Windows 8 shown running on Retina Display MacBook Pro

Earlier this week, Apple revealed some new MacBook and MacBook Pro notebook models. One of them is the new 15.4-inch MacBook Pro which has a 2800 x 1800 resolution display. So how does Windows 8 look running on a notebook with such a high resolution screen? AnandTech.com decided to find out and installed Windows 8 on their new Retina Display MacBook Pro.

The article contains several screenshots showing Windows 8 running on the new MacBook Pro at the notebook's top resolution. The story states that the trailer for the upcoming James Bond movie, Skyfall, shown on the bottom left of the screenshot above, is running in a full 1920 x 1080 window. It adds that text on the display is very small at that display setting and that raising the DPI scaling makes the text more legible.

The new MacBook Pro has an NVIDIA graphics chip inside. At the time this article was posted, NVIDIA had yet to release any Windows 8 Release Preview drivers for its notebook graphics chips (the company has since released beta versions of those drivers).

It will be interesting to see if any of the PC makers who are currently developing Windows 8-based notebooks and tablets will launch models with a display that has as high of a resolution as the new MacBook Pro and the iPad.

Source: AnandTech | Image via AnandTech

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Forge free-to-play PvP game announced

Next Story

Microsoft releases its first Android-based game

91 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Can someone please tell me strait up and with a bit of solid data, does the new retina display looks like crap when scaled down, like most current LCD and LED screens do? I am asking for both OSX (I realise apple is pulling "magic" to make up for it) but what about win7/win8 ? if you put the 2880x what ever res at 1440x900 ? what happens? If I put my currently native 1920x1080 monitor to 1280x720 it looks exactly like what it is, a massive scale which gives blur and jittering. Retina display? how is it doing? thank you very much!

Wow, really?

Since when did we need a Macbook to get access to high resolution displays?

The 'real' world does realize that PC users have had access to 4K displays for around 5 or 6 years now? The arrogance of Apple and the idiots that treat them like they have done something special is mind blowing.

Toshiba has been trying to push out 8K displays since 2007, but with the low adoption of 4K displays, held back. (As in 8,192 and 4,096 resolution displays.)

The HD video and BluRay 'screwing' of the world with the 1920x1080 crap resolutions set the display industry back. Remember that back in 2005, a COMMON 17" monitor resolution was 1920x1200. (Apple also called these 'high resolution' laptop 'silly' and wasted' at the time.)

So explain why again we need a MacBook to see Windows 8 at high resolution, unless it is just easy with Apple dumping free Macbooks to 'test' and swag that gives more people access to things they normally couldn't afford?


If I knew there was this type of curiosity of higher resolution displays, I could have submitted screenshots from both 4K and 2K monitors and projectors. (Also ones from Windows 7 or Windows 8 that have 10bit and 12bit color, something that the Retina display cannot do and something OS X can't do either, as it is 8bit color limited.)

Metro looks ridiculous on that. And since everything metro is full screen... We shouldn't have to change DPI to make Metro fill the screen. Gaw..

SpyderCanopus said,
Metro looks ridiculous on that. And since everything metro is full screen... We shouldn't have to change DPI to make Metro fill the screen. Gaw..

You don't have to change DPI to make Metro (the start screen) fill the screen. This MacBook just has the wrong drivers. Normally, the start screen would be full of tiles... maybe 10 rows deep. This has already been demonstrated on other computers.

I saw a Samsung with 9 rows of tiles. The laptop I'm using right now shows 4 rows. My desktop shows 6 rows. It does scale. It's designed to show you more content.

But why shouldn't you have to change the DPI settings? That's what Apple did (basically). They give you a huge screen resolution, but then scale text 200% and provide 2x larger images. That means that even though you have a huge resolution, you only have 25% of the screen resolution you thought you were getting.

SpyderCanopus said,
Metro looks ridiculous on that. And since everything metro is full screen... We shouldn't have to change DPI to make Metro fill the screen. Gaw..

Soo you are judging windows 8 for the way that behaves on an unsupported non-pc product?? seems legit....

When Windows 9 comes out, everyone will be bitching that it doesn't look like 8, which was the best Windows ever.

No, if it looks or at least feels like Windows 7, at least in desktop mode, then I bet that most people, with very few exceptions, will be extremely happy. Out of 10 people I know, 9 don't like Metro on desktop computers. Including myself, and I know what I'm talking about, I'm GUI designer.

