I always run my monitors at the highest resolution to acceptable refresh rate ratio that i can. You can never have enough desktop real-estate. Especiall when working in photoshop, final cut, or digital performer. You need the space! I feel so cramped when I have to use 10x7. Its like "where do I put everything?"
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.
Dell Widescreen 15.4 inch Laptop
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Compared to a 17inch AlBook
Ever want a 17 inch PowerBook????
check out this price comparison...
Apple AlBook:
17 inch Widescreen Display (Max. Res. 1440x900)
1GHz PowerPC G4 Processor
60GB Ultra ATA Hard Drive
SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW)
Wireless Networking (AirPort Extreme)
1 GB DDR SDRAM - 2 DIMMs
nVIDIA GeForce4 440 Go w. 64MB DDR SDRAM
Height: 1.0 inch (2.6 cm)
Width: 15.4 inches (39.2 cm)
Depth: 10.2 inches (25.9 cm)
Weight: 6.8 pounds (3.08 kg) with battery and optical drive installed
Price: $ 3,599.00
Dell Inspiration 8500:
15.4 inch Widescreen Display (Max. Res. 1920x1200)
2.4GHz Mobile Pentium 4 Processor
60GB Ultra ATA Hard Drive
Combo Drive (DVD-ROM/CD-RW)
Wireless Networking (802.11a/b)
1GB DDR SDRAM - 2 DIMMs
nVidia GeForce 4 4200 Go w. 64MB DDR SDRAM
Height: 1.52-inch (3.86 cm)
Width: 14.22-inch (36.12 cm)
Depth: 10.87-inch (27.61 cm)
Weight: 6.9 lbs. (3.13 kg) with travel module, battery and Hard Drive
Price: $ 3,426.00
Now for $ 173.00 more than the Dell, you can have a 17 inch AlBook with a DVD burner, that's thinner, not as deep, and STILL lighter.
Still think Macs are more expensive???
Ever want a 17 inch PowerBook????
check out this price comparison...
Apple AlBook:
17 inch Widescreen Display (Max. Res. 1440x900)
1GHz PowerPC G4 Processor
60GB Ultra ATA Hard Drive
SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW)
Wireless Networking (AirPort Extreme)
1 GB DDR SDRAM - 2 DIMMs
nVIDIA GeForce4 440 Go w. 64MB DDR SDRAM
Height: 1.0 inch (2.6 cm)
Width: 15.4 inches (39.2 cm)
Depth: 10.2 inches (25.9 cm)
Weight: 6.8 pounds (3.08 kg) with battery and optical drive installed
Price: $ 3,599.00
Dell Inspiration 8500:
15.4 inch Widescreen Display (Max. Res. 1920x1200)
2.4GHz Mobile Pentium 4 Processor
60GB Ultra ATA Hard Drive
Combo Drive (DVD-ROM/CD-RW)
Wireless Networking (802.11a/b)
1GB DDR SDRAM - 2 DIMMs
nVidia GeForce 4 4200 Go w. 64MB DDR SDRAM
Height: 1.52-inch (3.86 cm)
Width: 14.22-inch (36.12 cm)
Depth: 10.87-inch (27.61 cm)
Weight: 6.9 lbs. (3.13 kg) with travel module, battery and Hard Drive
Price: $ 3,426.00
Now for $ 173.00 more than the Dell, you can have a 17 inch AlBook with a DVD burner, that's thinner, not as deep, and STILL lighter.
Still think Macs are more expensive???
Attachments
As much as this sounds like b/s I have a friend who's got a good friend working at Apple's LCD supplier. The new tibook is a 15.4in. It was suppost to come out in March. At least that's what I heard after the 12 and the 17 were announced. I've read since then that there were delays so who knows.
Re: Re: about the resolution ...
I carry a laptop to school nearly every day--i put it in a case along with a few DVDs/CDRWs, the DVI-VGA adaptor, a little pad for it, and... that's it. the net weight is less than a dell inspiron workstation all by itself. it's great, it's so convenient to just take places.
i'm not too weak to carry a big laptop; i also carry a bookbag with a crapload of stuff in it that's plenty heavy. it's very inconvenient. i hate my bookbag. but i can pick it up, and carry it around, to, and from school.
