I've downloaded it but my computer won't let me install it because at one time I set it up so that only programs from known developers on the App Store are allowed on my computer.
I'm stuck. Maybe I can figure this out.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Scale 1680x1050 on rMB without an app
- Thread starter thadoggfather
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I've downloaded it but my computer won't let me install it because at one time I set it up so that only programs from known developers on the App Store are allowed on my computer.
I'm stuck. Maybe I can figure this out.
You need to visit System Preferences -> Security & Privacy -> General -> Allow apps downloaded from -> Anywhere.
Use it at your own risks though.
One would never think that I actually work with computers as an engineer...I was just assuming it was on the App Store.
It is now working! I finally now have 1536 x 960. I wish I would have know I needed that app. I edited the files many times with no luck.
Now I can't decide what resolution is best for me.
Last edited:
Can't quite change the original title, but edited original post to reflect instructions for 1536x960 using RDM and clarified that 1680 doesn't need RDM to run. Should mitigate piecing together info from this thread and conflicting opinions/results 
I had similar experience as well. Downloaded RDM by chance and saw something extra and .. bang
Confirmed. I added both strings to my file (vendor 610, device a028), and only the 1050 resolution showed up in display settings. Ran RDM and it was able to see both the 1050 and 960 HiDPI resolutions.
Kind of annoys me to have to run an app to access it, but it's very lightweight. The menu bar icon looks terrible, though, especially in dark mode. All menu bar icons should be monochrome and dark-mode-compatible, IMO.]
Anyway, thanks for the help, everyone. I'm going to run at 960 for a few days and decide if I like it enough to keep RDM running.
1536x960 is great as middle ground to 1440 and 1680 and great ratio to 2403x1440. two thirds of each
the numbers don't work out as cleanly on the other two
my menu bar looks alright dark mode though mostly because it matches my cpu monitoring
the numbers don't work out as cleanly on the other two
my menu bar looks alright dark mode though mostly because it matches my cpu monitoring
You can probably try to make some rationalization on this, like 3072x1920 px is less than two times more pixels than the 2304x1440 pixels of the panel (actually 16/9 more pixels as it's a 4/3 larger resolution in each dimension), whereas 3360x2100 is more than two times more pixels to interpolate.
Or consider it's up to 4*1536*960*3*60/2^30 = 0.99 GB per second of RGB datas to render and then scale down to the screen resolution (1/60 of GB 60 times), while it's of course more than 1GB/s for 2x 1680x1050. That's at least just a round number, I don't know if it's at all meaningful regarding (Broadwell) Core M specs.
Or you can also relate the rMB to other retina Macs and see Apple has here to do weird things because they couldn't get a 2560x1600 screen for the rMB and has to use a lower resolution screen: if they did as usual with this 2304x1440 panel, the offered resolutions would have been HiDPI 2x (1024x640, ) 1152x720 as the default, something between 1296x810 and 1344x840, and the max at 1536x960.
But of course 1152x720 would have sucked as the default out of the box, and the rMBP13 having only a 2560x1600 screen they couldn't choose any higher resolution as the default for the rMB12. Well, still having hopes in two or three upgrades of the rMB, say late 2016 or 2017, to see Apple moving to a 2560x1600 screen for the rMB12 and give the rMBP line an upgrade to 2800x1800 and 3360x2100 all at ~250 ppi and setting as the default their current second best resolution like on the rMB.
As I was saying at post #12 in first page when I proposed to try this resolution, this is just the same ratio as the max resolution proposed on the two rMBP or the riMac, so you're not going further with the rMB panel than Apple support with its other retina Macs with similar pixel densities. And then, physical screen resolution is one aspect, but actual GPU capabilities in a fanless Broadwell Core M laptop is another. And I don't really see the point at trying to burn ones eyes with larger resolutions than 1440x900 or 1536x960 on a 12" screen.
Last edited:
1536x960 is great as middle ground to 1440 and 1680 and great ratio to 2403x1440. two thirds of each
the numbers don't work out as cleanly on the other two
my menu bar looks alright dark mode though mostly because it matches my cpu monitoring
I was able to throw the icon off the menu bar by command/dragging it off and the resolution has remained. May want to give that a try.
