Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

hajime

macrumors 604
Original poster
Jul 23, 2007
7,922
1,312
Hi, according to the specs, a 17" MacBook Pro 2010 has a native resolution 1920x1200, 16:10 aspect ratio while a M2 MacBook Pro 16.2" has a native resolution of 3456x2234 with the same aspect ratio. So the latest MacBook Pro should have a larger desktop. How come when I put both laptops side by side, I still felt that my 17" MacBook Pro's desktop space is still larger, more comfortable and I am more productive using it? Is it just because physically the screen is just a bit larger?
 

iSaul

macrumors member
May 3, 2007
83
70
Berkeley, California
Can you show us a picture comparing the two? Have you checked the settings? This may be part of it.
Screenshot 2023-03-30 at 11.54.13 AM.png
 

What's a computer?

macrumors newbie
Nov 15, 2018
15
31
How come when I put both laptops side by side, I still felt that my 17" MacBook Pro's desktop space is still larger, more comfortable and I am more productive using it?
Recent versions of macOS toss 1/2 of the screen resolution into the trash bin. (That's an oversimplified account of what's going on; I won't get into the details here since it would be off-topic.)
In order for a "Retina" 3456x2234 screen to be usable, macOS uses "HiDPI" mode to render graphics, text, etc, so the 3456x2234 functions sort of like a 1728x1117 screen, with ~19% less screen real estate than the old non-Retina 1920x1200 screen. The Retina screen will look slightly sharper than the old screen, though, so you do – in theory – gain something from using the newer screen, even though less stuff will fit onto it. All the same, 16.2" is a nice size. 17" sounds excessive for a laptop that's meant to be portable.
 

hajime

macrumors 604
Original poster
Jul 23, 2007
7,922
1,312
Recent versions of macOS toss 1/2 of the screen resolution into the trash bin. (That's an oversimplified account of what's going on; I won't get into the details here since it would be off-topic.)
In order for a "Retina" 3456x2234 screen to be usable, macOS uses "HiDPI" mode to render graphics, text, etc, so the 3456x2234 functions sort of like a 1728x1117 screen, with ~19% less screen real estate than the old non-Retina 1920x1200 screen. The Retina screen will look slightly sharper than the old screen, though, so you do – in theory – gain something from using the newer screen, even though less stuff will fit onto it. All the same, 16.2" is a nice size. 17" sounds excessive for a laptop that's meant to be portable.

How about the rMBP 2015 15.4" (2880x1800) running High Sierra? As I recall, I did not complain about its smaller screen size after using several 17" for many years.
 

iMacDragon

macrumors 68020
Oct 18, 2008
2,399
734
UK
3456x2234 is an effective resolution of 1728x1117, so smaller than the 17"'s, though if you use the scaled more space mode it should be effectively bigger.

The effective resolution of the 16" is should be bigger by the amount the screen is bigger than 15"'s though, I seem to reclal the PPI did not change.

So if the 15" did not feel smaller, I can not tell you why. I think some display elements may have gotten bigger and a bit more widely spaced in recent versions possibly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hajime

hajime

macrumors 604
Original poster
Jul 23, 2007
7,922
1,312
Do you mean due to Apple's implementation of Retina Display, although on paper the MacBook Pro 16" 2023 have a resolution of 3456x2234, in practice it is halved? Is there any way to disable such Retina function to regain full resolutions?

While I don't have a MacBook Pro 16" 2023 with me now, I am typing on the 17". From memory, everything feels smaller compared with the 17" running High Sierra.
 

iMacDragon

macrumors 68020
Oct 18, 2008
2,399
734
UK
Effective resolution in terms of sizing elements, not in terms of rendering detail. Third party software like switchresx or such will I believe let you run in true native res if really wish to, but most would consider that unusably small UI for normal use.

If the 'more space' option isn't enough desktop space I think such software can potentially create a larger scaled hidpi mode also, that would likely be more better option.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hajime

unrigestered

Suspended
Jun 17, 2022
879
840
you probably can use the native resolution, but then text will be tiny on anything less than 32" screens or so
 

pshufd

macrumors G4
Oct 24, 2013
10,151
14,574
New Hampshire
I use EasyRes and set the resolution to something a bit more dense than 2,560 x 1,600.

I would not mind a 17 inch MacBook Pro with a QHD display.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hajime

nathan_reilly

macrumors 6502
Apr 2, 2016
361
1,113
Maybe I'm in the minority but I search out non HiDPI displays to use. I use a Retina 15" MacBook and a Retina iPad Pro 12.9", but I do most of my work on two 30" Apple Cinema Displays that don't do any scaling. I like a really big monitor with no scaling best!
 

pshufd

macrumors G4
Oct 24, 2013
10,151
14,574
New Hampshire
Maybe I'm in the minority but I search out non HiDPI displays to use. I use a Retina 15" MacBook and a Retina iPad Pro 12.9", but I do most of my work on two 30" Apple Cinema Displays that don't do any scaling. I like a really big monitor with no scaling best!

I have five big monitors at my desk so I don't have to scale but I do travel with my MacBook Pro and having a lot of big monitors isn't an option.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.