I wait with bated breath for new Mac gear and everything in our house that passes data around was either designed in Cupertino or runs Linux. But today's crop of Macbook Pros seems a little puzzling to me. The main area of concern for me is screen resolution. A coworker in the next cube has a piece o'crap HP notebook that has 1920 x 1080 native resolution. That's right, 1080p on a notebook. In my arrogance, I said wait while I check the new Macbook Pros. They should clean your clock! Or perhaps not. The 13 in. model comes in at a lowly 1200 x 800 resolution with no option for more pixels. Even if you shell out for extra pixels on the 15 inch model, you never make it to 1080 vertical. You only get to 1600 x 1050. How'd they come up with 1050? Lastly if you shell out for the 17 inch model you finally get (beyond) 1080p. Well kiss my grits. I can shell out $2500 for an Apple notebook that manages to beat the resolution of a $1300 hp box in the next cube. Aren't 1080p displays rather commonplace these days? When I go looking at monitors, almost every one is 1080p, even the $159 ones. I'm not normally one to harshly judge Apple but when considering what to replace my aging Penryn Macbook that is reaching the end of its AppleCare, I am perplexed by the options available from Apple. Intel graphics? Really? I've gotta go to the midrange models to get ATI? Really? What I'm in the market for are pixels. I want 4000 x 3000 if I can get it. Oh well. While Thunderbolt is promising and I could use more storage, I wonder if I should simply pop in a 500 gig drive in my Macbook and sit out this round of upgrades? I'll take a look at the local Apple store and see what I think after I've had a chance to play with one hands on. I do rather like the unibody enclosure and I love the new CPU selections but I'm a little disappointed by the assortment of medium resolution (mostly) glossy displays available on this year's crop of Macbook Pro models.