Islander said,
No, if it looks or at least feels like Windows 7, at least in desktop mode, then I bet that most people, with very few exceptions, will be extremely happy. Out of 10 people I know, 9 don't like Metro on desktop computers. Including myself, and I know what I'm talking about, I'm GUI designer.

10 people is a very small sample size I know quite a few people who love how the Metro mode looks. I'm not too sure how I feel, myself, as I do love aspects of it, but I just don't know how I feel about it overall, yet.

Calum said,

10 people is a very small sample size I know quite a few people who love how the Metro mode looks. I'm not too sure how I feel, myself, as I do love aspects of it, but I just don't know how I feel about it overall, yet.

If a real survey is done, Metro will lose but no worries, we will be seeing this soon enough in the coming months.

Additionally, if this holds true for OEM, "Windows RT will cost staggering USD$80-95 dollars" then Windows 8 on Tablet will also face problem especially because it's an ARM version which does not have full support x86/x64 programs.

Xerino said,
super high resolution + small display = need a magnifying glass to read anything...

This is bugging me a little. I'm assuming (I haven't actually read into Retina) that you need to push the DPI up to get the benefits of Retina display, otherwise it's just a stupidly high resolution.

Xerino said,
super high resolution + small display = need a magnifying glass to read anything...

Precisely why I don't like super high resolutions.

Xerino said,
super high resolution + small display = need a magnifying glass to read anything...

super high resolution + small display + enabling the DPI scaling setting = awesome

laserfloyd said,

Precisely why I don't like super high resolutions.

But Retina isn't about super high resolutions though is it? It's about pushing DPI settings up to take advantage of the extra pixels to make it more crisp and sharp.

Xerino said,
super high resolution + small display = need a magnifying glass to read anything...

Do a little bit more research before posting next time.

Jose_49 said,
Now that I see it clearly... How the focks uses Quicktime to watch videos on Windows ?!

It's a trailer from Apple, so quicktime is the default client. However "full 1920x1080" I think not. 1920 wide, sure, but that is not 1080 pixels tall!

richardsim7 said,

It's a trailer from Apple, so quicktime is the default client. However "full 1920x1080" I think not. 1920 wide, sure, but that is not 1080 pixels tall!


True. It should occupy more than half of the tall of the screen.

Shows how far behind Windows 8 is in terms of the new (Retina) standard. But the good news is that with last week's WWDC, Apple's sent all the generic OEMs back to the drawing-board, so eventually the rest of the industry will make improvements to their hardware.

Deliciously_Random said,
Shows how far behind Windows 8 is in terms of the new (Retina) standard. But the good news is that with last week's WWDC, Apple's sent all the generic OEMs back to the drawing-board, so eventually the rest of the industry will make improvements to their hardware.

this isn't the standard, this is just the bar.

Deliciously_Random said,
Shows how far behind Windows 8 is in terms of the new (Retina) standard. But the good news is that with last week's WWDC, Apple's sent all the generic OEMs back to the drawing-board, so eventually the rest of the industry will make improvements to their hardware.

Erm, WIndows 8 was designed for even higher PPI displays than the Retina display in this Mac Book. Simply setting the DPI scaling to anything 150% + will sort that out.

Deliciously_Random said,
Shows how far behind Windows 8 is in terms of the new (Retina) standard. But the good news is that with last week's WWDC, Apple's sent all the generic OEMs back to the drawing-board, so eventually the rest of the industry will make improvements to their hardware.

They simply don't have it set to the correct scaling. Duh?

Deliciously_Random said,
Shows how far behind Windows 8 is in terms of the new (Retina) standard. But the good news is that with last week's WWDC, Apple's sent all the generic OEMs back to the drawing-board, so eventually the rest of the industry will make improvements to their hardware.

Ahahaha. Windows fully supports scaling since Vista and has some support for it since XP. These photos are without scaling enabled.

Deliciously_Random said,
Shows how far behind Windows 8 is in terms of the new (Retina) standard. But the good news is that with last week's WWDC, Apple's sent all the generic OEMs back to the drawing-board, so eventually the rest of the industry will make improvements to their hardware.

shows how little you actually know about windows 8, retina is not a standard and just to bring you up to speed with this stuff, windows has higher ppi displays than the retina, so it would be apple that's behind the times and below the standard.

korupt_one said,

shows how little you actually know about windows 8, retina is not a standard and just to bring you up to speed with this stuff, windows has higher ppi displays than the retina, so it would be apple that's behind the times and below the standard.

