Is there a reason why Apple won't fix the resolution?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by RiCEADDiCTBOY, Aug 19, 2009.

  1. RiCEADDiCTBOY macrumors 6502a

    RiCEADDiCTBOY

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    #1
    I know this is a mix bag of nuts with the Apple crowd, but I never really heard why Apple refuses to change the 1440 x 900 resolution on the 15". Sure some may not like the 1920 x 1200 resolution, but you can always change the resolution. Does anyone have an answer? :confused:
     
  2. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #2
    I for one would not be buying MBPs if they changed the resolution and to say we can always change it back is not an answer. LCDs have a native resolution and by using something other then that produces poor images.

    I'm happy with the current native resolutions and you really want something more, a 17" MBP or an external monitor might be better solution.
     
  3. o2xygen macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    #3
    1900x1200 on a 15"? That would pretty much make it impossible to read whats on the screen
     
  4. mousouchop macrumors 6502a

    mousouchop

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    Location:
    New York
    #4
    Would 1600x1050 or whatever work on a 15"? I don't see how that would a bad idea. haha
     
  5. occamsrazor macrumors 6502

    occamsrazor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    #5
    I have a 15" MBP, and also a 15" Dell D830 with 1920 screen... and when I am using the Mac I really miss the extra resolution of the 1920 screen. The MBP 15" feels cramped after using the 1920 screen....
     
  6. cluthz macrumors 68040

    cluthz

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Location:
    Norway
    #6
    There could be an option for 1680x1050, but I think I would choose the 1440x900 anyways.
     
  7. Dr_Maybe macrumors 6502

    Dr_Maybe

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2003
    Location:
    South America
  8. plinden macrumors 68040

    plinden

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2004
    #8
    The standard laptop passed out here at work is a Dell Latitude with 15" 1920x1200 screen. Just about everyone I see around me (I have a MBP) has reduced the resolution. It makes the UI look like crap, but it beats eyestrain headaches.

    I guess the average age among us at work is in the thirties - and as you get older, your eye sight gets worse (yes, I know, someone is going to reply that he's in his forties and has good eyesight and why should he suffer because of the rest of us.)

    With high resolution laptop screens, changing the resolution to non-native is the only option, but it's a crap option. Apple will start providing higher resolution screens when they can provider a true resolution independent OS.
     
  9. reallynotnick macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2005
    #9
    +1
    I would love a higher resolution but only if everything stayed the same size. The newer versions of Safari and FireFox do this really well as it can scale all the text and images on the screen, not just increasing the font size like on older versions. Of course you lose some sharpness in images but it is a million times better then changing the computers resolution.
     
  10. CrackedButter macrumors 68040

    CrackedButter

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    Location:
    51st State of America
    #10
    I had a 15" PowerBook years ago and the resolution is the same now as it was then. It's not enough and barely a megapixel more than the 13" MacBook. Apple should at least offer us the option to go to 1600x1050.
     
  11. sushi Moderator emeritus

    sushi

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    Location:
    キャンプスワ&#
    #11
    Non-native resolution is generally terrible with an LCD.

    Personally, I like to use a LCD display in native resolution because, as a general rule, is much clearer.

    Huh?

    13 inch MBP --> 1,280 x 800 --> 1,024,000

    15 inch MBP --> 1,440 x 900 --> 1,296,000

    The 15 inch (15.4") has 272,000 more pixels than the 13 inch (13.3").
     
  12. Michael CM1 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    #12
    Just to reiterate, the resolution isn't really a setting at the top. That's the best your display can physically do. The display has 1440 pixels horizontally and 900 pixels vertically. It physically can't do any better.

    If you want more real estate, shrink your icons and text. My 20" monitor goes up to 1680x1050, and only recently have I seen affordable monitors in that range getting 1920x1200. So I don't get your complaint. I mean the 17" MBP has a 1920x1200 display, but you also pay another $1,000 for that model. Most people don't need that, just like we don't need HD resolutions on an iPhone.
     
