Don't purchase the 1440x900, even if you like larger fonts.

[gagaliya]

Agreed, that price is ridiculous for a resolution that should be standard.

to make matter worse, apple doesnt allow resellers to carry anything other than base models. And those resellers usually have $100 off and no tax, so when you compare a base model from a reseller vs a same mbp but with high res from apple, the difference is not just $100, more like $350-400 (depends on tax rate).

It's because crap like this i strongly believe apple is one of the most evil companies in this country, much worse than microsoft and others combined. Even though they make beautiful products.

For example, personal vendetta against adobe flash, when 80% of the world wide web uses flash for interactive contents, secretive release dates and continue to sell outdated hardware, everything is made to be proprietary just so they can kill their customers with accessories charges, the list goes on and on...

 

[PAC88]

What OS did your old Macbook Pro run? Had you upgraded it to 10.6?

I'm not the OP but I noticed the same thing as him.

The C2D MBP's at my apple store had SL 10.6 installed and the fonts and text looked very sharp on all the glossy screens.. I remember because it was the one thing I always liked about the glossy screens.

But just the other day I went to the store to check out the new ones and I was testing the 13" and 15" standard glossy models. I opened Pages and Numbers to view the example documents etc.. The first thing I noticed was how different the text looked from the previous glossy screens.. the 13" and 15" both looked the way the OP is describing. I thought it was just my eyes at first but after zooming in and examining it longer, I realized it was something with the computer.

 

[johnnymg]

Here's some background to start:

I'm a programmer, so I spend 90% of my time looking at text. Prior to the 15" i7, I had a 2006 MacBook Pro with a 1440x900 screen. I loved it. The text renders clean and it's considerably large, as I prefer it to be.

Fast-Forward:
I ordered the 15" i7 with the standard display, figuring I'd save $100 and save myself the frustration of having to enlarge everything with the hi-res screen. I made a mistake. The quality of the 1440x900 on the 2010 model is considerably worse than the 2006 1440x900. The text is pixelated, and when bold goes so far as being muddy. Given my dissatisfaction, I took a ride down to the Apple store to see the hi-res screen, and they do not have these issues. The text is crisp and clean, even when enlarged to a size that's equivalent with the 1440x900. I'm returning my new mac in order to purchase it again, but with the hi-res.

In my opinion, there's no reason to go with the 1440x900 unless you want to save a hundred and pixelated fonts don't bother you. If you look at text all day, you'll want the cleaner fonts of the 1680x1050. If you do photos or video, you'll want the higher resolution of the 1680x1050.

I think you might need glasses if you think the text is pixelated. Good luck with that!

JohnG

 

[Anonymous Freak]

to make matter worse, apple doesnt allow resellers to carry anything other than base models. And those resellers usually have $100 off and no tax, so when you compare a base model from a reseller vs a same mbp but with high res from apple, the difference is not just $100, more like $350-400 (depends on tax rate).

Hrm. Multiple resellers in my neck of the woods have upgraded models. All the time. And I don't just mean reseller-upgrades like RAM and hard drive; I mean processors, too.

 

[junko]

Does the 1080p+ res on the 17" or 1680x1050 on the 15" have the same PPI?

 

[neondrgns]

using my i7 15" to type this, text looks fine

 

[Cali3350]

Ok, relatively simple way to do this.

Go to preferences -> display and find the following information:

Post your results. EVERYONE! 2008, 2009, 2010 models, it doesn't matter. We will actually compare the panels that people are receiving.

 

[riotgear]

My 1440x900 display looks perfect. In fact, it looks just like my 2009 MBP.

 

[gagaliya]

Hrm. Multiple resellers in my neck of the woods have upgraded models. All the time. And I don't just mean reseller-upgrades like RAM and hard drive; I mean processors, too.

resellers cannot carry bto models, what you are saying is just some guy putting in aftermarket hardware..

 

[PAC88]

resellers cannot carry bto models, what you are saying is just some guy putting in aftermarket hardware..

that's not true at all.. look at all the BTO models this place has here

 

[miketwo]

What OS did your old Macbook Pro run? Had you upgraded it to 10.6?

I'm running 10.6.3 on both. I checked the font smoothing options under System Preferences->Appearance on both machines, and they're configured the same.

 

[miketwo]

Post your results. EVERYONE! 2008, 2009, 2010 models, it doesn't matter. We will actually compare the panels that people are receiving.

Dammit! I wish I caught this post sooner, as I just packed up my 2010 an hour ago, ready to ship back. I'd love to see if it's actually a particular panel/manufacturer that's causing this, and not endemic to all 2010's.

For what it's worth, here are the specs from my 2006:

Manufacturer: 00000610
Model: 00009C60
Serial Number: 00000000
Manufacture Date: BFF87B80

 

[Queso]

Not getting that on my 1440 x 900 2008 MBP 15", which also has LED backlight.

