Do non-native "retina" resolutions work on Windows PCs?

For a starter...

https://www.apple.com/macbook/specs/
Retina display
12-inch (diagonal) LED-backlit display with IPS technology
2304-by-1440 resolution at 226 pixels per inch with support for millions of colors
16:10 aspect ratio
Supported scaled resolutions:
1440 by 900
1280 by 800
1024 by 640

https://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/specs-retina/
Retina display: 13.3-inch (diagonal) LED-backlit display with IPS technology; 2560-by-1600 resolution at 227 pixels per inch with support for millions of colors
Native resolution: 2560 by 1600 pixels (Retina); scaled resolutions: 1680 by 1050, 1440 by 900, and 1024 by 640 pixels

...on Apple notebooks, they just work. I personally them.

I'm in the market for screen sizes 13.3" or smaller. ( More here)

My idea is that I do not want a display with a scaled/effective resolution of not higher than 133 PPI (that is, 11.6", 1366x768 for example).

Play with this to find out your resolution (and compare to the MacBooks for reference): https://www.sven.de/dpi/

I don't really get the idea - and esp. real work usefulness - behind the following (native) resolutions, for example:
10.1" 1280x800 native
10.1" 1920x1080 native
13.3" 1920x1080 native
Pls. enlighten me! My hunch is, it is similar to the (also useless) megapixel wars a few years back with digital cameras - unsuspected people just go for the bigger numbers without regard to the consequences.

For example I played with the Asus ZenBook UX305 (13.3" 1920x1080 native resolution) in the store; its display looked unusable at both its native and scaled resolutions. I did not play with the 10.1" screens, though.

I understand if I want an affordable, fanless, lightweight PC, I might have to bite the bullet and look for screens as small as 10.1" (ideally I want 11.6" minimum). What's the deal behind
- 10.1" 1280x800 native (I guess you use this native, non scaled; this give you 150 PPI; ouch; that's smartphone territory )
10.1" 1920x1080 native (228 PPI) - I hope you don't use these natively, but do they scale better than the screen of the 13.3" 1920x1080 of the Asus ZenBook UX305?

Anything else you might want to add?

 

I don't quite understand the resolution wars either. Windows scaling is absolutely god awful compared to Mac OS, and using a 4K screen at native res on at 15" notebook is asking for a migraine. To be quite honest, the optimal resolution in my experience has been 1920x1200 on 17.3" screens, 1680x1050 on 15" screens, and 1440x900 on 13".

However, that is not happening ever again so all we can hope for is windows scaling gets better (if ever), or build hackintosh since Mac OS is far far superior in resolution scaling.

...or buy an older computer

 

Nope, not supported in Windows, only in OS X. You have to understand what OS X is actually doing with those "scaled resolutions". It's supersampling by 4x, then downscaling to fit the panel. For example, if you select the 1680x1050 scaled resolution, it's internally rendering at 3360x2100 and then scaling that down to 2560x1600 with interpolation. So you get the same viewable area as 1680x1050, but with almost no non-native blurriness due to the massive supersampling factor. The downside is the performance hit is massive. In Windows, you can only do native resolution and select a non-integer DPI scaling factor to blow things up. A less elegant approach for sure, and much more likely to run into scaling issues with 3rd party software.

 

Almost unavoidable in my experience. Darn shame.

 

Or you can simply select a lower non-native resolution. Given that both approaches have serious problems, it's hard to say which is worse.

HiDPI is an absolute disaster on Windows, and I can't understand why OEMs haven't given up on it yet.

 

Thanks for your explanations! The bottom line: should I stay away from 10.1" at either 800x1280 or 1080x1920 and strictly stay with 11.6-13.3" at 1366x768?

 

PeeR, bottom line - make sure the display is actually good, IPS or comparable with decent angles. Such are very rare amongst low-res machines you're targeting. If you don't mind a tablet (with bluetooth keyboard case), check out branded chinese iPad-lookalikes, e.g. Teclast X98 Pro. Unless I'm missing something, they will run 1024x768 instead of native 2048x1536 just fine, resulting in 132 ppi. There are some nice business-class machines with decent low-res screens under 13.3", but thin, light and fanless they're not.

 

1366 x 768 is a decent resolution for an 11.6" display. That's the resolution on my Acer 1410T. I also owned a 13.3" Acer 3820TG with the same resolution. After two years, I moved onto a Thinkpad X301 with 1440 x 900 (16:10) , which I found to be a far better resolution for a 13" notebook. I used both of those units at 1:1 or 100% scaling. My Surface 3 has 1080p resolution that I use at 150% scaling.

 

I may missing the point here. The Surface 3's native resolution is 1440 by 2160. Scaling it at 150% will give you 960 by 1440.

