Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
my 15'4 acer ferrari has a 1680x1050 screen and its a perfect resolution combo. any higher, things get too small and you end up upscaling the resolution to be able to see things properly.
i was dissapointed that the umbp15.4 remained as a 1440x900. oh well. i still have my external acer f20 monitor (matches the ferrari :))
 
If we just got a resolution independent UI this wouldn't be a problem at all. If everything was too small you would just scale it up. Personally I think I would be quite happy with 1440x900 on a 15in (that's what I am on my 17in iMac right now), 1680x1050 wouldn't be bad either though. 1920x1200 would kill me on a 15in, unless I could scale everything up but I would love to have full 1080p resolution on a 15in!
 
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...

False. It's 200 pixels long. You're making absolutely no sense.

Maybe the normal font size in Mac OS X is slightly bigger than in Windows, but a 100x100 pixel box is still 100x100 pixels in Mac OS X.
 
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.
Forgot about this cool feature, I tried it with .75 (1440x900 » 1920x1200), and while things were small, they weren't too bad. Quartz Debug can do the same thing, better go install it now. :D
 
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.

since i got this UMBP17", i never used my external monitor anymore. it's a LG 22inch with 1680x1080. so what's the point of using it if my macbook pro has better screen. i feel wasted.
 
So yeah, possible but Apple will not do it.

The price difference between the 17" model and the equivalent spec 15" model is $300 USD, to justify that gap they need to differentiate it from the 15" model with a bigger/better screen (and yeah now it also has a better battery).

Like the base model previous gen macbook didn't have DVD recording capabilities when every other new laptop in the world had one, so you buy the more expensive macbook.
 
But then there would be that resolution problem for gamers... I fraternized with the 'Dark Side' to play games, and the NVIDIA card is a perfect match with the default 1440 by 900 screen. Any higher screen resolution, and the card isn't powerful enough to support high end games while running at the higher resolution. I know this, because I have had much experience with graphically intensive games like Crysis and Far Cry 2, and COD4 and 5. Any high of resolution, and the card begins to lag badly. I have connected an HP 1920X1200 HD monitor to the Mini Display Port and then turned the Macbook Pro display off. The games had a significant drop (around 30) frames per second with the 1920X1200 while the original display had a FPS of around 60-65. For those people who fraternize with Windows, the original screen is fine.
 
HD is the future now

The more pixles per inch on a LCD screen the better - if its not, then its software has just been wrongly configured. The worse your eyesight the better HD is - as long as the software is configured properly. Any increased level of pixel density is always better, as long as the software has been configured properly. Greater pixel density (less pixelation) reduces eye strain, for the eyes don't have to work as hard. I have been working on 15" UXGA and then 15.4" WUXGA for 10 years, with some unpleasant (forced) breaks in lower density screens, and love HD. Are they perfect? No, of course not. Higher density would be better - something closer to print. If you find it easier to read high quality print to reading equally-sized text on any computer screen, then you know the experience...:)
 
1920x1200 is a gimmick on a 15" screen. It's not useful.

It really is not much smaller. Have you compared 1920x1200 to 1680x1050 side by side?

The more pixles per inch on a LCD screen the better - if its not, then its software has just been wrongly configured. The worse your eyesight the better HD is - as long as the software is configured properly. Any increased level of pixel density is always better, as long as the software has been configured properly. Greater pixel density (less pixelation) reduces eye strain, for the eyes don't have to work as hard. I have been working on 15" UXGA and then 15.4" WUXGA for 10 years, with some unpleasant (forced) breaks in lower density screens, and love HD. Are they perfect? No, of course not. Higher density would be better - something closer to print. If you find it easier to read high quality print to reading equally-sized text on any computer screen, then you know the experience...:)

Now the only reason I would want a screen with a higher PPI is so the stuff would be smaller therefore letting you fit more on the screen. I find print to be MORE stressful on the eyes than a computer screen