Manufacturer = 00000610
Model = 00009C82

 

[RedTomato]

1: Snow Leopard changed the font options. You only have sup-pixel font rendering or greyscale font rendering now, there is no option to choose between CRT (greyscale) / Light / Medium / Strong text any more. (there may be a hidden preference somewhere, I'm not sure)

If you are running an older version of OSX, perhaps you are using the light or heavy setting on your display. Alternatively, perhaps you're using the greyscale rendering on your Mac. If you change the option in system preferences > appearance, font rendering should look the same.

Worth playing with these options. Which OS are you using?

If it's SL, then a third party app or Terminal command would probably be able to give you some control back.

 

[abwcr]

Just wanted to say my standard res screen looks great. No complaints here.

 

[Kadman]

When comparing the standard and hi-res in the store, the standard I looked at was similar to what the OP was describing. In fact, my first reaction was to think the display was set to a non-native resolution. It had that same look to it. I checked and it was set correctly. Point blank, the standard res display I saw in the Apple store didn't look sharp, particularly when compared to the hi-res next to it. Maybe there are some bad batches out there.

Also, to those of you simply criticizing the OP, grow up. Just because you don't see what he (and some other, including myself) see doesn't make it wrong. I know it's a MacRumors expectation to attack anything negative said about any Apple product but please resist the temptation once in a while.

 

[splitpea]

to make matter worse, apple doesnt allow resellers to carry anything other than base models.

Either that policy has changed or they're making an exception in this case. Both of my local resellers are listing hi-res and hi-res antiglare models and 17" i7 models on their sites, with or without the RAM and hard drive upgrades.

 

[ReallyBigFeet]

My specs from a new 2010 15" MBP Hi-res glossy

Manufacturer: 00000610
Model: 00009CB6
Mfr Date: C6438480

 

[Dozerrox]

Went for the high res anyway. Love higher resolution. Seems to be mainly mac users that have more of a fear of going higher (only my observation, please don't flame me...).

 

[jclardy]

I wonder if there are inconsistencies within the production of the panels. There is a noticeable difference between this screen and my old screen. The letters on the new 1440x900 are blurry and unbalanced. It looks like they're poorly compressed, but I think it just has to do with the PPI and the quality of the screen.

The PPI would be the same, because it is the same resolution at the same screen size. Are you comparing them side by side?

 

[RobbieTT]

Now here's what's interesting. If I zoom in with CTRL-two-finger-swipe, you can still see what I'm talking about:

I am a little confused about this picture. Correct me if I am wrong but (unless this picture above was taken with a camera) this looks like a screen grab. Therefore it is an accurate representation of what information is being sent to the screen rather than errors introduced by the panel itself.

If my thoughts are correct then this is not a screen issue, but something in the graphics hardware or software. As suggested before, have you tried an external display to rule out the other constituents of the graphics chain?

 

[miketwo]

Also, to those of you simply criticizing the OP, grow up. Just because you don't see what he (and some other, including myself) see doesn't make it wrong.

I feel like I brought it upon myself by saying 'Don't purchase the 1440...'. I wish I picked a lest incendiary title. One of my reasons for posting was to warn those like me who considered the 1440 on the basis of text size and legibility. It turns out that the hi-res provides crisper text even when the font-size is increased.

As for the quality of the 1440, the fringing issues and whatnot: Maybe it's down to a few bad apples, or maybe it's just down to individual perception. My eyes pick up on the fringing greens and reds of each letter. It seems like your eyes and PAC88's eyes pick up on it, too. More power to those that don't pick up on it. They're fortunate, and they saved a hundred bucks. I'm certainly not trying to convince anyone that their display is crap.

Bottom line, it's worth a trip to the store to see both screens for yourself. I wish I didn't see the fringing on the 1440. It'd save me a restocking fee.

 

[miketwo]

The PPI would be the same, because it is the same resolution at the same screen size. Are you comparing them side by side?

You're right -- the ppi should be the same. I'm comparing them side-by-side.

 

[decksnap]

The text is supposed to look like that when zoomed in. Or close to it- depeds what smoothing option you are using.

 

[miketwo]

I am a little confused about this picture. Correct me if I am wrong but (unless this picture above was taken with a camera) this looks like a screen grab. Therefore it is an accurate representation of what information is being sent to the screen rather than errors introduced by the panel itself.

If my thoughts are correct then this is not a screen issue, but something in the graphics hardware or software. As suggested before, have you tried an external display to rule out the other constituents of the graphics chain?

Yep, it's a screen grab. And yep, I agree that it's an accurate representation of what's being sent to the screen, and the visual yuckiness that I'm seeing is a combination of: (a) how the hardware/software is processing and outputting the data to the screen, and (b) how the display is reacting to that data.

When I view the screen grab on my 2006 monitor, the greens and pink fringing of the text isn't as prevalent, and appear more as blues and browns that mute into the text and are less perceptible.

That's the closest I can come to outputting to an external, since I wrapped the laptop up to ship back to Apple.