Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

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

If the op sees it he sees it. However, I bought the 15 low end model the day it came out. $150 wasn't much more to me, since I was already paying so much for the machine, but like many who have been on here for awhile, I didn't want to wait. I played with the 17 inch c2d hi res matt display, and compared it to the reg one c2d. I actually liked the glossy screen, and I was pleased with the display. When I got my new one home I have been satisfied. With that said, I wouldn't blame anybody for spending the extra money to get the higher resolution.

I personally would rather buy a larger external monitor 24 with hi res. I figured at this size I would really enjoy the difference for projects where I hi res screen was needed.
 
decksnap said:
The text is supposed to look like that when zoomed in. Or close to it- depeds what smoothing option you are using.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was zooming in to emphasize the fringing that I'm seeing even when it's at normal, non-zoomed sizes. Can anyone with a hi-res screen submit a screen grab of the same region, to compare?
 
jmp51483 said:
Just out of curiosity... Are you all aware that in Snow Leopard apple has disabled the ability to set the level of font smoothing? and by default that it's pretty much turned off??

Give this a try, should definitely help your issue.

http://rubenerd.com/font-smoothing-snow-leopard/
Click to expand...
This is an issue with some external displays, not computer's own display.

What 'miketwo' describes is the sub-pixel font rendering. It is just that the colour fringing is more obvious with a wide gamut display because it is more saturated.
 
is the consensus that 1440 by 900 is too low for 15 inch mbp? it seems like many are paying for the high res upgrade. If that is the consensus I wonder why more did not by more 17s.
 
tim100 said:
is the consensus that 1440 by 900 is too low for 15 inch mbp? it seems like many are paying for the high res upgrade. If that is the consensus I wonder why more did not by more 17s.
Click to expand...

If it's a concensus, I don't agree with it. 1440x900 is fine.
 
tim100 said:
is the consensus that 1440 by 900 is too low for 15 inch mbp? it seems like many are paying for the high res upgrade. If that is the consensus I wonder why more did not by more 17s.
Click to expand...

Because the 17" is larger and heavier and less convenient to carry around. The hi-res option actually makes buying it *less* necessary for some of us who would otherwise be tempted to because 1440x900 is restricting.
 
tim100 said:
is the consensus that 1440 by 900 is too low for 15 inch mbp?
Click to expand...

No it isn't. Its the herd mentality - just because some people are crazy about the hi-res anti-glare, everyone's jumping on the bandwagon and wanting them. Its the my thing is bigger than yours - since the i7 and hi-res AG is the most expensive, its the one to get, sort of approach. ;)

Make your own decision as to what works best for you. 1440x900 works great for what I do daily - if I need more, there's always the option of hooking up to an external display. I do have a 1680x1050 20-inch monitor to hook up to, which is quite a bit bigger than the same resolution on a 15-inch screen. Would love the 24-inch ACD but can't justify it - as is I don't hook up often.

Edit - for some - the hi-res screen is still perfect, even then, pick your own preference of glossy vs. AG.
 
Cali3350 said:
There would be no reason for Apple to switch LCD manufacturers. You can actually check yourself though - just look at system information. If anything, you likely got a lemon.
Click to expand...
Where are you seeing panel information in system info? Under graphics I see my GPU chipset, and the resolution of the panel but no details about the panel itself. Am I looking in the wrong place?
 
The main observation from threads like this is that most people are talking in a very simplistic and generalized "is the type too small" or "is the type too big" way. The answer is not so simple though. Different needs require more individual answers.
Take, for example, someone buying a 24" LED Display plus 15" MBP. Set the system up and some things become apparent that many won't consider when merely comparing a high res MBP with a standard res MBP.
One of the benefits of using the MBP with the LED display is that the MBP can work effectively as a second screen. With the standard res MBP alongside the display, the content of both screens is of a comparable scale. Viewed from the same distance, both screens share close levels of legibility and work happily as a seemingly matched pair. This is not the case with the high res MBP. Viewed as a pair at native resolution, the LED display and high res MBP look anything but unified in appearance. At an ideal reading distance for the display, small type on the high res screen is barely legible. One finds oneself viewing the LED display comfortably while shifting forward to see detail in the high res MBP.
That might bother some people and not others. But any observant person would agree the superior "match" in these circumstances is the standard res MBP.
So when people like the original thread starter pontificate that what is good for them should be good for everyone (as his headline suggests), they should be ignored. While it might be ideal in someone else's circumstances, the 15" MBP in high res is of no use to me, regardless of whether most people think they should have it just because it is available. Seems to me many are deciding to buy this higher resolution based on it suggesting some kind of greater quality or status, regardless of overall usability as it relates to their specific needs. If the higher res makes your work or play easier, by all means go for it. But if, like me, you feel that for your specific purposes a high res 15" MBP is like looking the wrong way through a pair of binoculars or not an ideal match for the rest of your setup, you'll be more than happy with the standard version.
 
miketwo said:
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.
Click to expand...
I just recently helped my friend work with his very first mac, a 15" pro with low resolution.

It's not fuzzy at all. It's very crisp.

The high resolution on the newer ones is already too much for my eyes.

I can see it working just fine for people with perfect vision.

But mine is 20/400 without glasses, 20/40 with glasses.

It doesn't work. Even if it's slightly fuzzy.

