It's 2015 and macbook air still doesn't have 1080p

[MacStu09]

You're talking about the same company that it took until late 2014 to have a 1080p display on a phone; while almost every other company had it in 2012/early 2013. Along with an "incredible" 1gb of ram with the poorest multitasking system, while other phones have 3gb and much more true multitasking.

Face it, apple doesn't catch up with the times for about 1-2 years with every product. Whether you like them or not, that always holds true. It's brilliant marketing and sales tactic, just like the ipod touch 2nd gen jailbroken was capable of nearly as much as the iPhone 6. Apple doesn't implement new, they implement as old as they can, as long as they can, for as much as they can. That's not to say some of their products aren't great, and that other things about their products sometimes try to make up for these things; but it's still true.

 

[joshlalonde]

Maybe because they haven't released a 2015 Macbook yet?

 

[copa]

You're talking about the same company that it took until late 2014 to have a 1080p display on a phone; while almost every other company had it in 2012/early 2013. Along with an "incredible" 1gb of ram with the poorest multitasking system, while other phones have 3gb and much more true multitasking.

Face it, apple doesn't catch up with the times for about 1-2 years with every product.

Not matching up on a spec sheet doesn't equate to how performant a device is in real life. Many (not all, naturally) found the multitasking capabilities to be sufficient even with the limited amount of ram. Likewise, the 2-3gb of ram in android devices didn't magically make the devices "better" in every use case. I never found my Nexus 4 with 2gb to outpace any iPhone because it had more RAM. You may feel the other way strongly, but many others don't. It's never as black and white as we think it is.

 

[motrek]

You're talking about the same company that it took until late 2014 to have a 1080p display on a phone; while almost every other company had it in 2012/early 2013. Along with an "incredible" 1gb of ram with the poorest multitasking system, while other phones have 3gb and much more true multitasking.

Face it, apple doesn't catch up with the times for about 1-2 years with every product. Whether you like them or not, that always holds true. It's brilliant marketing and sales tactic, just like the ipod touch 2nd gen jailbroken was capable of nearly as much as the iPhone 6. Apple doesn't implement new, they implement as old as they can, as long as they can, for as much as they can. That's not to say some of their products aren't great, and that other things about their products sometimes try to make up for these things; but it's still true.

You have got to be kidding me. Talk about cherry picking specs.

Sure, the iPhone has 1GB of RAM but it also has a processor that beats any other ARM processor like a rented mule.

Sure, Apple was slow to catch up in terms of screen size and resolution but they are still one of only two cell phone companies to color calibrate their displays. What's more important to you, having ever-smaller dots on a screen when they were already basically too small to see ~4 years ago, or do you want the colors (which you can actually see) to be accurate?

As for multitasking systems, I consider the iPhone's lack of "true" multitasking to be a huge benefit. I want to be in control of my phone at all times--I don't want crap constantly running in the background that I have little to no control over. I don't want FaceBook and WhatsApp to run their stupid processes all the time, constantly sucking up a few percent of CPU time even when the phone is "asleep," just so I can receive messages from those services.

I used an Android phone for a while. It was generally okay, I had some complaints but I won't pretend that it wasn't a perfectly functional phone. But it would drive me insane when I forgot to close some app and realized 1-2 hours later that it was almost burning a hole in my pocket and had used up 60% of my battery power. Horribly inconvenient when you're on the go for several hours and don't have access to a charger.

I never found a use case for Android's "true" multitasking that gave it any sort of advantage over iOS.

 

[Sensamic]

Completely agree OP. Completely agree.

 

[ttudboz]

You have got to be kidding me. Talk about cherry picking specs.

Sure, the iPhone has 1GB of RAM but it also has a processor that beats any other ARM processor like a rented mule.

Sure, Apple was slow to catch up in terms of screen size and resolution but they are still one of only two cell phone companies to color calibrate their displays. What's more important to you, having ever-smaller dots on a screen when they were already basically too small to see ~4 years ago, or do you want the colors (which you can actually see) to be accurate?

As for multitasking systems, I consider the iPhone's lack of "true" multitasking to be a huge benefit. I want to be in control of my phone at all times--I don't want crap constantly running in the background that I have little to no control over. I don't want FaceBook and WhatsApp to run their stupid processes all the time, constantly sucking up a few percent of CPU time even when the phone is "asleep," just so I can receive messages from those services.

I used an Android phone for a while. It was generally okay, I had some complaints but I won't pretend that it wasn't a perfectly functional phone. But it would drive me insane when I forgot to close some app and realized 1-2 hours later that it was almost burning a hole in my pocket and had used up 60% of my battery power. Horribly inconvenient when you're on the go for several hours and don't have access to a charger.

