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.
can't decide between the 13", 15", 17"? check out these screen resolution comparisons
- Thread starter modular
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
good read, I read the entire thread over a cup of coffee. i am sitting here with a 17 and 13 umbp. have not decided if i will keep both or return one of them. the 17 res does make text small. anyone know If Snow Leopard adds a sub-pixel feature that allows the user to increase the on-screen size of everything by 25% while maintaining native resolution sharpness.
Good thread. I don't really like the 17" at 1920x1200 much. I used to have a 22" monitor with that resolution and felt text was smaller than I wanted on it, on a 17" I'd probably be squinting constantly since OSX doesn't support dpi scaling properly yet.
The current Macbook Pros are pretty much perfect otherwise, but like others, I'd like to see the 15" get a 1680x1050 panel and the 13" the 1440x900. I'm kinda hoping this would happen during the next update and since I don't have an acute need for a laptop I'm skipping this generation as well.
The current Macbook Pros are pretty much perfect otherwise, but like others, I'd like to see the 15" get a 1680x1050 panel and the 13" the 1440x900. I'm kinda hoping this would happen during the next update and since I don't have an acute need for a laptop I'm skipping this generation as well.
I hope someone finds this useful!
here we first have the 13", then the 15" and the best for last, the 17".
FWIW, these pictures are misleading since they are not to scale. It shows the 13" having the largest image. In reality if you had the three side by side, the image on the 15" screen would be the largest (110ppi) followed very closely by the 13" (113ppi) and the 17 would be the smallest (133 ppi)
Wouldn't that proposed upgrade put the 13" and 15" in the same boat as the 17" as far as text being too small?
Simple:
13" - Ultimate portability, And significantly powerful.
15" - A mix between more at home use, and on the road use - A bit more powerful options available coming up from the 13"
17" - Not the best choice if your on planes or anything like that lots. Ok if you carry in a briefcase to the office or your next meeeting. It obviously dosent compare portability wise to the 15" and especially the 13". Longest battery life of all apple portables, depends of course, what your doing on it though. Offers essentially the same amount of power as the 15" depending on configurations.
13" - Ultimate portability, And significantly powerful.
15" - A mix between more at home use, and on the road use - A bit more powerful options available coming up from the 13"
17" - Not the best choice if your on planes or anything like that lots. Ok if you carry in a briefcase to the office or your next meeeting. It obviously dosent compare portability wise to the 15" and especially the 13". Longest battery life of all apple portables, depends of course, what your doing on it though. Offers essentially the same amount of power as the 15" depending on configurations.
I don't think so. The resolution change isn't that big compared to 17" at 1920x1200. 1440x900 is only slightly bigger than 1280x800, especially vertically. 1680x1050 should be fine on a 15" screen.
Don't know if Snow Leopard will finally support DPI scaling though. Leopard has it to some degree, but it doesn't work well because lots of icons etc are bitmap and scaled up look all blurry. Windows 7 already works great with DPI scaling in almost all programs.
Code:
Current:
13.3" 1280x800 113 ppi
15.4" 1440x900 110 ppi
17" 1920x1200 132 ppi
Proposed:
13.3" 1440x900 127 ppi
15.4" 1680x1050 129 ppi
17" 1920x1200 132 ppiToo me there's not a large amount of difference between 127, 129 and 132 ppi. IMHO, they'd all be too small.
Having a 13" MB and previously a 14" ibook, I have long lusted for the
resolution and real estate of a 17" screen. Also don't travel that much.
I definitely will spring for one in the next six months after Snow Leopard hits. It needs a better graphics engine than the one in my year old MB to really take advantage of it. I'll wait for the next hardware upgrade.
resolution and real estate of a 17" screen. Also don't travel that much.
I definitely will spring for one in the next six months after Snow Leopard hits. It needs a better graphics engine than the one in my year old MB to really take advantage of it. I'll wait for the next hardware upgrade.
A perhaps even more convincing view would be that of a word document or a PS image under editing. Here you get the full advantage of the extra r.e. of the 17".
I´ve never been more happy with a screen, nor a laptop for that matter
I´ve never been more happy with a screen, nor a laptop for that matter
I'm going through this dilemma right now. Can't decide if I want to go with the 13" 2.53 GHz model or the 15" 2.53 GHz model. On one side, the laptop will be hooked up to an external monitor 99% of the time so screen size won't matter. However, when I take it some place I'd like to have the extra screen real estate. Is that 1% usage worth the extra $200 is the main question, I guess. I went to one of two local Apple stores to see them side by side and walked away thinking I was set on the 13". The more I keep thinking about it though, the more I want the 15". Right this second, I simply don't know which way to go.
