Retina MacBook Pro + Windows OS dualbooting issue?

omgwut

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jul 28, 2006
321
0
So I assume that the new Retina display presents a resolution issue to MacBook Pro users who want to dualboot to play some PC games or use some certain apps, no? Unless I'm mistaken Windows OS isn't optimized for HiDPI displays yet, so will it just look like fuzzy garbage on the new MacBook Pro? Or at least until Microsoft decides to update it?
 

Hidendra

macrumors member
May 19, 2008
66
0
non-retina resolution on the retina is 1920x1200, so it'll work fine since it'll just run at that ;)
 

omgwut

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jul 28, 2006
321
0
But if thats the highest scaled resolution Windows OS supports, its still not the Retina MBP's native resolution (2880x1800). Will that be noticeable on the new display in the form of a lack of high resolution, or will it still look as sharp as it would if it were on a 1920x1200 display?

I guess my question should be, if you run the highest non Retina resolution on the MBP (1920x1200) instead of HiDPI, will it still look as sharp as it would if it were just running on a 1920x1200 display? If thats the case its fine. I just dont want to buy a new MBP and find there are some unforseeable resolution issues if I want to dualboot.
 

alphaone

macrumors 6502
Aug 12, 2003
300
0
I'm wondering about this too. In my past experience using anything other than the native resolution has made the display look like poo. However, I wonder if the extreme pixel density of this display would render that a non issue.
 

Xcelerate

macrumors regular
Jul 11, 2008
108
1
I'm wondering about this too. In my past experience using anything other than the native resolution has made the display look like poo. However, I wonder if the extreme pixel density of this display would render that a non issue.
You probably wouldn't notice it if it uses a good resampling algorithm like Lanczos. I could do the calculation to tell you for sure, but I'm kind of lazy at the moment haha
 

Hidendra

macrumors member
May 19, 2008
66
0
But if thats the highest scaled resolution Windows OS supports, its still not the Retina MBP's native resolution (2880x1800). Will that be noticeable on the new display in the form of a lack of high resolution, or will it still look as sharp as it would if it were on a 1920x1200 display?

I guess my question should be, if you run the highest non Retina resolution on the MBP (1920x1200) instead of HiDPI, will it still look as sharp as it would if it were just running on a 1920x1200 display? If thats the case its fine. I just dont want to buy a new MBP and find there are unsolvable resolution issues if I want to dualboot.
2880x1800 and 1920x1200 are the same aspect ratio (16:10). there shouldn't be a noticeable difference ;) You'll mainly make the display look like poo if you try to use a different aspect ratio than your native (which is 16:10 for retina)
 

omgwut

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jul 28, 2006
321
0
I'm wondering about this too. In my past experience using anything other than the native resolution has made the display look like poo. However, I wonder if the extreme pixel density of this display would render that a non issue.
Same here... it would be nice if its so pixel dense that 1920x1200 still just looks like sharp, native 1920x1200, and if thats the case I wouldn't mind a lack of HiDPI support when dualbooting into Windows OS. I just don't want it to somehow look noticeably low resolution and not be able to do anything about it on my end.

----------

2880x1800 and 1920x1200 are the same aspect ratio (16:10). there shouldn't be a noticeable difference ;) You'll mainly make the display look like poo if you try to use a different aspect ratio than your native (which is 16:10 for retina)
Cool, thanks for the input. :)
 

Stetrain

macrumors 68040
Feb 6, 2009
3,548
18
Windows has pretty good DPI scaling. You should be able to run it at 2880x1800 and increase the scaling to suit.

Some things will look good, some will look a bit blurry.
 

leman

macrumors G4
Oct 14, 2008
10,394
4,908
It will look exactly like non-retina MBP when run at 1440x900 resolution (same pixel size). It also might look ok when run at 1920x1200 (because the pixels are so small), although I am not sure about that.
 

cathyy

macrumors 6502a
Apr 12, 2008
727
1
2880x1800 and 1920x1200 are the same aspect ratio (16:10). there shouldn't be a noticeable difference ;) You'll mainly make the display look like poo if you try to use a different aspect ratio than your native (which is 16:10 for retina)
That's garbage. Running on anything that's not native resolution on a LCD will cause it to look blurry. Try it right now on your own LCD and run it on the next highest resolution (1280x800, 1440x900, 1680x1050, 1920x1200, 2560x1600, 2880x1800). I just attempted to downscale it from 1440x900 to 1280x800 and it looked awful.

Granted, the effects are going to be much more noticable the closer you are to your original resolution. Eg. running 2560x1600 on the new retina would look more blur as compared to running 1920x1200. The only ideal resolution that you should be down scaling to is 1440x900, as this has a perfect ratio of 4.0 pixels downscaled per pixel.

However based on my experience with iPhones and retina screens, even at a 4:1 downscalling resolution, pictures still look like absolute garbage if it's not running in native resolution. Try using any non-retina app and you'll find that it looks much worse than it does on an iPhone 3G/3GS.


IMO you're going to have a hard time running anything in Windows 7 and below at native resolution. Everything will just look extremely small as programs are not designed with retina screens in mind. This is what you can expect:



On the left is a 30" Apple screen running at 2560x1440. On the right is a 22" retina IBM screen from 2002 running at 3800x2400. See the Firefox browser in the middle of both screens? They are both the resolution, but it looks so much smaller on the IBM due to the much higher pixel density.



Here's another picture with a 30" Dell running at 2560x1440 on the left, with the IBM on the right. Based on the desktop picture, you can see how the IBM has 2.5x more space and is so much smaller.

Expect the same thing to happen if you use a Retina screen on Windows 7 and below. These monitors had a PPI of 200, whereas the new MBPs have a slightly higher PPI of 22. The good news is you can downscale the screen to a lower resolution, but it comes at the cost of pictures not looking as sharp any more that completely defeats the point of a retina screen.

Otherwise, Windows 8 is coming out soon and should also provide better support for retina resolutions


It will look exactly like non-retina MBP when run at 1440x900 resolution (same pixel size). It also might look ok when run at 1920x1200 (because the pixels are so small), although I am not sure about that.
That's what I've always believed, but now I'm not sure any more. Take a look at your iPhone 4 and you'll realize that all non-retina apps look like absolute garbage.
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.