Oh, really? How?You can make stuff bigger in OSX too..
(and don't say increase the font size in editors).
right back at ya
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.
Isn't the resolution on the 15" low?
- Thread starter tofagerl
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
(and don't say increase the font size in editors).
right back at yaI think the example of the 17" MBP shows that there is clear demand for higher resolution screens. They used to offer 1680x1050 on the 17" MBP which is 117ppi, still higher than the current 13" and 15" screens (113 and 110 ppi, respectively, at least according to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_displays_by_pixel_density). After the option for the higher resolution screen was introduced customer preference became pretty clear as Apple dropped the low resolution option and made the higher res standard. If the 132ppi of the 17" screen is too small for the vast majority (or even significant portion) of the people as some people claim, why did they stop offering the low res option? I think it would be safe to say that sales of the low res option was low enough that it was not justifiable to keep producing that model. If high-res was successful on the 17", why would it not be successful on the smaller sizes as well?
Ruahrc
Ruahrc
I think they should up the res on the 15in to 1600x900 at least. I may not have the best eyes, but I don't need glasses either and I didn't have a problem with the 1600x900 res on the 13.1in Sony Vaio Z(only PC screen I find that equals or best the MBP) when I saw it in person. Most of the Z owners who game prefer the lower standard res for gaming but for everything the higher res screen is better from what I read.
It would be nice if Apple gave us that res on the 13in MBP as an option.
It would be nice if Apple gave us that res on the 13in MBP as an option.
Oh, really? How?
(and don't say increase the font size in editors).
In Finder, etc, View, Options, Text Size?
That will only change Finder text size. It is not a substitute for resolution independence at all. Icons, most text (unless the program has specific settings for that) etc won't scale at all without it.
High pixel density displays are good only if the UI can be scaled to a comfortable size. I find that the 17" @ 1920x1200 is already too hard to read with normal size fonts. So until OSX truly becomes resolution independent (10.7?) I don't think Apple will raise the resolutions.
Yeah, it's a bit retarded. The 17" has 133 pixels per inch, it became so popular that they scrapped the 1680x1050 option and made 1920x1200 standard. I wanted the 15" but had to buy the slightly non-portable 17" in order to avoid the 'handicap' screen... there are quite a few at my office who are reluctantly lugging the 17" behemoth around due to this issue. Sure, there are external screens but what's the point of a laptop if you don't use it standalone some of the time?
The funny thing is that even if they put a 1680x1050 screen on the 15", those pixels would still be slightly bigger than on the 17" (it would result in 129 pixels per inch, vs. 133 for the 17"). Gives you an idea of how ginormous the current pixels are (I think the 1440x900 has 110 per inch). 20% larger or something like that. Adding insult to injury, OS X graphics are comparatively large... menu text is bigger, fatter and further apart than on Windows, so low res screens make even less sense on Macs.
I can see why some would prefer larger pixels, but to not even offer 1680x1050 as an option is idiotic, considering that competitors like Dell often have 3-4 options to choose from... some of Dell's 15" machines are even available with 1920x1200, like the 17" MBP.
Hopefully they'll come to their senses and introduce a 1680x1050 option sometime in the future.
Yeah, that makes all the difference in the world. Just like having resolution independence.
Not.
I think you just don't understand what I meant. As I said earlier in this thread, Windows can do hardware-based, system-wide scaling at the OS level since XP. Mac OS X cannot, and doesn't even come close. So until it can, high resolution monitors just aren't for me. I'm happy with my 1440x900 MBP15. When I want more screen real estate I attach to my external monitor, which will be a Dell 30" 2560x1600 in a couple weeks.
Yes, I believe it is too low. Ideally it would have the 1680x1050 as a max. As a user you can lower the resolution if you please. It's just foolish to claim that 1440 is "better" when that is subjective and worst of all you have no choice in the matter anyway. Choosing to use 1440 and having to settle with 1440 are two different things. Getting a 17" to use 1680 isn't a clear choice, but a trade off cause now you have to carry around something larger/heavier.
LCD displays have a native resolution and anything below that is scaled down, which results in a blurry image. So you should only use a LCD display at its native resolution. Resolution independence and DPI scaling are made exactly for this purpose - making everything in the UI larger if it's normally too small to read, without making the picture blurry. That's why it would be important to have support for it in OSX. Leopard had it implemented to a degree but it had to be turned on via Terminal and didn't work correctly because many icons etc are only one small resolution bitmap rather than freely scalable vectors or a series of various higher res bitmaps.
Apple needs to step up their game.
Battery - check
Thin and lightness - check
Great charging system - check
Great OS - given
Screen resolution when compared with 15" PC's - falling behind.
Apple will and have lost business by not upgrading the 15" to a better resolution - like it or not people love to compare. When someone compares a Dell 15" XPS that has 1080 vs the macbook which has a 1440x900 resolution - the Dell looks better.