I fear this is the last generation macbook pro I can get, as OS X's font smoothing destroys resolution independence.
 
jmp51483 said:
Just out of curiosity... Are you all aware that in Snow Leopard apple has disabled the ability to set the level of font smoothing? and by default that it's pretty much turned off??

Give this a try, should definitely help your issue.

http://rubenerd.com/font-smoothing-snow-leopard/
Click to expand...

+1

I've played with this extensively.... these are pixels added by the apple font smoothing renderer (software). Their "obviousness" is dependent on screen dpi and software font smoothing level.

The picture you provided will still look the same on your new computer - same as all of us can see it. On the new computer, without zooming, the reason you won't see it is because of your higher dpi panel, the added pixels are just harder to see, but still there.

Instead of going to a higher dpi screen, you could alternatively turn off smoothing in terminal:

defaults -currentHost write -globalDomain AppleFontSmoothing -int 0

My preference is very low smoothing level, regardless of screen dpi:

defaults -currentHost write -globalDomain AppleFontSmoothing -int 1

By the way, the scale goes:

0,1,2,3 (0=off, 3=max smoothing)
 
DesmoPilot said:
I disagree, to low.
Click to expand...

I turned my last gen MBP down even farther than that so it was comfortable...I bet you would have a stroke sitting next to me having to be disturbed by my horribly low resolution :|

It's only too low to you because there is something higher available...it's 99% psychological. If 1440x900 was the highest currently available and only at a high upgrade cost you would be raving about how great is was.
 
Plenty happy with 1440x900. I guess I'm not refined enough to really care that much. I am cheap enough though.:D
 
tim100 said:
is the consensus that 1440 by 900 is too low for 15 inch mbp? it seems like many are paying for the high res upgrade. If that is the consensus I wonder why more did not by more 17s.
Click to expand...

My friends' 4 year old ThinkPad, it has a 14" screen, and a higher ppi than the MBP.

Also, I have a 15" MBP, the first C2D model. Leopard. Pic attached.
 

Attachments

  • Picture 2.png
    Picture 2.png
    62.1 KB · Views: 89
PAC88 said:
that's not true at all.. look at all the BTO models this place has here
Click to expand...

heh look at the price difference between the base i5 and base i5 + high res, and none of them are in stock, all preorder. They probably just order it from apple.com when you place the order there lol
 
DesmoPilot said:
I wouldn't get the 1440 display regardless; paying as much as you are for a MBP then getting such a laughable resolution on a professional product is very patronizing.
Click to expand...

FWIW the display on my 5,1 is just fine. I wouldn't mine more pixels, but I certainly don't note any pixelation with what I have.

Of course, what's even more laughable is the SD card slot in place of the eminently more useful expresscard on the 15" models. :rolleyes:
 
This is my unibody mid 2009 15.4" with 1440X900

yours has video (text) rendering problem. Nothing to do with screen
 

Attachments

  • Screen shot 2010-04-26 at 12.47.59 AM.png
    Screen shot 2010-04-26 at 12.47.59 AM.png
    43.8 KB · Views: 716
Cali3350 said:
Ok, relatively simple way to do this.

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

*snip*

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

Here ya go!
 

Attachments

  • Picture 5.png
    Picture 5.png
    89.3 KB · Views: 88
pastparticiple said:
It's only too low to you because there is something higher available...it's 99% psychological. If 1440x900 was the highest currently available and only at a high upgrade cost you would be raving about how great is was.
Click to expand...
I disagree, but perhaps it depends on what you use the notebook for. Higher resolutions mask the colour fringing around text, making sub-pixel font rendering much more effective. If you have the text being displayed at the same physical size on-screen, then it will also look much crisper on the high resolution display.

For things like photo and video editing, I want as much workspace as possible, so that most of the screen is used to show the image I am working on, and not the program's interface.

With video, even the high resolution screens are not enough. 1080p video is 1920x1080, so you need a screen with at least that resolution to work on it properly. Because you still have to actually work on the image, even higher resolution than that is better. (but 1920x1200 on a 15.4" seems to be the most available today)

Higher PPI displays are also a more accurate representation of how images will look when printed. Photos, magazines etc. are typically printed at 300+ DPI and even the highest resolution monitors are only around 150 PPI. (the 1440x900 screen is ~110PPI, the high res screen is ~130PPI)


michaelfengdayu said:
This is my unibody mid 2009 15.4" with 1440X900

yours has video (text) rendering problem. Nothing to do with screen
Click to expand...
Cmd + Opt + \ will toggle whether or not the image is smoothed over when zooming in.
 
*facepalm*

Every single screen grab you do that is zoomed in depends solely on what you have set the zoom function to in either the trackpad or mouse preference under system preferences. That picture you posted zoomed in proves that there is absolutely no difference. Here is a picture from MY early 2006 Core Duo MacBook Pro with smooth images while zoomed in off:
(Click the images to make them larger)
screenshot20100426at323.png



Flip the switch...
screenshot20100426at325.png


and you get this:
screenshot20100426at324.png
 
entatlrg said:
If you're reading text all day you're wrong.

If you're editing photo / video you're correct.

It's personal preference but reading small text at too great a distance for many hours strains anyone's eyes, whether it's crisp or not.
Click to expand...
What applications are you using that have lots of text and don't allow you to change the text size?

At the same physical size, reading text is much better on a high resolution screen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back