11–20 of 76 posts
While I can understand the issue being something that annoys you, deciding to simply rid yourself of it - despite the bug being as you state "not something that disturbs your normal workflow" - strikes me as rather silly.
It works best with 1440x900 resolution. So if you like 1680x1050, your GPU will have to do extra work. The display's native resolution is 2880x1800. Why would you set it to half the native resolution? That defeats the whole point of having all those pixels! You might as well have a 1440x900 (non-retina) display. Setting the display output to 1680x1050 is totally whacked - that is displaying each pixel in 1.7 native p…
It works best with 1440x900 resolution. So if you like 1680x1050, your GPU will have to do extra work. The display's native resolution is 2880x1800. Why would you set it to half the native resolution? That defeats the whole point of having all those pixels! You might as well have a 1440x900 (non-retina) display. Setting the display output to 1680x1050 is totally whacked - that is displaying each pixel in 1.7 native p…
- when OP says 1440x900 he means the pixel doubled version. All GUI lengths / fonts have the size of their 1440x900 versions, but there are twice as many pixels, enabling high resolution graphics and fonts. It's basically a crotch because Apple never got around to make their OS resolution independent, however from a programmer's standpoint it's actually not that bad, you just have to specify images with @2x postfix in the filename.
- higher resolutions are not scaled in the same way you're used to. They're actually rendered internally at double the resolution after which they're overlayed with the screen's native grid for some interpolation-like process. The result is vastly better than what you know from usual screen interpolation, it's hardly noticeable actually.
It works best with 1440x900 resolution. So if you like 1680x1050, your GPU will have to do extra work. The display's native resolution is 2880x1800. Why would you set it to half the native resolution? That defeats the whole point of having all those pixels! You might as well have a 1440x900 (non-retina) display. Setting the display output to 1680x1050 is totally whacked - that is displaying each pixel in 1.7 native p…
That's one of the main use cases it is designed for. It looks spectacular - significantly better than any other display I have ever seen.
1680x1050 looks much better than my native 1680x1050 display.
I have a retina. It has the burn-in problem. It's not noticeable and doesn't bother me. It's the price you pay for 1st-gen, new technology.
When the MacBook Air was introduced, it suffered from many early issues, including issues with the hinge. Now it's a solid device. We'll see where Retina computers are a few years down the road.
http://support.apple.com/kb/TS2948 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacBook_Air#Early_issues
It works best with 1440x900 resolution. So if you like 1680x1050, your GPU will have to do extra work. The display's native resolution is 2880x1800. Why would you set it to half the native resolution? That defeats the whole point of having all those pixels! You might as well have a 1440x900 (non-retina) display. Setting the display output to 1680x1050 is totally whacked - that is displaying each pixel in 1.7 native p…