Does anyone ever think about that 15' MBP should use 1680 screen resolution?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by mobgame, Jun 15, 2009.

  1. mobgame macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2009
    #1
    As you can seen from recently update on mobile phones(HTC Diamond 2/pro etc). The 3.2inch screen supports 800*480(WVGA)resolution. I am wondering when apple can upgrade the 15' MBP to 1680(1920 might not good for eyes) that make it much more prefect.
    Since I had go though the forum, seems nobody care about this, does everybody satisfied with currently resolution?:confused::confused:
     
  2. akm3 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    #2
    1440x900 actuallys works better in OS X than I thought it would, in Windows it sucks.

    That said, I would greatly prefer 1680x1050 resolution, but with 16x10 panels on the way out (ugh) our next bump will probably coincide with a move to an even wider panel, and if we are LUCKY it will probably be something like 1680x900 (I know that isn't a normal standard size, I'm just guessing we WON'T get 1920x1080 with the move to 16x9.

    P.S. I think the move to 16x9, when it is eventually forced on Apple by panel manufacturers, is a very bad thing.
     
  3. Feng Shui macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    #3
    Yes, it should at least be 1680. I want it to be 1920.
     
  4. Jon-Luke macrumors 6502

    Jon-Luke

    Joined:
    May 22, 2009
    Location:
    Cape Town
    #4
    Certain programs are a bit of a struggle to use at the current 1440x900 resolution - admittedly they are obscure programs used for specific business, for example EP Scheduling, but if the screen res was changed to anything higher I wouldn't be able to use this program on my MacBook Pro any more - so please lets keep thing the way they are... :eek:

    By the way - what are you hoping to see with the increased resolution?

    :rolleyes::apple:
     
  5. panzer06 macrumors 68030

    panzer06

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    Location:
    Kilrath
    #5
    I would welcome 1680 and would even prefer full 1080p as an option.

    Cheers,
     
  6. mobgame thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2009
    #6
    Yes, that might be one issue that apple needs to consider. But I think at least apple should have an option for 15'MBP to choose higher resolution or even let you to change the screen-resolution to lower at OS level-- that might be ugly but still an optional way to support some old system.

    The reason for me likely to see the upgrade of resolution was that make the font/pic looks more beautiful -- increase the space for the anti aliasing of font so that looks more smoothly....
    Also the high resolution let you see more informations in one screen without make your eyes tired-- that why I am thinking 1680 is good but not recommend 1920.
     
  7. iToaster macrumors 68000

    iToaster

    Joined:
    May 3, 2007
    Location:
    In front of my MacBook Pro
    #7
    There is a noticeable resolution gap in Apples lineup right now, so I'd have to say that it wouldn't hurt to at least have the option for 1680x1050 on the 15" and maybe even go as far as 1440x900 on the 13".
     
  8. antskip macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2009
    Location:
    Australia
    #8
    Why would you think going up to WSXGA+ would be good (but not tiring for the eyes), yet just a slightly higher density, WUXGA is bad, because "tiring for the eyes"?
    More pixels on an LCD, if properly configured by software so that screen objects are a comfortable size for the viewer, are always easier on the eyes...they are denser, less pixilated; less work for the eyes; closer to pixel-less solid objects. 1440 X 900 15.4" is 110ppi, 1680 X 1050 15.4" is 128ppi, UXGA 15" is 133ppi, WUXGA 17" is 133ppi, and WUXGA 15.4" is 147ppi. If a clear printed page had a ppi, it would greater than 200. Which is why one can read a printed book (of a suitable type size, of course) all day without eye strain. It is also easier for most people to read even less-than-optimum printed versions of material, initially viewed on one's LCD.:)
     
  9. kurzz macrumors 6502

    kurzz

    Joined:
    May 18, 2007
    Location:
    Canada
    #9
    I think every macbook (except for the 17" which already has a high enough resolution) should be bumped up a notch in resolution. 13" should really have 1400x, and the 15" should get the 1680x. I think they left it this low to save on the cost of making a screen like that.
     
  10. deneenco macrumors member

    deneenco

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2007
    Location:
    A2, MI
    #10
    I couldn't agree more.....

    and it's the reason I moved to a unibody 17" macbook pro...

    *love the 1920x1200 rez on the 17"* everything looks much more crisp.
     
  11. pesos macrumors 6502a

    pesos

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    #11
    This is what is keeping me from getting a 15". Can't bring myself to spend the money on a 17. Have sold my old MBP because of this same frustrating resolution (just can't do the work I need to do) and gona back to my old Dell Inspiron with 1050 for now.
     
  12. ViciousShadow21 macrumors 68020

    ViciousShadow21

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Location:
    To your left or right
    #12
    they should allow you to go as high as you want (within reason of course) because guess what, if the max res is to high for you then you can always reduce it!! so put in the 1920 in there and if ppl dont like it then go back down to 400 if you want!!
     