 

Thanks for the recommendations. As I stated in the OP, yeah, I might want to, or have to resort to a tablet plus external keyboard route, but I just feel awkward about it in advance.

I have 2 options:

1. Microsoft Surface 3 (non Pro) or similar competitor if any ($500 + $130 for the keyboard). I really want to do more laptoppy things on this, and as a laptop it is really just not as comfortable versatile as a real laptop with it's detachable keyboard; Windows is still a desktop OS for me (as it should be), but the hardware is aimed to be a mobile device... all in all, it's a weird Frankenstein, as some reviews I read reinforced.

2. Something like the http://www8.hp.com/us/en/ads/new-style-it/protablet10-ee.html
with a keyboard like http://www8.hp.com/emea_middle_east/en/products/oas/product-detail.html?oid=7487368
This exact HP model might not be the best price/value, but at least it has a robust design, and an almost full size keyboard for the more common, smaller, 10.1", 800x1280 tablet size (with 150 PPI, ouch). The price with the keyboard is almost the same as the Surface 3 (cheaper by about $100), the laptoppy experience is also seem to be just as awkward as the Surface 3, just awkward in a different way, because of the different layout of the external keyboard.

Edit: Even though the external keyboards are full size (or almost full size) on these, the trackpads are not; and I don't want to touch the screen in laptop mode with a 10 foot pole. Adding a mouse as well would make the thing even more Frankensteiny.

 

Sorry, I cross-post this from the Surface topic, this one might seem more appropriate:

What scaled resolutions are available on the Microsoft

Surface 3
10.8” ClearType Full HD Plus Display • Resolution: 1920 x 1280

Surface Pro 3
12" ClearType Full HD Display • Resolution: 2160 x 1440

Surface Pro 4
12.3" PixelSense display • Resolution: 2736 x 1824 (267 PPI)

And how do they look like, respectively?

Microsoft's site is not so helpful in this regard, comparing to Apple's (see OP).

 

I have a Surface 3. Not a Pro. 10.8" 1920 x 1280 (3:2 aspect ratio version of FHD). My Surface three is fine for me at 150% view. At my desk, it's docked.


The S3 in the dock reverts to 100% when docked. You can see that it is still readable.

 

@Bronsky

Could you pls. translate HD this - scale that % talk to more simple terms which most people can easier grasp without any misunderstanding, such as
- physical pixel count (that is 1280 by 1920 on the Surface 3)
- scaled pixel count, and to which scaled resolutions look any good on your device?
As compared to @octiceps gave insights in #3 to how scaling in OS X works. Otherwise, I'm just guessing. Thanks!

 

Update: I've played a little with https://www.sven.de/dpi/ in relation to the Microsoft Surface 3's (non-Pro) possible scaled resolutions (though, I have no clue which one of them Microsoft makes possible, look good). On its 10.8" screen

1920x1280 > 214 PPI
1280x854 > 142 PPI
1200x800 > 134 PPI
1152x768 > 128 PPI
1080x720 > 120 PPI

As I need minimum 768 lines and I can bear a maximum of around 133 PPI, I've been left with 2 possible options: the 1200x800 and the 1152x768, if available. I wonder if any of them look good.

 

PeeR, read this and this.

 

@octiceps

Can you point me to a good documentation (official or unofficial, developer or otherwise) which explains in clear terms how Mac (Retina MacBook/Pro, iMac) scaling works (as compared to Windows, which doesn't seem to work yet)? My interest; thanks!

 

Thanks!

See this also: http://forum.notebookreview.com/threads/surface-pro-4-owners-lounge.782769/page-2#post-10122238
Some third party softwares I use often still not scale well in Win10.

Similarly to my above post about Apple scaling, can anyone point me to a source, documentation which explains in clear terms how Windows 10 scaling is supposed to work?

Meanwhile I went to a store to play with some devices, Internet Explorer and the web worked pretty well on smaller screen, hi-res displays, but yeah, I didn't try any 3rd party apps; bummer.

Maybe you can advise me of a simple 3rd party app which is a clear example for not scaling well, which exists in a portable version I can put on a flash drive and may try next time at a laptop dealer? So I will know what to look for. Or even simpler: can you just show me a screenshot of the issue?

Say, if I am between choosing a normal (non Microsoft Surface) laptop with a 11.6 screen, am I really better off with the 768x 1366 IPS than with the 1080x1920 IPS? The thing is, I have not so many choices for quality 768x1366 displays, most are quite crappy TN panels. Not that TN panels are crappy by definition, but TN panels in today' laptops seem to be much worse than those they put in ThinkPads a few years back.

Seriously, even for a Windows PC one of me best options seem to be - in its price category - for me now the 11'6" MacBook Air ($765 on Amazon, not a bad price). (I have a free Windows 10 license)

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6023/the-nextgen-macbook-pro-with-retina-display-review/6