4 ms·

The true resolution of the 13" rMBP is 2560×1600, 15" rMBP is 2880×1800. That means even if you are getting a scaled down resolution of 1440×900, the real reso

The true resolution of the 13" rMBP is 2560×1600, 15" rMBP is 2880×1800. That means even if you are getting a scaled down resolution of 1440×900, the real resolution of the display is still obscenely high. Everything is MUCH sharper than on the regular displays. The fonts are gorgeous. I own a 15" rMBP. I can change the scaled resolution to 1680×1050 or 1920×1200, without loss of details. Seriously, there is no fuzziness or anything sort of BS like that. I think Marco needs glasses. One problem with this laptop is with non-retina ready apps and some websites. Since the display is at such a high resolution, smaller images will appear a bit blurry (because of the upscaling algorithms), but its really not that bad. Non-retina ready apps will look pixelated, and it sucks. But most popular apps are retina-ready, so again, it's not a big problem. Another problem is because you are rendering stuff at such a high resolution, there may be performance issues in some apps. Most of them were optimized for this (e.g. sublime text 2).

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
hboon 14y ago
A related tip: for non-retina ready apps, going to properties (Cmd+i) in Finder and checking Open in Low Resolution can help a lot.
calinet6 14y ago
And the technology is fairly young, and things will continue to improve. You speak the truth. The original article is hogwash and should be ignored with prejudice.
otakucode 14y ago
I am a bit confused. If the resolution is 2560x1600, why don't you run it at 2560x1600? The idea of not running a panel at its native resolution bothers me greatly. Is it the case that you're not able to run the system at its actual native resolution? That seems to be what these articles are saying, but they all seem to be dancing around it or assuming I've read something I haven't.
- kzrdude 14y ago
  It's all in apple's implementation of retina in OS X. The display is running at its native 1600p but runs applications at a "logical" 800p resolution. It's just as if points and pixels suddenly had different meanings.
- Filligree 14y ago
  It's basically about whether applications are DPI-aware or not. Applications that are get the full 2560x1600 resolution. Applications that don't, don't; instead, they get 1280x800 by default, for an 1:2 upscaling. If you want, you can change that number, of course at a performance cost. People are complaining because even most of the apps that are DPI-aware (Chrome, etc.) don't offer a way to change the physical size of their chrome, but that isn't really Apple's fault.
  - kzrdude 14y ago
    Isn't it Apple's fault that they basically are designing OS X for fixed-size UI. You can't scale text sizes independently of the UI elements for example.
- nickporter 14y ago
  Since the display is small (i.e. the pixel density is high), if I were to run OSX without scaling, everything would extremely tiny. That's the reason you need scaling. But you're still running at native resolution, so there's no blurring. Think of this like vector graphics. You can enlarge them without getting pixelation. This is, I think, what scaling does.
driverdan 14y ago
I agree. I run my 15" at 1920x1200. Rasterized graphics can be a little fuzzy if you look closely but it's hardly noticeable. If you spend most of your time doing graphics work then yes, you'll probably have issues. Photoshop CS5.1 is really bad. Other than that I like it much better than the previous 1680x1050 screen.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

hboon 14y ago

A related tip: for non-retina ready apps, going to properties (Cmd+i) in Finder and checking Open in Low Resolution can help a lot.

calinet6 14y ago

And the technology is fairly young, and things will continue to improve. You speak the truth. The original article is hogwash and should be ignored with prejudice.

otakucode 14y ago

I am a bit confused. If the resolution is 2560x1600, why don't you run it at 2560x1600? The idea of not running a panel at its native resolution bothers me greatly. Is it the case that you're not able to run the system at its actual native resolution? That seems to be what these articles are saying, but they all seem to be dancing around it or assuming I've read something I haven't.

kzrdude 14y ago
It's all in apple's implementation of retina in OS X. The display is running at its native 1600p but runs applications at a "logical" 800p resolution. It's just as if points and pixels suddenly had different meanings.
Filligree 14y ago
It's basically about whether applications are DPI-aware or not. Applications that are get the full 2560x1600 resolution. Applications that don't, don't; instead, they get 1280x800 by default, for an 1:2 upscaling. If you want, you can change that number, of course at a performance cost. People are complaining because even most of the apps that are DPI-aware (Chrome, etc.) don't offer a way to change the physical size of their chrome, but that isn't really Apple's fault.
- kzrdude 14y ago
  Isn't it Apple's fault that they basically are designing OS X for fixed-size UI. You can't scale text sizes independently of the UI elements for example.
nickporter 14y ago
Since the display is small (i.e. the pixel density is high), if I were to run OSX without scaling, everything would extremely tiny. That's the reason you need scaling. But you're still running at native resolution, so there's no blurring. Think of this like vector graphics. You can enlarge them without getting pixelation. This is, I think, what scaling does.

driverdan 14y ago

I agree. I run my 15" at 1920x1200. Rasterized graphics can be a little fuzzy if you look closely but it's hardly noticeable. If you spend most of your time doing graphics work then yes, you'll probably have issues. Photoshop CS5.1 is really bad. Other than that I like it much better than the previous 1680x1050 screen.