Hi Res 15in coming?

[iMacmatician]

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.

1. Higher resolution
2. Despite the high resolution, things aren't "too small" (or at least the small size is outweighted by the increased resolution)

That's just what I think, anyway. My 15.4" laptop is running at 1280x800, so that's what I'm used to.

My iBook is 14" 1024·768 and I'm used to it. But its pixels are fairly large. I'd get 1280·960 or maybe even 1600·1200 on that display if I was given the choice. Even consumer apps like iLife and iWork don't play well with 1024·768.

from the sound of it, not an apple laptop. what you want requires a 17" macbook pro, and maybe a bowflex or something.

Since when does it "require" a 17" MacBook Pro? There's no difference between the 15" and 17" versions except for the screen size, screen resolution, and a few ports (and a BTO HD option). The screen resolution difference can be solved with a 15" 1920·1200, which is available, it's just that Apple's not using it.

 

[Firefly2002]

I almost feel like emailing Steve...... "Dear Steve... give the new 15" MBP 1680x1050, or I'll kick you. Thanks."

 

[eXan]

1920 on a 15" would be a suicide. At this resolution on a 17" MBP I have to put my eyes at about 30 cm from the screen to read text or see details in photos. I can't imagine how impossible it would be on a 15"

 

[Firefly2002]

1920 on a 15" would be a suicide. At this resolution on a 17" MBP I have to put my eyes at about 30 cm from the screen to read text or see details in photos. I can't imagine how impossible it would be on a 15"

Yeah. 1900x1200 would be great on the 20" iMac... not so much the 15" MBP =x

 

[ThunderRobot]

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).

Actually in this instance, saying BTO option isn't redundant repetition. (O standing for order, not option). Instead it's meaningful repetition for the sake of emphasis, hence why the word order was highlighted.

It was used to make a point – a point which many seem unable to grasp.

The people in this thread who are advocating the use of a high-resolution panel aren’t demanding it, they aren’t saying it’s the only solution and they aren’t dismissing everyone who disagrees. Instead they (we) are asking for parity with users of other machines with similar specifications.

We’re saying that a high-resolution panel would be advantageous to us, because of circumstance, work-flow or general usability. We’re saying that the option of such a panel would be a good thing. We understand there would be trade-offs with regards to size and we're ok with that.

Those who are happy with their current panel appear quite militant in their objections to the possible inclusion of a high-resolution panel as an option. I’ve seen it described as a ‘gimmick’ and ‘suicide’. Both are clearly over-the-top exaggerations (technically that’s more repetition jpmittins) which miss the point that the current resolutions could continue to be offered giving people the choice.

 

[ivid]

are there any hi-res 15" LED screens being made yet?

i really really want a hi-res screen in a 15" body, and have been waiting for apple to offer that for a while... it is a great mystery to me, why apple who has a huge mkt share in laptops among graphics/photo/video professionals, doesnt offer a 1680x1050 or 1920x1200 resolution in 15" MBP's...

anyhow, im still hoping that the new MBP will have at least a 1680x1050 option, BUT after reading the threads on modding 15" to a 1920x1200 res screen i realized that we may have a problem... are there any 15" LED screens that are being manufactured yet that support those higher-res? I know there are LCD screens with that resolution, but given apple's push into LED technology, if there are no LED screens on the market right now -- i doubt apple will roll back to an older technology to give us higher-res option...

again, im no expert on this, and didnt really do much research on 15" LED screens availability.

 

[204467]

Actually in this instance, saying BTO option isn't redundant repetition. (O standing for order, not option). Instead it's meaningful repetition for the sake of emphasis, hence why the word order was highlighted.

It was used to make a point – a point which many seem unable to grasp.

The people in this thread who are advocating the use of a high-resolution panel aren’t demanding it, they aren’t saying it’s the only solution and they aren’t dismissing everyone who disagrees. Instead they (we) are asking for parity with users of other machines with similar specifications.

We’re saying that a high-resolution panel would be advantageous to us, because of circumstance, work-flow or general usability. We’re saying that the option of such a panel would be a good thing. We understand there would be trade-offs with regards to size and we're ok with that.

Those who are happy with their current panel appear quite militant in their objections to the possible inclusion of a high-resolution panel as an option. I’ve seen it described as a ‘gimmick’ and ‘suicide’. Both are clearly over-the-top exaggerations (technically that’s more repetition jpmittins) which miss the point that the current resolutions could continue to be offered giving people the choice.

I didn't know BTO could stand for Build To Order. My apologies.

 

[Firefly2002]

Actually in this instance, saying BTO option isn't redundant repetition. (O standing for order, not option). Instead it's meaningful repetition for the sake of emphasis, hence why the word order was highlighted.

It was used to make a point – a point which many seem unable to grasp.

The people in this thread who are advocating the use of a high-resolution panel aren’t demanding it, they aren’t saying it’s the only solution and they aren’t dismissing everyone who disagrees. Instead they (we) are asking for parity with users of other machines with similar specifications.

We’re saying that a high-resolution panel would be advantageous to us, because of circumstance, work-flow or general usability. We’re saying that the option of such a panel would be a good thing. We understand there would be trade-offs with regards to size and we're ok with that.

Those who are happy with their current panel appear quite militant in their objections to the possible inclusion of a high-resolution panel as an option. I’ve seen it described as a ‘gimmick’ and ‘suicide’. Both are clearly over-the-top exaggerations (technically that’s more repetition jpmittins) which miss the point that the current resolutions could continue to be offered giving people the choice.

That's nicely said.

I didn't know BTO could stand for Build To Order. My apologies.

I'm fairly certain that that's all it stands for.