Obviously you don't know what "the standard" means

Apple's solution: Just double it up!
Microsoft's solution: Use the DPI setting Luke!

Is it surprising that Windows 8 looks bad on an unsupported hardware without the correct drivers? The Windows 8 desktop can scale all the way up to 500% while the Metro stuff up to 180%.

KevinN206 said,
Apple's solution: Just double it up!
Microsoft's solution: Use the DPI setting Luke!

Is it surprising that Windows 8 looks bad on an unsupported hardware without the correct drivers? The Windows 8 desktop can scale all the way up to 500% while the Metro stuff up to 180%.

Actually, Apple is using some sort of variable scaling setting as well, just by another name. It maps the display to "virtual resolution" sizes like 1440x900, 1680x1050 and 1920x1080. You can change the level of scaling in the preferences on OSX, as seen on AnandTech's earlier article of the new MBP on OSX... http://www.anandtech.com/show/...pro-retina-display-analysis

Supported applications like those built into OSX probably remain sharp regardless of the scaling setting. Though I can't help myself but gripe about Google that they pushed out a build of Google Chrome that renders sharp images on the new MBP soon after it was announced, but to this day, Chrome still doesn't render sharp images on DPI settings other than 96dpi on Windows (and the setting has existed since Windows Vista?). It can't be that hard if Firefox (and IE, obviously) already supports higher DPIs on Windows properly.

Regarding scaling of Metro, I'm not sure why but there isn't a scaling option for Metro like that on the desktop, other than a "Make everything on screen bigger" option. Which makes me guess that the DPI information is contained in some drivers or somewhere else? Though the make everything bigger option seems like a 200% scaling, which would work every nicely with the new MBP, should AnandTech have tried it.

sexypepperoni said,
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I think Windows 8 will be a failure. I don't like that ugly GUI.

Fixed that for you.

Order_66 said,

You simply "fixed" something to suit your own bias, not many people like the ugly GUI.

Not at all. When somebody says "nobody likes it", they are usually wrong. Absolutely wrong. All you need to do is find one user that likes it to prove otherwise. Don't use absolute terms such as "nobody", "never", "always"... unless you mean it.

Order_66 said,

You simply "fixed" something to suit your own bias, not many people like the ugly GUI.

Uhm no, he fixed it to the way it should be.

Unless you're from the future, it's only an OPINION whether Windows 8 will succeed or fail. You do not know with 100% certainty it will fail. You THINK it will.

Oh and whoever you use words like "no one" and "everyone" or "anyone", you're only making yourself look dumb since 99% of the time, you're incorrect.

What you should say is "Many people I have spoken to do not like Metro." If we used your theories, then EVERYONE speaks English since the people I talked to speak it and it must therefore be true!!

Order_66 said,

You simply "fixed" something to suit your own bias, not many people like the ugly GUI.

Actually, he's correct because sexypepperoni doesn't speak for everyone. So if you do make an opinion, make it your own, not everyone elses.

Order_66 said,

You simply "fixed" something to suit your own bias, not many people like the ugly GUI.


Can you please present me with proof that "not many people" like Windows 8? It's very possible that, out of everyone in the world, the majority of people will like Windows 8.

sexypepperoni said,
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Windows 8 will be a failure. No one likes that ugly GUI.

you would be the failure not windows 8

Calum said,

Can you please present me with proof that "not many people" like Windows 8? It's very possible that, out of everyone in the world, the majority of people will like Windows 8.

You quoted me wrong, I said "not many people like the ugly GUI".

andrewbares said,

Uhm no, he fixed it to the way it should be.

Unless you're from the future, it's only an OPINION whether Windows 8 will succeed or fail. You do not know with 100% certainty it will fail. You THINK it will.

Oh and whoever you use words like "no one" and "everyone" or "anyone", you're only making yourself look dumb since 99% of the time, you're incorrect.

What you should say is "Many people I have spoken to do not like Metro." If we used your theories, then EVERYONE speaks English since the people I talked to speak it and it must therefore be true!!

