Resolution?

[Ravich]

So given that OSX is resolution dependent, what do I need to know about the resolution on monitors I am considering buying?

I just took a look at a 27'' LG monitor, but the "recommended resolution" is the same as a 21.5'' iMac. There isnt much point in my having a big screen if it cant fit more stuff on it (I work in Logic).

What do I need to know?

 

[MisterMe]

Resolution is not determined by the size of the screen. Virtually every monitor manufacturer lists the "resolution" on the shipping box, a sticker on the screen, and within the documentation for the monitor. Have none of that? This information is available on the manufacturer's website.

What is given is really the pixel density such as 1920 x 1080. This is often called the "native resolution." You are not limited to this resolution. However, fixed-pixel monitors like LCD flat panels work best at their native resolutions.

 

[Ravich]

Does resolution alone determine how much "stuff" fits on the screen in OSX? I'm wondering how the hi res MBP 15'' screen works in this regard.

 

[lewis82]

Yes. OS X is not resolution independent. So basically, for the same screen size, the greater is the resolution, the smaller the UI elements will be. As a result, the more things you can fit in the screen.

In fact, you can make apps run at another resolution using Terminal commands. But it does not work very well.

 

[RubbishBBspeed]

Yep resolution is key, depending upon what you actually want the display for.

As stated already; native resolution is the better of any options given. The size of the display may not be an indication of better resolution and in part, this is where some large cheap monitors become a 'con'. If you're in-need of large working area, more space or to watch a film.

Years ago I had a 19" graphics CRT monitor, nothing special in that except it cost nearly £400 vs about £180 for a normal monitor. For word processing it served no advantage, watching DVD's gave no advantage but when scrolling out on a poster or AutoCad drawing the 1800*1600 resolution vs 1024*768 (or what ever it was, can't remember anymore) came into it's own.

It really comes down to what you need from the monitor, screen size, resolution, anti glare. etc but size is not always an indication about performance.

 

[Ravich]

Good to know, thanks for the info.

Is using terminal to make apps run at different resolutions problematic because of display issues or other types of functionality? Where can I read more about this?

Then what about the hi res option for MBP 15''? Are the UI elements just that much smaller?


I guess I'll just start hunting for the best resolution I can find for larger monitors. So far I dont think I've even found a 27'' monitor that has resolution any different from most 23'' monitors.

 

[lewis82]

Good to know, thanks for the info.

Is using terminal to make apps run at different resolutions problematic because of display issues or other types of functionality? Where can I read more about this?

Then what about the hi res option for MBP 15''? Are the UI elements just that much smaller?


I guess I'll just start hunting for the best resolution I can find for larger monitors. So far I dont think I've even found a 27'' monitor that has resolution any different from most 23'' monitors.

It doesn't work well because OS X is not yet ready for this, and neither are the apps.

Maybe in 10.7