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

Why would someone change resolution ?

S

soamz

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 20, 2010
705
8
Orissa, India
I'm still using my 2009 MacBook Pro 13 inch and it runs strong till date. But I'm looking to get this new MacBook Pro retina late 2013 15 inch.

I see someone threads, where people are saying, they are using different resolution.
Why is that ?

I would only buy it for retina resolution 2880. Why would someone want to use it at 1920 ?

Just wanted to know.
 
Because on 1440x900, which equals to 2880x1800, everything is so ****ing big. :mad:

For me 1680x1050 is the best, 1920x1200 is a little bit too small. But still usable. I really hate Apple for not going to a higher retina screen.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
soamz said:
I'm still using my 2009 MacBook Pro 13 inch and it runs strong till date. But I'm looking to get this new MacBook Pro retina late 2013 15 inch.

I see someone threads, where people are saying, they are using different resolution.
Why is that ?

I would only buy it for retina resolution 2880. Why would someone want to use it at 1920 ?

Just wanted to know.
Click to expand...

I think perhaps you misunderstand. Virtually no one runes these machines at the retina resolutions themselves. Apple doesn't even give you that option—to accomplish it, you have to use a third party utility. The purpose of the 2880x1800 resolution is to give you more pixels to make edges look sharper and less pixelated.

Apple defaults you to 1440x900 on the 15", because they think that's where things look the best and are most readable. Indeed, at that resolution, text looks very much like it does when printed on a page. That said, some users prefer to give up a little of that sharpness to fit more stuff on the screen. That's where the other two higher resolution options come in—1680x1050 or 1920x1200. I personally use 1900x1200, but I also have good eyesight, and the most important thing to me is fitting more windows on this 15.4" display.

Of note, you can also use even smaller resolutions (1024x640 and 1280x800), although very few users choose to do this.
 
You get few options of which scaled resolution to use, the default is Best for retina, which is essentially 1440x900 scaled, so everything looks sharp, the native resolution is still 2880x1800 (pixels are doubled)

Some people run at 1920x1200 because it still gives the most space and it's still useable, because if you try to use 2880x1800 natively, everything on screen would be really tiny.
 
Sorry I don't get it.
You mean what at 1440x900 ?

What are you working on ?

The display resolution is 2880 so retina high resolution. Why would you want to go down ?
Then what's the meaning of retina left ?

Changing resolution will be same like other low resolution displays then ?
 
soamz said:
Sorry I don't get it.
You mean what at 1440x900 ?

What are you working on ?

The display resolution is 2880 so retina high resolution. Why would you want to go down ?
Then what's the meaning of retina left ?

Changing resolution will be same like other low resolution displays then ?
Click to expand...

You only get the same desktop space as a standard 1440x900 display at the native retina resolution. Using a scaled resolution of 1680x1050 or 1920x1200 gives you a bigger workspace.
 
To have a better overvall view of your desktop items and workspace. According to me, best for Retina doesn't make a very efficient usage of the desktop real estate which is available. Others might prefer the larger fonts and desktop items offered by Best for Retina. In the end, it's a personal choice.
 
OllyW said:
You only get the same desktop space as a standard 1440x900 display at the native retina resolution. Using a scaled resolution of 1680x1050 or 1920x1200 gives you a bigger workspace.
Click to expand...

Okay it's within apple preferences or some 3rd party tool ?
 
the true native resolution (2880x1800) isn't available through the preferences pane, you have to download a third party app to unlock it. And FYI: fonts and the workspace are far too small for a 15" screen, you end up squinting at everything.

I'd wager most people are fine at 1680x1020, but if you want a decent sized workspace 1920x1200 is great.

The way mavericks renders fonts at the base resolutions is at hi-dpi (4 pixels for every 1), meaning it looks incredibly smooth and crisp. You'll just have to go to an apple store and play around with it to see what it's really like.
 
If we decrease resolution , how do we manage the retina display ?
Does it look like the old non retina macs then ?
 
soamz said:
If we decrease resolution , how do we manage the retina display ?
Does it look like the old non retina macs then ?
Click to expand...

You clearly do not understand how the Retina screen works.

