I hate how resolution maxes out at 1440x900 on a 15 MBP, You would think there would be some way to make it smaller, especially if my graphics card can easily handle it. Something in terminal? or is the only way to buy a new screen?
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.
1600x1050 on a 15 inch?
- Thread starter TtimeWithTy
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There's an older thread talking about how this guy hacked his MBP to have a hi-res screen up to 1900x1200. I can't find the address, maybe you might have better luck.
The fact of the matter is that you cannot exceed the number of physical pixels your monitor has. The Apple 15" displays have 1440x900. Period. You can get some 15" displays from other manufacturers with ~1600x1050 (or thereabouts), but not from apple. You cannot "hack" the MBP to have more pixels. You can mess with it so that it displays things smaller as if there were more pixels / sq. inch, but it will look bad since you do not have the physical pixels. The only way to "hack" it up to 1900x1200 is to replace the screen with one of that resolution.
Not to mention the fact that no human could read anything on a 15" monitor with 1900x1200...
My fault, I should have elaborated that by "hack" I didn't mean a software fix, I meant a hardware modification. I should have used the word "modified" instead of "hacked".
i guess i just want a way to make my windows and everything smaller. Not necessarily change resolution
One of the biggest reasons I haven't bought a macbook or macbook pro yet is the screen resolution. They're just too low. I've had 3 laptops and they all had 15" 1920x1200 screens, which to me is the ideal resolution for a 15". 1440x900 just doesn't cut it. The 17" is just too big for me and the 12" macbook has a 1280x800 resolution... too small too...
Point of clarification: the resolution you're talking about is 1680x1050 unless my ViewSonic has some nonstandard resolution, which I'm pretty sure it doesn't.
But as people have been responding, you can't go any higher than how many pixels the monitor actually has. If you need a better resolution, get an external monitor.
But as people have been responding, you can't go any higher than how many pixels the monitor actually has. If you need a better resolution, get an external monitor.
And even if you got a display with 1900x1200, you might still need a different cable (connecter for the display and video card). As far as I know, high resolution displays usually need cables with high bandwidth.
Not really. The only monitors that need anything special are ones like the 30" Cinema Display (2560x1600), which requires dual-link DVI. Even something like 1900x1200 is fine on normal (i.e. Single Link) DVI/VGA/HDMI/etc. (source, source, and source)
Only above that do you run into problems. And that is not all that common right now, seeing as 2560x1600 on anything short of 30" is just silly, and anything near 30" in a monitor is stupid expensive. Also, no video format is close to touching that need yet (at least for a good few years, see Super Hi-Vision)
LCDs don't like running outside of their native resolution. There are also TONS of people out there that would fine 1600 hard on the eyes. The only option then is to reduce resolution lower then native which will cause blurring and artifacts.
The option of a higher resolution panel as a BTO would be nice though.
The option of a higher resolution panel as a BTO would be nice though.
A simple solution would be to buy a 20" Dell display with a 1680x1050 res for ~$300. I have two connected to my desktop and love em.
In any case, if Apple hasn't got 1680x1050 in their 15s by the time I'm upgrading, I'm going for 1920x1200 in the 17s.
You just gave the perfect reason why Apple will never upgrade the resolution on their 15" MBPs!
If they can make users buy 17" MBPs then that's exactly what they want. Apple will try anything to 'upsell' you. That's their strategy.
Only once the whole Windows world uses 1680x1050 on a 15" display, Apple will eventually be forced to concede to that resolution...
For me, it's really a shame. I need 1600x1200 res in a portable machine, but I don't want to buy a 17" MBP as this is not portable enough for day to day carrying.
My only choice is a Window laptop, really. :-/
Yup, always had 15" laptops and never had one with a lower resolution than 1600x1200. The 17" isn't portable enough. It's very nice for Apple that they have a very small product line, but it leaves me with a million reasons not to buy a Mac. Since I want it mostly for the OS, I'll end up buying a compromise.
Couldn't agree more. I was actually here to post the exact same topic.
The 15 MBP is the right size laptop for me but I don't get why they didn't go at least to 1680x1050. My 8 year old HP laptop (which I'm typing on right now) is 1400x1050 which is actually 12% more screen real estate than the MBP's 1440x900. HP's 2410 mini comes in 1366x768 and it's a 10-inch screen! So clearly it's more than technically possible to put a high-res screen on a smaller laptop and HP is betting that some people will appreciate the higher dot pitch. So, even if you think 1920x1200 is too small for 15" then I would split the difference and give people 1680x1050.
The next chance for a MBP 15 refresh isn't for 5-6 months right?
The 15 MBP is the right size laptop for me but I don't get why they didn't go at least to 1680x1050. My 8 year old HP laptop (which I'm typing on right now) is 1400x1050 which is actually 12% more screen real estate than the MBP's 1440x900. HP's 2410 mini comes in 1366x768 and it's a 10-inch screen! So clearly it's more than technically possible to put a high-res screen on a smaller laptop and HP is betting that some people will appreciate the higher dot pitch. So, even if you think 1920x1200 is too small for 15" then I would split the difference and give people 1680x1050.
The next chance for a MBP 15 refresh isn't for 5-6 months right?