How much extra screen space 15 vs 13

mac-jam

macrumors member
Original poster
May 25, 2015
94
13
How much extra screen space do you get on a 15 vs 13 and how practical and useful is it in real life terms from your experiences?
 

Howard2k

macrumors 68030
Mar 10, 2016
2,900
2,158
An extra 2 inches diagonally.

Practical and useful totally depends how you're using it. Some will say yes, some will say no.

How are you planning on using it?
 

deeddawg

macrumors G3
Jun 14, 2010
8,963
2,773
US
Best thing is go see and use them in-store.

Technically you get 2.1" diagonally - 15.4 vs 13.3.

Working out the dimensions it appears you get about 34% more screen real estate on the 15.4".
"2560-by-1600 native resolution at 227 pixels per inch" vs "2880-by-1800 native resolution at 220 pixels per inch"
 

nerowolfe19

macrumors member
Aug 16, 2018
93
34
Holy smoke. The 2018 15's is the Lexus grille of trackpads.

15 might be more suitable if you're an older guy.
 

deeddawg

macrumors G3
Jun 14, 2010
8,963
2,773
US
Holy smoke. The 2018 15's is the Lexus grille of trackpads.

15 might be more suitable if you're an older guy.
*shrug* it's about the same size as Magic Trackpad 2 -- which I've been using for quite a while -- so for *this* older guy it works just fine.
 

macagain

macrumors 6502
Jan 1, 2002
293
89
Depends on what resolution you run it at, and what you're doing... The max res on the 15 is 1920x1200, on the 13 it is 1680x1050. I have a 15 and I run it at 1920x1200 when I'm coding and the extra space is handy for working in multiple windows at the same time, at 1680x1050 other times, and at 1440x900 when I'm just on the couch surfing the web (cos my eyes are what they used to be).
 

frou

macrumors 6502a
Mar 14, 2009
798
878
Programming with two 80-character-wide editor windows is cramped on the 13" but fine on the 15".

(Personally I won't use any Scaled (downsampled) mode because the image quality is worse than native and it saps performance a bit)
 

nerowolfe19

macrumors member
Aug 16, 2018
93
34
*shrug* it's about the same size as Magic Trackpad 2 -- which I've been using for quite a while -- so for *this* older guy it works just fine.
I have a 21" external monitor that works fine for me too, doesn't mean I want it on my MBP. You happen to like it and there's nothing wrong with that. Many actually do.

I... don't, for obvious reasons. The larger surface area is more or less superfluous. And, unlike external devices usage where palm rejection isn't a problem, in MBP's case it is, however occasional it might be. I happen to like to rest my hands on my laptop while typing 100% of the time without getting annoyed or thinking about it, hence the pet peeve.

It wasn't broke, and Apple tried to fix it. Beats me why, but wouldn't surprise me one but if it was for patenting palm rejection and such.
 

Abaganov

macrumors 6502
Jun 30, 2016
369
237
as the saying goes, it's not about the size, it's about how you use It ;)

for me personally even tho the 13" is smaller I find myself working much more efficiently on that smaller screen as everything is more focused and less spread out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PhilMacbook

jerryk

macrumors 603
Nov 3, 2011
5,836
2,937
SF Bay Area
Way too much of a personal choice to decide without getting hands on. Go to an Apple Store. They usually have the 13 and 15 displayed side by side, or will set that up for you in the business area.

I can tell you I walked into the store dead set on getting a 13". I walked out with a 15".

Partly because the 15" was not as much bigger. But, also because by the time you get to 512GB SSD and 16 GB memory on the 13" you are getting close to the price of the 15" pre-configured with these sizes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: frou

Abaganov

macrumors 6502
Jun 30, 2016
369
237
Way too much of a personal choice to decide without getting hands on. Go to an Apple Store. They usually have the 13 and 15 displayed side by side, or will set that up for you in the business area.

I can tell you I walked into the store dead set on getting a 13". I walked out with a 15".

Partly because the 15" was not as much bigger. But, also because by the time you get to 512GB SSD and 16 GB memory on the 13" you are getting close to the price of the 15" pre-configured with these sizes.

it's a good advice but word of warning regarding checking them in the store. it will not be the same as checking out in your own home. at the store the 13" looked like a toy next to the 15" and I was totally sold on the 15" size. brought it home and it felt way too big and awkward for me to use at the sofa, bed, etc. return it and got the 13" and couldn't be happier with the decision.
 

1050792

macrumors Demi-God
Oct 2, 2016
2,515
3,989
13” just feels like you’re looking at a small block and everything is so tiny, the 15” is the sweet spot for most use casee with more screen real estate.
 

buran-energia

macrumors 6502
Oct 9, 2017
274
96
Programming with two 80-character-wide editor windows is cramped on the 13" but fine on the 15".

(Personally I won't use any Scaled (downsampled) mode because the image quality is worse than native and it saps performance a bit)
"native" depends on the model (e.g., different on 2015 and 2016, even though the screen itself has the same resolution).
 

frou

macrumors 6502a
Mar 14, 2009
798
878
"native" depends on the model (e.g., different on 2015 and 2016, even though the screen itself has the same resolution).
Well if we're getting picky, I'd call that "default", not native.

The 12" MacBook has it even worse. They've specced a panel that would be the borderline unacceptabley cramped 1152x720 equivalent if it was run crisply native. So they're downsampling OOTB just to make their component choice even acceptable.

Apple is supposed to be a company that crafts their products to perfection. Any time they're using non-native resolutions and downsampling, they're blowing it!
 

Ma2k5

macrumors 68020
Dec 21, 2012
2,465
2,366
London
as the saying goes, it's not about the size, it's about how you use It ;)

for me personally even tho the 13" is smaller I find myself working much more efficiently on that smaller screen as everything is more focused and less spread out.
Until you have an IDE and other applications that you need to use in tandem. That is literally impossible on 13", trust me, I tried many times :), you end up just having to switch apps rather than have them side by side.
 

Abaganov

macrumors 6502
Jun 30, 2016
369
237
Until you have an IDE and other applications that you need to use in tandem. That is literally impossible on 13", trust me, I tried many times :), you end up just having to switch apps rather than have them side by side.
well yeah if you need multiple apps open on the screen at once, then 13" is not your machine ( if you need it on a go and can't connect to an external monitor)
 

Cozmosis

macrumors member
Mar 2, 2011
77
16
Baltimore, MD
It’s a tough call, IMO and one I’m still somewhat wrestling with.

The 13”, IMO is blurry at 1680x1050, the max scaled but looks good at 1440. The 15” on the other hand can scale all the way up to 1900x1200 and be perfectly legible and crisp.

1440x900 vs 1900x1200 is a sizable jump.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.