The screen has 2880x1800 PHYSICAL pixels.

In best for retina mode, the image being displayed is equivalent to one being viewed on a screen of the same size but with a resolution of 1440x900. This is being achieved by using 4 pixels on the retina display to display what would be a single pixel on a low resolution panel. Since the pixels are much closer together, this makes the image and text appear much sharper, closer to what a printed page looks like.

Since the screen has so many pixels, you can use the system preferences to make everything appear to be 1680x1050 or even 1920x1200, while still using more pixels to display a single pixel, and retaining the extra sharpness.

Making the resolution higher also has a downside if you have poor eyesight. Since more information is displayed on the screen at once, everything becomes much smaller.

If you are able to try one out, you'll see quite fast what it looks like.
 
Creep89 said:
Because on 1440x900, which equals to 2880x1800, everything is so ****ing big. :mad:

For me 1680x1050 is the best, 1920x1200 is a little bit too small. But still usable. I really hate Apple for not going to a higher retina screen.
Click to expand...

I initially had mine set to 1680, but changed it to 1920 - I prefer this resolution and 1680 was a little too big.
 
soamz said:
If we decrease resolution , how do we manage the retina display ?
Does it look like the old non retina macs then ?
Click to expand...

Everything will be the same size as your old MacBook but all vector elements (font, icons, svg images) will look much, much better. For instance, if you look at this page using Apple's recommended retina resolution, the text and the MacRumors logo look really crisp but the rest of the images (reply button, ads, etc.) look blurry and bad. This is what they would look on your old MacBook but you wouldn't notice because everything else wasn't crisp either.
 
soamz said:
Sorry I don't get it.
You mean what at 1440x900 ?

What are you working on ?

The display resolution is 2880 so retina high resolution. Why would you want to go down ?
Then what's the meaning of retina left ?

Changing resolution will be same like other low resolution displays then ?
Click to expand...

Good luck reading everything. The rMBP is meant to be displayed at 1440x900 (for 15-inch), however everything is much clearer. That's Retina. There's a reason Apple doesn't have 2880x1800 as the native resolution.
 
I really wish Apple would increase the default/native screen real estate to 1440x900 on the 13" and 1680x1050 on the 15"; then you would get the old "hi res" option resolution with retina, and that would be the native/best for retina setting. Sure you can scale, but it's not the same as the optimized/best for retina setting IMO.
 
puma1552 said:
I really wish Apple would increase the default/native screen real estate to 1440x900 on the 13" and 1680x1050 on the 15"; then you would get the old "hi res" option resolution with retina, and that would be the native/best for retina setting. Sure you can scale, but it's not the same as the optimized/best for retina setting IMO.
Click to expand...

Agreed. That is what it needs to be, and should be.
 
The retina screen always operates at 2880x1800. However, as you can imagine, under normal circumstances everything would appear really, really tiny on that screen because the pixels are so dense.

So the setting in System Preferences isn't really a resolution setting, it is a DPI scaling setting. The default is 2X the DPI of the original OS X interface, so everything uses twice the height and twice the width (so 4x as many pixels) of the original OS X interface.

So this default setting is 2880x1800 resolution at 2X the DPI -- meaning that everything appears just as large (in inches) as it would be on a normal 1440x900 screen. Except everything is MUCH sharper and MUCH more beautiful due to using more pixels.

These are the available settings for the display:

Looks like 1024x640
Looks like 1280x800
Looks like 1440x900 (default)
Looks like 1680x1050
Looks like 1900x1200

Again, they are all 2880x1800 in reality, but they just change the amount of DPI scaling to adjust the size of the UI elements to the human eye.

Personally, I use "Looks like 1680x1050," as it gives the best tradeoff of size and beauty.
 
soamz said:
I'm still using my 2009 MacBook Pro 13 inch and it runs strong till date. But I'm looking to get this new MacBook Pro retina late 2013 15 inch.

I see someone threads, where people are saying, they are using different resolution.
Why is that ?

I would only buy it for retina resolution 2880. Why would someone want to use it at 1920 ?

Just wanted to know.
Click to expand...

Better make sure you have a good eye-care plan first.
 
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