1440x900 & 1280x800 Make me want to cry

[sth]

The 1440x900 display resolution was the only drawback when I got my MacBook Pro back in 2006. I previously had a HP nx7000 with a 1680x1050 display (15"). That notebook was from 2003 and even back then, Dell already offered optional 1920x1200 panels on some of their high-end notebooks. High resolution notebook displays aren't as new as some people here might think.

I prefer the 15" form factor but for my next MBP, I won't buy anything below 1920x1080. If Apple doesn't bump the resolution on their notebooks that means moving to 17" for me.

What makes sense for most people would probably be:
13": 1440x900
15": 1680x1050
17": 1920x1200

High resolution notebook displays are much better to read than many people think, since you usually sit very close to a notebook (compared to a desktop monitor).

My dream would be a 16" 1920x1200 MBP - but that won't happen.

 

[daneoni]

I must be the only one fine with the resolution.

I've seen the 1080p 17" display at the store and i found myself squinting and developing a headache to the point where i moved on to the 15" next to it.

You think 1440x is bad...wasn't it just a few years back that Apple was shipping 1280x800 15" displays in the PowerBooks.

 

[john123]

You think 1440x is bad...wasn't it just a few years back that Apple was shipping 1280x800 15" displays in the PowerBooks.

Operative term being YEARS AGO.

Spec out a $2,000 15" laptop from Dell or any other major manufacturer and you won't be seeing a 1440x900 screen. I can appreciate that there are some old people with poor eyesight who like it the way it is, but for those of us who do all kinds of other work (and I'm not talking photo editing here), it blows.

 

[Eleventeen]

Part of the reason that I started this thread.. I think this poll shows that this statement isn't necessarily true. If you only use your computer at home to surf the web and occasionally check email, sure, theres no need for increased resolution. For those that actually demand a lot from their notebooks, I don't see how increased resolution & workspace wouldn't help.

If your eyes can't handle it, I feel sorry for you because higher resolution is glorious! (up to a point - which i suppose is the question at hand) Either way, I wish Apple would CTO screens, it certainly seems to be a commonly discussed (and disagreed upon subject) between Apple customers.

This is exactly my opinion on the subject. On OS X it's easy enough to increase the icon size, and at least, icon label text size. Menus not so much, and it's easy enough in Chrome/Safari/Firefox to Command + and - to change the text size in web pages.

My argument comes down to me using my screen with my 'daily' apps, Acrobat and InDesign. In my world, the higher the resolution the better. A 1680 x 1050 15" would allow me to put two windows up side by side to compare styling themes or 'flip' through a document magazine style at reasonable page sizes. The default 15" with it's 900 pixels of height isn't bad, but another 240 pixels of width would really help.

Operative term being YEARS AGO.

Spec out a $2,000 15" laptop from Dell or any other major manufacturer and you won't be seeing a 1440x900 screen. I can appreciate that there are some old people with poor eyesight who like it the way it is, but for those of us who do all kinds of other work (and I'm not talking photo editing here), it blows.

Heck my sister uses a $1700 17" Dell Studio when drafting w/ AutoCAD with a ridiculous 1560 x 1600 native res. She turns it down to use it because it makes the menu buttons too small to see, even on the 17".

 

[Gabriel GR]

Heck my sister uses a $1700 17" Dell Studio when drafting w/ AutoCAD with a ridiculous 1560 x 1600 native res. She turns it down to use it because it makes the menu buttons too small to see, even on the 17".

Typo?

 

[Cam42]

Resolution's fine to me, anything higher on a screen that size makes it difficult to read.

 

[john123]

TLDR: Some people prefer high resolutions, while other people prefer lower resolutions.

/thread

 

[zync]

What do You mean by independence?

LCDs having native resolutions is crappy.

Resolution independence is being able to size menus, system fonts, etc. separately of the resolution of the screen. For instance say the system font is 12pt, which on your screen is tiny, you could raise it to 18pt which is normal and everything else would size up to match—menu bars, the title bar, etc.

Resolution independence beats the purpose why most of us want a higher resolution. For me at least, higher resolution means smaller menus and fitting more windows in a single screen space.

Of course there are other advantages in high resolution such as detail but they are not my top priority.

