High resolution? Everything's just smaller..

Hi allencraig!

With a new computer you have off course to review the options and preferences, to feel comfortable. To enlarge the default font of Safari, go into Preferences > "Appearance". To enlarge the text of a Finder window you have to option click into it, and then adjust the font size under "Show View Size". With many applications you can set the default size of the characters und Preferences.

marek

Resolution determines the size of a graphic displayed at 1:1. One pixel of information to one screen pixel. Screen size also partly effects this.

This also isn't just an "Apple" thing. All monitors have been gaining higher resolutions. So you'd see the same thing in Windows, Linux and anything else. I doubt very much the 17" monitor you were using with the G4 had a 1920x1200 resolution. So even though they're both 17", graphics will display smaller on the new monitor.

For instance, say you have a graphic drawn at 50 pixels in the width by 40 pixels high. A higher resolution monitor is still displaying that graphic at 50w x 40h, but because the pixels are smaller and closer together, the graphic is displayed smaller than a same sized monitor with a lower resolution.

So yes, resolution does affect size.

My understanding is that resolution has nothing to do with size, it's the amount of pixel information within a given size, no?

Half right and half wrong. Resolution, when speaking of computer screens, means the number of pixels that comprise the screen image, usually expressed as width in pixels x height in pixels. The more pixels one packs into a given area, the smaller each pixel must be. Your problem arises from the fact that in the Mac OS, some graphic elements that you see on the screen are defined in terms of pixels — that is, their sizes are locked to the size of a pixel. The smaller the pixel, the smaller all such elements will be displayed. Those elements include the menu bar, dialog boxes, and toolbars and tool palettes in many applications. They can't be resized. This is a problem for many users, particularly those with older eyes.

Your problem also arises, as it has for many other people who ordered high-resolution 15" and 17" MBPs sight unseen, from the fact that you evidently didn't sit down in front of one and look carefully at it before ordering. If you had, you would have realized that it wasn't going to work for you, at least not without considerable hassle. If in fact you did so, and you asked about the small menu fonts, etc. but were told you could adjust all that, you were actively misled, and you should complain to the seller about that.

If you are past your 14-days-after-purchase return window, call Apple Customer Relations at 1-800-767-2775 (in the USA only), explain your situation, and throw yourself on their mercy. They may allow you to return your machine in exchange for a standard-resolution 15" model (the high-resolution 15" model would give you almost as much trouble as the 17" model*).

In System Preferences > Trackpad, you can activate Two-Finger Screen Zoom. Then when you hold down the Control key and slide two fingers up the trackpad surface, your entire screen will be zoomed in, enlarging everything on it. This is probably the handiest workaround for you if you can't, or don't want to, exchange your computer. It's not ideal, certainly, but it will help.

* 17" MBP: 133.2 pixels per inch.

15" hi-res MBP: 128.6 PPI.

15" standard-res MBP: 110.3 PPI.

Theoretically, resolution and physical size are two different things (sorry Kurt), but when elements are tied to pixels, they in effect they can't be a higher resolution and so have to be smaller.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant in the 50 x 40 pixel example. The image can't change it's physical size, so a higher resolution forces it to display smaller than a monitor with a lower resolution.

For example, if you have a 72dpi photo that's 10x20" and change it to a 144 dpi photo that's 5x10", your photo isn't a higher resolution, it's the same resolution.

Mmm, no. Pixel count and resolution are two different things. Though it does depend on where that image is being used. A monitor could care less what the resolution of an image is set to. It's own resolution (number of pixels per inch of the screen) determines how big that image will display. Neither does video editing software. The only thing it cares about is pixel count.

For instance, an image with 800 pixels in the width and 400 in the height, with a resolution of 300 ppi, will display on your monitor exactly the same as a duplicate of the image with the resolution set to 72 ppi. The monitor only cares about displaying the pixels 1:1. The video editing software also only looks at the pixel count. Resolution means nothing.

Printing that image is another matter. There, resolution means everything. While both images are 800 x 400 pixels, one tells the system to use 300 pixels per inch for output to a printer. The other, while it has the same number of total pixels, tells the system to only use 72 pixels per inch. So it will of course print larger (and crappy since 72 ppi is too low for printed output).

If you kept it's size at 10x20" AND increased the pixels to 144, THEN you'd have a higher resolution photo.

No, the resolution of the image is still 144 ppi. You've added more pixels, and made the picture larger, but you have not changed the resolution.

But the other part that would make this a non issue is, why doesn't Apple provide other resolution options that I can just switch to that are proportional to my monitor

Unless something has changed in the last year or so, they do. Not all of them are proportional to the screen's physical dimensions, but some are. 1920x1200 is a 1.6:1 ratio. Other sizes that my 17" MBP supports that have that same ratio are 1680x1050, 1600x1000, 1344x840, 1280x800, etc. Make sure you choose one that fits the screen.

Note, though, that any resolution other than the native one won't look as good. Displaying 1600x1000 pixels, for example, on a screen that is 1920x1200 means that the 1600x1000 screen image has to be stretched out to cover all those extra pixels.

But the other part that would make this a non issue is, why doesn't Apple provide other resolution options that I can just switch to that are proportional to my monitor—like every one of the other 15 or more monitors I've owned in the past.

I don't have a 17" MBP to look at, but I too would expect to be offered other resolution options with the same aspect ratio as your screen, such as 1680 x 1050 (the resolution of the last 17" MBP before the 1920 x 1200 models were introduced), and 1280 x 800. According to MacTracker's specifications, these resolutions are offered. Are you sure you don't have them?

