Hi, may be I am used to laptops with 4K screen. Today I spent some time on the MBP 16" and noticed that the screen estate looks noticeably smaller than that of laptop with 4K screen. I don't remember the details but I seem to have read somewhere about Apple's reasoning that although the resolutions are 2072x1920 vs 3840x2160, they look similar. Is there any way to see similar amount of things like the 4K screen on Windows laptop on the MBP 16" screen?
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.
Why the screen estate of the MBP 16" seems to be smaller than that of the 4K screen?
- Thread starter hajime
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple chooses a default scaling that makes things a bit bigger, but you can choose another option if you like.
You mean from Seetings->Display->Resolutions->Change?
On the right of Default, there is an option of expending the space. Am I correct that it only makes the text smaller? Is there a way to reduce the size of the icons shown on the desktop and also make the top command bar on the desktop to hide like the dock?
[automerge]1574265127[/automerge]
Do you also mean Settings->Display->Resolutions->Change?
Settings->Display->Resolutions->Change
Resolutions: Scaled
The last setting on the right (more space) will give you the same size as 4k display running at 2x Retina Resolution.
It will resize everything not just the text.
If you want further scaling options you need 3d party utilities, I use SwitchResX
To auto hide the menu bar go to
Settings->General
and select Automatically hide and show the menu bar
Thanks.
I chose the last setting on the right (more space) but the size of those icons on the desktop does not seem to have changed.
Will using SwitchResX damage the screen? When I used those very big CRT monitors 30 years ago, setting resolutions higher than the default one for the monitors could cause damage. What about the MBP screen?
I am using SwithResX too. Do you think that its competitors might be easier on the GPU or they are all the same under the hood?
in addition to what
Adding to Alfogator's answer;
The scaling options change the size of everything that is sized based on pixel sizing. The icons on the desktop are not. Their size can be changed independently of scaling size. Right click desktop and select view options at the bottom. There you can change icon size and more.
You cannot harm a digital monitor that way. You may however pick resolutions that make the system slower, increase load on the GPU, cause a loss in sharpness relative to tighter or optimised scaling factors, or depending on how the program is coded/how the scaler in the monitor is, send a signal the display won't show
Theoretically a 2:1 resolution might offer better battery life, but I doubt the difference in GPU processing requirements is large enough for it to really make a difference with most resolutions
These tools only change some settings. SwitchResX also has the ability to let you create new custom resolutions that aren't standard, but still it's just setting a different value. It has no impact on performance per se.
An higher resolution will require more work on the GPU of course, not matter which program you use for setting it.
This is made more significant by the fact that MacOS, when working on scaled resolutions, will render the screen at 2X the set resolution and then scale it in half. This ensures a better quality of the scaling but creates more load on the GPU.