Yeah, but adding the option allows both camps to be happy. The reason I want higher res screens is for that exact same purpose. It's nicer to be able to edit HD video or animating in HD without having to look at it at 25% the size.

Patrick but in this case you'd run on a not native resolution (unless you go from 1600 width to 800) and that usually looks bad.
I don't see why so many want higher resolutions as it seems most people just want it because a lot of Windows Notebooks have it.
For the average User there is little benefit in higher resolutions. Everything is smaller only high def content looks a little better. When gaming you need much more GPU Power too utilise the res, or everything you get is worse not better quality.

Everything looks smoother. Also to everyone bashing higher res screens because it hurts their eyes, it's actually better for your eyes as the pixels are then smaller and thus everything is more life-like. Of course this only works if there's resolution independence to help make things a favorable size for each person.

Given that apples are popular amongst the design community, isn't screen real estate very important to those consumers? To me it seems counter productive for them not to up the resolution at least a little bit. I realise there is the option of connecting it to a larger screen, but that isn't very portable.

Yep.

You think 1440x is bad...wasn't it just a few years back that Apple was shipping 1280x800 15" displays in the PowerBooks.

Actually it was 1280x854.

Typo?

They probably meant 2560x1600.

 

[patrickdunn]

Wow, I never realized there was a "native" resolution for a screen. I just figured there was a max. Good thread.

 

[zync]

Wow, I never realized there was a "native" resolution for a screen. I just figured there was a max. Good thread.

They're one in the same. The max and the native are where the ratio of display pixels to content "pixels" is 1:1. If you run a screen at a lower res, there's more than one pixel of display for every "pixel" of content thus enlarging the content and making it appear blurry. The blurriness must come from some sort of hardware blurring in order to make the enlarged content not appear too jagged.

 

[AppleMayhem]

Really? What kind of ghetto ass laptops are those?

This actually made me spit soda all over my desk.

I think they look like this:

 

[itsparks]

The 1440x900 display resolution was the only drawback when I got my MacBook Pro back in 2006. I previously had a HP nx7000 with a 1680x1050 display (15"). That notebook was from 2003 and even back then, Dell already offered optional 1920x1200 panels on some of their high-end notebooks. High resolution notebook displays aren't as new as some people here might think.

I prefer the 15" form factor but for my next MBP, I won't buy anything below 1920x1080. If Apple doesn't bump the resolution on their notebooks that means moving to 17" for me.

What makes sense for most people would probably be:
13": 1440x900
15": 1680x1050
17": 1920x1200

High resolution notebook displays are much better to read than many people think, since you usually sit very close to a notebook (compared to a desktop monitor).

My dream would be a 16" 1920x1200 MBP - but that won't happen.

My dream would be thbe 15" 1920x1200 but ill have to get a 17" i guess. I need the resolution, i hate big screens with no realestate.

 

[john123]

My dream would be thbe 15" 1920x1200 but ill have to get a 17" i guess. I need the resolution, i hate big screens with no realestate.

I'm with you. If the Arrandales keep the same resolutions as current models, I'll probably be in the 17" crowd. I don't want the bulk, but I do so much real multitasking that I'm starting to go nuts with the 1440x900.

 

[js81]

2005 Toshiba Equium, 2009 Toshiba Satellite Pro, Some 2009 HP & some 2009 Acer. All low-mid spec'd computers, all running 1280x800 screens, I HATE them after using any mac, everything appears blurry. I also have a HP screen I used to use with my Equium, 19" & runs 1440x900.

Are you sure about that? My 15" Acer is 1366x768 (16:9 instead of the Macbook's 16:10). Still, too low for a 15" screen, but its a $399 laptop, NOT a $2000 MBP...

 

[robotkiller]

The 15 incher is the ideal footprint and a good screen size, but the current resolution is a joke, IMO. The real world usability (for me) is just not there. I will go 17" if the revision doesn't include a bump. I'm a resolution freak, so if the 17" gets bumped, I may go for that anyway. Using the 27" iMac has spoiled me, I guess.

 

[coolmacguy]

1680x1050 seems perfect on a a 15". However, given that Apple's moved the iMacs to 16:9, would be interesting to see if they do the same with MacBooks.