Battery - check
Thin and lightness - check
Great charging system - check
Great OS - given
Screen resolution when compared with 15" PC's - falling behind.
Apple will and have lost business by not upgrading the 15" to a better resolution - like it or not people love to compare. When someone compares a Dell 15" XPS that has 1080 vs the macbook which has a 1440x900 resolution - the Dell looks better.
Somehow I doubt Joe Regular cares much either way.. which is why you still have those horrible 15/16" 1368x768 or 1280x800 screens on some computers.
Even if perfect resolution independence existed for 2D OS UIs, you still would face the problem of 3D games: especially on a laptop, you don't have enough power to play them at high resolution, so you would have to play them at non-native resolutions ----> BLUUURRY (and UUUUGLY).
I've used a 1680x1050 15,4" Acer Ferrari since 2005 but if I could go back in time I wouldn't buy it again...no matter how hard you try (I've used XP, Vista and 7), you will always find something that feels "too small"....and there's the 3D games issue mentioned above...
About hi-res Macs, something really got to be fixed: Safari needs a "remember default fullpage zoom level for this site" function like Firefox. It is unacceptable being forced to do "CMD +++++++" everytime. This could be something simple to start with, in the long way to resolution independence....(of course you can use FF in the meantime)
Anyway, my VERY PERSONAL feelings about display resolutions:
13" ---> 1280x800
15" ---> 1280x800 (put me to the stake)
17" ---> 1400x900 (like my current iMac....simply perfect...)
19" ---> 1400x900
20" ---> 1680x1050
22" ---> 1680x1050
24" ---> 1920x1200
27" ---> 1920x1200
30" ---> 2560x1600
(until REAL, PERFECT, DIVINE, UNFAILING, ect. resolution independence)
I've used a 1680x1050 15,4" Acer Ferrari since 2005 but if I could go back in time I wouldn't buy it again...no matter how hard you try (I've used XP, Vista and 7), you will always find something that feels "too small"....and there's the 3D games issue mentioned above...
About hi-res Macs, something really got to be fixed: Safari needs a "remember default fullpage zoom level for this site" function like Firefox. It is unacceptable being forced to do "CMD +++++++" everytime. This could be something simple to start with, in the long way to resolution independence....(of course you can use FF in the meantime)
Anyway, my VERY PERSONAL feelings about display resolutions:
13" ---> 1280x800
15" ---> 1280x800 (put me to the stake)
17" ---> 1400x900 (like my current iMac....simply perfect...)
19" ---> 1400x900
20" ---> 1680x1050
22" ---> 1680x1050
24" ---> 1920x1200
27" ---> 1920x1200
30" ---> 2560x1600
(until REAL, PERFECT, DIVINE, UNFAILING, ect. resolution independence)
In my experience, WUXGA is fabulous if teamed with the appropriate machine. Gpu choice is central. A poor gpu will give poor gaming on lesser PPI-screens as well. Greater PPI means more data to push around, that's all. Just as some games need more grunt than others. I have never needed to run the screen at lower than native resolution to make a game playable. I have used 15" 133PPI and 15.4" 147PPI screens for 12 years with games and loved the awesome graphics, just as video is out of this world also. The trick is the sufficient gpu, sufficient cpu, and sufficient ram - and a fast HDD (even better: one or two SSD's). i.e. a system sufficiently configured for WUXGA and the games you intend to play.
The 15" does not have "a fisher-price resolution".
I agree.
Higher resolutions on smaller sized screens sucks. I hate having to zoom in on everything to comfortably read it.
Also, resolution has little to do with quality. I'd take something that looks like the B133EW04 at 640x480 over the LP133WX1 at near 720p anyday, because one renders black as black, and the other renders black as 300 year old asphault.
Yes... for you. For others it's a Fisher-Price screen. We don't want to take that screen away from anyone, we want choice. The only reason why the discussion drifts towards the idea of replacing 1440x900 with 1680x1050 is that we're talking about a company so hell bent on not offering options, that we almost take for granted we can only have one resolution or the other, not both.
I can see why people who only use their machines for surfing, mail, gaming, and maybe word processing and spreadsheets, don't see the point of having a gazillion pixels. But for those of us who sometimes need to work on the road in screen real estate-gobbling environments like Photoshop, Flash, Logic, Cubase etc, the difference of having 1680x1050 instead of 1440x900 can be the difference between working comfortably and scrolling/resizing/toggling/rearranging until both your fingers and your eyes bleed. If you're on 1440x900 and fold out all the necessary tool panels and crap in some of the apps I work with, what's left for the actual content is a tiny peephole that's barely enough for designing an icon or a button. "But use an external screen!" Sure, we all bring 30" monitors to hotel rooms don't we. Excuse me sir, can you please evacuate this train/airplane/café so that I can set up my entire office in here?
