Retina macbook at native resolution

Too little workplace for my needs, running mine at 1440x900

Q-6

 

How is that relevant to this thread? Maybe I'm missing something.

 

More so than your reply!

Integer resolutions are the best, but Apple's system does a remarkably good job at making the other resolutions look great. I'm using http://www.pupil.io as a quick resolution switcher, generally at 1680x1050 as I find anything less to require a lot more scrolling than I like. For me the whole point of a high-resolution screen is that elements are sharp enough to allow for a large workspace on a tiny screen. 1152x720 is less real estate than I was using 10 years ago!

 

Purely a comment, nor am Having any issue at this resolution.

Q-6

 

I've been amazed at how clear the higher resolutions look. I've been quite please with how crisp they look.

 

I use 1680x1050 too. At times it seems to make things a bit too small. I think 1536x960 looks a bit better.

 

I'm all for keeping threads on track, but what exactly do you expect for a reply when the OP started a thread to simply state they like X resolution? Not too much more to say other than offer an opinion of what resolution we like.

Technically, there is always scaling involved. What you're referring to is essentially integer scaling - there's no interpolation between native resolution and the scaled resolution.

While integer scaling will generally look sharpest because there's no pixel interpolation, using a lower scaled resolution that renders on-screen elements larger will inherently make those elements look "sharper" as well (assuming retina-quality elements are provided). Text, icons and hi-res images are going to display more detail because more pixels are making up a larger on-screen element. It seems kind of obvious, but often overlooked in these discussions.