This discussion about screen res is quite opportune. Myself and a work colleague have been loaned new 15" Toshiba laptops to play with Vista and Office 2007. The native screen res is 1680 x 1050 - we have both had to adjust our screen profiles to a lower resolution (which is a bit less that the MBP native res) in order to avoid squinting and peering at the screen. The view therefore is that we would be paying for some functionality we can't use. The lower native res of the MBP is therefore far more acceptable. I would criticise Apple's laptop screens from the point of view of their ability to display colours eg if you use a coloured background for alternate rows in an Excel spreadsheet it doesn't show up very well on Apple machines but does on the Tosh.
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.
I'm sorry but Apple has to do something about this...
- Thread starter kjs862
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I agree that a higher res screen would have been nice, but thing is it doesn't exist. 1440x900 is the highest res 15.4' screen out there with LED backlighting. All of the high res screens other people use are CCFL backlit.
As long as the MBP can power an external monitor with a decent resolution than I'm happy, which is the case at the moment.
High resolution on a 15" screen would simply be unworkable.
High resolution on a 15" screen would simply be unworkable.
Yes, this is probably the key issue even more than a lack of full resolution independence in OS X.
No - we're asking for the OPTION. You can have your 1440 x 900. I'd pay more for a 1680x or even 1920x screen on a 15" MBP. Even 1440 on an MB would be good.
The argument is somehwhat moot from me however, as I have no intention of buying any Mac laptop at the moment. The price increase, the glossy screen, the display adaptors required, the lack of FW400, BR etc etc etc. I don't want any of the current Mac laptop line sadly. Lack of higher res screens is just one further reason I don't want one.
Doug
It isn't. I've used 1600x1200 on a 15" display - it was awesome. It might not suit you - that's fine - but Apple need to start offering people what they want (a lower res for you, a higher res for those that want it ) instead of dictating to people what it decides they want.
Doug
Then you don't understand color gamuts or what real "color representation" is. The gamut on a laptop display is severely limited compared to a desktop display. Further, since TN panels used in laptops can only use 6 bits for color, they can display far fewer colors without dithering.
If you just want to play around and pretend in Photoshop, a laptop display is fineso is 1440x900. If you're doing real work in Photoshop, you need an external display. Even a $200 or $300 external display will be far better than any laptop panel.
I'm not arguing that Apple shouldn't have an option for a higher-resolution display; I'd buy one if it was available. I'm just pointing out that the Photoshop argument is facetious.
Thanks for clarifying. Just doing some quick online search I couldn't find the reason why the gamut is limited in a laptop. Would you mind clarifying further? Does it have to do with the fact that laptop screens are thinner? Also, do you know why only TN screens can be put in? Thanks in advance!
It's not an case of Apple not giving you the option. They don't have a factory full of 1920x1080 15.4' LED backlit LCD's they are sitting on out of spite. LG and the other panel operators just don't make the product. Simple as that. LG can't sell to Apple, so Apple can't sell to you.
The only alternatives would be go back to CCFL's.
Who cares about any screen resolution, it's a freaking Dell, that should disqualify it from even being mentioned in the same sentence as Apple. 