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.
It's 2015 and macbook air still doesn't have 1080p
- Thread starter macguy360
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
1080p is high enough resolution that without scaling, everything would be too small to see comfortably.
But it isn't high enough resolution that things would look good if they were rendered larger.
So why would you want 1080p exactly?
So... the 13" macbook pro retina drives a higher than 1080p screen... and it looks great. The 13" macbook air has a less than 1080p screen... and it looks bad. Clarity is not good on it and it is more straining on the eyes to look at.
Also, everything gets scaled when the screens resolution goes up. Its not like everything just shrinks. Otherwise no one could read what was shown on a retina screen.
After dabbling with some Windows laptops that are supposedly comparable with the Air I can say the Air is the best notebook ever made. Even with its lower resolution screen it just about perfect. Would it be nice to have a hi res display? Sure, but not if it means sacrificing 12+ hour battery life.
The Air's price tag is justified in its flawless design down to the last detail.
I second this opinion.
And, by the way, millions have chosen and using that "Clarity is not good on it" computer, most probably because it is sufficient for them. (Or have better eyes).
I run my 13" rMBP at "more space," which I believe is equivalent to 1920x1200. It works fine for my 56-year old eyes - YMMV.
Apple has been doubling resolutions for their "retina" displays, so graphics are rendered 100% bigger (by default). Thus, everything that used to line up on pixel boundaries still lines up on pixel boundaries and it looks nice.
And if you choose a different logical resolution, the pixels are small enough that you can't really tell that things aren't lining up.
If you switch the 13" MBA's display to 1080p, you'd have to scale everything up by 20% and not 100%. So nothing will line up on pixel boundaries and the pixels will be big enough that you will be able to see all the blurryness.
Frankly I don't see the point to making a big deal over 20% more vertical pixels. You make it sound like 1080p will be a quantum leap in amazingness but I think it's only because TV manufacturers have convinced you that this is somehow a good resolution.
The OP stated that it doesn't have 1080p, not that it doesn't support 1080p.
1440x900 HiDPI = 2880x1800.
----------
Agreed. Apple wouldn't switch to 1080p before true pixel doubling.
Be careful what you wish for as I am thinking it will just make the screen harder to deal with.
One thing for sure, Apple will make it thinner and thinner and worst the rumors tell of them eliminating all the conventional ports and SD reader. If so I will be moving on.
One thing for sure, Apple will make it thinner and thinner and worst the rumors tell of them eliminating all the conventional ports and SD reader. If so I will be moving on.
Uh...
Uhhh...it's a laptop built to be lightweight with great battery life.
Putting a nicer screen on it will likely affect both of those.
What's the need for 1080p? If you want to watch 1080p movies, there are far better options than a 13" laptop screen.
----------
But then his blu-ray rips won't be shown at 1080p! What will the neighbors think, besides "why are you bothering to watch an HD movie on a 13" screen"?
Uhhh...it's a laptop built to be lightweight with great battery life.
Putting a nicer screen on it will likely affect both of those.
What's the need for 1080p? If you want to watch 1080p movies, there are far better options than a 13" laptop screen.
----------
But then his blu-ray rips won't be shown at 1080p! What will the neighbors think, besides "why are you bothering to watch an HD movie on a 13" screen"?
LOL exactly.
Even better are the people who think 1080p is better for watching movies on their phones.
Don't be fooled by the gimmicks of windows laptops. In the windows world its a game to put more specs on a sheet, regardless of how practical it is.
1080p native would be way too tiny to have any practical use. Heck, 1920x1200 scaled on my 15" is already pushing it. As others stated above, you could scale everything up, but everything will actually looks WORSE because everything would be so blurry.
----------
The 13" only scales to "looks like 1680x1050"
Only 15" scales to 1920x1200
1080p native would be way too tiny to have any practical use. Heck, 1920x1200 scaled on my 15" is already pushing it. As others stated above, you could scale everything up, but everything will actually looks WORSE because everything would be so blurry.
----------
The 13" only scales to "looks like 1680x1050"
Only 15" scales to 1920x1200
OK - but 1050 is not much smaller. I had a Dell XPS 13 with a 1080p screen for a while. I stand by my comment: it's perfectly usable at that resolution.
Because the way content is rendered on iOS is different than OS X. If a MacBook air had a 1080p display it would render everything at native 1080p which would make UI elements far too small for many people.
Last edited:
It all has to do with pixel density. On the 6 Plus the pixel density is much higher allowing for HiDPI. On a 1080p MBA the pixel density would be too low for true HiDPI, resulting in everything on the screen becoming smaller.
Yes, to paraphrase what I said before, 1080p pixels would still be big enough that rendering stuff bigger would look crappy.