2 ms·

Not that I could tell - it did the typical screen doubling trick, and presumably renders the fonts nicely - but I couldn't get extra screen real-estate the way

Not that I could tell - it did the typical screen doubling trick, and presumably renders the fonts nicely - but I couldn't get extra screen real-estate the way I would if the screen was 2560x1600. The 15" MacBook Pro Retina actually felt _smaller_ than my 2010 MacBook Air. It screen shrinks back to 1280x800, and my 2010 MacBook Air runs at 1440x900. Or maybe it was the Font Handling - I was hoping that it would look okay (just small) at Andale Mono 4 - but it pixelated. Regardless - In my 5 minutes of futzing at the apple store I could get it to do what I wanted (Basically, make the Screen look 2560x1600 to Terminal.app, but have the OS treat it as 1280x800)

masklinn 14y ago
I'm sorry, but I just don't get what you're saying. > I couldn't get extra screen real-estate the way I would if the screen was 2560x1600 The resolution of the 15" is 2880x1800, not 2560x1600 (that's the 13", is that the one you're actually talking about? I'll go with that for the rest as what you say doesn't seem to make sense for the 15"). You don't get access to the native resolution of the screen with the built-in tools as far as I know, there always is some scaling applied. > It screen shrinks back to 1280x800, and my 2010 MacBook Air runs at 1440x900. That's just the default scaling (1:2), if you go into the display settings you can change the virtual resolution to 1680x1050, 1440x900 or 1024x640. > Or maybe it was the Font Handling - I was hoping that it would look okay (just small) at Andale Mono 4 - but it pixelated. Andale Mono 4? As in 4 points? > Basically, make the Screen look 2560x1600 to Terminal.app, but have the OS treat it as 1280x800 I fear I don't get what you mean anymore than previously.
- ghshephard 14y ago
  You are right - I'm wrong. 2880x1800, not 2560x1600. What I want is for the screen to appear to be 1440x900 (the 1:2 scaling you mentioned), or 1680x1050, but for the Terminal Windows to appear to be as though they were on a 2560x1600 screen - really small. I thought I could do that by making the font Andale Mono 4, and I was hoping that the font would be displayed properly because of the retina screen - but it was still pretty unreadable. You can't really get "microprinting" on a retina screen - it still has a ways to go in terms of resolution.

masklinn 14y ago

I'm sorry, but I just don't get what you're saying. > I couldn't get extra screen real-estate the way I would if the screen was 2560x1600 The resolution of the 15" is 2880x1800, not 2560x1600 (that's the 13", is that the one you're actually talking about? I'll go with that for the rest as what you say doesn't seem to make sense for the 15"). You don't get access to the native resolution of the screen with the built-in tools as far as I know, there always is some scaling applied. > It screen shrinks back to 1280x800, and my 2010 MacBook Air runs at 1440x900. That's just the default scaling (1:2), if you go into the display settings you can change the virtual resolution to 1680x1050, 1440x900 or 1024x640. > Or maybe it was the Font Handling - I was hoping that it would look okay (just small) at Andale Mono 4 - but it pixelated. Andale Mono 4? As in 4 points? > Basically, make the Screen look 2560x1600 to Terminal.app, but have the OS treat it as 1280x800 I fear I don't get what you mean anymore than previously.

ghshephard 14y ago
You are right - I'm wrong. 2880x1800, not 2560x1600. What I want is for the screen to appear to be 1440x900 (the 1:2 scaling you mentioned), or 1680x1050, but for the Terminal Windows to appear to be as though they were on a 2560x1600 screen - really small. I thought I could do that by making the font Andale Mono 4, and I was hoping that the font would be displayed properly because of the retina screen - but it was still pretty unreadable. You can't really get "microprinting" on a retina screen - it still has a ways to go in terms of resolution.