Well lets see, I didn't say nobody likes windows 8, I simply (and correctly) pointed out that someone "fixed" a comment out of their own bias.

Order_66 said,

Well lets see, I didn't say nobody likes windows 8, I simply (and correctly) pointed out that someone "fixed" a comment out of their own bias.

Rational people don't consider logic to be a bias.

Order_66 said,

You quoted me wrong, I said "not many people like the ugly GUI".


I meant that, and I didn't mean to incorrectly quote you. My comment still stands replacing "Windows 8" with "that GUI."

Edited by Calum, Jun 17 2012, 1:03am :

There are some strange people around on Neowin.
Saying "everybody doesn't like it" is OK but changing it to "I don't like it" is bias, wtf? XD

Cøi said,
There are some strange people around on Neowin.
Saying "everybody doesn't like it" is OK but changing it to "I don't like it" is bias, wtf? XD

That is an odd way to look at things There was absolutely nothing biased about correcting his post to be the truth (the fact that the member doesn't like it) as opposed to a lie (the idea that no one likes it).

Windows doesn't support drawing UI elements the way the retina MBP does, that's why it looks like that

Rudy said,
Windows doesn't support drawing UI elements the way the retina MBP does, that's why it looks like that

Windows fully supports scaling since Vista and had preliminary support since XP. Anand just didn't take the time to enable scaling in Metro. He does have two pictures of the desktop scaled to 125% and 150%.

Thanks for the news tip! I was browsing YouTube to look for someone to see how small would the taskbar look. And it is a complete miniature . I love that res. but I think I would run blind before giving it a whole day use.

http://www.tomshardware.com/ne...-Displays-Coming,15329.html

2013: 4k monitors up to 30" (not that 4k TV's are far behind)
Retina displays on all modern resolution levels.


Really, I wouldn't bother paying the premium for higher resolution displays now that are going to be horribly outdated in upwards of 12 months, and quite possibly for the same price then as now. 4k is the actual milestone for next gen video/film and likely game consoles, because it's what TV's are going to get stuck at for a while.

nekrosoft13 said,
This metro crap is gimped for everyone use!, worst desktop gui ever.

...and yet me (and I'm sure quite a few others) have no issues using it for every day use.

nekrosoft13 said,
This metro crap is gimped for everyone use!, worst desktop gui ever.

Yeah I agree! I don't mind change as long as its positive but when its a negative change I won't use it... and yes I know no one cares and that everyone is entitled to their opinion. But still... I hate metro on a desktop lol

nekrosoft13 said,
This metro crap is gimped for everyone use!, worst desktop gui ever.

Metro is not designed to run on apple hardware and without the correct windows drivers, display resolutions for 8 and RT are even higher and better than the retina display.so Metro is not gimped if ran on the correct hardware, u should say mac is gimped.

korupt_one said,

Metro is not designed to run on apple hardware and without the correct windows drivers, display resolutions for 8 and RT are even higher and better than the retina display.so Metro is not gimped if ran on the correct hardware, u should say mac is gimped.


All Macs use special resolutions these days that are completely unknown to the PC market?

.Neo said,

All Macs use special resolutions these days that are completely unknown to the PC market?

No. It's just not the proper drivers. But it's more fun to make fun of Windows 8, apparently.

TheLegendOfMart said,
Dat screen.

Shame Metro is gimped for professional/high end use.


i.e I'm a Game/Software/Web Developer/Designer. Yet, I'm using it on all my devices. I find it as (if not more) "professional" than Windows 7....

Xerax said,

i.e I'm a Game/Software/Web Developer/Designer. Yet, I'm using it on all my devices. I find it as (if not more) "professional" than Windows 7....

Soft/General Programming and Electronic Engineer, no way.

Xerax said,

i.e I'm a Game/Software/Web Developer/Designer. Yet, I'm using it on all my devices. I find it as (if not more) "professional" than Windows 7....

Hardware wise, look at all the wasted realestate.

TheLegendOfMart said,

Hardware wise, look at all the wasted realestate.

Anand doesn't have the option to show more tiles enabled. It can easily fit 10 or so vertically. When using windows 8 in a professional setting the start screen will simply be used for launching and looking at widgets quickly. It's fine.

TheLegendOfMart said,
Dat screen.

Shame Metro is gimped for professional/high end use.

