28" or Larger External Monitor with MacBook?

Discussion in 'MacBook' started by bigdaddymac, Oct 11, 2008.

  1. bigdaddymac macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2007
    Location:
    New York
    #1
    I'm in the market for an external display for my MacBook to run in clamshell mode.

    I realize that a MacBook can support 1920 by 1200 resolution on an external display. I'm now seeing external displays as large as 28" that have 1920 by 1200 resolution. I've read of people running 22" displays, however, I can't seem to find any "real world" experiences in this forum or elsewhere online of folks using a 28" display with their MacBooks in clamshell mode.

    Has anyone done it? If so, how does the display look & act? I want to get as large a monitor as possible for my MacBook, but, I don't want to sacrifice too much quality of display.

    Thanks for any feedback here.
     
  2. craigr577 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Location:
    U.S.
    #2
    It will drive a 1920x1200 monitor of any size, since a pixel is a pixel whether it's on a screen that's 22" or 28", and it should look great. I've run external monitors using Macs (iMac now, and G3 PowerBook earlier) in "extended" mode, and everything works fine, with good quality. Once I had a cheap analog cable with the G3 and there was ghosting, but a better cable fixed this, and with a digital connection the iMac works perfectly.
     
  3. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #3
    1920x1200 is a good resolution whether it's a 22" or 28" or anywhere in between. The pixels will be larger on the 28", and it may cost more, but it's really a function of your eyes.

    Other things like color balance, gamut, response time, etc. being equal, of course.
     
  4. Polymira macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2008
    #4
    I actually own a 28in viewsonic lcd and use it soley for the xbox 360, wii, and my macbook (white, 2ghz c2d, gma 950).

    When using the macbook in extended mode or clamshell, expose is slightly slowed down. The fans will run pretty loud when watching video.

    But, it is completely usable .... when I hook up to the monitor i'm usually doing so for aperture/photoshop to import and edit photos taken from my dslr (d90). Or to watch tv/movies.

    I don't know how the newer gma's run, but hopefully better, my 3ghz pentium 4 single core with nvidia 6800 hackintosh drove the monitor better then the macbook.

    Basically, for me. It works well enough to use, but not well enough to be fully satisfied... but damn it's pretty.

    Monitor I use: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824116084
     
  5. andrewdale macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
    #5
    All I know is that the title asks about a 28 FOOT display. I wish I could have that thing.
     
  6. Maximillian macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2008
    #6
    You'd need to six like 20' away from it tho.
     
  7. bigdaddymac thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2007
    Location:
    New York
    #7
    Measurement corrected - good catch!

    Thanks for the help guys.

    Though the MacBook may work with a 28" monitor, it sounds like I will be sacrificing quality. Should I stick with maxing it out at 24" or does anyone with a 28" feel like there's not that noticeable of a difference?
     
  8. alphaod macrumors Core

    alphaod

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
    #8
    It won't strain your eyes are much if you get a 28" oppose to a 24"
     
  9. andrewdale macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
    #9
    Glad to help!

    And as far as the size, I've heard that you don't really notice the difference in 720p and 1080p until you get to 40" and larger sizes. So, I don't see why a 28" monitor would be that much different than a 24" at the same resolution. My personal preference would be the 24" just because I like that size better.
     
  10. sangosimo Guest

    sangosimo

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2008
    #10
    you aren't sacrificing quality as long as you run the monitor at it's native resolution.
     
  11. craigr577 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Location:
    U.S.
    #11
    Compare the specs, especially viewing angles; most 28" have narrower angles due to cheaper-type LCD displays. For the same price the 24" will be higher quality (you'll pay more for this quality in a 28" but the picture is larger which is nice if you use it for TV or movies) and there will be a wider variety of 24" choices.
     
  12. AstonM macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2007
    #12
    I have a macbook 2.16ghz (2.5gb ram) that I use all the time with my Westinghouse L2410NM, its a 24" 1920x1200. Looks amazing, works fine, though with some things there are minor slowdowns. Watching 720p and 1080p movies looks incredible on it. Personally, I would just stick with the 24, especially if your using it as a desktop monitor. I also use mine for my 360 and that looks great as well. If you plan on using it as a TV, i guess go ahead for the 28.
     
  13. ruku macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    #13
    i have a macbook with the santa rosa chipset and a dell 2709w 27 inch monitor its its a beautiful thing. youd be sacrificing 1 inch but if you dont mind then it has excellent colour reproduction. it uses an S-PVA panel wich is better than the viewsonic mentioned earlier and the only thing you might not like about it that i can see is the reaction speed. if you play fast moving games apparently it can be a bit slower than ordinary but ymmv. one other problem is that within a week of owning it youll think you want a bigger one. the dells largest model has a good scalar chip which can downscale very well and will show the macbooks highest pixel count as good as its native resolution. but you will pay double for those 3 inches. good luck
     

Share This Page