The more pixles per inch on a LCD screen the better - if its not, then its software has just been wrongly configured. The worse your eyesight the better HD is - as long as the software is configured properly. Any increased level of pixel density is always better, as long as the software has been configured properly. Greater pixel density (less pixelation) reduces eye strain, for the eyes don't have to work as hard. I have been working on 15" UXGA and then 15.4" WUXGA for 10 years, with some unpleasant (forced) breaks in lower density screens, and love HD. Are they perfect? No, of course not. Higher density would be better - something closer to print. If you find it easier to read high quality print to reading equally-sized text on any computer screen, then you know the experience...:)
I still do not understand why HD is so important when you sit so far away from the TV. Computer screens I do but TV no.


I read that whole thread trying to see how they did it. It worked on PB's then they figured out to switch the screens in sleep for the MBP.
 
It is definitely possible and several manufacturers sell one. I even have a modded MBP for sale with a 1080P display.

I find it very useful, especially when working on combining several documents or playing 1080p movie clips.

I use CMD+ to enlarge the text when browsing.

1440x900 is just not enough.

Cheers,
 
I have a 1680x1050 WSXGA screen on my 4 year old dell inspiron 6000 and I have to say that moving down in resolution on a MBP would be pretty tough for me. Even though it is not a huge drop it is definitely noticeable.

The problem for me is the MBP 17 is way too big and the 15 doesn't have the screen resolution I want but I guess you have to make trade offs.
 
But then there would be that resolution problem for gamers... I fraternized with the 'Dark Side' to play games, and the NVIDIA card is a perfect match with the default 1440 by 900 screen. Any higher screen resolution, and the card isn't powerful enough to support high end games while running at the higher resolution. I know this, because I have had much experience with graphically intensive games like Crysis and Far Cry 2, and COD4 and 5. Any high of resolution, and the card begins to lag badly. I have connected an HP 1920X1200 HD monitor to the Mini Display Port and then turned the Macbook Pro display off. The games had a significant drop (around 30) frames per second with the 1920X1200 while the original display had a FPS of around 60-65. For those people who fraternize with Windows, the original screen is fine.

I don't know of anyone who makes friends with OS's and video games. :confused::D
 
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.

It shouldn't or wouldn't add much to the cost for a $2K+ MBP.

For me, I expect all of the extras when I am spending two or three grand on a Mac notebook computer. For me, I am paying such a high premium that these "cost" issues are BS.

It used to be when we bought a Mac, we got things that PC buyers didn't have. The Mac was really amazing in terms of speed and component quality.

In my estimation, Apple has decided it needs to make the same profit margins on the Macs as they do on the iPod and iPhone. It is sad really. Mac notebooks have seen some cool features like aluminum case and glass trackpad and etc. But none of those features costs Apple much more money. Even worse, lately instead of Macs being incredibly fast with great components, they are slow and inferior to PCs on the market for 1/3 of the cost. That is the ridiculous part of it. We should be getting at least the same quality components as high end PC notebooks that cost half what the Macs cost... but right now upgrades are a joke in terms of costs of components.

We are paying more and getting MUCH LESS than we are used to. With the exception of the Mac Pro (which Apple increased margin on heavily), Macs have not seen a real CPU upgrade for two years. Very minor speed bump updates. But Apple still refuses to go Core 2 Quad or give us real CPU update.

Look at the iMac updates and even worse the Mac mini updates. People were so desperate for an update, they went and bought the new NON-UPDATED Macs. The CPU differences were non-existent. Apple could have put Nehalem desktop chips in there for no more money than current Penryn costs when they were introduced in iMacs over a year ago. So, Apple spends less now for those CPUs and doubles the RAM, which is a joke, and brands them as spanking new.

It seems to me that Apple loves selling the iPod and iPhone and the margins that go with them, that Apple is using them as a lesson for Mac pricing.

