen games and such can adjust the true resolution, as well as 3rd party apps that can adjust the true resolution... so no you are not always stuck in 2880x1800 with a scaled desktop, thats just Apples default and what options they give you in Display System Preferences.
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
thats only the normal desktop settings. Fullscreen games and such can adjust the true resolution, as well as 3rd party apps that can adjust the true resolution... so no you are not always stuck in 2880x1800 with a scaled desktop, thats just Apples default and what options they give you in Display System Preferences.
yeah, but in game resolution is different. You can set a game to a lower resolution than the screen can handle....but in the OS it is always 2880x1800.
Performance hit relative to what? There's no 15" non-retina that has the rMBP's larger battery, overlocked graphics card, and higher VRAM (1GB vs. 512MB in the base 15" pros)?
I'm using 1920x1200 (having two full browsers open is very productive <3
However 1440x800 is so damn sharp and crisp! If there was some way of shrinking the ui a little bit I would run this resolution all say everyday!
Until apps get optimized for retina display (ui and workspace becomes resolution independent) I'll keep running 1920x1200.
However 1440x800 is so damn sharp and crisp! If there was some way of shrinking the ui a little bit I would run this resolution all say everyday!
Until apps get optimized for retina display (ui and workspace becomes resolution independent) I'll keep running 1920x1200.
no, its not... just like a game can change the resolution, other programs can also do so. yes you can run your normal Mac desktop in 640x480 if you want to, with no scaling. it is NOT stuck in 2880x1800 with scaling, that is just the built in options Apple gives you. There are 3rd party apps that lets you change things in a way that Apple doesn't let you in the main settings.
try this one
http://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/vi9yf/set_your_retina_macbook_pros_resolution_to/
Except that the "best for retina" display option is really using 2880 x 1800--only text is scaled so that it is the same size as a 1440 x 900. Retina optimized software works great. Non-retina software like MS Word looks pretty fuzzy. Curiously, MS Outlook looks great.
Last edited:
It is a huge Dilema for me.
My workflow can be done on both 1440 and 1920. However obviously 1920 makes life a little easier but not dramatically so with the increased desk space.
I SO want to use 1440x900 but I find myself drawn to the 1920.
It's becoming a disorder the amount of times I switch between 1440 best for retina and 1920....
Anyone else torn between these 2 and switch multiple times a day....Damn you Apple
My workflow can be done on both 1440 and 1920. However obviously 1920 makes life a little easier but not dramatically so with the increased desk space.
I SO want to use 1440x900 but I find myself drawn to the 1920.
It's becoming a disorder the amount of times I switch between 1440 best for retina and 1920....
Anyone else torn between these 2 and switch multiple times a day....Damn you Apple
What causes the fuzziness exactly with regards to the scaling? I'm just confused because it has more pixels in use when set to a resolution like the cmbp which should make the screen clear and none fuzzy right? I don't quiet understand how the rmbp's scaling works still. Also how many pixels are actually being used at the best for retina setting?
Relative to the fact the MBP doesn't have to waste a ton of cpu/gpu/battery resources just to power a retina screen properly.
Last edited:
I have windows 8 installed via parallels 7 which supports retina display. It doesn't look sharp at all.
That's because Parallels' "retina support" is broken. Try switching the mac to 2880x1800 and then running Windows 8. Or run it natively.
The only reason I don't use the "higher" resolution modes, is because they are simulated modes. The "Best for Retina" mode makes UI elements look 1440x900 in size, but renders everything using the full 2880x1800 resolution. The other two modes are simulated and you really don't get to take full advantage of the native resolution for the UI, although it gives you more screen real estate. It is kind of a false resolution, a non-native setting. The 2880x1800 hack uses the full resolution and renders the UI at this resolution, but the UI elements are so small I find it unusable.
It would be nice to have a 1680x1050 "Best for Retina where the panel resolution was 3360x2100 -- maybe we will have to wait for that!
It would be nice to have a 1680x1050 "Best for Retina where the panel resolution was 3360x2100 -- maybe we will have to wait for that!
I really enjoy running it at the native 2880x1800 using the SetResX app. I use it mainly for photo editing. Occasionally I switch to Best Retina in the evenings as my eyes start to tire out by then.
sorry but running 2880 natively on a 15" screen is a horrible idea. i'll just wait till parallels gets updated.
Using a laptop that you can't stop criticizing is a horrible idea too- that doesn't seem to have stopped you.
In all seriousness, what does it matter how usable OS X is while you're using Windows 8? You'd only be setting it to 2880 so that you don't get a blurry experience with the virtual OS. Once you're done, you can just set it back to whatever resolution you typically use. Not a perfect solution, but it's better than dealing with poorly rendered images.
And even in OSX 2880 isn't all that bad if you have decent eyes. It's no worse than browsing websites completely unzoomed on the iPhone 4/4S. (Which I personally do all the time)
I have good eyes, so I run native when stand alone.
My docked setup is a 27" Cinema display on Displayport and a 1920x1200 on HDMI. In that config, it is too far away to use natively, but fine at 1920x1200.
I'm really thinking of selling my Cinema Display to get one with Thunderbolt, I'm just not sure how much I could get for it and how much more I'd have to spend.
My docked setup is a 27" Cinema display on Displayport and a 1920x1200 on HDMI. In that config, it is too far away to use natively, but fine at 1920x1200.
I'm really thinking of selling my Cinema Display to get one with Thunderbolt, I'm just not sure how much I could get for it and how much more I'd have to spend.
Have you even used parallels or windows 8? Even at 2880 res in parallels it still looks bad.
I've used Windows 8 - though I dual boot. It looks fine to me.
I don't own Parallels, but based on other peoples' experience, it works fine at 2880.
Just got a macbook retina - still debating between leaving it on Retina (Best) and the one next to it, to the right.