I often carry my tibook around in the house to go show someone something. it's nice to be able to hold it with one hand and navigate the mouse with the other, and not have it feel like it's bending in half or tiring my wrists.
i fail to see your point in here. i should go and buy a 12 inch laptop with comparatively anemic performance? that's your best argument against people who want performance and economy? maybe i should carry a GHz iMac with a 200 lb generator around? that would sure whip me into shape. don't be hostile.
****
the dell laptop is nice for a dell; it's good to know that people who go that route will be getting something better than their other stuff, but i do find the blue tasteless, and the monstrous bezel makes the thing look even bulkier than the 1.5 inches makes it sound.
I carry a laptop to school nearly every day--i put it in a case along with a few DVDs/CDRWs, the DVI-VGA adaptor, a little pad for it, and... that's it. the net weight is less than a dell inspiron workstation all by itself. it's great, it's so convenient to just take places.
i'm not too weak to carry a big laptop; i also carry a bookbag with a crapload of stuff in it that's plenty heavy. it's very inconvenient. i hate my bookbag. but i can pick it up, and carry it around, to, and from school.
I often carry my tibook around in the house to go show someone something. it's nice to be able to hold it with one hand and navigate the mouse with the other, and not have it feel like it's bending in half or tiring my wrists.
i fail to see your point in here. i should go and buy a 12 inch laptop with comparatively anemic performance? that's your best argument against people who want performance and economy? maybe i should carry a GHz iMac with a 200 lb generator around? that would sure whip me into shape. don't be hostile.
****
the dell laptop is nice for a dell; it's good to know that people who go that route will be getting something better than their other stuff, but i do find the blue tasteless, and the monstrous bezel makes the thing look even bulkier than the 1.5 inches makes it sound.
I don't really care about Dell
at least for my Mac needs. But I do want Apple to release an updated 15.x" PowerBook. My iBook just died and I don't want to buy a new TiPB if they're going to be updated in a couple of weeks.
at least for my Mac needs. But I do want Apple to release an updated 15.x" PowerBook. My iBook just died and I don't want to buy a new TiPB if they're going to be updated in a couple of weeks.
those price comparo's are really interesting. great stuff.
i'd take a computer with such hi-res anyday. my gal has one of the recent 15" dell's, and the screen is delightful. i've got a brand-new ibook, and it's nice as well, but she can put a ton of text on a page and you can make it all out b/c of the crispness of the resolution, whereas the ibook is not quite as capable (although it looks fine for most of my needs).
as the laptops become desktop replacements (see the 17" pb, for example), why shouldn't the res challenge or at least match that of my 17" blue and white monitor's highest (and never-used) res. if i want it to? whereas i've been using 10*7 since i bought the thing, i always up the res by one or 2 ticks in the monitors control panel so that i can run logic 5 with a larger arrange window and track mixer across the bottom of the screen. couldn't do that at 10*7, and couldn't do it with a low-res laptop. higher res, maybe. i say bring it on, apple!
can someone clarify where the "native" resolution issue lies - is it in the graphics chip or the actual lcd panel? i know that's a dimwit sounding question, but i've never known what to make of it...
thanks,
vixapphire
i'd take a computer with such hi-res anyday. my gal has one of the recent 15" dell's, and the screen is delightful. i've got a brand-new ibook, and it's nice as well, but she can put a ton of text on a page and you can make it all out b/c of the crispness of the resolution, whereas the ibook is not quite as capable (although it looks fine for most of my needs).
as the laptops become desktop replacements (see the 17" pb, for example), why shouldn't the res challenge or at least match that of my 17" blue and white monitor's highest (and never-used) res. if i want it to? whereas i've been using 10*7 since i bought the thing, i always up the res by one or 2 ticks in the monitors control panel so that i can run logic 5 with a larger arrange window and track mixer across the bottom of the screen. couldn't do that at 10*7, and couldn't do it with a low-res laptop. higher res, maybe. i say bring it on, apple!
can someone clarify where the "native" resolution issue lies - is it in the graphics chip or the actual lcd panel? i know that's a dimwit sounding question, but i've never known what to make of it...
thanks,
vixapphire
native resolution is on the LCD panel. unlike CRTs, where you get the same relative sharpness for any resolution because it's just a matter of readjusting the electron gun(s) that illumen the pixels on the screen, LCDs have individual pixels on the screen whose size cannot be changed. so if you put an LCD at a non-native resolution, it kind of "fudges" it and makes it look all blurry.
