Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

greenbreadmmm

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 4, 2007
567
1,223
do you think they will ever bump it up to 1680 or whatever the next size up is. 1400x900 is just to low i think. do you think maybe the next mbp update will address this?
 

kastenbrust

macrumors 68030
Dec 26, 2008
2,890
0
North Korea
do you think they will ever bump it up to 1680 or whatever the next size up is. 1400x900 is just to low i think. do you think maybe the next mbp update will address this?

Not until WWDC at least (May/June 09) because theres no real point until the laptops have the ability to playback blu-ray movies.
 

Tallest Skil

macrumors P6
Aug 13, 2006
16,044
4
1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
Not until WWDC at least (May/June 09) because theres no real point until the laptops have the ability to playback blu-ray movies.

I was going to say the exact same thing, but then I thought... "That's idiotic! People like having greater real estate for EVERYTHING!"

It's not all about movies, you know, and 1680x1050 isn't even full HD, anyway, so these mythical Blu-ray movies would be cropped.
 

kastenbrust

macrumors 68030
Dec 26, 2008
2,890
0
North Korea
I was going to say the exact same thing, but then I thought... "That's idiotic! People like having greater real estate for EVERYTHING!"

It's not all about movies, you know, and 1680x1050 isn't even full HD, anyway, so these mythical Blu-ray movies would be cropped.

your right but your average consumer doesnt know that. If Apple can pump it, they will.
 

sesnir

macrumors 6502
Sep 21, 2008
366
287
The 1440x900 rez is the only thing I don't like about the mbp, but it's hardly a negative worth my consideration at this point. I'd love 1680x1050.
 

nick9191

macrumors 68040
Feb 17, 2008
3,365
189
Britain
I think since they updated the MBP 17" to 1920 x 1200 in October they will update the 15" to 1650 x 1050 with the next revision. They might leave it as a BTO as there are a lot of people who don't want such a high resolution.
 

Mercellus

macrumors regular
Nov 4, 2008
181
0
1440x900 works quite well for a 15.4-inch display. Higher resolutions like 1680x1050 or 1920x1200 can be too hard on the eyes for a lot of people.
 

raymondu999

macrumors 65816
Feb 11, 2008
1,009
1
But just curious... should the 15" be updated with a new screen... what's the next logical step in resolution? I don't really dabble in LCDs and don't know:eek:
 

RexTraverse

macrumors 6502
Feb 10, 2008
259
0
It's not all about movies, you know, and 1680x1050 isn't even full HD, anyway, so these mythical Blu-ray movies would be cropped.

Mythical Blu-ray movies? I have about 30 sitting on my shelf, so they're not all that mythical from where I'm sitting. Or do you mean mythical like how Pan's Labrynth in Blu-ray is mythical? Awesome, awesome movie. Wouldn't mind it being cropped (or more likely resized to fit) a 1680x1050 screen :p

I would agree that 1680x1050 on a 15.4" screen would be a little hard for some peoples eyes, but it'd be nice to have for those of us whose eyes are good and want the real estate, as would 1680x1050 on the 17" MBP as a lower-res option.
 

Beau10

macrumors 65816
Apr 6, 2008
1,309
665
US based digital nomad
But just curious... should the 15" be updated with a new screen... what's the next logical step in resolution? I don't really dabble in LCDs and don't know:eek:

Due to being mentioned 4 times in this thread already, the divining rod of magical deduction points toward 1680x1050, more affectionately known as WSXGA+.
 

Beau10

macrumors 65816
Apr 6, 2008
1,309
665
US based digital nomad
I would agree that 1680x1050 on a 15.4" screen would be a little hard for some peoples eyes, but it'd be nice to have for those of us whose eyes are good and want the real estate, as would 1680x1050 on the 17" MBP as a lower-res option.

But there is no low-res option on the 17" MBP. In fact the only option on the 17" yields 133 PPI, whereas 1680x1050 @ 15.4 is 128... so the whole argument about being easier on the eyes, the 15" would _still_ be less squintworthy at the higher res.

I think Apple's move to phase out the low-res screen on the 17" bodes quite well for a res bump on the 15 in the next revision or two.
 

Dreamail

macrumors 6502
Jun 17, 2003
456
169
Beyond
Resolution Independence?

That mythical beast, resolution independence, I wonder if it ever shows up, or if it ever will make a difference...

The idea is that with resolution independence screen elements can be zoomed to any size, at which point higher resolution screens become usable. The size of screen elements will seem like that of a lower res screen - just sharper with more detail. I.e. 12point text will not get tiny small, it will stay its current size, just with more detail.
Or it will be tiny small if you switch resolution independence off.

Leopard was scheduled to have it, but Apple cut it from the final release.
Well OSX 10.4 already has it available to developers. It's that old.

Hopefully Snow Leopard will finally have it and then Apple can up the res of the 15" to 1920x1200 where text is not smaller but lots sharper. And 1080p HD movies truly display 1080 pixels vertically.

At least that's my dream. Or in other words, the next MBP revision (somewhen between June and November) could be a good one.
 

semitry

macrumors member
Sep 25, 2008
74
0
1440x900 works quite well for a 15.4-inch display. Higher resolutions like 1680x1050 or 1920x1200 can be too hard on the eyes for a lot of people.

I feel the same way about the glossy screen. My eyes are getting tired quicker with the glossy screen MPB than when I use my W500 with 1680x1050 matte display.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.