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

UnixMac

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Oct 1, 2002
326
0
Phoenix, AZ
I'm not sure I'm seeing any difference in quality between "optimal" and the higher "Scaled" settings, but I am getting better utility from the larger desktop... is it just my older eyes, or is it very hard to tell the difference between the settings in terms of qualify of image?
 
I use 1680X1050. Looks very good to me. Used some time ago1920X1200, more space, but some texts became too small. For me 1680X1050 is perfect. Best for retina is too big
 
I use 1680X1050. Looks very good to me. Used some time ago1920X1200, more space, but some texts became too small. For me 1680X1050 is perfect. Best for retina is too big

Same here
 
Usually Best for Retina when I just do casual web browsing / word processing.
However I will often change scaling mode to higher resolutions when using editing/coding apps.
 
Worked throughout them all and settled on best for Retina.

On an external monitor (27) I did like the higher screen resolution better.
 
It depends on the task. If I'm browsing casually, I like best for retina. But I also enjoy the extra desktop space for other tasks (movie editing, multiple VMs, etc.).
 
is it just my older eyes, or is it very hard to tell the difference between the settings in terms of qualify of image?

I feel that way too. There are some slight differences in quality, but I have to look for them and won't notice anymore once I'm 30 seconds in the scaled mode.
 
no question 1920x1200. I feel so cramped at best for retina. For work in xcode I feel it is required.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.