I work in the multimedia industry. Usually work at home or in the office on dual screen Power macs 19" or 22" La cie monitors. Presently working in Japan and I would love to have a higher resolution on my 15" powerbook. so that I don't have such clutter of pallattes and a small image/stage to work on. Not to mention video editing.
I saw this coming...
1920x1200 is NOT too much/small for laptops, in fact it'd be the perfect resolution for the 17" powerbooks.
I don't get why people don't like the small resolutions...the trade off for the small text is the increased clarity. I'd love having that screen in my 17" powerbook.
That said, i'm still getting the 17" powerbook.
And look forward to a Q(W)XGA screen (3840 x 2400) screen in a laptop soon from NEC.
1920x1200 is NOT too much/small for laptops, in fact it'd be the perfect resolution for the 17" powerbooks.
I don't get why people don't like the small resolutions...the trade off for the small text is the increased clarity. I'd love having that screen in my 17" powerbook.
That said, i'm still getting the 17" powerbook.
And look forward to a Q(W)XGA screen (3840 x 2400) screen in a laptop soon from NEC.
I couldn't run any kind of audio software on such a high res monitor. I was shocked apple managed to have such a high res on the 23" Cinema Display. To have it shrunk down to 15.4" is ridiculous.
Imagine trying to make out the knobs and sliders on most plug-ins ? Reason, Rebirth, basically any software synth with realworld looking controls and devices as part of the interface is going to be unbearable.
I can't see how it can be good for DTP either, those Photoshop and Indesign Palettes are going to be so tiny it would hurt to look at them.
I'm sure a screen of that size would make Aqua look cool though
Imagine trying to make out the knobs and sliders on most plug-ins ? Reason, Rebirth, basically any software synth with realworld looking controls and devices as part of the interface is going to be unbearable.
I can't see how it can be good for DTP either, those Photoshop and Indesign Palettes are going to be so tiny it would hurt to look at them.
I'm sure a screen of that size would make Aqua look cool though
Originally posted by barkmonster
Imagine trying to make out the knobs and sliders on most plug-ins ? Reason, Rebirth, basically any software synth with realworld looking controls and devices as part of the interface is going to be unbearable.
I can't see how it can be good for DTP either, those Photoshop and Indesign Palettes are going to be so tiny it would hurt to look at them.
I'm sure a screen of that size would make Aqua look cool though
i think imagine is the keyword here. super high resolutions mean you don't lose quality. it's not like looking at a too small text on a page, where the ink bled together and you can't make it out. it's not like viewing a tiny image on a normal resolution. once again, you don't lose quality. it doesn't get blurry like shrinking text on your monitor.
on the other hand, you may have trouble controlling the knobs with a touchpad at this res. you'll have to make the pad less sensitive.
a screen of that size would make aqua look the same, only smaller, depending on what color profile you're using
Did anyone check out how much it costs for a RAM upgrade. I think to get to a gig, it's like $1000 extra (or something close to that). That is outrageous.
Well, it ain't the prettiest thing in the world. But sooner or later it seems that everyone follows in Apple's path. Dell now has a wide screen and a color similar to the Tibook and Albook, but lacks the panache, sophistication, and plain good looks of Apple's stuff.
Unfortunately I work for a company where I need to use a PC and its a Dell with a 14" screen and 1400x1050 resolution. Most people think the text is TINY, but I like the real estate. I think I would like 1600x1200 on a 15" screen.
Personally I would prefer the 17" Powerbook with a very high resolution capability.
OMFG!!!
I know that this is a Mac rumor site... but plesae, don't be such a bunch of friggin' mindless trolls.
http://www.dell.com/us/en/dhs/offers/specials_m_inspn8500.htm
OK... here we go.
ATI 9000 or GF go... http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.html?i=1745&p=10
801.11b/g
internal bluetooth available
2GB RAM maximum
3 year warranty standard
big resolution capable (nice for that 4 megapixel digital camera)
I grant you, it is ugly (blue... wtf?), thick, no DVD burner (Dell doesn't like slot load optical drives), and well... Dell.
If you all are going to knock it, at least knock it for the right reasons. Read first, post second.
2GB of DDR sounds very very nice...