Seriously look at let's say the MB or Mac mini. Nearly the exact same CPU speeds for 2+ years. Even the MBP has seen weak bumps. 2.33GHz 2.5 years ago to 2.66GHz now on the high end model. That is a JOKE!

Until we stop buying, they will keep sticking it to us. Thank God Intel is upgrading line to Nehalem and Arrandale so we can get some real CPU performance upgrades... hopefully by the end of this year.

Has anyone else noticed what Apple is doing in not upgrading in terms of costs or CPU speed yet calling them NEW?

Apple brags about innovation, and it's nice, but a glass trackpad has to be ridiculously inexpensive. And aluminum case isn't like it's silver or gold, yet Apple would have us believe it. What else is cool and new with new MBP and MBs? Oh yes the chiclet keyboard... again not any higher costs. Or how about backlit keyboards??? add a few leds for less than a buck and charge a few hundred more for it.

As far as component changes, has been a complete joke for the upgrades, again except in the Mac Pro which Apple jacked the price up thousands of dollars and is essentially a side-step going from 2.8 to 2.26 Nehalem for much more or $1900 more for a 2.66 Octacore MP over the prior 2.8 Octacore.

I have loved my iPods and iPhone, but I think it has really left Apple caring less than ever about its Mac line of computers. I just don't see the performance and characteristics of Mac computers that I used to see... and that was the reason we were all willing to pay more for our Macs in the first place.

So, going back to this thread. Could a 15.4" display, as used in MBP, get an upgraded resolution from 1440x900? For any other company, charging half the price for the computer, and it would absolutely have the higher resolution. For Apple, it's not even a possibility... for any other company at even half Apple's Mac price levels it's a probability... just not for our beloved Apple, No longer a computer company!

Disappointed but a loyal fan of the Mac. Here's to hope that the current downturn in the economy opens Apple's eyes to getting the Mac back where it needs to be, on top of the pedestal!
 
FYI,

The PPI on a 17" MBP with a 1920 x 1200 resolution is the same as the PPI on a 15" MBP with a 1680 x 1050 screen. A 15" MBP with a 1680 x 1050 screen would be exactly the same amount of eyestrain as a current 17". If your eyesight is too poor to handle looking at the current 17" MBP's screen for too long, then perhaps a 15" MBP with a 1920 x 1200 resolution is a bad idea.

Personally, I'd only want a 15" MBP with 1680 x 1050 res, because the 17" MBP's screen is the upper limit for ppi without causing too much strain on my eyes. I only have one pair, and I don't want to hurt my vision more than I need to.
 
It seems to me that Apple loves selling the iPod and iPhone and the margins that go with them, that Apple is using them as a lesson for Mac pricing.

Seriously look at let's say the MB or Mac mini. Nearly the exact same CPU speeds for 2+ years. Even the MBP has seen weak bumps. 2.33GHz 2.5 years ago to 2.66GHz now on the high end model. That is a JOKE!

Until we stop buying, they will keep sticking it to us. …

Has anyone else noticed what Apple is doing in not upgrading in terms of costs or CPU speed yet calling them NEW?
Me.

Here is why. Take a look at this and this. We can pretty much see how the CPUs Apple is using fit in with the rest of the line.

2006 Q2: At the original MacBook release, the line used the top 3 CPUs. (MBP: $400/$600, MB: $300/$400)
2006 Q4: The line used the top 4 CPUs. (MBP: $400/$600, MB: $240/$300)
2007 Q2: MBPs still used the top 2 CPUs, and the MBs went back to $300/$400 CPUs, although those would soon be outdated. (MBP: $300/$500, MB: $300/$400)
2007 Q4: Intel bumped the clocks by 200 MHz in Q3, but Apple kept the same clocks while putting the 2.6 GHz as a BTO in the MBP. The MB gets current gen CPUs. (MBP: $240/$300, MB: $240)
2008 Q1: Rather than going back to the top 2 CPUs for the MBP, Apple keeps the Q4 price ranges. (MBP: $240/$300, MB: $200/$240)
2008 Q3: MBP and high-end MB CPU price ranges stay similar, while the $1299 MB uses an OEM CPU that's not even listed (I'm assuming sub-$200), however this could be excused due to the GPU. Same goes for the $999 one when it is updated to the NVIDIA chipset. (MBP: $240/$340, MB: ≤$200/$240)
2009 Q1: Intel bumped the clocks by 133 MHz, but strangely only the top two MacBook Pros received the upgrade. (MBP: $200/$340, MB: ≤$200/$200)