How is Metro not for professional/high end use? Have you not seen the business apps they showed off before? Metro is not just colourful tiles, it's a design language (as you can see in the Zune software and many other business software like Dynamics). Also, many people already know quite a few businesses intrigued by Windows 8, so your point is not valid.

j2006 said,

How is Metro not for professional/high end use? Have you not seen the business apps they showed off before? Metro is not just colourful tiles, it's a design language (as you can see in the Zune software and many other business software like Dynamics). Also, many people already know quite a few businesses intrigued by Windows 8, so your point is not valid.


Learn to read, I meant on high DPI displays, there is loads of wasted space in Metro apps in 1920x1080 let alone 2880x1800

TheLegendOfMart said,
Dat screen.

Shame Metro is gimped for professional/high end use.


That laptop is gimped worse yet....No ethernet port, no expansion and overpriced so only baristas can buy it.

DomZ said,
The image of the metro start screen at the highest resolution is hilarious:

http://images.anandtech.com/doci/6008/DSC_7423_575px.jpg

I personally think using Win 8 at the highest resolution would be really good for managing multiple windows as long as your eyesight is up to the task. Viewing their fullscreen images I think I would be OK with it

The start screen looks like that because it's not using the right drivers so it can't scale like it should. Otherwise the start screen and metro apps in general will scale to better fit larger screens. MS had a whole blog post about this a month or so ago.

GP007 said,

The start screen looks like that because it's not using the right drivers so it can't scale like it should. Otherwise the start screen and metro apps in general will scale to better fit larger screens. MS had a whole blog post about this a month or so ago.

Exactly. To see how it should look (without installing a proper driver), they could turn on the "Make everything on the screen bigger" option in the Ease of Access section of PC Settings.

DomZ said,
The image of the metro start screen at the highest resolution is hilarious:

http://images.anandtech.com/doci/6008/DSC_7423_575px.jpg

I personally think using Win 8 at the highest resolution would be really good for managing multiple windows as long as your eyesight is up to the task. Viewing their fullscreen images I think I would be OK with it


that's at 100%, what if it's scaled at 150%? would it look the same?

in any case, it's unrealistic to expect Windows 8 to work properly on this screen. Even Apple had to specially optimize OSX just for this screen. Microsoft could do it too, but why should they? the only laptop out there with such an outrageous screen is this one.

FalseAgent said,

that's at 100%, what if it's scaled at 150%? would it look the same?

in any case, it's unrealistic to expect Windows 8 to work properly on this screen. Even Apple had to specially optimize OSX just for this screen. Microsoft could do it too, but why should they? the only laptop out there with such an outrageous screen is this one.


If we take into consideration Samsung's 2560 x 1440 display, then we are not limited to the 6 row titles.

The ReDisp of the MacBook pro I think it could handle 10 tiles at max.

FalseAgent said,

that's at 100%, what if it's scaled at 150%? would it look the same?

in any case, it's unrealistic to expect Windows 8 to work properly on this screen. Even Apple had to specially optimize OSX just for this screen. Microsoft could do it too, but why should they? the only laptop out there with such an outrageous screen is this one.

You need to look at it from Apple's point of view - another way to make money. See, Apple needed to change the way OSX works for the new screen. All apps also need to be updated to work with this new screen. Rather than changing the OS to render apps properly that have not been updated, they took the easy way out and pushed the work onto devs. To develop and test apps for retina, people will need to upgrade their devices. And Apple will only be happy to sell you a $2500 laptop, all because they were lazy.

nohone said,

You need to look at it from Apple's point of view - another way to make money. See, Apple needed to change the way OSX works for the new screen. All apps also need to be updated to work with this new screen. Rather than changing the OS to render apps properly that have not been updated, they took the easy way out and pushed the work onto devs. To develop and test apps for retina, people will need to upgrade their devices. And Apple will only be happy to sell you a $2500 laptop, all because they were lazy.

Uh... no. There is no way to "properly" render images at two times their resolution unless they're vectors, in which case they'll probably look fine on OS X.

