4 ms·
The scaling artifacts are no different at 4k compared to running an MBP at "non-native" retina resolutions - its the same problem/issue, if you are sensitive.
by giobox 4y ago
The scaling artifacts are no different at 4k compared to running an MBP at "non-native" retina resolutions - its the same problem/issue, if you are sensitive.
For what its worth, Apple have shipped many MacBook Pros at "non-native" resolutions by default for years, so... The 15 inch for years was a 2880 x 1800 panel, which is only Retina native at an equivalent of 1440x900. Apple shipped them in the non-2x 1680x1050 mode by default.
The same is also true of the current 13inch M1 MacBooks 2560 x 1600 (1280x800 at 2x), but apple run them out of the box at non-2x 1440x900.
All of this is to say not even Apple themselves stick to "2x retina" only resolutions on their own laptop hardware - running a 4k monitor at non-2x retina scales isn't that much different, and most people will be perfectly happy with scaled resolutions on a 4k 27 inch panel or similar in my experience on macOS.
- emteycz 4y agoYeah but pixel density makes this non-issue on Apple panels. 4K on 27" or more is a whole another story.
- giobox 4y ago* 2560x1440 at 27 inch: 109 ppi * 4k at 27 inch: 163 ppi * 5k at 27 inch: 218 ppi I've ran both 5k and 4k monitors on a variety of macOS machines in the 27inch size class - its not nearly as bad "a whole another story". Its almost exactly the same story - especially as demonstrated Apple don't stick to the "only 2x is retina" plan either. Yes 5k is better, but 4k is still well above the industry standard of 100ppi for non-retina displays, and will look just fine for most people in macOS rendering the same usable 2560x1440 desktop.
- emteycz 4y agoWell no, text looks blurry. I know it's a SW limitation, but it does. I'm sitting in front of it right now (27" 4K display connected to a Mac). Windows look crispy clear with this display.