So where am I going to find a nice, relaxing and attractive wallpaper that big? I'm more concern about this than font size lol.
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.
Hi Res 15in coming?
- Thread starter mtfield
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So where am I going to find a nice, relaxing and attractive wallpaper that big? I'm more concern about this than font size lol.
The wallpaper you use now will look exactly the same on a 15" high res screen. Only difference is the high res variation would be capable of displaying much more detailed images because it has a higher DPI.
Ugh. I hope so. 1680x1050 would be perfect. I run 1440x1050 at home on a 19" CRT which suits me pretty well, but anything lower than that (and that includes 1440x900) is too low. I had to live on 1280x800 on my old Toshiba laptop and that was really annoying at times, especially in Photoshop.
Well... i'm planning to buy a MBP after the next refresh, but anything less than a 1680*1050 resolution is a dealbreaker for me.
Seriously... that resolution is standard in $700+ machines. At least i expect it as an option.
A 1920*1200 in the 15" is just to much. At least for me.
Seriously... that resolution is standard in $700+ machines. At least i expect it as an option.
A 1920*1200 in the 15" is just to much. At least for me.
I want to be able to watch 1080p movies on my MBP.
For this I require a Blu-Ray Drive and a 1900x1200 screen.
I think its ********* that Big
dosent offer this at least as an option on the 15". Im not saying it should come standard, but at least offer the BTO.
For this I require a Blu-Ray Drive and a 1900x1200 screen.
I think its ********* that Big
dosent offer this at least as an option on the 15". Im not saying it should come standard, but at least offer the BTO.I'm with the iBunny!
There's been talk about laptop manufacturers switching from 16:10 to 16:9 aspect ratios. Instead of 1920x1200 we might actually see 1920x1080. At 15.4" or 16" that might not be such a small dpi ratio that Apple won't offer it on grounds pixels would be too small.
But I guess it depends on and when Apple switches to BluRay. This might not happen until the Mac Pros get it standard. And they might not get it until new Cinema Displays support DisplayPort (or HDMI at least). And those are not rumored to appear before MacWorld January 2009.
So if we're unlucky the next MacBook Pro 15" will only do the current res and no BluRay - but will get the HD screen plus BluRay as BTO once the desktops go BluRay in January...
If we're lucky laptops will go BluRay now about 3 months before the Mac Pros get it.
Offering BluRay as standard drives in all laptops might very well be one of the 'transitions' with reduced profit margins that Apple mentioned.
I hope they don't switch, especially since not everyone wants to watch 1080p movies all day. I'd rather keep my extra 120 pixels vertical.
I would love to get a hi-res screen in my new mpb, but Apple sometimes is funny when it comes to displays. For example, they have not updated their Cinema Displays for almost four years, or something like that! 
So I would not be counting on it, but you never know.
So I would not be counting on it, but you never know. Can be installed without much difficulty on Dell Studio 15's and Dell XPS 15"s as well as dozens of other laptops.
Agreed! I think that 16:10 is perfect. I really prefer to have the extra vertical pixels when I'm working, and then have black bars when I'm watching a movie.
Don
True ...
If MBPs were featured just as nicely as Dells.
True ...
let's sit home, not asking for troubles out there.
Why? If the hardware's supported, there's very little difference. The only bad thing about it is having to check whether it's OK to install OSX system updates (which aren't too common).
As for MBPs being nicer than the Dell XPS/Studios . . . how? If aesthetics are that important, then by your opinion, it is nicer. In any other sense, the Dell would be nicer (price, resolution, speed, heat, support, etc.).
It comes down to most people are not going to go through the hassle of trying to put OSX on a PC mostly because they don't know how and don't feel comfortable with it. So saying that if someone wants an HD screen on a 15in they should just go buy a PC and do the OSX hack is ridiculous. There is no reason why apple could not have this as a BTO option. Yes not everyone wants it, and that's why it would never be standard. But many people would like this option and with snow leopard coming out with resolution independence I think many people would be quite excited for a High res display.
