Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

15" vs 17" screen size and resolution

S

spooky69

macrumors regular
Original poster
Jan 18, 2010
108
6
I know the issue of the 15" versus the 17" has been discussed ad nauseum, BUT... has anyone seen the same items on a 15" high resolution screen compared to the 17"? I am interested in how the size of fonts and menu items appears and how much fits on the screen. Is the added size of the 17" of less benefit now that the high resolution screen is available?

The 17" does not seem a huge amount bigger on paper but when you see them in the flesh the 17" looks a lot bigger.
 
There are 117 600 pixels per inch in 15" while there are 135 529 pixels per inch in 17"

(1680 x 1050) / 15
(1920 x 1200) / 17

So 17" is still sharper so everything is smaller
 
Thanks.

So you are still going to get significantly more on the 17" screen than simply the additional size would allow. Would be great to see a picture of the two next to each other displaying the same items - doesn't seem like any stores have the high resolution in stock though and I expect it is too soon for anyone to have the opportunity to take such a photograph.

I guess it is the same old discussion after all - the relative bulk of the 17" compared to the 15", with the high resolution reducing the gap between the two new models in terms of working space.
 
spooky69 said:
The 17" does not seem a huge amount bigger on paper but when you see them in the flesh the 17" looks a lot bigger.
Click to expand...

It is only 14% bigger. 1 inch wider, .7 inch deeper, and 1 more pound (.5 kg). I really like the 1920x1200 screen though. If the 15" had that, I would have gone with it.

I thought that when I was at the store, I had a hard time figuring out which was which from across the room.
 
Hellhammer said:
There are 117 600 pixels per inch in 15" while there are 135 529 pixels per inch in 17"

(1680 x 1050) / 15
(1920 x 1200) / 17

So 17" is still sharper so everything is smaller
Click to expand...
I'm confused how you arrived that those numbers?

I think its 128.65 for 15" and 133.19 for 17".

57bb68f4c41c787111cbd9e9bba8ad97.png


and

008a3bc65d1a9437f50fb15466073605.png
 
spooky69 said:
Thanks.

So you are still going to get significantly more on the 17" screen than simply the additional size would allow. Would be great to see a picture of the two next to each other displaying the same items - doesn't seem like any stores have the high resolution in stock though and I expect it is too soon for anyone to have the opportunity to take such a photograph.

I guess it is the same old discussion after all - the relative bulk of the 17" compared to the 15", with the high resolution reducing the gap between the two new models in terms of working space.
Click to expand...

You do realize though that in terms of the weight, you're only looking at a 1lb difference. I find my 15" MBP easier to carry around, but the 17" one is amazing when you consider that you have with you a full desktop replacement machine. If you really don't need a full HD screen, I think the 15" MBP with 1680 screen is perfect.
 
Sneakz said:
I'm definitely not a math genius, but I think that is an incorrect way to calculate pixel density.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_density

Additionally, 15" screen is 15.4".
Click to expand...

Yeah I know it's not the right way to calculate it (you should first calculate the area of the screen and then divide the amount of pixels by it to get the amount of pixels per cm2 for example)

It was just quick way to do it as I was lazy :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back