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

Hi-Res Screens In 13" and 15" MBP Someday?

N

neteng101

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jan 7, 2009
1,148
163
Anyone thinks there's a chance we'll see them? While everyone argues about matte vs. glossy, I'm perfectly happy with glossy but I'm always wanting a higher resolution.

IMO only one MBP has the right screen resolution for its size - the 17" with the 1920x1280.

I'd love to see a higher resolution option for the 13" and 15" MBPs...

13" with 1440x900 (15" resolution)

15" with 1680x1050 (a step up but under 17" resolution)

The extra vertical resolution is especially useful as the dock takes up room and I'm generally used to hi-res displays on PC laptops. I'd rather see a 1440x900 type screen 14" or smaller form factor.

Wondering if there are others who'd like such an option?
 
It's too high for most people.

The res that are on both the 13" and 15" are at the sweetspot IMO
 
I would think Apple would offer than as an options since many of this 13in(or 14in) rivals offer 1440x900 or from what I have seen the more common 1600x900 as an option. Only down fall to the higher res is would be in gaming, as it can slow down some gaming if you up the res and lowering the res of the game wouldn't look to good. At least that is what Im reading from people who do gaming on a machine with 1600x900 and nvidia 9300/9400 based gpu on a 13in and even on 14in machines.
 
Having very high resolutions on a small screen is not a particularly good idea, as most people would just want to reduce it. Reducing it would also reduce the picture clarity. What I'd really love is the full resolution independence we've been promised for years! Maybe 10.7.
 
neteng101 said:
Anyone thinks there's a chance we'll see them? While everyone argues about matte vs. glossy, I'm perfectly happy with glossy but I'm always wanting a higher resolution.

IMO only one MBP has the right screen resolution for its size - the 17" with the 1920x1280.

I'd love to see a higher resolution option for the 13" and 15" MBPs...

13" with 1440x900 (15" resolution)

15" with 1680x1050 (a step up but under 17" resolution)

The extra vertical resolution is especially useful as the dock takes up room and I'm generally used to hi-res displays on PC laptops. I'd rather see a 1440x900 type screen 14" or smaller form factor.

Wondering if there are others who'd like such an option?
Click to expand...

There's no reason why you can't shop around online for the parts and mod it yourself. It'll only cost as much as you pay for the parts, plus a few hours of your time - could be fun!!

I wish my 17" MBP would have a higher resolution, preferably 1920 by 1200... maybe i'll mod it myself. I've seen those panels going for about $200
 
The resolution of the 17 on the 15 would be the sweet spot, for me at least, however I could never see it on the 13" as it would just look silly on such a small screen and be too expensive anyway.
 
For me I am perfectly fine with the resolution on my 13" MacBook, but I would love to see a customizable option for the MacBook as I know that some could use it. It would be a much welcomed option to have.
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
I would love a 1440x900 resolution on the 13 inch mbp! It would be very usefull to me as i am more used to higher resolutions.
 
Without much experience with such a panel I think I would like 1440x900 on the 13.3. Although anything higher than 1680x1050 for the 15.4 is a nightmare for my eyes. I used a friends Dell Precision with the 1920x1200 15.4 and it was really tiresome.
 
Well, you can always hide your dock ;).

Also, I would love to see higher resolution screens. If people don't want the higher resolution, all they need to do is change the settings.:)
 
neteng101 said:
...
I'd love to see a higher resolution option for the 13" and 15" MBPs...

13" with 1440x900 (15" resolution)

15" with 1680x1050 (a step up but under 17" resolution)

The extra vertical resolution is especially useful as the dock takes up room and I'm generally used to hi-res displays on PC laptops. I'd rather see a 1440x900 type screen 14" or smaller form factor.

Wondering if there are others who'd like such an option?
Click to expand...

If they did offer them, I'd be in on a 13". But until they do, IMHO, the only Apple laptop worthy of the pro designation is the 17" at 1920x1200.

BTW, hide your dock and use Firefox and slim down those horrid fat mac menu bars with Stylish and some "Styles". Slide quicklinks between the address bar and search field and lose the bookmark toolbar.
 
I doubt if any panel could look as good as it does at its native resolution thus the hi-res will have to be an option vs. a standard. And not so high that we'd all be squinting but a step up in the resolution scale should work since there are already machines out there at those resolutions/screen sizes.