I know that this is a Mac rumor site... but plesae, don't be such a bunch of friggin' mindless trolls.
http://www.dell.com/us/en/dhs/offers/specials_m_inspn8500.htm
OK... here we go.
ATI 9000 or GF go... http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.html?i=1745&p=10
801.11b/g
internal bluetooth available
2GB RAM maximum
3 year warranty standard
big resolution capable (nice for that 4 megapixel digital camera)
I grant you, it is ugly (blue... wtf?), thick, no DVD burner (Dell doesn't like slot load optical drives), and well... Dell.
If you all are going to knock it, at least knock it for the right reasons. Read first, post second.
2GB of DDR sounds very very nice...
Re: OMFG!!!
putting 2 GB of DDR RAM in that thing makes it almost $6,000. how is that useful? that's insane. there are almost no programs even hardcore pros use that would benefit much from having that much RAM. the 9000 card only has 32 MB of RAM. the place that i see they really beefed this thing up better than apple is on the GF4 (best mobile card on the market, unlike the 440 they put on the Albook) and the ultrasharp screen (which again is a real taste issue anyway).
but it's interesting that you point out this is big resolution CAPABLE. it's almost mandatory. i've never met anyone who regularly viewed their LCD panel at non-native resolutions. that's just bleccch.
honestly, this is one of those few times that i really and truly DO NOT see that there is a price advantage in getting the PC. it's not at a better price than our Albooks. who're the trolls, again?
putting 2 GB of DDR RAM in that thing makes it almost $6,000. how is that useful? that's insane. there are almost no programs even hardcore pros use that would benefit much from having that much RAM. the 9000 card only has 32 MB of RAM. the place that i see they really beefed this thing up better than apple is on the GF4 (best mobile card on the market, unlike the 440 they put on the Albook) and the ultrasharp screen (which again is a real taste issue anyway).
but it's interesting that you point out this is big resolution CAPABLE. it's almost mandatory. i've never met anyone who regularly viewed their LCD panel at non-native resolutions. that's just bleccch.
honestly, this is one of those few times that i really and truly DO NOT see that there is a price advantage in getting the PC. it's not at a better price than our Albooks. who're the trolls, again?
good thing about the warranty
Because from what I hear about Dell laptops, you're going to need it.
Thanks for the price comparisons -- I'll be sure to email those to a Mac hating graphic designer I work with (although he needs my help to do his web site b/c of some Flash problem he can only handle in QT).
I never realized how much the aesthetics of the Mac mattered to me until I
a)got my 17" flat panel and
b)saw the ugly piece of crap Dell laptop.
The bottom line: Dell keeps copying Apple. But nobody thinks they're buying an Apple when they get a Dell. Remember when they copied the fs iMac? I still don't see a lot of those around.
Anyway, let them make an overpriced laptop that's not even close to the Mac in terms of performance, capability, or style. You'd think they would charge less, though, b/c why would you buy it?
Because from what I hear about Dell laptops, you're going to need it.
Thanks for the price comparisons -- I'll be sure to email those to a Mac hating graphic designer I work with (although he needs my help to do his web site b/c of some Flash problem he can only handle in QT).
I never realized how much the aesthetics of the Mac mattered to me until I
a)got my 17" flat panel and
b)saw the ugly piece of crap Dell laptop.
The bottom line: Dell keeps copying Apple. But nobody thinks they're buying an Apple when they get a Dell. Remember when they copied the fs iMac? I still don't see a lot of those around.
Anyway, let them make an overpriced laptop that's not even close to the Mac in terms of performance, capability, or style. You'd think they would charge less, though, b/c why would you buy it?
Re: Re: OMFG!!!
2GB - you can edit video, or large pictures, on a PC too.
GF4 go - to hot (temp) for me... plus IANAG (i am not a gamer)
LCD - non native, native, with the Dell, the choice is yours. with Apple, the native is the lowest I want to use for that size, I can't go bigger. choice is good. also, the OS plays a big part in this (think Mandrake 9.0 fonts out of the box are crisper <1 pixel wide> than OS X fonts are <going for rounded look> even for same res at native scale for whatever LCD you are comparing)
price - did I say anything about price? No. I wouldn't buy a Dell. The g/f had (gave to her mom) a Inspiron 3800 (i think) and it is a noisy, hot, flexible plastic, POS. She now has a iBook 800. Much happier. She gets annoyed when I ask her if I can use it all the time
2GB - you can edit video, or large pictures, on a PC too.
