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

1680x1050 resolution in 17" MBP?

Doc69

Doc69

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Dec 21, 2005
653
90
I desperately need a new Macbook Pro (antiglare), as my trusty old 17" 2.4GHz 'Santa Rosa' MBP is getting old. However, Apple is no longer offering 17" models with a 1680x1050 resolution, and 1920x1200 is simply a too high resolution for my eyes.

Is it possible to somehow replace the 1920x1200 display on a new 17" MBP with a 1680x1050 display instead?

P.S. I can't for the life of me understand why Apple is no longer offering the 17" with a 1680x1050 resolution as well as 1920x1200. The PPI of the 1680x1050 model is 117, which is still much higher than most other displays available. For example, the 21.5" and 27" iMacs are only 102 and 109 PPI respectively. The 1920x1200 17" has a PPI of 133. I mean, you can't even get a desktop monitor in 1920x1200 under 22", so understandably, 1920x1200 in a 17" is a bit extreme (albeit certainly great for watching movies in 1080p or for young eyes who don't need to read all day or use busy UIs). And the promise of Resolution Independence in 10.7, doesn't seem to solve the problem either, as it looks like it will not be scalable but only a 2x mode, like the iPhone 4. And for that, 1920x1200 would not be high enough resolution...
 
You do know that 1680x1050 is easily doable on a 17", right? I mean, the ppi is probably going to be the same, but you can change the resolution (at least I can on my 2011 17" model) using Displays in System Preferences. I run it at 1920x1200, as that is my older eyes can still take.
 
I just tried lowering the resolution on my 2011 17" from 1920x1200 to 1680x1050 and am VERY surprised by how good it still manages to look.

While I realize this may not be the option you're after, it's definitely something to at least take a look at if you can try it out on a store model/a friends laptop.
 
I don't understand how too many pixels is a bad thing? You can just change the resolution, make fonts larger, etc. The extra pixels will just make things more crisp and clear. I can't imagine that's harder on your eyes than blurry pixelated images in relative comparison. Not to knock 1680x1050 because it still looks good too
 
eternlgladiator said:
I don't understand how too many pixels is a bad thing? You can just change the resolution, make fonts larger, etc. The extra pixels will just make things more crisp and clear. I can't imagine that's harder on your eyes than blurry pixelated images in relative comparison. Not to knock 1680x1050 because it still looks good too
Click to expand...

You must be young, and with good vision. Too many pixels certainly can be a bad thing if you must strain your eyes to see what's on the screen. And lowering the resolution doesn't help because LCD's have a native resolution -- the exact number of pixels that the screen contains. When you lower the resolution, you are getting approximations of the lower number of pixels, which makes the screen blurry.
 
1680x1050 looks significantly better on a 1680x1050 monitor than a 1920x1200.

The 1920x1200 does get a bit painful, as everything is smaller. If you setup your fonts big... then use an external at home, the fonts suddenly become way too big.

They should rename these things "Macbook Idiot", because Apple's customers don't understand how to make choices like this which are just too baffling.... a wave of the magic apple wand and poof!! ...your sleepless nights disappear.
 
Capt Underpants said:
You must be young, and with good vision. Too many pixels certainly can be a bad thing if you must strain your eyes to see what's on the screen. And lowering the resolution doesn't help because LCD's have a native resolution -- the exact number of pixels that the screen contains. When you lower the resolution, you are getting approximations of the lower number of pixels, which makes the screen blurry.
Click to expand...

Actually I just played around with some of the lower resolutions on by 2011 17" and it looks surprisingly good. I have other LCDs that look horrible when you switch from native resolution, but this it's quite usable on the MacBook.
 
just to clear things up, the issue here isn't the resolution but a lack of resolution independence built into OS X. this lack creates smaller and smaller icons as the resolution of the screen increases( and by relation, the ppi count). whne fonts and icons become smaller and you have crappy near field eye sight, using a 17" MBP with a WUXGA screen can be a eye straining nightmare. apparently, OS X lion is supposed to correct this to some degree.
 
eternlgladiator said:
I don't understand how too many pixels is a bad thing? You can just change the resolution, make fonts larger, etc. The extra pixels will just make things more crisp and clear. I can't imagine that's harder on your eyes than blurry pixelated images in relative comparison. Not to knock 1680x1050 because it still looks good too
Click to expand...

