Everythings too small on my Macbook Pro..

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by JHNguyen, Jan 13, 2008.

  1. JHNguyen macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    #1
    Any suggestions for this?

    I recently gave my MBP to my parents. It's setup on a table, with a pull out keyboard thing so you sit a little further back than usual.

    The laptop is a 15" and I've been making font sizes bigger for about every website I go to.. though, that's not a big deal. It gets small when using something like itunes, or mail.app.

    Is their anyway to make text for everything bigger? Going down to 1280 x 800 would be great, but, it makes everything blurry. It's straining my eyes so I'm sure it wouldn't be too pleasant for my parents.
     
  2. one1 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Location:
    Chattanooga, TN
    #2
    universal access is made for this reason.
     

    Attached Files:

  3. samh004 macrumors 68020

    samh004

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Location:
    Australia
    #3
    Zooming in on things with a scroll-wheel/ball and the CTRL button is really useful when I can't see things (set up in universal access).
     
  4. Ilovemygeek macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2007
    #4
    Do you use Firefox? If so do this: View --Text size --Increase
     
  5. squeeks macrumors 68040

    squeeks

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Location:
    Florida
    #5
    and here some people complain that the resolution isnt high ENOUGH

    lol
     
  6. ftaok macrumors 601

    ftaok

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2002
    Location:
    East Coast
    #6
    Buy an external monitor that has a higher ppi count. They're not that expensive anymore.

    ft
     
  7. thejadedmonkey macrumors 604

    thejadedmonkey

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Location:
    Pa
    #7
    *shrug* I use my macbook pro set at a resolution of 1152x720. Use it like that for a day, then tell me how blurry it is.
     
  8. aross99 macrumors 68000

    aross99

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2006
    Location:
    East Lansing, MI
    #8
    The higher resolution will be important when we have resolution independence options in Leopard, in the mean time, I don't know how people use the HD MBP...

    I use the CTRL-(two finger) scroll all the time to expand web pages with small text.I changed options to only move the "zoom window" when I hit the edges with my pointer, and not to center the window on the pointer - that seemed to make it easier for me to use.

    You still have some blurryness, but you have finer control than you do by jumping all the way to the next lower resolution.

    Using an external display might help also - assuming you can find one that is readable for you. I use a 19" non-wide screen display at work. it has the same resolution as a 17", but it is 2" bigger. That works out pretty well for me.

    At home though, I am all about the CTRL-scroll on my 17" MBP at it's native 1680x1050...
     
  9. iBunny macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    #9
    wow this is a first.

    I think that everything is not small enough and we need at least 1680x1050 on the 15'' MBP's
     
  10. aross99 macrumors 68000

    aross99

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2006
    Location:
    East Lansing, MI
    #10
    I wish I had your vision. I started wearing glasses after I turned 42, and i just can't read the tiny text as well as I used to be able to.

    Check out the MBP 17" with the 1900x1200 screen. I think that has the highest DPI of any of the portables.

    It is really tiny!
     
  11. cafeCarl macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2008
    #11
    You know, I have an older Dell and it has a 15" screen and it has a 1920x1200 monitor. Thats small font! The monitor upgrade was the most expensive part of that laptop.
     
  12. K-Funk macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    #12
    I thought I remembered reading that with Leopard, you'd be able to enlarge the font size without losing resolution. (Sort of like how in Windows you can make everything 125% of the normal size, although I find that doesn't always work well.) Was this feature not implemented?
     

Share This Page