GF4 go - to hot (temp) for me... plus IANAG (i am not a gamer)
LCD - non native, native, with the Dell, the choice is yours. with Apple, the native is the lowest I want to use for that size, I can't go bigger. choice is good. also, the OS plays a big part in this (think Mandrake 9.0 fonts out of the box are crisper <1 pixel wide> than OS X fonts are <going for rounded look> even for same res at native scale for whatever LCD you are comparing)
price - did I say anything about price? No. I wouldn't buy a Dell. The g/f had (gave to her mom) a Inspiron 3800 (i think) and it is a noisy, hot, flexible plastic, POS. She now has a iBook 800. Much happier. She gets annoyed when I ask her if I can use it all the time
Re: Re: Re: OMFG!!!
ah, that's a little better, but i still think the 2 GB is insane, and my point about LCDs is that they look BAD if you run them at non-native resolutions. not because it's a smaller resolution; because it's not a native resolution. LCDs can't change the size of their physical pixels, so it makes them look blurry.
Originally posted by yzedf
2GB - you can edit video, or large pictures, on a PC too.
GF4 go - to hot (temp) for me... plus IANAG (i am not a gamer)
LCD - non native, native, with the Dell, the choice is yours. with Apple, the native is the lowest I want to use for that size, I can't go bigger. choice is good. also, the OS plays a big part in this (think Mandrake 9.0 fonts out of the box are crisper <1 pixel wide> than OS X fonts are <going for rounded look> even for same res at native scale for whatever LCD you are comparing)
price - did I say anything about price? No. I wouldn't buy a Dell. The g/f had (gave to her mom) a Inspiron 3800 (i think) and it is a noisy, hot, flexible plastic, POS. She now has a iBook 800. Much happier. She gets annoyed when I ask her if I can use it all the time
ah, that's a little better, but i still think the 2 GB is insane, and my point about LCDs is that they look BAD if you run them at non-native resolutions. not because it's a smaller resolution; because it's not a native resolution. LCDs can't change the size of their physical pixels, so it makes them look blurry.
Re: Re: Re: Re: OMFG!!!
scaling resolution is a numbers game. it can look good, but usally looks bad. i have seen it both ways. it is not solely a hardware issue. look at the threads regarding "fuzzy fonts with OS X" that you see from time to time.
2GB is cool, but the price is insane! although my thinkpad that i use everyday has 128MB in it...
scaling resolution is a numbers game. it can look good, but usally looks bad. i have seen it both ways. it is not solely a hardware issue. look at the threads regarding "fuzzy fonts with OS X" that you see from time to time.
2GB is cool, but the price is insane! although my thinkpad that i use everyday has 128MB in it...
Re: Compared to a 17inch AlBook
unfortunately, the Geforce 4 4200 is FAR superior to the Geforce 4 440 Go and the 2.4Ghz processor is without a doubt much faster than the 1Ghz G4.
unfortunately, the Geforce 4 4200 is FAR superior to the Geforce 4 440 Go and the 2.4Ghz processor is without a doubt much faster than the 1Ghz G4.
With regards to putting the faster NVidia chip in it, I don't know why Apple decided to put the slower chip in, i'm not on the design team. But according to NVidia's specs it pulls less power, so i'd bet thats why. the faster chip can turn its 3d unit off when it's not using it to save power, but thats pretty useless if this is supposed to be a CAD workstation replacement. If apple were to use it that wouldn't be useful at all as with quartz extreme running all the time you'd never be able to turn the 3d unit off.
With regards to the problem with viewing displays that have that high of resolution, the UI is going to start holding people back. I can zoom in as far as I want on my illustrator, indesign or word document, getting the image that big isn't a problem. The problem is what happens when you are browsing the web? sure you can make the text bigger, but then the images are out of proportion. And what happens to (like others have said) the buttons and scroll bars. Since monitor dpi hasn't really changed all that much those issues havent really been a problem. Users have just accepted the fact that things look a little bigger or smaller on different machines. However, if those are half/quarter sized, thats a little difficult.
