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.
15 inch macbook pro high res vs standard
- Thread starter tim100
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Paid for the hi-res but still waiting for the slow boat to arrive. Decision was a no-brainer for me.
I received my Hi Res Glossy i7 15" yesterday. Im really happy I went for the hi res display. I played around with some 15" MBPs in the store the other day and the standard res felt too cramped for me coming from a 17" laptop. Even though the standard res is a better option for gaming because it puts less stress on the 330 I'd rather improve my everyday use than have an MMO look top notch. I have an xbox 360 anyway 
high-res
Just ordered the high-res glossy screen on my custom built Macbook Pro. Still feel that Apple ought to be ashamed of its greedy decision to equip a 2000,- + (hard Euro's, mind you) laptop with a 1440 x 900 screen. Asking for Full LED-FullHD-3D-IPS may be too much here, but come on, these machines are marketed at pro's !!!!
Just ordered the high-res glossy screen on my custom built Macbook Pro. Still feel that Apple ought to be ashamed of its greedy decision to equip a 2000,- + (hard Euro's, mind you) laptop with a 1440 x 900 screen. Asking for Full LED-FullHD-3D-IPS may be too much here, but come on, these machines are marketed at pro's !!!!
Purchased the high res, helps future proof it, and i play sc2 and diablo 3 when it comes out so it just makes it stunning =G
I waited _years_ for Apple to catch up with the rest of the industry and offer hi-res. Too bad Apple has so much fear about embracing current technology as it's released.
I've had beautiful hi-res ThinkPads five years before Apple finally had the courage to follow along.
Bought a new 15" mid 2010 Core i7 the day they were released.
I've had beautiful hi-res ThinkPads five years before Apple finally had the courage to follow along.
Bought a new 15" mid 2010 Core i7 the day they were released.
Actually while the base price of a MBP is quite high, the price to upgrade to hi-res is quite reasonable. I agree that the MBP line is a high quality product, I've always enjoyed mine. It's a shame the prices are so high. However for Apple to remain the fat cash cow it is, they've got to raid the customers. Let's face it, Jobs and the shareholders love "Apple Tax"...
Full LED? Full 3D? 3D? I'm sorry, but you sound like you just got out of sales training; all you're throwing out are just a bunch of marketing terms.
Seriously, have you ever seen a half LED display?
Full HD implies 1920x1080. Yes that's nice, but that's also 16:9 ratio. So I'll pass.
3D is nice as well and you can already go that. Just get a pair of anaglyphic glasses.
IPS is expensive, and LG is the only panel maker for them. Well Boe Hydis as well, but I don't think they do it any longer. Sure we will adoption soon, but it will still take some time.
Fair enough, I get your point. Notice how I said "it may be too much to ask for"
Anyway, I don't really agree with you calling these marketing terms; these are all valid technology concepts, which people would notice on their product. It's not like i'm asking for extra megapixels or gigahertzes here (terms often used to market pc's or digital camera's). By the way, yes, they could offer full-led as opposed to edge led. My point is that Apple is feeding you/us the marketing here. Selling a 1680 x 1050 screen as "high-res" in 2010 is a joke, no matter how superior the Mac is. Try to find another 15" 2000,- + laptop with such a low-res screen (1440 x 900), it'll prove difficult, because 1680 x 1050 seems to be "standard res" in this market niche. Just saying that we pay "pro-premiums" for aging technology. I hate apple marketing, but love the mac. [dilemma]Some high end models, like the alienware M15x, will have a resolution of 1920x1080 in a 15.6" 16:9 aspect screen. This makes a pixel pitch of 141 dpi.
The Apple has 1680 x 1050 in a 15.4" 16:10 aspect screen. This makes a pixel pitch of 127 dpi.
That's an increase in dpi of 11%, which IMO hardly makes the apple screen a "joke".
(EDIT: Made an error in calculations - silly me! Conclusion still the same though
)
Some high end models, like the alienware M15x, will have a resolution of 1920x1080 in a 15.6" 16:9 aspect screen. This makes a pixel pitch of 141 dpi.
The Apple has 1680 x 1050 in a 15.4" 16:10 aspect screen. This makes a pixel pitch of 127 dpi.
That's an increase in dpi of 11%, which IMO hardly makes the apple screen a "joke".
(EDIT: Made an error in calculations - silly me! Conclusion still the same though
I didn't say 1680 x 1050 is a joke (but selling it as "high-res" in 2010 is). I believe the standards-screen resolution of 1440 x 900 in a high-end laptop in 2010 is just not done (please, find how difficult it is to find a competing 2000,- + offer with such a low-res screen). I ordered the high-res screen (which is not a big premium over the standard-res screen, probably the reason why 2/3rds of the voters in this poll bought it). But my opinion remains, 1440 x 900 is not as premium as you would expect from a high-end laptop. I am not arguing the high-res is not worth the extra money, I am arguing that at these prices, Apple ought to include a premium screen as a standard, not an option.
I think the issue is that some people will find the fonts and UI elements too small with the higher resolution screen. Having the 1440 x 900 screen caters for this market, and as you say the 1680 x 1050 is not a huge premium for those who want it.
fair point, although people could use 1440x900 on a 1680x1050 screen as well, if their eyesight demands so, right? saying they "cater to that market" (that makes it sound like it's something good) is just not the way i see it , i feel it's just apple tax to get our machine up to current (let alone state of the art) screen-tech. i love my mac and all, but don't these kind of marketing decisions itch you guys ?
If someone knows they only want to use 1440x900, it'll look an awful lot better native than scaled on a higher-res screen. I would say it's a legitimate option to have, and is still higher resolution (or, more importantly, higher pixel pitch) than the majority of 15" PC laptops on the market. Of course these are not necessarily "premium", but Apple does not have a non-premium 15" laptop. In that sense I would have to say, yes, the lower-res option is good! I'll agree to disagree on this one then
Wow, it's overwhelming for the hi-res display in the poll.
I have the standard 1440x900 because I put my mbp on a stand and hook it up to a 26" external, while using the wireless keyboard and mouse. The mbp's display ends up being somewhat far from me, and I find the 1440 just about right for this situation. I used to have a high-res screen on a previous laptop and similar setup, and I could never use it in native dpi settings.
I have the standard 1440x900 because I put my mbp on a stand and hook it up to a 26" external, while using the wireless keyboard and mouse. The mbp's display ends up being somewhat far from me, and I find the 1440 just about right for this situation. I used to have a high-res screen on a previous laptop and similar setup, and I could never use it in native dpi settings.