Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
1440x900 & 1280x800 Make me want to cry
- Thread starter Thunder82
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well, actually there is, if I am not mistaken, you can now pre-order the new Sony Vaio Z, which sports a 1920x1080 resolution on a 13.1" screen,please correct me if I'm wrong
Well, actually there is, if I am not mistaken, you can now pre-order the new Sony Vaio Z, which sports a 1920x1080 resolution on a 13.1" screen,please correct me if I'm wrong
So there is! That's crazy!
Menus are pretty huge relative to normal fonts, so I don't think reducing their size by 40% or so is going to affect people's ability to read. If it did, they wouldn't be able to read normal font on normal screens right now.
As for palettes, how much time do people really spend clicking on items in palettes? Again, if those are reduced by 40%, is it really going to be that much more difficult to see them and click on them?
The smaller the icons, menus etc are the harder they are to hit with the mouse cursor.
Due to the book-like font rendering on OSX, it would really benefit from resolution independence and higher resolution displays, but the MBPs really need both to be comfortable to use. Even if you have no problems with tiny fonts etc, many others do.
Alas, we probably won't have true resolution independence until OSX 10.7.
1440 x 900 is pretty low, but it's still higher than a lot of other 15" laptops. Most 15" PC laptops I've run into are 1366 x 768. My friend's brand new 17" HP is 1440 x 900.
1920 x 1200 (WUXGA) is awesome. The 15" MBP should be 1920 x 1080 with an option to bump it up to 1920 x 1200. There are already high-end 15" ThinkPads with this res.
And then move the 1440 x 900 screen down to the 13" MacBook and MacBook Pro.
1920 x 1200 (WUXGA) is awesome. The 15" MBP should be 1920 x 1080 with an option to bump it up to 1920 x 1200. There are already high-end 15" ThinkPads with this res.
And then move the 1440 x 900 screen down to the 13" MacBook and MacBook Pro.
Again, people keep bringing up the font size issue. In pretty much every application, the font size can be upped, as has been stated countless times in this thread. That's a non-issue, and is the reason why my preceding post focused on the two things that can't be changed (easily): menus and palettes.
Ultimately, it seems like the people who are happy with it as-is have some recourse for most problems if the resolutions were to be increased, whereas those unhappy with the current resolutions have no recourse.
1440 x 900 is pretty low, but it's still higher than a lot of other 15" laptops. Most 15" PC laptops I've run into are 1366 x 768. My friend's brand new 17" HP is 1440 x 900.
This is an apples to oranges comparison. At the $2000 price point, most PC laptops aren't at 1366x768.
Often the font resizing options tend to reset themselves (or are on a page by page basis in some apps) or require lots of work to change for every single application. Resolution independence presents a global option for this and above all it means that when you for example take a Word or Pages document to another computer, its fonts will still be 10pt because you didn't have to resize them to say 12-14pt in the actual document to read them comfortably.
Are you people Amish?
The 1440x900 on the 15" MBP should be a crime punishable by law. It's outrageous! Sony is putting 1080p displays in 13" notebooks for crying out loud.
And by the way, if you find it hard to read text on a high res display, that's not the display's fault, you need glasses! I am shocked you actually need someone to explain this to you.
Lol at the Amish comment.
Fully agree with you. A lot of people don't seem to understand the concept of resolution.
Photoshop CS4 on a 13" with all tool bars and windows fully opened. Only Sony.
I do however still see pisspoor screens (something like 1280x768) on cheap 15' laptops so at the very least we wont see a DOWNGRADE.
On the contrary, lots of people don't seem to understand the relationship of resolution and display size and thus pixel size. Text made of larger pixels = easier to read. Make the pixels smaller and suddenly that same text is too tiny even for those with perfect vision.
If OSX had resolution independent scaling, that same font could be made to use more pixels on that high res, small size display resulting in better looking fonts without the fonts becoming too small.
I bet the 13" Sony doesn't come with the DPI scaling at the default 96 dpi.
It's funny, I sit just as close to my 19" desktop monitor as I do my 13" MBP. The desktop monitor is only a couple months old, and has a 1440x900 resolution. Sure its not great, but it's the average for most desktop monitors I've seen at that size and at that pricepoint (about $250-300)
How is this a valid argument?
It's like saying you wouldn't have mined a Pentium processor in the 2009 MBP if Mac OS X was still only 32-bit. How would the latter have been an excuse for the first? I would not have been an excuse just as the lack of dpi scaling is not an excuse for the current resolutions.
Besides you are speaking in general absolutes. Obviously eventually there will come a point when making the pixels smaller on the same surface (ergo higher dpi) will make the same text too tiny even for those with perfect vision/glasses. But how on earth can you claim that the same text will be too tiny even for those with perfect vision/glasses if the the 13"/15" MBP gets a 1080p display. The OS X text on the current 13"/15" MBP is freaking huge right now, it could easily stand to shrink quite a bit. There will not be any actual need for the OS X text to be resolution independent at that stage (that stage being 1080p on 13"/15" MBP).
When the display resolution get even higher still, then we can talk about making the OS text resolution independent.
Bottom line is, it's dated technology and it has been for quite some time now.
Sounds like you overpaid for your 19" considering 23-24" screens can easily be had in the 2-300$ price range. These slightly larger monitors come with 1080p as a standard res.
Unfortunately, Windows 7 (and XP for that matter) scales at 120dpi through settings. But it's these settings taht are burried within the system preferences is what makes Windows Windows. (ie hard to use ,not intuitive etc.)
1920x1200 is too high resolution for reading on a 17".
I agree. I have a 17" 2.4GHz MacBook Pro with 1680x1050 which is perfect for reading and web browsing. And it still has a much higher PPI than all other Mac Displays except the 17" 1920x1200.
Why Apple no longer sells the 17" with 1680x1050 is beyond me. I have the cash and I am ready to upgrade when the new models comes out, but if the 17" is again only available in 1920x1200, I will sadly have to pass.
My eye sight is pretty good but 1920x1200 on a 17" is simply too high for most people. It may be great for watching movies, but I use my Macbook for work and web mostly, which means reading, reading and reading.
Maybe when resolution independence is implemented this won't be a problem anymore.
I agree. I have a 17" 2.4GHz MacBook Pro with 1680x1050 which is perfect for reading and web browsing. And it still has a much higher PPI than all other Mac Displays except the 17" 1920x1200.
Why Apple no longer sells the 17" with 1680x1050 is beyond me. I have the cash and I am ready to upgrade when the new models comes out, but if the 17" is again only available in 1920x1200, I will sadly have to pass.
My eye sight is pretty good but 1920x1200 on a 17" is simply too high for most people. It may be great for watching movies, but I use my Macbook for work and web mostly, which means reading, reading and reading.
Maybe when resolution independence is implemented this won't be a problem anymore.