Oh well - I suppose one can hope. I love the screen resolution of the 15" and the form factor of the 13".

P/S - both my laptops before the 15" uMBP were 14" PC ones @1440x900 and @1400x1050.
 
Gabriel GR said:
Without much experience with such a panel I think I would like 1440x900 on the 13.3. Although anything higher than 1680x1050 for the 15.4 is a nightmare for my eyes. I used a friends Dell Precision with the 1920x1200 15.4 and it was really tiresome.
Click to expand...
If you get tired eyes from a screen that has higher pixel density, all that means is that the software has not (or can't-though less likely!) has not been adjusted to suit the hardware and the user. Once adjusted to suitable settings, eye strain is in every case less the higher the density of pixels on a screen. Simply, lower pixelation means less work for the eyes, all other things beings equal. There is no screen resolution or density suited to one screen size and not to others; only screens with less and higher density -i.e. fewer or more pixels per inch. Configuring software to properly use the densities is another matter...
 
antskip said:
If you get tired eyes from a screen that has higher pixel density, all that means is that the software has not (or can't-though less likely!) has not been adjusted to suit the hardware and the user. Once adjusted to suitable settings, eye strain is in every case less the higher the density of pixels on a screen. Simply, lower pixelation means less work for the eyes, all other things beings equal. There is no screen resolution or density suited to one screen size and not to others; only screens with less and higher density -i.e. fewer or more pixels per inch. Configuring software to properly use the densities is another matter...
Click to expand...

Exactly. After years of adjusting ppi only to get menu-hell in windows I 've compromised.
 
Yes as options only because they would be difficult and pointless to the average user. You would not really be apple to notice a major differnce on such a small screen (besides real estate on the desktop) anyway. How bout 2560 x 1600 on the nano though.:eek:
 
The Final Cut said:
Yes as options only because they would be difficult and pointless to the average user. You would not really be apple to notice a major differnce on such a small screen (besides real estate on the desktop) anyway. How bout 2560 x 1600 on the nano though.:eek:
Click to expand...

That is the entire point! I'd strongly consider a 13" if it had 1440x900. The resolution it ships with though makes multitasking mighty difficult.
 
Azmordean said:
That is the entire point! I'd strongly consider a 13" if it had 1440x900. The resolution it ships with though makes multitasking mighty difficult.
Click to expand...

I don't understand. If you're going to have a lot of windows/programs/etc opened and need to see them all wouldn't you also want the extra display to be larger as well?

A 15 inch can use a little bump maybe.... but I think if they were going to offer HD then I think they should give it to the 17'. 1920x1080 would be excellent for all the pros out there who work with a lot of high def footages or raws.
 
First we need resolution independency. I feel that text is way too tiny on the 17" MBP already. If the UI and text could be scaled like it can on Windows there would be no problem and the higher pixel density would mean sharper images and better looking fonts.

The 13" could easily have a bigger display fitted in it I think. The 17" has a pretty small bezel by comparison so maybe a 14" display without making the laptop bigger could fit in the 13" chassis. This would help cope with a higher resolution without DPI scaling. Of course, marketing the 15" would become more difficult since it'd be only one inch bigger...

As for HD..the 17" already does that. But it also has higher vertical resolution which is more useful in most apps. If you ask me, 1920x1080 resolution should be left for TVs and not computer displays.
 
Meever said:
I don't understand. If you're going to have a lot of windows/programs/etc opened and need to see them all wouldn't you also want the extra display to be larger as well?
Click to expand...
Some (like myself) choose higher HD screens primarily for clarity of image, not greater real estate (we chose bigger screens for that). For clarity of image/text, PPI rules - so WUXGA on 15.4" is significantly clearer/denser than WUXGA on 17", which is equivalent to the PPI of the old 15" UXGA. But 17" WUXGA still has superior PPI than 15.4" WSXGA+. The advantage of 17" WUXGA over 15.4" WUXGA is considerably more real estate, not density of image. Compared to 15.4" WSXGA+ (and of course all other less dense 15.4" screens), 17" WUXGA has superior density as well as real estate. The other restrictor is portability - along with the choice of OS. Several Linux distros are excellent with HD screens. Vista is average, but configurable; as is XP.

It is a bit like the question of "why an SSD?". The primary reason for choice varies.
 
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