Ask Different is a question and answer site for power users of Apple hardware and software. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Does anyone know what maximum resolution (NUMBERxNUMBER) OS X Mountain Lion supports? What happens is that when I use my full 2880x1800 everything looks small. is there a way to use my full 2880x1800 without having everything look small?

P.S. to use my full 2880x1800 i am using Display Menu

EDIT: I just noticed how stupid this question was, thanks for the help anyways.

share|improve this question
The default uses the full resolution, without making things small. If you want things to be a little bit smaller, but not too small, choose "more space" in the display settings. – Chris A Mar 15 '13 at 4:54
up vote 2 down vote accepted

Max resolution is primary limited by the actual chip-set type/model for graphics.

In my case it is a

Intel HD graphics 4000

If you want to read more:

Just for fun, this is how the inner life looks like.


So, it is hardware limited, not OS x. As for your second question,why it looks smaller in higher resolution? Lets try the simple answer. When using reading glasses out of focus everything looks big (but slightly fuzzy). Now use reading glasses in full focus (high resolution) you will see objects very sharp not washed out and they appear to be smaller, but that is they actual size.

share|improve this answer

The max would be dependent on the amount of physical pixels in the LCD screen. You're going to find the limitation will be the display, and not Mac

Considering the 15" Retina MacBook Peo has a 2880 by 1800 which is internally drawn as 5760 by 3600, and it then supports another 2 external Thunderbolt displays. Of course, this is not a theoretical maximum, just a 'practical maximum' using consumer tech.

share|improve this answer
What do you mean by "internally drawn?" – duci9y Mar 12 '13 at 7:12
So the system will actually be rendering the screen twice as large at 3840 x 2400, and then it scales it down to fit into 1920 x 1200 or whatever – Josh Hunt Mar 12 '13 at 7:20
That doesn't make sense… – duci9y Mar 12 '13 at 7:40
Read about the backing scale factor:… – Scot Apr 12 '13 at 23:15
Thanks @Scot! I knew I read that somewhere, just couldn't remember where! – Josh Hunt Apr 13 '13 at 7:09

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.