Comparison of Apple/PC Screen Res.

Discussion in 'Macintosh Computers' started by picasso_41, Mar 13, 2003.

  1. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    #1
    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.
     
  2. macrumors 68020

    jayscheuerle

    #2
    Re: Comparison of Apple/PC Screen Res.

    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.
     
  3. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 29, 2002
    Location:
    Knoxville Tenneesse
    #3
    These kind of posts are lame

    Am I the only one how thinks thats post about PC vs Mac are just tired and lame? Good god ,,,,who cares?:rolleyes:
     
  4. thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    #4
    Re: Re: Comparison of Apple/PC Screen Res.

    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.
     
  5. macrumors 68020

    jayscheuerle

    #5
    Re: Re: Re: Comparison of Apple/PC Screen Res.

    Seeing as Jaguar is based on pdf, one should be able to scale the desktop independently of resolution....
     
  6. macrumors 65816

    yzedf

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2002
    Location:
    Connecticut
    #6
    Re: Re: Re: Re: Comparison of Apple/PC Screen Res.

    OS X 10.2 is based on an Adobe product?

    Idiot. :mad:
     
  7. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2003
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #7
    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Comparison of Apple/PC Screen Res.

    Um, read the first sentence.
     
  8. Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #8
    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Comparison of Apple/PC Screen Res.

    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. :)
     
  9. macrumors 68020

    howard

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2002
    #9
    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Comparison of Apple/PC Screen Res.

    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
     
  10. macrumors 68030

    Catfish_Man

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2001
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #10
    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Comparison of Apple/PC Screen Res.

    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.
     
  11. thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    #11
    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Comparison of Apple/PC Screen Res.

    The NeXTStep screen must have been beautiful to behold!

    .
     
  12. macrumors 68040

    mac15

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2001
    Location:
    Sydney
    #12
    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Comparison of Apple/PC Screen Res.

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

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    #13
    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.
     
  14. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2002
    Location:
    UK
    #14
    Re: These kind of posts are lame

    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.
     

Share This Page