i second third forth w/e the 1680x1050 on the 15mpb truthfully i think it should have been done ages away, i thought apple was a lot about innovation?
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.
Apple, Please take notes: HP Envy with 1080 X 1920 15 inch screen
- Thread starter Full of Win
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They use a 4830/integrated intel combo which seems faster than the 9600gt/9400gt combo that apple uses...at least the 4830 is faster than the 9600gt. The 9400gt is faster than integrated obviously. Perhaps apple will take note and use this as their new GPU?
15" isn't much room for 1920x1080.
And HP has a lack of attention to detail, hell why would you put the vents here?
God, I don't think I could buy a laptop with so many nobly bits and misplaced vents, obviously HP engineers are not perfectionists.
Blu Ray is not the only way to get 1080p video.
you sure those at the front are not simply the speaker grills?
You always say the width first, as X comes before Y. 1920 is the number of pixels on the x-axis and 1080 and the y-axis.
For people who want higher resolution on say a 15" is it for s certain graphic design or photo app or just all round use? I ask because for all around use I can't even stand to look at mine on full resolution and turn it down a few steps because everything is so tiny and TOO sharp on full. I am not THAT old and don't have really messed up eyes either so I am curious.
15.4" WUXGA is fabulous for all-round use as well as pro photo and CAD stuff, but only if your OS and individual programs are HD-friendly - that is, they can be configured for such high pixel density. If your OS and programs are HD-friendly, then if you have more pixels per inch, it ought to be clearer and easier on the eyes. If you can't make screen objects the size you want (without running the screen at less than native resolution), then it will be a very unpleasant experience for your eyes...Windows XP, Vista and Win7 are in each case increasingly HD-friendly, without being easy to set up for 15.4" WUXGA. Ubuntu is much easier. These OS's are designed to deal with a wide range of screen resolutions. Each individual program is another matter again. e.g. In web browsers, Firefox is infinitely adjustable for screen type; as is Microsoft Office. Microsoft Internet Explorer is much less adjustable (though better in Win7 than their previous OS's).
Good to know. I tried some system wide font increasing apps for SL but they didn't work as advertised. There is no way I could run my 15MBP on full resolution due to the tiny menus and default (and unchangeable) text on a lot of things. I would even go down another step if I could without it looking weird and cartoonish. I can totally see however with certain applications you need max resolution for images etc.
You mentioned Firefox is infinitely adjustable...is there a way to adjust toolbar text size and make the default setting stay larger for new tabs etc? My tool bar bookmark text and tab text for example are so damn tiny. Can't find any FF add ons or SL apps that will help. I also have to ctrl or pinch zoom pages when I open new ones. I can't get it to default to the zoomed settings any way.
Wirelessly posted (Nokia 5800 Tube XpressMusic : Mozilla/5.0 (SymbianOS/9.4; U; Series60/5.0 Nokia5800d-1/21.0.101; Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 ) AppleWebKit/413 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/413)
Oh, I wasn't really being sarcastic.
Perhaps I should have said that I really envy the HPBook Pro.
And for the record, the only reason I won't buy a MacBook today is because the 15" doesn't have a 1680*1050 screen res, although if the 13" had a 1440*900 screen, I'd probably buy that instead. Same pixel density as the 17", but if they made it an option, everyone would be happy.
Yixian said:
Oh, I wasn't really being sarcastic.
Perhaps I should have said that I really envy the HPBook Pro.
And for the record, the only reason I won't buy a MacBook today is because the 15" doesn't have a 1680*1050 screen res, although if the 13" had a 1440*900 screen, I'd probably buy that instead. Same pixel density as the 17", but if they made it an option, everyone would be happy.
Why not? All the flat panel manufacturers are starting to move to 16:9, that way they don't have to have separate panels for "TVs" vs. "computers". Soon, Apple won't have a choice. (I like 16:10, as well, I just know that unless Apple starts manufacturing their own panels, it will eventually happen.)
Heck, I really liked the 3:2 aspect ratio that the 15" PowerBooks had.