  13. pesos macrumors 6502a

    pesos

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    #13
    Only the native resolution looks decent, forcing a lower res will blur and hurt your eyes.
     
  14. KingYaba macrumors 68040

    KingYaba

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Location:
    Up the irons
  15. cu2010 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    new york city
    #15
    I've failed to see the difference between 15" and 17" in terms of resolutions.. Everything looked small on the 17" display. I was very let down because I thought the difference would be phenomenal. I did not notice the change in color gamut between the old and new 15" either :(
     
  16. dlhuss macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2009
    #16
    I also totally agree.

    13" = 1440x900
    15" = 1680x1050
    17" = 1920x1200

    That's why the only Macbook Pro I would even consider (and own) is the 17".

    And just for fun, I own a 15" ThinkPad at 1680x1050 and yes Windows works perfect at that resolution. That other poster is smoking something. Heck, my 1920x1200 Windows was great.

    My next laptop will probably be a 17" 1920x1200, because the uMBPs are just too rich for my blood, and I'm impartial to OS (I use apps.). I'll find a deal on a Thinkpad W700, Elitebook 8730w or Precision M6400.
     
  17. eVolcre macrumors 65816

    eVolcre

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2003
    #17
    The difference is night and day. Go into an Apple store, open iPhoto, bring up the same picture on full screen and then compare the 15" vs 17"

    And anyway, the big big difference is the added screen real estate. It's phenomenal! I wouldn't even consider a 15" given very slight decrease in size from its big brother. The tradeoff is too high. May as well drop to the 13 if portability is a factor.

    Check out the images in the first post of this thread. Should show you the difference in screen real estate!

    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=716327

    eV
     
  18. iToaster macrumors 68000

    iToaster

    Joined:
    May 3, 2007
    Location:
    In front of my MacBook Pro
    #18
    The 15" has a resolution of 1440x900, the 17" has a resolution of 1920x1200. The 17" MacBook Pro has 300 more vertical pixels and 480 more horizontal pixels than the 15" (with a 2" increase in size versus from the 13" to 15" where you only get 100 and 160 more pixels respectively in that size increase), however due to the screen size not changing proportionally, things on the 17" look much "smaller" because there is much more space, as perceived by the computer, in not much more room... essentially, the pixels are more dense on the 17". Also, the color on the new MBPs isn't really noticeable to the naked eye, but it's important to graphics professionals in getting accurate results when images are printed.
     
  19. cu2010 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    new york city
    #19
    I just checked the images but still don't see any difference...at all :eek:
    I went to an :apple: store this afternoon and compared them but didn't open iPhoto or any HD photographs... and those screens weren't calibrated. I was actually going to buy the 17", but.... my goodness, it looked significantly larger than the 15". Almost impossible to use it in class.
     
  20. cu2010 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    new york city
    #20
    Can you fix this? Maybe that's why I couldn't equally compare the two.
     
  21. uberamd macrumors 68030

    uberamd

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #21
    I would like a higher resolution display, however I don't feel the 1440x900 in OS X is 'lacking' at all. Apple makes it work.

    Remember the 1280x800 on the 15" PowerBook G4? Or the 800x600 on the iBook clamshell?
     
  22. eVolcre macrumors 65816

    eVolcre

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2003
    #22
    OK. Lets do it here. There are 3 images below. One each for 13,15 and 17. Look at the AMOUNT of information displayed on each screen. That's one of the advantages of higher screen resolution. The 17" really isn't that much bigger than the 15. I've carried one around the world since 2006. Seriously, the drop in resolution does not justify the slight size decrease.

    If you think the 17"is too big, then you may as well go all the way down to 13 assuming you don't need the graphics power. Unlike the 17 to 15 drop, the 15 to 13 drop really doesn't change the amount of screen real estate too much.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  23. cu2010 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    new york city
    #23
    Yes, obviously 17" can display more, but what about screen color saturation/vividness? Does 17" look more beautiful? I've noticed that the iMac is clearly superior to the MBP but don't think there's not much difference between the 17" and 15".

    As for portability, maybe you're a big guy so 17" is virtually 13" for you :p
    13" on the other hand, is too small for me. 15" seems to be the right size for me, but I haven't ruled anything out yet. I should probably pay another visit to :apple:
     
  24. xraydoc macrumors demi-god

    xraydoc

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2005
    Location:
    192.168.1.1
    #24
    1680x1050 would be fine with me, but I've used 1920x1200 on a 15.4" screen before (old Dell Latitude D800). Text was way too small!
     
  25. iLog.Genius macrumors 601

    iLog.Genius

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #25
    Agreed. I was looking at a guys Lenovo laptop and noticed his resolution which should be in the 1600xXXX range and inside I was crying. Sure it might be too small for some but why does Apple need to ship with the native resolution being the max? Let there be options, if people are fine with the 1440 resolution have that there but at least give higher resolutions for those who want it. (Ahh..who am I kidding, Apple isn't the one to give options unless it comes in colors...)
     

Share This Page