Awesome! This is the best one so far for me, and it works without an app!Another HIDPI resolution
<data>AAAMYAAAB7wAAAAB</data>
1584x990, available without rdm app
Cheers
Why best so far, lack of app aside? I'd think 1536x960 would be good being 2/3 the actual pixel count each dimension
Seems ('seems' being the operative word) like clean math to me
Seems ('seems' being the operative word) like clean math to me
Awesome
Did anyone try the panel's native resolution yet?
You mean like this?
Attachments
You can probably try to make some rationalization on this, like 3072x1920 px is less than two times more pixels than the 2304x1440 pixels of the panel (actually 16/9 more pixels as it's a 4/3 larger resolution in each dimension), whereas 3360x2100 is more than two times more pixels to interpolate.
Or consider it's up to 4*1536*960*3*60/2^30 = 0.99 GB per second of RGB datas to render and then scale down to the screen resolution (1/60 of GB 60 times), while it's of course more than 1GB/s for 2x 1680x1050. That's at least just a round number, I don't know if it's at all meaningful regarding (Broadwell) Core M specs.
Or you can also relate the rMB to other retina Macs and see Apple has here to do weird things because they couldn't get a 2560x1600 screen for the rMB and has to use a lower resolution screen: if they did as usual with this 2304x1440 panel, the offered resolutions would have been HiDPI 2x (1024x640, ) 1152x720 as the default, something between 1296x810 and 1344x840, and the max at 1536x960.
But of course 1152x720 would have sucked as the default out of the box, and the rMBP13 having only a 2560x1600 screen they couldn't choose any higher resolution as the default for the rMB12. Well, still having hopes in two or three upgrades of the rMB, say late 2016 or 2017, to see Apple moving to a 2560x1600 screen for the rMB12 and give the rMBP line an upgrade to 2800x1800 and 3360x2100 all at ~250 ppi and setting as the default their current second best resolution like on the rMB.
As I was saying at post #12 in first page when I proposed to try this resolution, this is just the same ratio as the max resolution proposed on the two rMBP or the riMac, so you're not going further with the rMB panel than Apple support with its other retina Macs with similar pixel densities. And then, physical screen resolution is one aspect, but actual GPU capabilities in a fanless Broadwell Core M laptop is another. And I don't really see the point at trying to burn ones eyes with larger resolutions than 1440x900 or 1536x960 on a 12" screen.
There are times where I need lots of screen real estate. Not very often admittedly but the ability to have a much larger desktop temporarily for me is a huge bonus. 1280x800 (equivalent) feels far too cramped and everything looks too big. 1440x900 was what I was using until I read this, I'm now running at 1680x1050. I'm running this resolution, because its the same resolution that I ran on my 15" rMBP.
Its all personal preference. I find it no harder to read this screen at this resolution, but I have very good eyesight. Its that old adage isn't it? Your mileage may vary!
Yes, same here, I found that this resolution trick disappeared with the update. it's kind of annoying, but I'm pretty sure we'll find it back.
Ok, just found the fix for El Capitan, with the help of @Yolnashi on Twitter
- Type in Terminal : sudo nvram boot-args="kext-dev-mode=1 rootless=0" (in order to disable rootless)
- Reboot
- Go in : /System/Library/Displays/Contents/Ressources/Overrides/YourDisplayVendorID and change the file DisplayProductID as mentioned in this topic
- Reboot & enjoy
To me, it's about the perfect compromise between readability and space, and I don't notice any difference in clarity between x990 and x900. I didn't flip back and forth between 990 and 960, but at that point I might just be looking for problems to obsess over.
I have to say, I thought this was splitting hairs, but after trying I agree completely. This is the perfect one size fits all resolution for this size display.
Thanks for that highly appreciated, worked for me.Ok, just found the fix for El Capitan, with the help of @Yolnashi on Twitter
- Type in Terminal : sudo nvram boot-args="kext-dev-mode=1 rootless=0" (in order to disable rootless)
- Reboot
- Go in : /System/Library/Displays/Contents/Ressources/Overrides/YourDisplayVendorID and change the file DisplayProductID as mentioned in this topic
- Reboot & enjoy
Ok, just found the fix for El Capitan, with the help of @Yolnashi on Twitter
- Type in Terminal : sudo nvram boot-args="kext-dev-mode=1 rootless=0" (in order to disable rootless)
- Reboot
- Go in : /System/Library/Displays/Contents/Ressources/Overrides/YourDisplayVendorID and change the file DisplayProductID as mentioned in this topic
- Reboot & enjoy
good info, referenced your post in OP to mitigate 10.11 adopter confusion/user error. Thanks!