"Default for display" resolution is a lie

Question

"Default for display" resolution is a lie

I'm on a 2015 MacBook Pro with a display of 2560x1600 pixels. I've been noticing that when I'm looking at images that are about 1080 pixels in height, that they don't fit on my screen. How is that possible if my vertical resolution is 1600 pixels? Doesn't make sense.

I went into my "Displays" settings and confirmed that "Default for display" was selected. Well, I tried out the options under "Scaled" and to my surprise, selecting "More Space" actually fixed the problem. I can now view 1080p images with space to spare. Looks like I'm actually getting all 1600 vertical bars now. "Scaled" my hat—this is the true default resolution.

I love the disclaimer that shows up when I select this setting: "Using scaled resolution may affect performance." Did they really just set it up this way so that people think their laptops are more powerful than they actually are because, by default, they're running at lower resolution than the display can actually handle? That's pretty nefarious.

MacBook Pro with Retina display, macOS Sierra (10.12)

Posted on Nov 6, 2016 12:18 PM

Reply

Answer 1

Nov 6, 2016 12:34 PM in response to Signal Morning

"Default for Display" is not necessarily the same as Maximum Resolution.

By default, the resolution on your display is set to show the sharpest [readable] text and the most detailed images.

from:

OS X Yosemite: Adjust your display’s resolution

.

Reply

Answer 2

Nov 6, 2016 1:01 PM in response to Grant Bennet-Alder

True, I guess "default" doesn't necessarily mean "native," even though I think most would assume it does.

However, "Scaled" for "More Space" is definitely not true. It isn't scaled for more space—it's the native resolution of the screen. By naming it this way, Apple is discouraging people from using the native resolution of their displays, because most people want the real picture, not something "scaled." Quite deceptive.

Reply

Answer 3

Nov 6, 2016 5:17 PM in response to Signal Morning

When retina displays were first introduced, there were no special settings, just a set of "straight" resolutions. Setting them to maximum resolution gave a display where pictures looked great. Text was extremely crisp, but so tiny you could not read it.

The new "default" setting reduced the resolution enough to make text legible. Later, different "scaled" settings were added to produce different combinations of more pixels on screen with and without pixel-doubling (scaling) the text to make it large enough to be readable.

Reply

Answer 4

Nov 7, 2016 5:12 AM in response to Grant Bennet-Alder

That mostly makes sense (except for the part about having to change the whole effective resolution just to change text size—Windows and Chrome let you change text size without compromising on resolution). But it doesn't explain why they call the setting where I get to see all of my native pixels "scaled" and the setting where I don't "default." It's just not honest.

And yes, I have seen some performance issues running at the native resolution. So clearly Apply hardware was not yet up to the task of powering their Retina displays, but they wanted to jump on the high-res bandwagon early. Disappointing.

Reply

Answer 5

Nov 7, 2016 6:23 AM in response to Signal Morning

I am not convinced your perceived slowness is due to overloaded graphics at maximum resolution. I expect other factors are causing this.

I run a similar 2560 by 1600 display and i could run several more without the performance problems or hesitation. The late 2013 Mac Pro can run six displays off one graphics card. There is plenty of extra headroom in graphics performance.

Reply

Answer 6

Nov 7, 2016 8:16 AM in response to Grant Bennet-Alder

Your early 2015 13-in MacBook Pro 12,1 features Intel Iris 6100 graphics, and uses VRAM "borrowed" from main memory. It can support two additional external displays each at up to 3840 by 2160. If you are finding its graphics slow under ordinary conditions, this slowness is likely caused by factors other than raw graphics performance.

Reply

Answer 7

Nov 7, 2016 9:07 AM in response to Grant Bennet-Alder

While a 13" MacBook Pro is by no means a gaming laptop, I do emulate some games on it, and there were some considerable slowdown and heat issues after I upped my resolution (emulating windowed or fullscreen without a forced resolution). I changed it to a lower resolution, and things started running fine again.

I don't know what you are arguing, really. As I pointed out earlier, even Apple admits there may be some performance issues if you use the native resolution. ("Using scaled [native!] resolution may affect performance.") For example, I can run some 3D games at a low resolution with low graphics settings, but putting it at or above 1080p turns it into a choppy mess. This is common sense.

Anyway, still doesn't resolve my MAIN point, which is that the resolution options are misleading. They should just go back to letting users choose their resolution by numbers rather than these vague, mislabeled "scaling" options.

Reply