Apple has 2 simple rules:
1) simplification of choice and "standardization of situations/setups"
2) thinking about what the vast majority of users need
It can be annoying for someone (me too sometimes) but that's the way they do and it contributes to the general user friendliness of the line. No redundance of choice. No dilemmas for the user about what is better for the given situations (e.g. "what's the best resolution for a 15,4" LCD", or "should I pick the 32bit or 64bit version of the OS? WTF is 64bit anyway?").
Apple chooses to optimize and fine tune things in ONE way.
That's what most people do. That's why, if only ONE resolution has to be chosen, Apple chooses the one which fits better the usage of most users.
Apple thinks you should buy their 17" offering.
Apple thinks that it is inappropriate to sacrifice the simplicity of the line and introduce uncomfortable dilemmas un-needed for the majority of users just to accomodate the needs of a minority of users, who anyway are given the option to buy the lightest and thinnest 17" of the world. That's how they do.
I'm sure here's worrying about whether or not he'll have the same laptop decades from now. >_>Yeah, well wait 'till you're 50.
Anyway, I agree with the res bumps. Hard to believe so many of you are so hard-sighted. I can read the 17" 1920res screen easily.
I'll tell you what Apple used to do. They used to pride themselves on ensuring that pixel size was uniform across all laptops and monitors, so that everyone would see graphics displayed at the same scale. Since they've clearly abandoned this policy (iMac 24" and MBP 17" have the same res), I would argue that it's less about principles and rational arguments and more about good old Apple greed... I bet a 1680x1050 panel is a whopping 2 bucks more which would "require" jacking up the price by, what, $200?
So can I, with or without my glasses, and I'm 41. The image is slightly less sharp without'em but it's not a strain by a long shot. It's more of a challenge in Windows with its small and skinny fonts, but with the jumbo graphics in OS X it's just fine. Hold on... yes, it's quite usable even at a distance of 6 feet, which is 4 more than needed for any laptop.
I don't think WSXGA+ (1680x1050) could be considered "normal" for 15.4" screens. It is HD - with a PPI of around 128 - only 12% less than WUXGA. However, it would be a great option! It is a popular option on 15.4" Lenovo Thinkpads.
That, or the 17" is the odd one out. Either way... like I said, I'm over 40 and I don't have perfect vision but I can put the MBP 17" 6 feet/2 meters away and still make everything out perfectly... except the battery indicator's inner symbol, I have to squint to see whether it's a plug or a flash. At normal viewing distance everything's 100% readable no matter how small. Anyone fearing a leap from 1440x900 to 1680x1050 is doing it for naught, like those who retreated to underground shelters at 23:59 PM on December 31, 1999...
So, bump up the 15" to 1680x1050 and let the 13" inherit the 1440x900 res. Then they'll have 128 (13"), 129 (15") and 133 (17") PPI, respectively, which is as matched as it gets.
You mean its safe to come out now
Personally i think its the 13" model thats most in need of a res bump.I'm not so sure that the "It's the Apple way" argument regarding limiting choice is very convincing. How then do you account for the huge number of threads that pops up here every day...
"Should I get the low end or high end MBP?"
"13" or 15" MBP HELP!"
"BTO or buy from the store?"
"what size of MBP should I get?"
"Is integrated 9400M graphics enough?"
"should I get a MBA?"
...
Still if you take the 17" MBP as an example, Apple stuck to its guns on what it thought was the best overall choice for the screen. 1680x1050. Then they offered a choice, and apparently the consumers voted with their choices because Apple dropped the 1680x1050 option in favor of just making the higher resolution 1920x1200 standard on all 17" models. What's to say if they offered 1680x1050 choice on the 15" or 140x900 on the 13" that consumers wouldn't preferentially pick those too? I think there are people out there who would prefer the use of the lower res screen but to say it is the better choice for the majority of people I don't think is true. And to follow in the Apple picks the most favorable to the most number of people, they should upgrade the screen res.
The PPI of the 17" MBP at 1680x1050 is almost the same as the PPI of the current 13 and 15" screens. But consumers showed that they prefer a screen with slightly higher PPI than that, as they ended up buying more 1920x1200 screens than 1680x1050 on the 17" model. Why would this not extend to the smaller sized models too?
Ruahrc
They tried that with the matte/glossy screens and clearly there was a demand for a matte 15".
Same goes for anything that has a decent audience that will want more in the graphics department for certain applications. Given your "failed" logic of oversimplification, there is no need for a 9600GT even on any 15" then (why make things so complicated with 3 graphics processor/VRAM options on the 15"?).
For the 13" I can understand if there might not be that choice, but the 15" clearly has enough of an audience that would want matte screens and higher ppi... the 17" may be slim, but its rather unwieldy at the same time just by being a 17".
If there was no demand, you wouldn't see other manufacturers of laptops offer hi-res screens on their 15" models... it would just be too costly to do so.