Technical reason behind 1440x852?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by vbman213, May 23, 2010.

  1. vbman213 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    #1
    1680x1050 should (mathematically speaking) scale perfectly to 1440x900. Same screen size, same aspect ratio, etc... So why does apple do this 1440x852 crap?

    If Apple would allow scaling to true 1440x900 in display settings, that should allow these folks who want Anti-Glare and the standard resolution.
     
  2. Gorilla Power macrumors 6502

    Gorilla Power

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    #2
    1440 x 852 ? Where in hell did you see that ?
     
  3. DoFoT9 macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #3
    huh? im confused.. apple doesnt do 1440x852....????
     
  4. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #4
    They do on the hi-res 15" MBP, as an optional resolution, instead of 1440x900.
     
  5. DoFoT9 macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #5
    hi res MBPs are 1680x1050 though?
     
  6. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #6
    Native, yes. But you can select other resolutions. Just not 1440x900
     
  7. DoFoT9 macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #7
    ahh right. i have an urge to get into the "now why on earth would you do that", but ill restrain :p :)
     
  8. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #8
    The answer is a cross between a rhinoceros and an elephant.
     
  9. DoFoT9 macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #9
    rhinophant? :confused: :confused:

    peoples preferences i guess
     
  10. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #10
    No, elephino. (hell if I know)
     
  11. DoFoT9 macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #11
    ahh of course! :cool:

    using the non-native res seems redundant and silly tbh. just make the font bigger (cant hold it in any longer).
     
  12. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #12
    Some people want the anti-glare option, which is only available in the hi-res screen, but the resolution makes everything too hard to see for those who are vision-challenged. They want to be able to get the hi-res, anti-glare, then adjust the resolution to 1440x900, so they can see everything without zooming. The problem is, I've never seen any screen display alternate resolutions as clearly as the native resolution, so it probably wouldn't be as clear and sharp as a screen with native 1440x900.
     
  13. DoFoT9 macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #13
    it would seem not, the experience is the same with me. thats perfectly understandable for the vision challenged. but what is stopping them from increasing the font size. that way the resolution increase is there (more space on screen etc) but the font sizes are increased.

    i guess even increasing the DPI of the screen (basically increasing everything anyway).

    i wonder why it cant scale directly to 1440x900? explain apple! :mad:
     
  14. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #14
    Changing font sizes wouldn't cover everything, such as some application toolbars and controls.
     
  15. DoFoT9 macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #15
    fair call, system font size changes should change all of that though? (in osx anyway).
     
  16. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #16
    In Apple apps, yes. Not necessarily 3rd party apps. It depends on how well they're designed. There are some other things that wouldn't be affected by changing system fonts, but I can't recall them at the moment. Anyway, the catch-all would be to change screen resolution, but it's a less-than-ideal solution.
     
  17. cyclical macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    #17
    I'm thinking this might be a question better directed towards Nvidia...
     
  18. DoFoT9 macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #18
    yea there would def be some that do not change, such as in Office - when you hover over buttons. i guess they stay the same (though i have never tested). i see your point :)

    you think so? i thought it would more be directed at the makers of the panel?

    or even apple - as they write the drivers for their own computers.

    has anybody tested this on bootcamp?
     
  19. vbman213 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    #19
    No it has nothing to do with the GPU.

    I honestly believe it is a software limitation.

    Mathematically, there is no reason why a 1680x1050 display can't display a 1440x900 resolution. True, it won't look as good as a native 1440x900 display, but it would look a hell of a lot better than 1280x800.

    1440x852 is freakin' letterboxed! If they just allowed 1440x900 it would fill the entire screen without any scaling/stretching...

    [​IMG]

    Edit: Does anybody know a way to force a Mac into a non-Apple approved resolution? And if so, could they try to force 1440x900 on a highres.
     
  20. cyclical macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    #20
    I tried dropping down to 1440 - not a good look lol
     
  21. vbman213 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    #21
    There again, the 330m in a std res uMBP is the same as in a hires uMBP.
    This has nothing to do with the GPU.

    I still believe this can be corrected with software. I guess display resolutions have a strict approval process like App Store apps... Well, I guess we will never see 1440x900 enabled...

    Can somebody try this: http://www.madrau.com/SRXv3/html/SRX/whysr.html

    And create a custom resolution using 1440x900. Force your high res screen to use 1440x900 using SwitchResX

    And post photos (not screenshots) of the results...

    I would appreciate it a bunch ;)
     
  22. DoFoT9 macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #22
    give this a go :)

    edit: OP would you mind posting the differences in res? does 1440x582 appear to be stretched at all? or does it actually give you the black bars?
     
  23. Gorilla Power macrumors 6502

    Gorilla Power

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    #23
    Not trolling but I'm curious to know - why would anyone buy a 1600 x ... display and want to use it in a 1400 x ... in the first place ?
     
  24. cyclical macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    #24
    Black bars at top and bottom of screen
     
  25. DoFoT9 macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #25
    read the brief conversation GGJ and myself had and you will see on scenario where it may be useful.

    seriously? ugh!
     

Share This Page