Things like text and OS-provided images will render at retina quality on the new MacBook Pro, unless they use a custom text rendering engine (like Chrome does). Apple is putting only the work they can't do onto developers.

nohone said,

You need to look at it from Apple's point of view - another way to make money. See, Apple needed to change the way OSX works for the new screen. All apps also need to be updated to work with this new screen. Rather than changing the OS to render apps properly that have not been updated, they took the easy way out and pushed the work onto devs. To develop and test apps for retina, people will need to upgrade their devices. And Apple will only be happy to sell you a $2500 laptop, all because they were lazy.

Not sure I understand your logic there, do Apple have some magic new way to upscale images and still hold their sharpness because if they do why are they wasting their time selling 2.5k laptops when they could be selling this amazing technology to tv makers, hell anybody who makes a display. Gosh think of all the bandwidth saved if HD films could be sent in 640x480 then upscaled without loss of clarity.

DomZ said,
The image of the metro start screen at the highest resolution is hilarious:

http://images.anandtech.com/doci/6008/DSC_7423_575px.jpg

I personally think using Win 8 at the highest resolution would be really good for managing multiple windows as long as your eyesight is up to the task. Viewing their fullscreen images I think I would be OK with it

You can enable more tiles to be displayed vertically. Just open the charms bar, hit settings, and select show more tiles.

nohone said,

You need to look at it from Apple's point of view - another way to make money. See, Apple needed to change the way OSX works for the new screen. All apps also need to be updated to work with this new screen. Rather than changing the OS to render apps properly that have not been updated, they took the easy way out and pushed the work onto devs. To develop and test apps for retina, people will need to upgrade their devices. And Apple will only be happy to sell you a $2500 laptop, all because they were lazy.

That's ridiculous (part about making money). Try bumping up the DPI of Windows and tell me if all apps still look as crisp as they are at 96 DPI. Even to this day apps still assume a desktop of 96 DPI and for those who aren't DPI-aware? They look like a blurry mess.

Example: on the topic of browsers, only IE and I believe Firefox behave well in high DPI even though the controls are out of scale. The other two, three browsers scale up.

Fortunately with Metro apps this should become a thing of the past.

Marcin Kurek said,

Can you please explain how is this an issue on the driver's side?

I just... don't get it.

I don't know, people with comments above mine have mentioned drivers .
I just think it should look like on the screen (or like on the big touch screen in Balmer's office), don't know if it's because of drivers.

Depicus said,

Not sure I understand your logic there, do Apple have some magic new way to upscale images and still hold their sharpness because if they do why are they wasting their time selling 2.5k laptops when they could be selling this amazing technology to tv makers, hell anybody who makes a display. Gosh think of all the bandwidth saved if HD films could be sent in 640x480 then upscaled without loss of clarity.

I think what you're saying is merely your opinion of Apple and what they're doing and nothing more.

Marcin Kurek said,

Can you please explain how is this an issue on the driver's side?

I just... don't get it.

I don't know all the technical details about it but the start screen and metro apps in general can automatically scale or basically show more on bigger screens as long as the driver running registers the right info. If it doesn't then you get all that empty space because even though the monitor may be running at it's native high res the OS isn't getting the right info back from the driver so it can adjust like it should.

nohone said,

You need to look at it from Apple's point of view - another way to make money. See, Apple needed to change the way OSX works for the new screen. All apps also need to be updated to work with this new screen. Rather than changing the OS to render apps properly that have not been updated, they took the easy way out and pushed the work onto devs. To develop and test apps for retina, people will need to upgrade their devices. And Apple will only be happy to sell you a $2500 laptop, all because they were lazy.


Was the kool-aid tasty?
Which flavor did you have?

GS:ios

nohone said,
You need to look at it from Apple's point of view - another way to make money. See, Apple needed to change the way OSX works for the new screen. All apps also need to be updated to work with this new screen. Rather than changing the OS to render apps properly that have not been updated, they took the easy way out and pushed the work onto devs. To develop and test apps for retina, people will need to upgrade their devices. And Apple will only be happy to sell you a $2500 laptop, all because they were lazy.

No mate, you're clueless - use Interface Builder that comes with Xcode for a few minutes and you'll realise what what you see is full of crap. The issue is merely ensuring that the icons you have are high enough resolution to scale up - the same f-cking problem that Windows is having right now. Now, unless we 'do the time warp again' and go back circa 1990s with SGI IRIX Indigo which had SVG icons because no major operating systems today are able to address the issue of higher resolution out of the box without applications and the operating system being tweaked in some way.