Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Screen Resolution

Channan

Channan

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Mar 7, 2012
2,890
3,119
New Orleans
I've always kept it at the default (1280x800) until the past few days. I tried switching to the most space option (1680x1050) but everything looked so tiny, so I switched to the next size up, used that for a while to get used to it, then went full "More Space" and definitely won't be going back. It's almost like having a bigger display now since I can fit so much more on it.

So I'm just curious what everyone else uses. Larger Text, Default, More Space, or in between?
 
Channan said:
I've always kept it at the default (1280x800) until the past few days. I tried switching to the most space option (1680x1050) but everything looked so tiny, so I switched to the next size up, used that for a while to get used to it, then went full "More Space" and definitely won't be going back. It's almost like having a bigger display now since I can fit so much more on it.

So I'm just curious what everyone else uses. Larger Text, Default, More Space, or in between?
Click to expand...

It was a couple of months back when I changed the display setting on my 2012 rMBP... changed the setting to SCALED and chose the 2nd from highest resolution. Of course the text was a bit smaller, but the extra screen real estate was worth it. I have gotten used to the display and text size.
 
dwfaust said:
It was a couple of months back when I changed the display setting on my 2012 rMBP... changed the setting to SCALED and chose the 2nd from highest resolution. Of course the text was a bit smaller, but the extra screen real estate was worth it. I have gotten used to the display and text size.
Click to expand...
You should try going to the highest resolution. You get used to it pretty fast and it's even better, IMO.
 
Channan said:
I've always kept it at the default (1280x800) until the past few days. I tried switching to the most space option (1680x1050) but everything looked so tiny, so I switched to the next size up, used that for a while to get used to it, then went full "More Space" and definitely won't be going back. It's almost like having a bigger display now since I can fit so much more on it.

So I'm just curious what everyone else uses. Larger Text, Default, More Space, or in between?
Click to expand...


I use the 1440x900 res myself. enough real estate and the right size for text. I guess I am used to it since the laptops I had before my gaming laptop which is 1080p all had 1400x900 res which is close to 1440x900
 
The laptop I had before my rMBP was a non-retina MacBook Pro, so the 1280x800 resolution just stuck with me. I wish I would have tried this sooner.
 
I desperately wish they would reenable the AppleDisplay scaling factor. I really hate how large the UI is on most apps and wish I could use the native resolution or something in between. I know you can with various apps but the text is way too small. I just want to scale the the top menu bar and the UI elements not everything else. :s
 
Mcmeowmers said:
I desperately wish they would reenable the AppleDisplay scaling factor. I really hate how large the UI is on most apps and wish I could use the native resolution or something in between. I know you can with various apps but the text is way too small. I just want to scale the the top menu bar and the UI elements not everything else. :s
Click to expand...
The menu bar is the main reason I didn't switch sooner. I didn't like how tiny it got when changing the resolution. Now I'm used to it, and default feels abnormally large.
 
Most of the time, I use the setting between Normal and More Space to get the extra screen real estate (I use Specatacle for a nice tiling windows) while still being able to read text without strain. The one exception when I revert back to Normal is when I am using a full desk setup with a screen and a monitor arm tray to place my laptop, which puts my laptop much further away than I usually have it on my desk, so it's harder to read (and with the extra monitor, I have less need for the extra screen space)
 
I tried using 1440x900 but noticed I was getting pretty bad eye strain so went back to 1280x800. Really enjoyed the extra restate but not over headaches.
 
RoboWarriorSr said:
Then it make the headache worse? If I'm getting eyestrain due to small UI at 1440x900, why would I try to view even smaller UI elements?
Click to expand...
I mixed up the resolutions. I was thinking you went for the highest resolution so I was suggesting you to try the next size up from default.
 
Channan said:
I mixed up the resolutions. I was thinking you went for the highest resolution so I was suggesting you to try the next size up from default.
Click to expand...
Yeah the only other resolution was the old resolution Apple used to sell on their non-retina Macs, I believe the option was only available on upgraded 15" models (from the website) and default 17" (I believe it had an option for 1900x1200 or something). If the 17" had a retina screen it would probably have the 1900x1200 as a scaled resolution option.
 
Highly doubt it, the current Intel GPU's can't even properly run 4K displays well (see 4K iMac with Iris Pro 6200). Since there aren't any benchmarks of the Skylake Iris Pro with 72 EUs hard to say whether that will significantly bump performance. Probably need to wait a few more generations before that will be a viable option.
 