People have been talking about resolution independent UIs for a while. I say BS, it would be too much of a pain for a bunch of reasons. What will probably happen, imho, is resolution of mainstream displays will increase rapidly over the next few years, and at some point we'll hit an upper limit, where people can't really see any more (probably around 220-270 ppi, IMHO). Then OS developers will standardize around it like they did around 72-90 ppi 15 years ago or so, and redesign their UIs around that. Until then you'll just have to squint or turn on the zoom feature in Jaguar. Whatever happens, believe me, this is something people have been thinking about for more than a few years.
ps: I saw a tiny tiny tiny little sony pocket-laptop deal at the Metreon in SF (which sucks btw unless you like little Gundum figurines and playstation) it had 1600xsomething-less-than-1000 resolution on a dinky little (less than 8 inches maybe) super-wide screen; looked like one of those little HP super-subnotebooks. wish I'd written down the specs. Probably makes this dell look like its running 320x240.
pps: sorry for such a long post.
With regards to the problem with viewing displays that have that high of resolution, the UI is going to start holding people back. I can zoom in as far as I want on my illustrator, indesign or word document, getting the image that big isn't a problem. The problem is what happens when you are browsing the web? sure you can make the text bigger, but then the images are out of proportion. And what happens to (like others have said) the buttons and scroll bars. Since monitor dpi hasn't really changed all that much those issues havent really been a problem. Users have just accepted the fact that things look a little bigger or smaller on different machines. However, if those are half/quarter sized, thats a little difficult.
People have been talking about resolution independent UIs for a while. I say BS, it would be too much of a pain for a bunch of reasons. What will probably happen, imho, is resolution of mainstream displays will increase rapidly over the next few years, and at some point we'll hit an upper limit, where people can't really see any more (probably around 220-270 ppi, IMHO). Then OS developers will standardize around it like they did around 72-90 ppi 15 years ago or so, and redesign their UIs around that. Until then you'll just have to squint or turn on the zoom feature in Jaguar. Whatever happens, believe me, this is something people have been thinking about for more than a few years.
ps: I saw a tiny tiny tiny little sony pocket-laptop deal at the Metreon in SF (which sucks btw unless you like little Gundum figurines and playstation) it had 1600xsomething-less-than-1000 resolution on a dinky little (less than 8 inches maybe) super-wide screen; looked like one of those little HP super-subnotebooks. wish I'd written down the specs. Probably makes this dell look like its running 320x240.
pps: sorry for such a long post.
resolution
I will not disagree with anyone about price, ugliness, or all that, but I will disagree about resolution.
Just simply change the font size in the OS. Its easy even on a windows machine. Word processing document too small to view easily? ZOOM IN! Suddenly its the same size as on a low-res monitor, but font edges are crisper. Same applies to most programs. Also, if you are very familiar with a programs tools, say Photoshop, you dont need big pretty icons to know where to click.
Graphics cards are so fast at 2D nowadays that even running two monitors at hi-res is nothing. I dont understand why people are so stupid that they run their 1600x1200 machines at 1024x768. I think 1920x1200 is the perfect resolution for a 15.4-inch screen. Any higher and you cant notice a difference. Any lower and you loose screen real estate.
Also, with high res, if for some reason you actually MUST run at a lower resolution for a game or something, it will scale better. For example, 1600x1200 scales perfect to 800x600, and looks better at 640x480 than 1024x768@640x480.
Now, if Apple would just make something like a shuttle XPC. Cheap performance loaded with ports on the front and back and upgradeable with desktop components.
I will not disagree with anyone about price, ugliness, or all that, but I will disagree about resolution.
Just simply change the font size in the OS. Its easy even on a windows machine. Word processing document too small to view easily? ZOOM IN! Suddenly its the same size as on a low-res monitor, but font edges are crisper. Same applies to most programs. Also, if you are very familiar with a programs tools, say Photoshop, you dont need big pretty icons to know where to click.
Graphics cards are so fast at 2D nowadays that even running two monitors at hi-res is nothing. I dont understand why people are so stupid that they run their 1600x1200 machines at 1024x768. I think 1920x1200 is the perfect resolution for a 15.4-inch screen. Any higher and you cant notice a difference. Any lower and you loose screen real estate.
Also, with high res, if for some reason you actually MUST run at a lower resolution for a game or something, it will scale better. For example, 1600x1200 scales perfect to 800x600, and looks better at 640x480 than 1024x768@640x480.
Now, if Apple would just make something like a shuttle XPC. Cheap performance loaded with ports on the front and back and upgradeable with desktop components.