PDA

View Full Version : Comparison of Apple/PC Screen Res.


picasso_41
Mar 13, 2003, 11:54 AM
The other day I made some calculations of screen densities for comparison purposes.

I was interested to know how Apple screens compared with current PC screens.

The resolutions were taken from advertisements, so they may have inaccuracies.

Apple PB 12" (1024x768) = 107 pixels per inch
Apple mythical PB 15.4" (1280x800) = 100 ppi
Apple PB 17" (1440x900) = 100 ppi

PC 15" SXGA (1400x1050) = 116 ppi
PC 16" SXGA (1282x1024) = 103 ppi
PC 16" UXGA (1600x1200) = 124 ppi
PC 15" UXGA (1600x1200) = 133 ppi (Toshiba)

Oddly, the PB 12" has the highest density of the Apples, but its screen is hard to read because the pixels are crammed into a small space.

jayscheuerle
Mar 13, 2003, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by picasso_41
Oddly, the PB 12" has the highest density of the Apples, but its screen is hard to read because the pixels are crammed into a small space.

That's not odd. "Crammed into a small space" is the definition of density. The higher the density, the smaller all of the elements are going to be, but two screens of different sizes will display elements at the same physical size if the density is the same.

digitalgiant
Mar 13, 2003, 01:19 PM
Am I the only one how thinks thats post about PC vs Mac are just tired and lame? Good god ,,,,who cares?:rolleyes:

picasso_41
Mar 13, 2003, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
That's not odd. "Crammed into a small space" is the definition of density. The higher the density, the smaller all of the elements are going to be, but two screens of different sizes will display elements at the same physical size if the density is the same.

Others have complained that the PB12 is hard to read for general use. I wonder if the screen fonts and icons can be enlarged to make it more readable.

jayscheuerle
Mar 13, 2003, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by picasso_41
Others have complained that the PB12 is hard to read for general use. I wonder if the screen fonts and icons can be enlarged to make it more readable.

Seeing as Jaguar is based on pdf, one should be able to scale the desktop independently of resolution....

yzedf
Mar 13, 2003, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Seeing as Jaguar is based on pdf, one should be able to scale the desktop independently of resolution....

OS X 10.2 is based on an Adobe product?

Idiot. :mad:

LosJackal
Mar 13, 2003, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by yzedf
OS X 10.2 is based on an Adobe product?

Idiot. :mad:

Um, read the first sentence. (http://www.apple.com/macosx/jaguar/quartzextreme.html)

bousozoku
Mar 13, 2003, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by yzedf
OS X 10.2 is based on an Adobe product?

Idiot. :mad:

With an outburst like that, I'd say that you don't know much about the Portable Document Format or Display PostScript, which was used with NeXTStep. There are many advantages to resolution independence. :)

howard
Mar 13, 2003, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by LosJackal
Um, read the first sentence. (http://www.apple.com/macosx/jaguar/quartzextreme.html)

waaapppshhhhh hehe,

anyway, i've notice that pc's have higher screen rez for there smaller screens...like the 15inch powerbook is 1280x800 and most 15 inch pcs...(i know there a different size) can get up to 1600x1200. i'm a huge fan of the highest rez possible...cause i can see it if its small just fine and i love lots of workspace...its to bad i only have the 12 inch screen ibook :( oh well

Catfish_Man
Mar 13, 2003, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by yzedf
OS X 10.2 is based on an Adobe product?

Idiot. :mad:

No. It's based off an Adobe file format. Apple's implementation of it is completely free of Adobe code for licensing reasons. Idiot. :mad:

On a less rant-like note, no, you can't scale the OSX interface. It's on my top 3 list of requests (along with virtual desktops and fast user switching). I think it's because most of the interface is made of bitmaps rather than vectors, so they'd have to make the bitmaps the largest size possible (hard on memory), then scale them down for smaller sizes (hard on the processor if they want to do it well). If they went to a completely vector UI (PDF, EPS, whatever), then they could scale it more easily.

picasso_41
Mar 14, 2003, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by bousozoku
...Portable Document Format or Display PostScript, which was used with NeXTStep. There are many advantages to resolution independence. :)

The NeXTStep screen must have been beautiful to behold!

.

mac15
Mar 14, 2003, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by yzedf
OS X 10.2 is based on an Adobe product?

Idiot. :mad:

Yes , OSX is PDF based, so it allows for crisp resisable graphics, don't shout your mouth when in reality your the idiot

eatbacon
Mar 16, 2003, 12:13 AM
Catfish_Man,

I definitely would like to see apple integrate virtual desktops into os x, but in the meantime, here is a pretty good solution:

http://www.codetek.com/php/virtual.php

Free version allows only two virtual desktops. $30 for up to 100.

nixd2001
Mar 16, 2003, 06:40 AM
Originally posted by digitalgiant
Am I the only one how thinks thats post about PC vs Mac are just tired and lame? Good god ,,,,who cares?:rolleyes:

I think you're missing the point if this is cast as just a "PC vs Mac" debate.

Given the choice, I'd much rather have a higher density display. The amount I can fit onto a display is important and useful to me. My current Sony Vaio laptop also suffers from a low density display (1024x768 - but hey, it's a PC, so this can't just be PC vs Mac) and it really doesn't do what I want these days.

IBM have some 200dpi LCD technology from which they build roughly A3 sized panels. Expensive (at about $20K a shot!) but highly desirable.