This makes me feel much better re: resolution/real estate

[2LMedia]

Apple allows you to choose between real estate and resolution in the new MBP. Allowing a 1920x1200 workspace or a 1440x900 workspace, or a 1650x1050 workspace, etc.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5998/macbook-pro-retina-display-analysis

 

[cathyy]

Apple allows you to choose between real estate and resolution in the new MBP. Allowing a 1920x1200 workspace or a 1440x900 workspace, or a 1650x1050 workspace, etc.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5998/macbook-pro-retina-display-analysis

Yup this is an amazing piece of news. However my main question is how will this work for Windows?

 

[2LMedia]

Hmmm, good question. Didn't think abut that.

 

[88 King]

So how does the 1920x1200 setting compare with 15" laptops that have same native resolution in term of amount of info can be displayed on the screen?

I want to play 1080p video and work on PDF at the same time, I guess this is not possible on the new mbp?

 

[LinksAwakener]

Windows doesn't currently support HiDPI modes. If you use Virtual Machines (Parallels, VMWare, etc.) the software should update in due time to accomodate the changes, but if you use Boot Camp I bet you'll just be using the system at the native 2880x1800 resolution, as only standard graphics drivers are supported--so the default NVidia driver.

 

[cathyy]

Edit: Delete, sorry.

 

[daneoni]

He also said changing to anything except default degrades quality and performance.

 

[bhtooefr]

Well, you could run it at 1440x900, and it wouldn't look any worse than the previous 15.4" MBPs...

In any case, as far as information density at the "1920x1200" setting, versus 1920x1200 native laptops... if we're comparing a 15.4" MBPR versus a 17" MBP, it's the exact same amount of information on screen.

If we're comparing a 15.4" MBPR running in "1920x1200" mode versus a 15.4" 1920x1200 Windows laptop (which existed in the Core 2 Duo era), the MBPR will have a little more information density at the same nominal point size, due to Mac OS assuming 72 ppi, versus Windows assuming 96 ppi. That does mean that a 12 point font on the Mac is 12 virtual pixels (at the framebuffer level, it's 24 pixels, and on the display I believe it's 18 actual pixels), or .082" tall, versus 16 pixels tall on Windows, or about .109" tall.

But, Windows tends to use smaller nominal point sizes, to make up for it, IIRC. And, web content is 96 ppi on OS X, IIRC, so it's a total wash there.

 

[Zorn]

Yeah I was really relieved to learn this. I was afraid I would be stuck in "extra crisp" 1440x900, which would be a downgrade from my Hi-Res 2011 MBP. I plan to be in the 1920x1200 mode 95% of the time, the only time I will change it down is for playing games.

 

[jcpb]

A Japanese site got their RMBP bootcamped with Windows 8 Release Preview.

On the first W8 bootup, the screen res is limited to XGA (1024x768), however this can be changed to:

1024 x 768 (default setting, 4:3)
1280 x 800 (one of the scale slider settings on OS X, 16:10)
1280 x 1024 (5:4)
1600 x 1200 (4:3)
2880 x 1800 (RMBP native, 16:10)

source: http://goo.gl/lZpXv

 

[technopimp]

So we can't run in native 2880x1800 mode? For me, that kind of makes me not want it. Yeah, it will "look nice", but one of my major complaints with Mac laptops has always been the lack of high resolution options. I mean, you can get 1920x1200 on 15" Windows laptops all day long. So, while this has an extremely high resolution, the effective is still the same (IMO weak) 1440x900.

 

[Stetrain]

So we can't run in native 2880x1800 mode? For me, that kind of makes me not want it. Yeah, it will "look nice", but one of my major complaints with Mac laptops has always been the lack of high resolution options. I mean, you can get 1920x1200 on 15" Windows laptops all day long. So, while this has an extremely high resolution, the effective is still the same (IMO weak) 1440x900.

You can run in a software scaled mode that gives you the same real estate as 1920x1200, while still sending the display a native 2880x1800 image.

 

[Zorn]

So we can't run in native 2880x1800 mode? For me, that kind of makes me not want it. Yeah, it will "look nice", but one of my major complaints with Mac laptops has always been the lack of high resolution options. I mean, you can get 1920x1200 on 15" Windows laptops all day long. So, while this has an extremely high resolution, the effective is still the same (IMO weak) 1440x900.

As soon as more than 10 people actually have these things, someone is going to find a terminal command to enable the panel's native resolution at the desktop.

 

[jcpb]

As soon as more than 10 people actually have these things, someone is going to find a terminal command to enable the panel's native resolution at the desktop.

and I'd have custom wallpapers ready to roll at that native res...

 

[Stetrain]

and I'd have custom wallpapers ready to roll at that native res...

Pretty sure that you could go ahead and use 2880x1800 wallpapers in "1440x900" retina mode, since the screen is still being rendered at a full 2880x1800.

 

[bhtooefr]

Two things...

First, that screenshot shows that you can use it as a Windows laptop at 2880x1800...

Second, wallpapers will best be done at 2048x1280, 2560x1600, 2880x1800, 3360x2100, and 3840x2400, even before the hack is found to get 2880x1800 non HiDPI, because HiDPI can take advantage of images of the underlying "native" resolution of the given HiDPI mode.

 

[shurcooL]

Yup this is an amazing piece of news. However my main question is how will this work for Windows?

Windows has its own DPI scaling, so you'll have to use that. Windows 8 has much better support for high DPI screens too.