How do you all view the possibility that there will be higher resolution screens for the 15 inch MBP coming out at MWSF? Something like 1600x1000 would be good, and higher resolution would be even better. I always found it odd that the 17 inch had the option of a high resolution screen, with many more pixels per square inch than the standard one, while there's only one low resolution version for the 15 inch one.
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.
Higher resolution screen for 15" MBP at Macworld?
- Thread starter macbook123
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I highly doubt they will upgrade it again in such a small amount of time.
Many people would be very furious.
Many people would be very furious.
It would likely be 1680x1050, the same as the old 17" MacBook Pro.
To answer your question: Maybe.
If I buy now, I hope they don't for a while. If I decide to wait (the main reason would be for a higher resolution display), I hope they do it at MWSF.
If they just made it a $100 BTO option, I doubt they'd have too much outrage. Some frustration, sure, but it wouldn't be too bad.
I'm thinking more of the high resolution version as an option, at $100 or so extra (as used to be the case with the 17 inch version before they made the high-res screen standard).
i really doubt it, which sucks. i always planned on buying a 17" but then no 17" redesign came around (yet) so i was like hm ok i'll get a 15" but the resolution is too low. even my sisters cheap 15" dell has higher resolution, so back to waiting for a 17 i go!
In the last notebook refresh, what was the rational behind the only HD option (1920x1200 BTO on the 17")? Why didn't the 15.4" get its equivalent (1680x1080)? Both are "Pros" so they should get the same treatment, right?
Unless I read wrongly, wasn't Snow Leopard touted to bring full (as opposed to partial today) resolution independence to Mac OS X? 10.6 is expected around 6/09, or maybe 10/09 to coincide with whatever notebook refresh is due around that time. (Sep is ipod refresh month, Oct is notebook's).
Does that mean HD will be standard (or BTO) on or after 10/09? It can't be before 10/09 right? As Apple won't make users suffer the small print from too high a DPI.
If you sniff around sites specializing in LCDs, you'll see there's is no cost difference between a 1440x900 15.4" and a 1680x1050 15.4".
From a risk perspective, I can understand Apple wants to introduce as little new variable as possible (their LCDs are getting LED-backlit in the current timeframe). But if so, how does one explain the HD option on the 17" in the last refresh???
(Disclosure: I'm biased against Apple in this regard as I'm eyeing the new MBP, and if it has 1680x1050 on the 15.4", it will be 100% (as opposed to 95% now) attractive to me.)
Unless I read wrongly, wasn't Snow Leopard touted to bring full (as opposed to partial today) resolution independence to Mac OS X? 10.6 is expected around 6/09, or maybe 10/09 to coincide with whatever notebook refresh is due around that time. (Sep is ipod refresh month, Oct is notebook's).
Does that mean HD will be standard (or BTO) on or after 10/09? It can't be before 10/09 right? As Apple won't make users suffer the small print from too high a DPI.
If you sniff around sites specializing in LCDs, you'll see there's is no cost difference between a 1440x900 15.4" and a 1680x1050 15.4".
From a risk perspective, I can understand Apple wants to introduce as little new variable as possible (their LCDs are getting LED-backlit in the current timeframe). But if so, how does one explain the HD option on the 17" in the last refresh???
(Disclosure: I'm biased against Apple in this regard as I'm eyeing the new MBP, and if it has 1680x1050 on the 15.4", it will be 100% (as opposed to 95% now) attractive to me.)
+1. I had the 17" Hi res model and although the higher resolution looked good initially, after a few days of using it all day at work I ended up using an external monitor more than the standard screen because it was easier on the eyes.
Hi res option would be nice for those who require it, but I'm happy with the standard res + external output for the time being.
I had a 15" Toshiba laptop, with 1600 x 1200 res - and I LOVED it.
I would pay $100 more for a 1680 x 1050 screen on the MBP.
Just provide it as an option - it's LONG overdue.
there are 1680 x 1050 and 1920 x 1200 panels for the 15" form factor, but I don't think they are LED-backlit
Anything higher than 1440x900 is unbearable to read. I remember having a Dell Inspiron 8600 with 1600x1200 and it was painful to read anything on the screen. It was amazing to view photos and the amount of real estate on the screen is awesome but horrible for practical use.
I still think Apple should offer the higher resolution as BTO since the cost of 1440x900 LCD is same as the higher resolution LCD and it could bring additional profits to Apple...
But then again, Apple is all about simplicity
I still think Apple should offer the higher resolution as BTO since the cost of 1440x900 LCD is same as the higher resolution LCD and it could bring additional profits to Apple...
But then again, Apple is all about simplicity
I thought 'resolution independence' was promised in Leopard?!
It's there and can be enabled via the terminal, but a lot of apps do not scale well. For now it is essential useless.
This is one of my top hopes for Snow Leopard.
Agreed... typing from a 3 year old 15" laptop with a 1680x1050 screen..... 1440x900 is just ridiculous.
Putting in my .02...
I've got older eyes than most of the contributors on this web site - and can honestly say that my 15" MBP with a modded 1920 x 1200 screen is very easy to read. Anybody who says that at this resolution, or more accurately, pixel density, text is too small - I offer this:
The pixel density is almost as dense as the iPhone - that's right it's less dense than the iPhone. I can see the difference when I run the iPhone simulator on my 15" 1920x1200 MBP and compare it to the actual size of the iPhone running nearby.
Now - are iPhone fonts so small it makes it unusable? No - and most of the fonts on the iPhone appear smaller than the appearance of anything on the MPB. You've got to see it to believe it. The crispness of the higher density of pixels is very easy on my eyes.
It's for that reason I won't upgrade my Merom MBP until Apple either offers the option, or someone figures out how to hack the new models with a high res screen.
I've got older eyes than most of the contributors on this web site - and can honestly say that my 15" MBP with a modded 1920 x 1200 screen is very easy to read. Anybody who says that at this resolution, or more accurately, pixel density, text is too small - I offer this:
The pixel density is almost as dense as the iPhone - that's right it's less dense than the iPhone. I can see the difference when I run the iPhone simulator on my 15" 1920x1200 MBP and compare it to the actual size of the iPhone running nearby.
Now - are iPhone fonts so small it makes it unusable? No - and most of the fonts on the iPhone appear smaller than the appearance of anything on the MPB. You've got to see it to believe it. The crispness of the higher density of pixels is very easy on my eyes.
It's for that reason I won't upgrade my Merom MBP until Apple either offers the option, or someone figures out how to hack the new models with a high res screen.