[Anandtech] Windows 8 on the Retina Display MacBook Pro - Page 5

Originally Posted by tpi2007 

Probably because their operating system is better designed to handle DPI scaling. Have you ever tried to use DPI scaling in Windows 7 ? It's horrible, fonts don't look right and some applications (Steam, for example) are not compatible and just display as usual, with everything small. It's much better to just use a lower resolution on the desktop and then game at the monitor's native resolution. With LCD screens however many people may tell you that anything lower than native resolution will display in a blurred kind of way, but at least the fonts don't look weird and every application works as it should. I myself have long gotten used to working at 1280x800 on my 20" 1680x1050 LG L204WT at 60 Hz. One curious thing is that it sets the refresh rate at 59 Hz and at that refresh rate it looks more blurry. Putting it at 60 Hz solves the problem. Yes, it is still not as sharp as native resolution, but you know what ? It's much easier on the eyes, soothing really.
I can't work on my monitor's native resolution, I work at 1280x800 on my 20" 1680x1050 LG L204WT ever since I bought it in 2007 and I do just fine. When I play a game I set it to native resolution because unlike Windows, games handle DPI scaling properly. Also, on my 27" 1920x1080 LG E2770V-BF I worked at 1600x900 to get more or less the same experience as I do on the 20" monitor.
OT: higher resolution monitors are great, as long as you have an OS and applications that properly support DPI scaling, and / or, a monitor that has a fast enough scaler (as far as I know any monitor that handles resolutions beyond VGAs maximum resolution has to have a scaler), so that you don't have to wait many seconds while the monitor switches resolutions, in case you work at a lower resolution and game at native resolution.

Originally Posted by .:hybrid:. 

I'm not sure how I feel about this. It seems text is only readable at 150% scaling, in which case why would choose this resolution over 1440x900, if I have to scale everything up to make it readable?

Originally Posted by .:hybrid:. 

I'm not sure how I feel about this. It seems text is only readable at 150% scaling, in which case why would choose this resolution over 1440x900, if I have to scale everything up to make it readable?

Originally Posted by lordikon 


Do you have vision issues that force you to lower the resolution? On my 27" 2560x1440 everything looks great, I can't imagine having to use 1600x900 at this size.

Originally Posted by DJ_Reason 

wouldn't it be better to just wait about 6 months ~ 1 year until all the other windows ultrabooks have
similar or better displays than the macbook pro with retina display?
I'm pretty sure samsung, asus or hp won't price their laptops ridiculously like Apple.

Originally Posted by Sapientia 

I really don't think we'll see 1800p displays at lower than this price point for a while.

Originally Posted by Zenka 


I remember Steve Jobs walking on the stage when they introduced their 30 inch cinema displays (2560x1600 and this was in 2004! talk about being ahead of the game) and said "Thats a lot of pixels".

Originally Posted by tpi2007 

I have sensitive eyes when it comes to computer monitors and some artificial lighting. A doctor told me I had above normal sensitivity to artificial light. Him and a previous doctor told me I had 0.5 astigmatism and the first one also told me I had 0.25 hyperopia, although a few months later the second doctor couldn't tell me that, because it was either inexistent or so low the machine didn't detect it. I just can't stand working many hours with text that is smaller than what you have in a book, plus your eyes have to focus on an object which is emitting light, which makes it much harder. And take web pages, for example, at that resolution in your monitor, many sites will just use a ridiculously small amount of space to render, and you would be much better off in the long term by just having it occupy a larger portion of the screen. Either that or have to zoom in on every single different site you visit, which is not a very efficient way to work.
My eyes may be a little formatted from the nineties, when a 12" CRT monitor had a 640x480 resolution, and a 15" CRT monitor had a maximum 1024x768 resolution, but I ended up working at either 640x480 in true color or at 800x600 in high color. 1024x768 only gave 256 colors in interlaced mode on my Cirrus Logic 1 MB VRAM graphics controller and Compaq monitor. I do get along just fine with my HP Netbook and its 1024x600 10.1" screen though, but it does have good PWM circuitry, unlike the 1024x600 10" screen of a previous LG Netbook a few years ago I had to sell one month after having it.
My eyes don't deal very well with too much light nor too much sharpness, and I am talking about my LG L204WT again because I'm using it again, because I'm also sensitive to PWM flicker, which the LG E2770V-BF is a good example of. I have it sitting here on my desk waiting to buy an external TV Tuner so I can turn it into a TV and watch from a distance.

Originally Posted by DJ_Reason 

wouldn't it be better to just wait about 6 months ~ 1 year until all the other windows ultrabooks have
similar or better displays than the macbook pro with retina display?
I'm pretty sure samsung, asus or hp won't price their laptops ridiculously like Apple.