Do you think 1680x1050 is too dense on 17" MBP?

[bradz_id]

Hi,

I have been waiting on the 17" MacBook Pro for some time now and I'm a little dissappointed that it has such a high pixel density. You should be able to choose between 1440x900 and 1680x1050 like you can choose with Dells. The 1680x1050 on my 20" Benq FP202W seems pretty perfect and 17" might be a bit small. What do you guys think?

[jared_kipe]

Nah, laptops are supposed to be closer to your face.

[dpaanlka]

You can still choose all the resolutions, likely even down to 800 x 600.

However, as with all LCDs, using a resolution that isn't the "Native" resolution just so everything can be bigger is a bad idea in the sense that it has to pixel double (or quadruple) to attain that resolution...

LCD pixles are fixed and cant just move around at the user's desire.

So this means it will be sortof blurry. Its the same story with all LCDs I believe, including Dells.

[mmmcheese]

I want 1680x1050 on my 15"

[Chundles]

You can still choose all the resolutions, likely even down to 800 x 600.

However, as with all LCDs, using a resolution that isn't the "Native" resolution just so everything can be bigger is a bad idea in the sense that it has to pixel double (or quadruple) to attain that resolution...

LCD pixles are fixed and cant just move around at the user's desire.

So this means it will be sortof blurry. Its the same story with all LCDs I believe, including Dells.

He means he wants to be able to choose a 1440x900 screen or a 1050x1600 screen, not scale the resolution.

I've looked at the last 17" Powerbook screen and it was fantastic - still highly visible and clear but a good amount of real estate too - 2 pages of text at 100% next to each other, very nice indeed.

When 10.5 comes out it will have resolution independence so that no matter what resolution your screen is, things will look the same size if you want them too. If you have a high resolution screen you can scale up the size of the UI without losing any clarity. You could make a 30" display look like the 15.4" display yet not lose any real estate if you wanted to open a massive photo in Photoshop. Resolution Independence is going to be awesome - it will usher in very high res screens that mean higher clarity, not smaller fonts/UI elements.

[jamesi]

who cares? you can always adjust the display if you want.

[tonyl]

Will the font be too small?

[jamesi]

will the font be too small? have you ever used a computer before? you can change the resolution to w/e you want all the way right down to 680x480 in most cases

[tonyl]

will the font be too small? have you ever used a computer before? you can change the resolution to w/e you want all the way right down to 680x480 in most cases

It's LCD, man, not CRT. 1680x1050 is the optimal resolution. Yes you can change to other resolutions, but you won't get the best disply.

[bradz_id]

will the font be too small? have you ever used a computer before? you can change the resolution to w/e you want all the way right down to 680x480 in most cases

Have you seen how blurry an LCD operating at a scaled resolution is???

[jamesi]

yea i have, and im still not convinced this is a big deal. the best way to tell is to just go and freaking look at the thing. its a matter of how bad your eyes are

[plinkoman]

not dense enough. I want 1920x1200 in 17".

but seriously though, it's not too small, and infact, it looks quite stunning, amazingly clear and such. this is the only display i've ever used where i cannot see the pixels unless i try really really really really hard.

[tonyl]

not dense enough. I want 1920x1200 in 17".

but seriously though, it's not too small, and infact, it looks quite stunning, amazingly clear and such. this is the only display i've ever used where i cannot see the pixels unless i try really really really really hard.

Where did you get it? Apple store in NYC?

[plinkoman]

Where did you get it? Apple store in NYC?

no, check my sig, i have a powerbook. the latest 17" pb has the same 1680x1050 display as the 17" MBP.

[tonyl]

no, check my sig, i have a powerbook. the latest 17" pb has the same 1680x1050 display as the 17" MBP.
Oops, thanks.

[Chundles]

I just knocked my iBook down to 800x600 - looked bloody shocking, blurry and just plain bad.

Stick to the native resolution. 1600x1050 looks great on the PB, I'd like to see it go 1920x1200 with the release of 10.5

Mind you, if 10.5 is res independent I want to see a 1920x1200 13.3" screen - 1080p HD compliant yet still able to see everything as clear as day just by scaling up the UI.

[Sutekidane]

My friend has an acer ferrari notebook with 1680x1050 on a 15" screen. It's okay, but I think it's a bit too dense. Things are very very small. I'm happy with my macbook pro's resolution. The screen is simply awesome.

[homerjward]

not dense enough
1920x1200 on a 15" screen is about my favorite laptop screen
maybe 2560x1600 on a 17 or 19" would be nice too :cool:

[cyberone]

I just adjust screen resolution to 1440 x 852 streched on my 17"

yes, have good eyes, but use it mostly as a work station with keyboard.

works perfectly well.

[Josias]

On a 17" laptop I think 1680x1050 is perfact. If they made 1920x1200, it would make OS X look wierd on such a small screen. Perhaps when 10.5 comes out. I think 1440x900 woulda been too little, since it would be a step back:eek: ;)

[QCassidy352]

not dense enough
1920x1200 on a 15" screen is about my favorite laptop screen
maybe 2560x1600 on a 17 or 19" would be nice too :cool:

:eek: You're kidding, right? You want the 15" to have higher res than the 17" does now?? That would drive me absolutely insane.

[NATO]

Wow... The same resolution as my 20" Cinema Display but on a 17" Panel. I thought the 20" Cinema Display was a high resolution screen, but I think the 17" Would look very well.

Think about it, if you have a desktop 20" Display and a 17" Laptop, you can set both up exactly the same, as you have exactly the same visual real estate on both. You won't have to comprimise on your display just because you're using a laptop.

[Josias]

As explained, people are usually further away from desktopscreens. That is why iMacs and ACD's have a resolution one "level" lower than laptops.;)

[steelfist]

and here i thought that 12 inch 1024 x 768 is just right for density...

[ahunter3]

I have the 17" PowerBook G4 — same screen, I presume. (Same res, at any rate).

I'm 47 and I need reading glasses to read books, but I love this screen. The 1024 x 768 on my WallStreet now looks grainy, made up of huge horse-pixels, and I don't feel like I have any room to work in on it.

1680 x 1050 is addictive as hell.

The screen is spectacularly sharp and brilliantly lit. Reading 9 point type on this thing is far less difficult than reading the label on a bottle of ginger ale.

[Artful Dodger]

As said in this thread, that 1680x1050 is what I get on my 20" Intel iMac and I think that it would be great on a 17". There are options for sizing the dock, text and just about anything you need to do so my answer is "No" and what a nice sight 1680x1050 is :D

[miniConvert]

I'm with the not-enough camp.

High resolutions on my Windows XP machine do seem to make everything look pretty tiny, but for some reason OS X seems to adapt to them much better. Hell, the more pixels they can fit on a panel the better in my book.

[Peyton]

What is the problem if you can scale it down?

[sam10685]

I want 1680x1050 on my 15"

i want 3000x2000 on my 12" powerbook.

[decksnap]

What is the problem if you can scale it down?

The problem is that on any LCD, using any resolution other than native looks just plain horrible. Beyond horrible. It's not like a CRT.

Sometimes I think things on my 20" ACD at this res are too small. I guess I just have bad eyes. Took some getting used to.

[supergod]

The reason that resolution is so perfect at this point is because all of the Apple pro apps at this point are designed for the 20" cinema display and the 17" powerbook. For instance, for Logic you definitely need that resolution, and the window layouts have been designed for it (although there is the option to use a layout designed for the 15" powerbook).

I think it really is the min. resolution for a lot of uses and should become the standard within a few years.

[generik]

i want 3000x2000 on my 12" powerbook.

Wow HD pr0n looks so minute on that display :D