So after three years, the high-end MBP in 2009 and the low-end MB in 2006 use similarly-priced CPUs. :rolleyes: If Apple uses $300~$500 CPUs now, we would see 2.67/2.93 GHz in the MBP and 2.53/2.67 GHz in the MB.

Plus, I don't think any of the notebooks will use Clarksfield. (There's a few reasons why, but I won't go there.) The thing is, while $300/$500 would be inline for the bottom two Clarksfields, ≤$200~$340 would be inline for the Arrandale range instead.

Thank God Intel is upgrading line to Nehalem and Arrandale so we can get some real CPU performance upgrades... hopefully by the end of this year.
Nehalem might actually be a bad thing, because they might pull a "2009 Mac Pro" and say "20% faster performance!" while moving down even further in the CPU ladder. :rolleyes:

Apple could have put Nehalem desktop chips in there for no more money than current Penryn costs when they were introduced in iMacs over a year ago. So, Apple spends less now for those CPUs and doubles the RAM, which is a joke, and brands them as spanking new.
Existing Nehalems are way too hot for the iMac. Still, Apple could have:

a) Improved the cooling and used the 65 W desktop quads instead
b) Used the existing mobile quads, even as a BTO
c) Asked Intel for a custom faster CPU like they did the last update
d) None of the above, because they don't seem to care that much about higher speeds or quad-core for the iMac

You have your answer folks.
 
I run my 15.4" HP laptop (it belongs to the company and they dictate windows) at 1920x1200 and would HATE to run anything less.

It's the single thing that has kept me from buying a 15" macbook pro.

I plan on ordering a MBP this week (I have a developer credit through the end of the month). Would prefer the 15, but will buy the 17, purely for screen res.

I would never tell someone else whats best for them, but for ME, I think its downright stupid that apple limits you to 1440x900.

peace out
 
Apple could have put Nehalem desktop chips in there for no more money than current Penryn costs when they were introduced in iMacs over a year ago.

Mmm... no. Bloomfield is impossible in the iMac case.

Seriously look at let's say the MB or Mac mini. Nearly the exact same CPU speeds for 2+ years. Even the MBP has seen weak bumps. 2.33GHz 2.5 years ago to 2.66GHz now on the high end model. That is a JOKE!

Google "Megahertz Myth".
 
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...

ah, thanks for explaining that. ill read up on it a bit
edit:
i did read up on it, it says it only affects text size?
http://www.scantips.com/no72dpib.html

i still dont know where this fits:
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 did read up on it, it says it only affects text size?
http://www.scantips.com/no72dpib.html

http://www.scantips.com/no72dpib.html said:
Yes, it does affect the size of dialog boxes, which you will notice are designed to show text, so yes, dialog boxes are necessarily dimensioned in text units, and yes, dialog boxes will change size.

Maybe I was in a low oxygen environment or something - I suspect the smaller font size causes a kind of optical illusion. Say you have a development environment/text editor open (Eclipse in my case) then on Windows you will actually have 33% more text on the screen at the same alleged point size...
 
I can't imagine 1920x1200 on a laptop would be anything but a bad idea.

Talk about eye strain :/

1680x1050 would be nice.

1920x1200 at 24" is abit too small, although it is double the distance away!
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.