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

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by neteng101, Sep 6, 2009.

  1. neteng101 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2009
    #1
    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?
     
  2. zw-gator macrumors 6502a

    zw-gator

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2005
    Location:
    Canada
    #2
    It's too high for most people.

    The res that are on both the 13" and 15" are at the sweetspot IMO
     
  3. bloodycape macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2005
    Location:
    California
    #3
    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.
     
  4. -Ryan- macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #4
    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.
     
  5. UltraNEO* macrumors 601

    UltraNEO*

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    Location:
    近畿日本
    #5
    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
     
  6. shambo macrumors 6502a

    shambo

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2009
    #6
    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.
     
  7. JML42691 macrumors 68020

    JML42691

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    #7
    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.
     
  8. UltraNEO* macrumors 601

    UltraNEO*

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    Location:
    近畿日本
    #8
    Speaking of expensive, have you seen those 11" OLED panels that Sony make? They're selling for $2.1K!!! :eek:

    http://www.amazon.com/Sony-XEL-1-11-Inch-OLED-Digital/dp/B00126W14O
     
  9. Buskape macrumors 6502

    Buskape

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    NGC 4889
    #9
    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.
     
  10. Gabriel GR macrumors 6502a

    Gabriel GR

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2009
    Location:
    Athens, Greece
    #10
    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.
     
  11. airplaneman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #11
    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.:)
     
  12. dlhuss macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2009
    #12
    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.
     
  13. neteng101 thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2009
    #13
    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.
     
  14. antskip macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2009
    Location:
    Australia
    #14
    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...
     
  15. Gabriel GR macrumors 6502a

    Gabriel GR

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2009
    Location:
    Athens, Greece
    #15
    Exactly. After years of adjusting ppi only to get menu-hell in windows I 've compromised.
     
  16. The Final Cut macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    #16
    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:
     
  17. Azmordean macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Location:
    Silicon Valley
    #17
    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.
     
  18. dejo Moderator

    dejo

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Location:
    The Centennial State
    #18
    Running a screen on anything other than native resolution is dumb.
     
  19. airplaneman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #19
    Harsh dude:(, no need for that.

    Anyway...

    Anyone think that screens in the future will be more tolerant on un-native resolutions (handle them better)?
     
  20. Meever macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2009
    #20
    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.
     
  21. kasakka macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    #21
    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.
     
  22. antskip macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2009
    Location:
    Australia
    #22
    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.
     

Share This Page