Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
You know, I checked out the 1920 17" and it was just barely too small for me... the 1680 ag looked ok.. but the glossy actually seemed easier to read. Weird.

The issue is - I might occasionally need to tether to a camera outside... :/

OTOH, the 1440 glossy looked just fine (used to it from my old mbp). I'd have to really go down and double check the screens again.. I've always gone AG, but now I'm starting to think the glossy = easier reading (when no overhead or rear lighting).
 
I think the hi res sucks!!! Some of the icons are so small in Final Cut Express, the mouse arrow can't click on them!!!!!!!!!!! :mad:
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

Beyondthought said:
I think the hi res sucks!!! Some of the icons are so small in Final Cut Express, the mouse arrow can't click on them!!!!!!!!!!! :mad:

You realize this thread was made when the 2010 MBP was released. To your opinion on the hi res screen. I personally couldn't use a screen with a resolution any lower,personally I would love the resolution to be increased a little bit higher as the keep the brilliant aspect ratio on the MBP.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.