Nope.
Performance over eye candy. Any day, any time.
Using a scaled resolution affects performance and battery life.
As you can see, my rMBP is no joke, and it lags when using a scaled res.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2016-03-17 at 20.32.20.png
    Screen Shot 2016-03-17 at 20.32.20.png
    165.4 KB · Views: 215
hamiltonDSi said:
Nope.
Performance over eye candy. Any day, any time.
Using a scaled resolution affects performance and battery life.
As you can see, my rMBP is no joke, and it lags when using a scaled res.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't call that eye candy, considering it makes everything smaller and less sharp. Kind of the opposite of eye candy. It's just extremely convenient being able to fit more on the screen at one time.

Also, I have the same year MacBook Pro, but a 13" i5 model, and I don't notice any lag at all. It performs exactly the same with any resolution I choose as far as I can tell.
 
Channan said:
I wouldn't call that eye candy, considering it makes everything smaller and less sharp. Kind of the opposite of eye candy. It's just extremely convenient being able to fit more on the screen at one time.

Also, I have the same year MacBook Pro, but a 13" i5 model, and I don't notice any lag at all. It performs exactly the same with any resolution I choose as far as I can tell.
Click to expand...
If one were to start open a number of desktops in spaces and have a number of windows of app within in space the lag can be noticeable but its arguable whether or not that's justified. I've seen some people's spaces with an incredible number of opened windows (lots of terminal and safari windows).
 
1680x1050 on my 15" rMBP. 1920x1200 is just too small to be consistently workable for my bad eyesight as much as I might love the extra space. I don't notice any significant performance hit, which is good (though the UI hitches a bit even at default). I am annoyed by the brief video artifacting that occurs every time it wakes from hibernation on non-default resolutions. (Apple Support's official solution: Don't use non-default resolutions.)
 
RoboWarriorSr said:
If one were to start open a number of desktops in spaces and have a number of windows of app within in space the lag can be noticeable but its arguable whether or not that's justified. I've seen some people's spaces with an incredible number of opened windows (lots of terminal and safari windows).
Click to expand...
Well, that's expected with more apps open. Just changing the resolution doesn't mean you're forced to have more apps open. That's a choice, and instead of having to keep hiding apps behind other apps because you don't have much space, you can have them right next to each other.

Shamgar said:
1680x1050 on my 15" rMBP. 1920x1200 is just too small to be consistently workable for my bad eyesight as much as I might love the extra space. I don't notice any significant performance hit, which is good (though the UI hitches a bit even at default). I am annoyed by the brief video artifacting that occurs every time it wakes from hibernation on non-default resolutions. (Apple Support's official solution: Don't use non-default resolutions.)
Click to expand...
Well 1680x1050 is a great resolution, IMO. Plenty enough space to run multiple apps side by side. I think it would be nice to have a higher resolution option, just to see if I would even like it, but I'm perfectly happy with 1680x1050.

And I haven't noticed the artifacting, but I haven't really paid attention. Next time I use my MacBook Pro, I'll look out for that. Obviously it doesn't really affect anything, but that would be really annoying to see every time. It would just make you feel like your device is buggy. Lol
 
I understated when I said artifacting: My screen is a mess of noise for a half second every time I wake it from hibernation. There is nothing subtle about it. Apparently this is a bug that was introduced in Yosemite and has never been fixed. It only affects a portion of rMBPs so Apple appears to be content in not fixing it. It doesn't affect my use so I live with it, but it is still annoying and unnerving.
 
Shamgar said:
I understated when I said artifacting: My screen is a mess of noise for a half second every time I wake it from hibernation. There is nothing subtle about it. Apparently this is a bug that was introduced in Yosemite and has never been fixed. It only affects a portion of rMBPs so Apple appears to be content in not fixing it. It doesn't affect my use so I live with it, but it is still annoying and unnerving.
Click to expand...
Oh, then I definitely don't have that. Mind posting a video of it? I'm curious to see what it looks like.
 
I use 1920*1200 HiDPI on my 13" rMBP, used RDM to put it up there. Just a note for those who want to go further than the defaults, which you certainly can.

I'm a 40 year old programmer, the extra screen real estate is huge for my productivity. I can easily go 12+ hour sessions with no eyestrain. In my late 20s I had a 15" windows laptop at 1920*1200 that was a major PITA and gave me headaches... lower pixel density, non-IPS (poorer viewing angles/color gamut, more uneven backlighting etc).
 
Last edited:
I looked into downloading an app that would let me do that. 1080p would be awesome. What's the cheapest option that accomplishes that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back