Code:Current: 13.3" 1280x800 113 ppi 15.4" 1440x900 110 ppi 17" 1920x1200 132 ppi Proposed: 13.3" 1440x900 127 ppi 15.4" 1680x1050 129 ppi 17" 1920x1200 132 ppi
Too me there's not a large amount of difference between 127, 129 and 132 ppi. IMHO, they'd all be too small.
X2. I think the current resolutions of the 13" & 15" (110-113ppi) are just right.
The 15" resolution NEEDS to be updated. 1440x900 is unacceptable for a (at the time) $2000 laptop with a 15" screen. My sisters old 2005 Dell had a better resolution then my current MBP! Apple has been stuck at this resolution for what now, 4 years? At least make it an option!
And for those comparing the high end 13" to the low end 15", don't bother with the 15". You need to honestly look at specs. I find a $1700 laptop with integrated GPU is a total waste of money. I know we are only talking about screens, but for the money, the 13" is a better deal. The low end 15" is a total joke.
And for those comparing the high end 13" to the low end 15", don't bother with the 15". You need to honestly look at specs. I find a $1700 laptop with integrated GPU is a total waste of money. I know we are only talking about screens, but for the money, the 13" is a better deal. The low end 15" is a total joke.
Just curious, which 15" Dell would that be? i.e. A quick check at Dell.com shows the Dell Studio 15 has a lower resolution (1366x 768) than the 15" MBP.
http://www1.ca.dell.com/ca/en/home/...=cadhs1&~oid=ca~en~70702~studnb_1555_en_wgd~~
This makes no sense.
I was really torn between the 13, 15 and 17" MBP models. This will be my first Apple computer. I have owned laptops/portables since the days of the original compact suitcase style computers. TTo me, the 13" is definitely the most "cool" model and it is easy to transport. If I flew more, I would get the 13" model, as the 15" will be a tight squeeze in coach. However, my laptops tend to mostly only move around the house as I have a company Dell 14.1" I usually have to travel with. I almost ordered a refurbished 17" MBP 2.66Mhz from the Apple web site. However, I made a wooden model of its dimensions and realized that it would not fit in any of my laptop bags or travel cases. So, I settled on the 15" MPB. It seemed to be the best compromise.
I just ordered a 15" MBP 2.66Mhz model. While I may never need the extra Graphic's ability, (I dont play games) I like knowing that it is there. I do occasionally do some 3D modeling. The fact that you can turn the 9600 video processor off to save battery power is a great feature. In other words it future proofs the laptop a little. I tend to keep laptops for a long time. My current HP is about 9 years old. I also decided that if I truly want a portable, I would watch out for a good deal on a used Macbook Air....
Anyway, that is how I made my decision (it took nearly a month)
I just ordered a 15" MBP 2.66Mhz model. While I may never need the extra Graphic's ability, (I dont play games) I like knowing that it is there. I do occasionally do some 3D modeling. The fact that you can turn the 9600 video processor off to save battery power is a great feature. In other words it future proofs the laptop a little. I tend to keep laptops for a long time. My current HP is about 9 years old. I also decided that if I truly want a portable, I would watch out for a good deal on a used Macbook Air....
Anyway, that is how I made my decision (it took nearly a month
)
I'm weird with resolutions, I'm not big on giant PPI numbers and large resolutions. For me on a 15"
1280x800, 1280x1024 (Works fine, good for just about anything as long as you have a external for photoshop etc, this is what my PowerBook has well close enough [1280x856])
1440x900, 1450x900(Probably my favorite resolution for a 15", it strikes a balance, but I certainly don't need it, and if it costs extra, I wouldn't pay for it)
1680x1050, 1600x1200 (Way too much, I don't need something with that kind of resolution, all current web browsers have something called tabs. Not to mention enhancements in GUI's in the last 5 years or so. I can just open another desktop or use something along the lines of Shift+Tab to switch windows)
I don't like Widescreens that much though, oh well, not much I can do except hold onto the 12" PB and the IBM ThinkPads.
1280x800, 1280x1024 (Works fine, good for just about anything as long as you have a external for photoshop etc, this is what my PowerBook has well close enough [1280x856])
1440x900, 1450x900(Probably my favorite resolution for a 15", it strikes a balance, but I certainly don't need it, and if it costs extra, I wouldn't pay for it)
1680x1050, 1600x1200 (Way too much, I don't need something with that kind of resolution, all current web browsers have something called tabs. Not to mention enhancements in GUI's in the last 5 years or so. I can just open another desktop or use something along the lines of Shift+Tab to switch windows)
I don't like Widescreens that much though, oh well, not much I can do except hold onto the 12" PB and the IBM ThinkPads.
First off, Dell had much different computers in 2005. I believe it was an D810.
Second, how did what I say make no sense? I simply stated that the LOW END 15" is a waste of money at over $1700...integrated GPU??? Waste of money. The only thing that is different between the high end 13" and low end 15" is the screen size, and the price tag is simply not worth it.
