Anyone think a 1920 by 1200 res screen in a 15.4" macbook pro might be possible?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by iansilv, Apr 22, 2009.

  1. iansilv macrumors 65816

    Jun 2, 2007
    I was thinking about this- with Leopard you really have enough scalability with everything for the resolution of the screen to be an adjustable factor for display. I would love to see a higher resolution screen on the macbook pro- anyone think this might happen in june?
  2. Tallest Skil macrumors P6

    Tallest Skil

    Aug 13, 2006
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza

    1920x1200 is a gimmick on a 15" screen. It's not useful.
  3. MVApple macrumors 6502a

    Jul 18, 2008
    It's possible, just not practical. I've seen a notebook with an 18" screen at 1080p and things were pretty small. It was big enough, but I can't imagine taking 1080p down to a 15" screen and still being comfortable.

    Sony LOVES high resolution screens though, check out the Sony Vaio P 8" LED backlit 1600 x 768 display :eek:

    I actually saw one in a store and was surprised that I could actually read stuff on it. My girlfriend on the other hand hated it and said she could barely see anything, and another couple passed by and one of them said, "that's nice" and the other responded, "yeah but you can't see anything".

    People that love high resolution screens can handle it but I think most people would feel uncomfortable.
  4. noodle654 macrumors 68020


    Jun 2, 2005
    Never Ender
  5. RKpro macrumors 6502

    Oct 27, 2008
    It's possible because I've seen them before, on some Asus model (I think).

    And I'd love to have it, but like others said pixel density of the 1440x900 is already pretty good. It took me a good few days to spot a dead pixel on my first MBP. Most 15.4 inchers have 1280x800, and the new 16:9 15.6 inch laptops have 1366x768 (which sucks because you have to scroll vertically more)
  6. kimnkk macrumors member


    Jan 22, 2007
    Me!bourne, Australia
    The pixel density of 1440x900 on 15" is pretty piss poor if you ask me. I used 1900x1200 on laptops for about 4 years before i moved onto apple, and all they could offer was 1440x900 on their 15". Jeeze, i thought the standard was 1680x1050 on 15" by now!

    1920x1200 on 15" is hardly impractical, unless you're old enough to need reading glasses. Works fine, and great if you value productivity.

    Yeah, most laptops with 15" 1280x800 also cost 1/4 the MBP. Sony have 1600x900 on their 13.3" for ages now. The worst thing about the MBPs have always been their screens - sub par and somehow people seem to think they're great. The screen alone almost stopped me from getting the current MBP this time....
  7. aleni macrumors 68020

    Jun 2, 2006
    my UMBP17" with 1900x1200 gives me eyestrain! let alone if they put it into 15" screen. good thing is my eyes have adapted after 3 weeks of use, but it still gives me strain sometimes.

    1680x1080 seems to be the sweet spot for 15" and i believe the next gen macbook pro will have that, and macbook or macbook air will have 1440x900 res. see the pattern by following previous years of apple upgraded the resolution on each notebook. remember when powerbook 15" only has 1280x800. pretty awful for today standard but good enough on its days.
  8. Brien macrumors 68030


    Aug 11, 2008
    If Apple introduces a 1680x1050 15", that'd be great. 1440x900 is a bit cramped in PS with all my palettes out.
  9. Teej guy macrumors 6502a

    Aug 6, 2007
    It's also annoying as hell when using Pro Tools or the like. Talk about window juggling.

    1680x1050 on a 15 would be great.

    This summer I'll be purchasing a 24" 1900x1200...that should solve my problems :)

    I do think that 1900x1200 would be slightly overkill, but these days text is pretty scalable in applications...might be okay.
  10. plinden macrumors 68040


    Apr 8, 2004
    I have had a Dell Latitude D810 from work with a 1920x1200 15" screen for three years now. Whatever the current 15" Latitude is, that's standard issue here at work (I now have a MBP though, although I still have the Dell for Windows work).

    It hurts my eyes. but not as much as if I change the resolution to lower than native. And it looks like piss if you try to bump up the text size. But I've almost always had it connected to an external monitor, so I don't care.

    When I look around me at work, anyone who's not using an external monitor has lowered the resolution.

    Believe it or not, but most of us who actually work (at least, anywhere I've worked) on computers don't have perfect eyesight.

    With a fully resolution independent OS, you could bump up the size of the screen widgets to be more comfortable on your eyes, but then you don't gain any screen real estate.