And for the "since 2002" comment, not quite:
PowerBook G4, original Titanium, 1152x768, January 2001.
PowerBook G4 "DVI" Titanium, 1280x854, April 2002.
PowerBook G4 "High Res" Aluminum, 1440x960, October 2005.
That was the end of the 3:2 era as well as the PowerPC era. Next came the Intel models, which have all been stuck at 16:10 1440x900. So the current resolution has been around in the 15" models since Oct 2005 (if you're willing to fudge 60 pixels.)
The 17" model has gone from 1440x900 at launch in January 2003 to 1920x1200 (starting as optional in June 2007 and standard with Unibody in January 2009.)
Personally, I like the design of the HPBook Pro. (Yeah, I started calling it that the moment I first saw it, too.) That really is what the 15" MacBook Pro should be right now, spec-wise. I'd also like to see Apple throw two 1.8" SSDs in the 17" MacBook Pro. Intel makes the same capacities in both 1.8" and 2.5", and they're approximately the same price. (I believe the 'bulk' price direct from Intel is the same.)
A good point! As far as I know, most programs (including Firefox) have some elements dependent on OS system settings. e.g. though Firefox font sizes have extra-ordinary range of adjustability, many other screen elements are as defined by the OS visual setup. Obviously, the most important thing with HD is the OS; secondly, the individual program. I do a lot of tweaking with the OS visual elements in my now Win7 15.4" WUXGA system to get it right. I have far from perfect eyes. Once things are right, I can read the screen with no eye strain all day and all night. But without adjustability in the OS for so many screen elements, I would not touch WUXGA on such a small screen.
I think that WSXGA+ (1680X1050) (129PPI) is probably an excellent resolution for 15.4" screens, and needs less radical software tweaking, given present-day OS's (all to some degree HD-unfriendly - bar Linux; but the situation is gradually improving). But I have been using 15.4" WUXGA (147PPI) and 15" UXGA (133PPI) before that for 12 years, and would hate not to have the option. A big reason why I did not choose a MPB was its (for me) low density screen. The MPB 17" WUXGA is the same PPI as as 15" UXGA, and that is excellent IMHO. But is the OS HD-friendly enough yet? Many seem to think not. There is no point having hardware that the software cannot deal with adequately.
I really wish Apple would make OS X resolution-independent and allow us to scale things the way we want so I could have Hi Def movies @ native resolution and not have a menu bar I can't see. I'm all for a push for smaller pixels, I'm kinda starting to think that the resolution on my MBP is pretty pathetic. Makes me want a 17.
It'll impact battery life just as much as it impacts performance.
Apple made the right choices, to go with battery life and aesthetics.I was looking for a 15.4in 1680x1050 LED backlit display all morning and couldn't find a manufacturer that makes them! It jumps from 1440 to the 1900s!
I really want to swap out the lcd on my current mbp!
I really want to swap out the lcd on my current mbp!
The ideal resolution for 15.4 inches is 1650x1080. If the 15.4 went with 1920x1200, then the 17" should upgrade to 2560x1600... Unless every single program changes by a miracle, it would be really tiresome for the eyes...
16:9 is great for TV's. Not so great when you need 2 spreadsheets side by side. Or, an RDBMS and a query builder...
I saw the new imac. It's the only computer where the wide aspect ratio didn't bother me, simply because of the HUGE screen with 1440 pixels vertically...
BTW I wouldn't mind 1440x900 in my 13" but I am afraid that 1600x900 would be really pushing it.
16:9 is great for TV's. Not so great when you need 2 spreadsheets side by side. Or, an RDBMS and a query builder...
I saw the new imac. It's the only computer where the wide aspect ratio didn't bother me, simply because of the HUGE screen with 1440 pixels vertically...
BTW I wouldn't mind 1440x900 in my 13" but I am afraid that 1600x900 would be really pushing it.