  13. amarcus macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Location:
    London, UK
    #13
    This would be a non-issue if apple implemented resolution independence. Like they said they would... in leopard :(
     
  14. entatlrg macrumors 68040

    entatlrg

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Location:
    Waterloo & Georgian Bay, Canada
    #14
    wouldn't buy it either ... who wants small unreadable fonts....
     
  15. kasakka macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    #15
    Exactly. I was hoping this would happen with Snow Leopard but I guess not. They really need to get this working because Windows Vista and 7 have done it really well for ages.

    I saw the 17" MBP recently and I felt everything on it was way tiny and hard to read. It would be a great, really sharp display if everything could be scaled up, but since that feature is still broken the 17" is just a bag of eye-hurt unless you have your nose stuck to the screen.
     
  16. iPhownage macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2009
    #16
    Because you can't increase font size can you?

    The resolutions on the MBP's are pathetic really. I was hoping they would have improved them but sadly not. Hopefully next time, once they secure a cheap deal with Samsung or LG. 1280*800 is not Pro. 1440*900 is not Pro.

    I believe they should keep an option like with the 17", so those with poor eyesight can still use them.

    But for those of us with good vision, I'd like some real estate and sharper images.

    It's funny how other manufacturers are able make high resolutions work. It's got to be down to margins and that's it. We all know Apple like's a good margin on its hardware...
     
  17. bolen macrumors 6502

    bolen

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2008
    Location:
    Sweden
    #17
    I can see that 1920x1200 may be a bit to much for some people, but 1680x1050 should be a given option IMO. I would most likely sell my MBP and get a new one if it comes out with a screen with a decent, high, resolution like 1680x1050 minimum.

    I don't see why there has to be a limit on the screen, just offer the larger resolution, may the price be a bit high if that's the problem.. just offer it for those who really want it.

    Sure it will make the leap to 17" seem more unnecessary for some people, but if that's the case just make the high res. screen upgrade on the 15" cost so much that it won't affect the 17" sales.

    Better to have a expensive option than no option at all.
     
  18. lixuelai macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2008
  19. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #19
    Again I have to a be a dissenter, perhaps its because of my 40+ year old eyes but I'm able to manage with the current resolution, anything higher would be unusable for me.

    If apple has this as an add on option, then that would satisfy both groups, people like me would get a stock model, with the 1440x900 and others can "upgrade" to 1680x1050
     
  20. TBi macrumors 68030

    TBi

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #20
    Better Quality?

    I think the screen on my 15" MBP is much better quality than my Dell 15" 1650x1080 screen. Much better blacks, brightness, colours and viewing angles.

    Maybe apple are waiting for manufacturers to release better quality high resolution screens before degrading image quality for higher resolution.

    Just a thought.

    As for people reducing resolution on high resolution 15" screens on windows laptops, please tell these people to return to native res and change the DPI settings. This way you get big icons and text but keep the clarity of the screen.
     
  21. CrackedButter macrumors 68040

    CrackedButter

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    Location:
    51st State of America
    #21
    Sorry I used the wrong word. Thanks for doing the math though, I should have just done it to begin with.

    I like this theory, but I also hate this as an idea now because it means we've been waiting a long time for manufacturers to do this.
     
  22. the vj macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2006
    #22
    You can use ResX, is an small application that offers you more native resolutions other than the ones offered by the control panel. You can even create your own resolutions. Try that.
     
  23. TBi macrumors 68030

    TBi

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #23
    You can only have one native resolution. That's why it's called native.
     
  24. DGaio macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    #24
    I don't think the problem is Apple not wanting to upgrade the resolution on the panels, but the lack of 15" 1680x1050 LED panels might be the reason why they won't upgrade. The main providers LG and Samsung as of yet don't have 15" 1680x1050 LED panels.
     
  25. sushi Moderator emeritus

    sushi

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    Location:
    キャンプスワ&#
    #25
    Exactly.

    There can only be one native resolution for an LCD display.
     

Share This Page