Example:
~13" MacBook - 1366x768
~15" MBP - 1600x900
~17" MBP - 1920x1080

I plan to get a 15 so this is fine with me. If they do 1440x810 I will be pissed though.

 

[cluthz]

16:9 is a hopeless format to work with unless you have very big screens.
Documents are ~7:10 (varies a bit A4 vs US Letter etc) and the wider the screen is the less actual workspace.

With a big (24"+ screen) you can place two documents side by side, but not on a 15 inch, it just gets too small!!
1920x1080 on the 15 inch will be too small even for young people like me ( 27 ain't old right?).

I can live with 1600x1000 but that is still 16:10 format.

I love being able to work in full HD, but i don't need it on the road!
Also screen spanning with a 15" @1920x1080 with a 24" @1920x1080 would be hopeless to work with due to the difference in DPI.

Indeed make a 1920x1200 option for the 15 inch, but don't force it upon us all, I want to have my 1440x900

 

[Thunder82]

16:9 is a hopeless format to work with unless you have very big screens.
Documents are ~7:10 (varies a bit A4 vs US Letter etc) and the wider the screen is the less actual workspace.

With a big (24"+ screen) you can place two documents side by side, but not on a 15 inch, it just gets too small!!
1920x1080 on the 15 inch will be too small even for young people like me ( 27 ain't old right?).

I can live with 1600x1000 but that is still 16:10 format.

I love being able to work in full HD, but i don't need it on the road!
Also screen spanning with a 15" @1920x1080 with a 24" @1920x1080 would be hopeless to work with due to the difference in DPI.

Indeed make a 1920x1200 option for the 15 inch, but don't force it upon us all, I want to have my 1440x900

I agree with everything your saying, except for the optimal resolution for a 15". I'm also 27, and tiling windows on a 15" 1920x1080 screen is entirely ideal to me. (my eyes have no problems viewing this, even from a distance)

Either way, I agree that Apple needs to make this a CTO option. They're already offering options for matte vs glossy, why not for screen resolutions. I think screens are the most "user specific" item on any laptop.

 

[Maserati7200]

For the people who say the text is too small, you do realize you can increase the font, right? In finder, press j to increase text and icon sizes. You can also increase font sizes in mos applications by pressing +

 

[drummerlondonw3]

I have the 17 MBP and I LOVE the resolution I have attached a quick screen shot.

I also have a MB Air and I find the resolution fine to be honest
However, my MBP in my sig seems comical sometimes when I open it up it just seems so under-res'd

I can't seem to attach at the moment but I am sure you get the picture. I can watch a video, run a full browser and still have a doc to edit

 

[dzine808]

I currently run an Dull XPS 1530 for CAD. It runs at 1680x1050. I love the resolution on it! When I see the MBP at 1400x900...I'm like ehhhh!!! I don't understand why they went back down on the resouution. The older 15's used to have the option of 1680x1050. I wouldn't mind having Apple offer the 1600 rez as an option for 15. I love my 17, but it's a bit cumbersome to lug around.

 

[marclondon]

The text/font rendering and resolution is really the only thing I find less than good in the 13 inch Macbook Pro - otherwise it's more or less the perfect machine for those like me who use it a only while away for short times from a desktop machine. Playing videos is fine.

 

[Abstract]

Example:
~13" MacBook - 1366x768
~15" MBP - 1600x900
~17" MBP - 1920x1080

These are the resolutions I want in Apple's line-up (if they were to move towards 16:9), although using a 16:10 aspect ratio with a higher res for the 15" MBP would be fine too.

At least provide the option for the 15" MBP. Does Apple even know what configurable options are anymore? It's nice that they make the highest profit margin from their products, but as a consumer, I don't care. They make the highest margins partly because of the shortcuts they take with consumer options.

 

[bigaudiofanatic]

TO me the current resolution is fine for me. I am not trying to get all crazy with how much I can get on a screen and am very happy with my new mac and the quality of the screen and size of everything.

 

[cluthz]

For the people who say the text is too small, you do realize you can increase the font, right? In finder, press j to increase text and icon sizes. You can also increase font sizes in mos applications by pressing +

I know, but palettes and menus stays the same.