    The 1440x900 of my MBP is perfect for my eyes, but I could accept a little higher resolution, but not full 1920x1200.
  11. Minimoose 360 macrumors 65816

    Minimoose 360

    Jul 7, 2008
    I'm fine with 1920x1200 on my 17"

    Of course I am young and have 20/20 vision (not making a stereotype of course) and I don't have eyestrain, it's just right and it looks great. But I CAN'T imagine this on something 2 inches smaller. Even if it's only 2", it's a lot as far as percent.

    I could see maybe a BTO option?

    EDIT: Woops, didn't read the whole thing, I think 1680x1050 on the 15" would be perfect.
  12. kimnkk macrumors member


    Jan 22, 2007
    Me!bourne, Australia
    I used 1920x1200 on a 15" and its fine and should be for you if your eyes are as good as you say they are. I don't see why people prefer limited desktop space.

    My desktop has 5760x1200 resolution and i feel so cramped everytime i hop on my MBP.
  13. aleni macrumors 68020

    Jun 2, 2006
    you are minority dude. 5760x1200, that's insane!
  14. Scottsdale macrumors 601


    Sep 19, 2008
    Used to have a Dell Precision M70 Notebook with that resolution. I think Apple should make super high resolutions and let everyone decide how they want to set resolution settings. Sad that the 13" displays don't have MBP resolution and MBP better resolutions from there. Would add a lot of screen real estate without making displays larger.

    I never get why Apple cannot make the resolution higher. I know they are all about one for all, but it really sucks when comes to just how low the res is.
  15. aleni macrumors 68020

    Jun 2, 2006
    it's about cost. apple is sure would want to add hi res to the macbook, but its market is for student which is will not sell well if the price is expensive.
  16. iLog.Genius macrumors 601


    Feb 24, 2009
    Toronto, Ontario
    That would be my only complaint with the 1440x900 screen, other than that it's perfectly fine for me. Having to all the palettes out, multiple windows is annoying having to find them and to make things worse, haven't had time yet to find an external monitor.:(
  17. shreddy macrumors regular

    Aug 25, 2006
    As a developer I need lots of real estate - I used to have a Dell Precision 15" @ 1920x1200 which was a bit of an eye strain. Moved to a 17" hires MPB last Feb and its easier on the eyes - fonts are way larger.

    Note that Windows is 96 DPI and Mac OS X is 72 DPI, so you're actually getting less desktop space with a Mac :(

    I actually would love a 15" 1920x1200 - the 17" beast is a back breaker! :p
  18. Ploki macrumors 68020

    Jan 21, 2008
    what has OS to do with DPI ?
  19. dlhuss macrumors member

    Mar 16, 2009
    Exactly how I feel. That's why the 17" MBP with 1920x1200 is the only Mac laptop I would ever consider. Pixels per inch is how I roll. :)
  20. dlewis23 macrumors 6502a

    Oct 23, 2007
    1920x1200 on a 15in screen with majority of people will just kill there eyes.

    I personally would love my 15in Macbook Pro to have 1920x1200 on the screen. But its not a big deal because I use it connected to a external monitor most of the time.
  21. iMacmatician macrumors 601

    Jul 20, 2008
    I have 1440x900 on my MBP and after using it, I can't go back to my 1024x768 iBook, both in resolution and in dpi.

    I think I would be happy with a 1680x1050 or even a 1920x1200 resolution.

    I hope the MacBook Pro (and MacBook and MacBook Air) resolutions are bumped this June, and/or BTO options.
  22. shreddy macrumors regular

    Aug 25, 2006
    The OS control how things are drawn to the screen ... don't confuse this with a screen's physical pixel density. It's a bit of a head job. Write an app that draws a line 200px long on Windows and on a Mac and it's longer on the Mac than on Windows at the same resolution...
  23. darngooddesign macrumors G3

    Jul 4, 2007
    Atlanta, GA
    Through a screen res post on mydellmini I found a script that scales everything on your screen by 80% or so. While it leaves various artifacts it does give a functional res of around 1600-1700. Great for actionscript programming. After using that off and on I do feel that for me 1920 on the 15" would be too much, but I would love 1600 or so.
  24. dissdnt macrumors 65816


    Aug 3, 2007
    If they did 1920 on a 15 inch macbook pro, i'd get one rather then a 17.
  25. Aaleck macrumors 6502a


    Oct 11, 2007
    Michigan, USA
    I've seen a 1680x1050... anything bigger I think would be overkill for a 15.4 inch screen

Share This Page