3 ms·
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 gr
by 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 agoIt'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 agoIt'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 agoIsn'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 agoSince 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.