Yeah, but that's no reason to expect it ... Not with Apple.
Dell has it not because it's more advanced company/tech/etc ... but because it isn't deaf to a demand.
and Apple apparently is.
There's truly no other reason, that's why we probably won't have it.
That's all just wishful, unsupported thinking, as alpha support for resolution independence was in Tiger already, and nobody cried bloody murder when 17" PB screen had resolution increase in 2005.
(Just as 15 PB had, if you'd argue that 17 is only for true, hardcore professionals)
I can see 1680x1050 as that is sort of the tipping point between really small on a 15 and too big on a 15. With the nature of OS X and its very slim menu bars and overall more efficiency for screen space than windows (lot less big obtrusive bars) 1920x1200 would probably be very difficult to read.
Apple probably doesn't want the 15" to have a higher ppi than the 17". Therefore, we may not see a 1680*1050 15" until we have 1920*1200 17" standard.
I think they'll come with resolution independence (2009 at the earliest), as Apple may think that those resolutions are too high-ppi for general MBP users (hence the 1920*1200 option for the 17").
I doubt there's any technical restriction, just Apple trying to keep differentiation between the two MacBook Pro screen sizes.
Definitely. I consistently find I have enough horizontal resolution, but am lacking vertically.... often a bunch of vertical pixels are being unused because there's not enough space to put anything in, but it's still a very large waste. A couple hundred other pixels would make it usable, saving a lot of space.
As for Blu-Ray, pretty sure you can still watch HD on a non-HD screen, it'll just be downscaled slightly.
i doubt someone who TRUELY needs 1920x1200 is going to opt for a 15" over a 17". the fact you are typing on a 12" and find a 15" too big tells me already you don't actually need it, but rather want it. two different worlds, and apple tends to cater to the need rather than want crowd.
have to go with everyone else here.. 1680x1050 is the sweet spot for a 15".. 1920x1200 is just too far for a screen that size and i don't care for mobile solutions that big.
Well, you tell me which Apple laptop to get!
I travel a lot and also usually take my laptop to work and back home every day. Hence I really like something as small and light as possible. I used to lug a 15" WallStreet then a 15" TiBook for years, until my back and shoulder said "no" and I went with a 12" PowerBook instead. Since then I much appreciate smaller sized laptops.
However I work in 3D and use Maya, RenderMan and Shake a lot. So a 1024x768 resolution is totally useless to me. At work as well as at home I have a 23" monitor to plug my laptop in.
But this doesn't help on a train, or in a hotel or cafe as I can't lug a 23" display around.
Maya has a minimum resolution requirement of 1600x1200, and also needs a dedicated (preferably Nvidia) GPU. This basically rules out every MacBook, MacBook Air and any current 15" MacBook Pro.
Yet from past experience a 17" is not for me. That's too big and heavy. Definitely.
IMHO a high-end 13" laptop with 1920x1200 resolution and Nvida GPU would be ideal for me. I could still plug it into the 23" screens at work and home to get 'bigger pixels', but also have the ability to do some real work when I don't have access to an external monitor.
But of course such a machine does not exist, anywhere in the world.
A high-end 15" laptop with 1920x1200 resolution would probably be as far as I'm willing to compromise.
But I'm open to better suggestions!
from the sound of it, not an apple laptop.
what you want requires a 17" macbook pro, and maybe a bowflex or something.
Saying BTO option is like saying ATM machine; it's redundant, since you're repeating the last word twice (ATM machine=automated teller machine machine, BTO option=build to order option option).
I don't understand. Who would want 1920x1200 on a 17" screen? That's the native resolution on a 24" monitor; wont every thing just be too small? And the same goes for 1680x1050 on a 15" screen. I would assume that the a resolution that is native on a screen 5" bigger would make everything too small. That's just what I think, anyway. My 15.4" laptop is running at 1280x800, so that's what I'm used to.