I bought and subsequently returned an Envy 15 with a 1080p screen due to its TERRIBLE quality. I'm currently waiting until Black Friday to buy a uMBP 17 because 1) the build quality is better 2) the screen quality is better 3) has good battery life and 4) is from a more reliable company. The "slice" extended battery available for the Envy is rubbish - it falls off consistently from even minute movements, causing the system to power off. The screen, while nice, is not terribly bright, has a poor tilt angle, has a blue tint, and horizontal lines every 1mm from top to bottom. The system is also loud when doing nothing, has no built in optical drive, and with the slice battery and all the peripherals with it is as heavy and bulky as a 17" laptop. Stay away from it and be thankful that Apple makes concessions in the form of resolution in exchange for great build quality.
uh, whats a professional computer? because it has the word pro next to the word mac or macbook? come on, seriously...
I played Pro Evolution Soccer 2010 all day. I guess it's a professional video game.
The widescreen like was stated before is just not for professional development, sure it may be used for your basic needs in small businesses that dont need all the power, and don't need as much space as they can get on a display. The Mac Pro while it may not come with a monitor, is a professional computer, it has all the power one needs to use programs like FCP, AutoCAD etc. Sure Apple might use the Pro, a wee-bit superfluosly, but at the same time, the Pro line has always been more professional looking and performs on a much higher level than that of the non-pro consumer machines. Hell even the MBP 13" has a better screen than the normal MacBook, and has more features than that of the MacBook. Like I said before the only non-pro machine I could consider a Pro is the top of the line iMac 27" because of the power that they have.
And as for the Pro Evolution Soccer guy, being a wise ass is funny but I am going to throw it back at you because I want to be a wise ass too. You are playing as PROFESSIONAL soccer teams, so that would be where the name comes from, and it technically is a professional video game, because a bunch of amateur programmers didnt make that game.
The widescreen like was stated before is just not for professional development, sure it may be used for your basic needs in small businesses that dont need all the power, and don't need as much space as they can get on a display. The Mac Pro while it may not come with a monitor, is a professional computer, it has all the power one needs to use programs like FCP, AutoCAD etc. Sure Apple might use the Pro, a wee-bit superfluosly, but at the same time, the Pro line has always been more professional looking and performs on a much higher level than that of the non-pro consumer machines. Hell even the MBP 13" has a better screen than the normal MacBook, and has more features than that of the MacBook. Like I said before the only non-pro machine I could consider a Pro is the top of the line iMac 27" because of the power that they have.
And as for the Pro Evolution Soccer guy, being a wise ass is funny but I am going to throw it back at you because I want to be a wise ass too. You are playing as PROFESSIONAL soccer teams, so that would be where the name comes from, and it technically is a professional video game, because a bunch of amateur programmers didnt make that game.
::Facepalm:: at prodigeebot9000. You may need to get a replacement emotion chip from Dr. Soong.
The widescreen like was stated before is just not for professional development, sure it may be used for your basic needs in small businesses that dont need all the power, and don't need as much space as they can get on a display. The Mac Pro while it may not come with a monitor, is a professional computer, it has all the power one needs to use programs like FCP, AutoCAD etc. Sure Apple might use the Pro, a wee-bit superfluosly, but at the same time, the Pro line has always been more professional looking and performs on a much higher level than that of the non-pro consumer machines. Hell even the MBP 13" has a better screen than the normal MacBook, and has more features than that of the MacBook. Like I said before the only non-pro machine I could consider a Pro is the top of the line iMac 27" because of the power that they have.
And as for the Pro Evolution Soccer guy, being a wise ass is funny but I am going to throw it back at you because I want to be a wise ass too. You are playing as PROFESSIONAL soccer teams, so that would be where the name comes from, and it technically is a professional video game, because a bunch of amateur programmers didnt make that game.
Then I guess every computer is technically a "professional" one because a number of amateur computer-building-slaves in china didn't make that computer.
In fact it's the same non-amateurs building Professional and Amateurish machines in the same factory. I guess they make the non-pro-computers at the weekends in their leisure time.