Thanks for the input from everyone!

I agree, the more pixels the better. The iPhone 4 display is just the best thing ever. However, when they increased the PPI of the iPhone 4 to 326, up from 163 on the 3GS, they also re-wrote the UI and enlarged everything by 100% so that the size and look remained the same for the users, only much sharper.

This is very different from the situation with monitors we have today. Imagine if they had not re-written the UI of all the apps when introducing the iPhone retina display. You would barely be able to see the icons or menus. This is a bit how I feel with 1920x1200 on a 17".

And for those of you who suggested that I lower the resolution, this is not an option as an LCD has to run in it's native resolution to be crisp and sharp. I do however agree that 1680x1050 on the new 17" MBPs looks better than it used to in the past. But not good enough for me.

One option would be to change the font size settings in Safari, Finder, Address Book, Mail etc. But then every time I hook up the MBP to my 24" ACD, the fonts will be too large (as the PPI of the 24" is only 94). This is inconvenient when you do that every day. Also, there are other disadvantages. Changing the minimum font size in Safari for example, screws up the look and rendering of web pages. So keeping Safari at "Actual Size" is preferable.

Also, I'm a Logic Pro user and have a large number of third party software instruments and plug-ins. Most of the UIs are made for displays with PPIs below 100. A plug-in can have over 100 knobs and buttons, so with a PPI of 133, things get extremely tiny. I guess the same would be true for the fixed UIs of Word, PS5, IN-Design, Excel etc.

If the UI of OS X was scalable, or at least it was available in a few different sizes, we wouldn't have this problem. But I guess it would be a lot to ask of developers to supply several different sizes of all their UIs. As far as I understand it, Apple will at least introduce a 2X version in Lion. But for that to work, the PPI would need to be around 150-200, I think. Otherwise things would be too big.
 
Doc69 said:
Thanks for the input from everyone!

I agree, the more pixels the better. The iPhone 4 display is just the best thing ever. However, when they increased the PPI of the iPhone 4 to 326, up from 163 on the 3GS, they also re-wrote the UI and enlarged everything by 100% so that the size and look remained the same for the users, only much sharper.

This is very different from the situation with monitors we have today. Imagine if they had not re-written the UI of all the apps when introducing the iPhone retina display. You would barely be able to see the icons or menus. This is a bit how I feel with 1920x1200 on a 17".

And for those of you who suggested that I lower the resolution, this is not an option as an LCD has to run in it's native resolution to be crisp and sharp. I do however agree that 1680x1050 on the new 17" MBPs looks better than it used to in the past. But not good enough for me.

One option would be to change the font size settings in Safari, Finder, Address Book, Mail etc. But then every time I hook up the MBP to my 24" ACD, the fonts will be too large (as the PPI of the 24" is only 94). This is inconvenient when you do that every day. Also, there are other disadvantages. Changing the minimum font size in Safari for example, screws up the look and rendering of web pages. So keeping Safari at "Actual Size" is preferable.

Also, I'm a Logic Pro user and have a large number of third party software instruments and plug-ins. Most of the UIs are made for displays with PPIs below 100. A plug-in can have over 100 knobs and buttons, so with a PPI of 133, things get extremely tiny. I guess the same would be true for the fixed UIs of Word, PS5, IN-Design, Excel etc.

If the UI of OS X was scalable, or at least it was available in a few different sizes, we wouldn't have this problem. But I guess it would be a lot to ask of developers to supply several different sizes of all their UIs. As far as I understand it, Apple will at least introduce a 2X version in Lion. But for that to work, the PPI would need to be around 150-200, I think. Otherwise things would be too big.
Click to expand...

i have a solution for you. it's the best thing ever since sliced bread for your situation. get glasses or contacts.
 
wywern209 said:
i have a solution for you. it's the best thing ever since sliced bread for your situation. get glasses or contacts.
Click to expand...

That's funny, but there many optical problems that can not be corrected with glasses. For example, I have a slight halo and double vision from having lasik surgery.
 
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