Actually, there are 2 modes: 1440x852, and 1440x852 (stretched). You can guess what the second one does
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Technical reason behind 1440x852?
- Thread starter vbman213
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Mmhmm. Makes perfect sense.
EDIT: Can you keep 1600 and control the window sizes through Universal Access under System Preferences ?
it lets you pretty much customise whatever res you want, 1440x900? sure. 1440x899? why not!
its worth a try, and im failing to see the differences, none of those resolutions will be supported/approved by apple - but they may be approved by the monitor.
p.s. cyn: thanks for classifying re: stretched.
p.s.s. gorilla: doubtful
That doesn't explain your original question as to why Apple doesn't offer 1440x900 as an option. It's also likely that any such "unsupported" resolutions would be of reduced quality, compared to native resolution.
The goal is to merely see what 1440x900 looks like on a High res screen.
I'm no LCD display engineer, but I still don't understand the logic behind this 1440x852 resolution that Apple decided to go with. Doing the math, it makes absolutely no logically sense at all. It almost seems like an Apple Engineer was like, lets give them a random resolution just to piss some people off. 1440x900 will (should) fill a high res screen with no problems at all, without letter-boxing or this unnatural stretching.
You are correct by saying that ANY resolution other than 1680x1050 would look reduced quality. But, 1440x900 should look a whole lot better than the other resolution options available for high res displays
I am in this same dilemma. As I posted on another thread I connect to remote servers where the only option is to go with the servers defaults. The only way I can increase the font that is currently quite small is to change the whole resolution of my screen. Currently the std 1440x900 is perfect and just big enough to read.
The 1680x1050 will clearly be too small.
Is there no option here? Will Apple soon support resolution independence so as to change the resolution without losing quality?
The 1680x1050 will clearly be too small.
Is there no option here? Will Apple soon support resolution independence so as to change the resolution without losing quality?
haha really? i use my 1440x900 MBP to connect to my 2560x1440 imac! its still quite readable for me, i guess. maybe try that program i listed a page back?
Here is a comparison between the Native 1680x1050 vs the 1440x852 (stretched) when scaled down.
![]()
Taking screenshots of your desktop does not show what your LCD would look like when forced to a non-native resolution
Has anyone used SwitchResX on a 15" laptop with the high res screen. If so, how does 1440x900 look ?
Shouldn't the pngs be the exact same size pixels/dimensions wise?Taking screenshots of your desktop does not show what your LCD would look like when forced to a non-native resolution
Although I guess when they display through imageshack they are...
Posting screen grabs is not a representation of how the display's actually look.
We need actual photos.
I'm still curious to see if anybody has tried to force a high-res screen into 1440x900 instead of the 1440x852.
I'm still wondering why Apple decided to go to 1440x852. It is "letter-boxed". Apple, Just give us the extra 48 pixels.
We need actual photos.
I'm still curious to see if anybody has tried to force a high-res screen into 1440x900 instead of the 1440x852.
I'm still wondering why Apple decided to go to 1440x852. It is "letter-boxed". Apple, Just give us the extra 48 pixels.
I have this problem too. 15" Classic MBP, Late 2011, with 1680x1050 anti-glare screen. I love the high-res option and use it most of the time, but _sometimes_ I want to have the ability to use 1440x900 or 1280x800. The latter is there, but 1440x900 is not. Only 1440x852 which gives stupid black borders on top and bottom. It has an AMD Radeon so it's not even Nvidia's fault.
Pretty frustrating.
While I'm complaining, it also sucks that 1280x720 isn't available via standard Display preferences. That resolution is useful to be able to record full screen videos to upload to youtube (which likes 16:9 AR more than 16:10). Thankfully, Retina DisplayMenu (aka SetResX) lets me set 1280x720, but not 1440x900. =(
Pretty frustrating.
While I'm complaining, it also sucks that 1280x720 isn't available via standard Display preferences. That resolution is useful to be able to record full screen videos to upload to youtube (which likes 16:9 AR more than 16:10). Thankfully, Retina DisplayMenu (aka SetResX) lets me set 1280x720, but not 1440x900. =(