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

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by bradz_id, Apr 25, 2006.

?

Do you think 1680x1050 is too dense for a 17" MBP

  1. Yes

    13 vote(s)
    16.3%
  2. No

    67 vote(s)
    83.8%
  1. bradz_id macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Location:
    Tasmania, Australia
    #1
    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?
     
  2. jared_kipe macrumors 68030

    jared_kipe

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2003
    Location:
    Seattle
    #2
    Nah, laptops are supposed to be closer to your face.
     
  3. dpaanlka macrumors 601

    dpaanlka

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Location:
    Illinois
    #3
    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.
     
  4. mmmcheese macrumors 6502a

    mmmcheese

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
  5. Chundles macrumors G4

    Chundles

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    #5
    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.
     
  6. jamesi macrumors 6502a

    jamesi

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2005
    Location:
    Davis CA
    #6
    who cares? you can always adjust the display if you want.
     
  7. tonyl macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
  8. jamesi macrumors 6502a

    jamesi

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2005
    Location:
    Davis CA
    #8
    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
     
  9. tonyl macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    #9
    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.
     
  10. bradz_id thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Location:
    Tasmania, Australia
    #10
    Have you seen how blurry an LCD operating at a scaled resolution is???
     
  11. jamesi macrumors 6502a

    jamesi

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2005
    Location:
    Davis CA
    #11
    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
     
  12. plinkoman macrumors 65816

    plinkoman

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2003
    Location:
    New York
    #12
    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.
     
  13. tonyl macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    #13
    Where did you get it? Apple store in NYC?
     
  14. plinkoman macrumors 65816

    plinkoman

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2003
    Location:
    New York
    #14
    no, check my sig, i have a powerbook. the latest 17" pb has the same 1680x1050 display as the 17" MBP.
     
  15. tonyl macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    #15
    Oops, thanks.
     
  16. Chundles macrumors G4

    Chundles

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    #16
    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.
     
  17. Sutekidane macrumors 6502a

    Sutekidane

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    #17
    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.
     
  18. homerjward macrumors 68030

    homerjward

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Location:
    fig tree
    #18
    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:
     
  19. cyberone macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2005
    #19
    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.
     
  20. Josias macrumors 68000

    Josias

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    #20
    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: ;)
     
  21. QCassidy352 macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #21
    :eek: You're kidding, right? You want the 15" to have higher res than the 17" does now?? That would drive me absolutely insane.
     
  22. NATO macrumors 68000

    NATO

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    Location:
    Northern Ireland
    #22
    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.
     
  23. Josias macrumors 68000

    Josias

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    #23
    As explained, people are usually further away from desktopscreens. That is why iMacs and ACD's have a resolution one "level" lower than laptops.;)
     
  24. steelfist macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    #24
    and here i thought that 12 inch 1024 x 768 is just right for density...
     
  25. ahunter3 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    #25
    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.
     

Share This Page