Even if you do, though, they won't "make this a non issue," because using an LCD screen at anything other than its native (maximum) resolution setting makes the image blurry. This is because an LCD display contains a fixed number of pixels that have a fixed size, unlike the CRT displays we all used to use. A CRT display had no fixed number of pixels. If you set it to show more pixels, it manufactured more and smaller pixels. If you set it for a lower resolution, it sprayed fewer, larger pixels onto the phosphors. An LCD's only way of displaying a reduced resolution is to use its fixed pixels to simulate a smaller number of pixels. Imagine trying to use an 8 x 8-square checkerboard to simulate a 5 x 5-square checkerboard of the same overall size, and you'll begin to appreciate the difficulty. The inescapable consequence of this simulation process — the only way to make it work at all — is to change the color values of every pixel so that from a distance, they resemble the desired image...more or less. "Less" is the operative word there. The good news is that the more pixels there are to work with, i.e., the higher the native screen resolution, the less obvious the blurring will be. But it will always be there.

Sorry, I goofed there. I didn't catch your entire quote.

For example, if you have a 72dpi photo that's 10x20" and change it to a 144 dpi photo that's 5x10", your photo isn't a higher resolution, it's the same resolution.

No, it is indeed a higher resolution. You've told the system to use 144 pixels per inch instead of 72, where that resolution can be applied. And that only makes a difference to a printer. A monitor doesn't even look at that number.

If you kept it's size at 10x20" AND increased the pixels to 144, THEN you'd have a higher resolution photo.

You've actually done two things. You increased the resolution from 72 to 144, and increased the pixel count of the image. Don't confuse pixel dimensions for resolution.

allencraig wrote:

However, everything on my screen is tiny. Text , icon, pictures in my browser, icons in the tool bars of my programs—everything. I can't even read the text anymore, it's literally a problem working with my programs because there's nothing I can do to increase the size of the tools and dialog box text.

This is because while Apple provides higher resolutions, they don't provide any useful way to scale the UI. Windows has a Large Font option for the UI, as well as more customizable UI text sizes in general. The Mac does not, so the only thing high resolution buys you is more area for windows and palettes. Having that extra space is very valuable if you work with apps that need room to spread out (video apps etc), which is why some buy the hi-res monitor. But the farther our eyes get from being 20 years old, the harder it is to read tiny text and icons!

allencraig wrote:

Higher resolution is nice when I'm working on my photographs or videos, but why does Apple attain this so-called higher resolution by simply making everything smaller? That's not resolution, that's SIZE.

Apple has worked on a concept called Resolution Independence, where the text and graphics of the UI would scale sensibly if you increase the resolution, but for some reason it has never made it into OS X for consumers. There is even partial code in OS X now for it, it's just not finished. If they finished this work, we would complain a lot less about how tiny the UI text gets on hi-res monitors. Below is a link to an article about Resolution Independence from 2004 in Mac OS X 10.4. Seven years and three major upgrades later, we still got nothin'.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/04/08/23/mac_os_x_tiger_to_support_resoluti on_independent_ui_larger_icons.html

You do NOT have to live with what you've got. Your Mac is very adjustable. Boldly set the resolution to the maximum.

The DOCK size is adjustable. If you wish, you can magnify Icons as your cursor rolls over them, and the amount of magnification is adjustable.

The Desktop is adjustable, in size of icons and size of text. Finder View Options after clicking on the desktop.

Finder Windows are adjustable in Icon size and Text size. Finder View Options (which can sometimes be applied to ALL Windows or used a default in the future)

Safari has a "never use text smaller than ....." Text size setting.

Mail has default font and size settings for several different font uses.

The adjustments are there, but getting it all to your liking will be tedious.

allencraig wrote:

However, everything on my screen is tiny. Text , icon, pictures in my browser, icons in the tool bars of my programs—everything. I can't even read the text anymore, it's literally a problem working with my programs because there's nothing I can do to increase the size of the tools and dialog box text.. With my browser, obviously I can just increase the size with CMD-+, but I have to do it constantly, over and over, for every webpage (because it's not just the text.)

I'm having the same exact issues. I'm typing this on my 15" MBP 3,1 (which the stable Snow Leopard freshly restored from Lion mess) has a 1440 x 900 at 15" and it appears the system font and colored buttons are indeed larger and easier to read than my new 17" high res MBP.

What I did on my 17" was downloaded Firefox and used the following add-ons.

ThemeFont & Size Changer and NoSquint.

Theme Font overrides Apple settings and changes the toolbar font size of Firefox itself to a larger size, and NoSquint can set a minimal web page zoom level and remembers all the site zoom levels you set so if you visit again it's already embiggened.

However Apple should have made adjustments in OS X so it's as easy to read as it is on other machines, there shouldn't be a penalty for higher resolution.

For instance on Safari the toolbar type has got to be something like a 10 or a 9 on the 17", that's incredibly too small. So I don't use it in favor of Firefox, how can I see that? Also there is no zoom site memory in Safari neither.

The high res on the 17" is for watching HD video in full resolution, the UI needs to be increased so it's uniform. But at least for 90% of the time using the web, Firefox and the add-ons is working wonderfully.

It's like Apple penalizes those who buy the better options or something.

OS X should have had cross wide UI incremental increase abilty long ago.

All well and good and true as far as it goes, Grant, but there are still the menu bar fonts, dialog boxes, and various toolbars and tool palettes to contend with, and they can't be enlarged without decreasing the resolution or zooming the screen.

The long-awaited resolution-independent Mac OS will certainly be welcome if it ever arrives.

eww wrote:

The long-awaited resolution-independent Mac OS will certainly be welcome if it ever arrives.

Here Here!! 🙂

Yeah, sorry Grant but by making that list you just proved that there's no simple way to adjust font sizes in the menu bar and palettes in general...only an unfocused random set of adjustments can be made, and it's very application specific, so if your application doesn't provide such adjustments, you're out of luck because Mac OS X won't help you there.