I never found a use case for Android's "true" multitasking that gave it any sort of advantage over iOS.

:clap: excellent post and I agree fully.

 

[strwrsfrk]

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"?

Even upping the 1440x900 TN panel to 1920x1080 will have no noticeable impact on size and a negligible one battery life.

And I find arguments like yours against higher-resolution panels bizarre. It's perfectly reasonable to enjoy FHD content on a 13" screen (or an 11" screen, for that matter), particularly if it is being viewed at a distance common to laptops of about 2 feet. And many people find multitasking in multiple programs/tabs easier with 960px-wide windows than 700px.

If neither of the above scenarios appeals to you -- or if your eyesight is somehow bad enough to require up-scaled text and icons at 1080p on a 13" screen but good enough that you care about aliasing or image quality of said scaled UI elements -- that's all fine and well. But it's a fallacy to assume that your use-case scenario is the only reasonable one, or that we should strive to accept a lower status quo simply because we're generally fans of a company and its products.

 

[joshlalonde]

Again, did OP even realize that they haven't RELEASED a 2015 Macbook Air yet?
I mean, come on... The current Air is early 2014, and all it was got was a spec bump in late summer.

Give them a chance to catch up I'm sure when the new air comes out with a bezel-less screen, 48 hour battery life, retina, i7 @ 4Ghz, 16gb ram and 1TB SSD you'll be satisfied.

Okay, no, that's not going to happen..

but you'll most likely see screen improvements and there's talks about touch ID being integrated into the touchpad if I remember correctly.

 

[soulreaver99]

This Retina Macbook Air has been beaten to death. There's the 13-inch rMBP which has a very negligible weight difference from the Air. If you absolutely need a high resolution screen, get that. It's a magical device.

 

[alex0002]

Perhaps the OP might like to try the new Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon. The base model comes with a 1920×1080 display, but costs a little more than $1000 and might not match the MBA battery life.

However, being a Lenovo it does come with some extra features.

 

[Steve121178]

What in the world Apple. You sell a computer for $1000 that doesn't even have 1080p resolution. There is no innovation in that.

Why would you want 16:9 on a notebook when Macs especially have proven that 16:10 is the ideal ratio?

Surface Pro 3 is even bolder and went for 3:2.

 

[newellj]

This Retina Macbook Air has been beaten to death. There's the 13-inch rMBP which has a very negligible weight difference from the Air. If you absolutely need a high resolution screen, get that. It's a magical device.

I had a 13" MBA for a while. I hate to say it, but I really didn't like it. My 13" rMBP is only slightly heavier, negiigibly larger and much more useful for me. The only thing I gave up was some runtime and that's a very worthwhile trade-off for me.

The 11" is another story, at least for now, but Apple needs to move that excellent MBA forward this year.

 

[kelon111]

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.

Which Windows based laptops did you use?

The 2015 Dell XPS 13 is considered one of the best alternatives to the Air so I was wondering if you used one of those.

----------

Perhaps the OP might like to try the new Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon. The base model comes with a 1920×1080 display, but costs a little more than $1000 and might not match the MBA battery life.

However, being a Lenovo it does come with some extra features.

Consumer class lenovo and business class lenovo don't share the same bloatware. Business class lenovo computers have almost no bloatware.

Lenovo has released a statement saying Superfish was installed on consumer laptops shipped between October and December 2014.

 

[elchorizo]

People in this thread are pretty crazy. The MBA not having a better screen (and effective resolution) is the only thing holding back a fantastic laptop from being a perfect laptop. The 13" Air, as is, is phenomenal. But I don't own one, because the screen just isn't good enough and its a dealbreaker.

I have a 15" rMBP at work and a 13" rMBP at home and the retina screes are so beautiful. I'm a developer and I look at code all day. I love how text looks on these machines. However, I like everything else about the Air better... battery life, size, weight, form factor, etc... The air is better in every category. But that ****** screen just kills it for me.

Those of you saying that a 1080p screen would suck on the 13" are kidding yourselves. I've used a few Windows laptops with 13" @ 1080p and it is TOTALLY USABLE, and easy to read. The screen real estate is wonderful. You're lying to yourselves if you don't believe this to be true. I would only agree with this if you had poor vision, in which case, fair enough, but none of the posts are mentioning that. It sounds more like you're the same kind of forum posters who said people don't need big phones, and now have the 6+. Its a crap idea right up until Apple does it right? Ugh.

I'm not sure 1080p makes sense for the 13" Air or not (I assume not since it'll likely be much higher than that). But, the existing screen could be sooooo much better. I cant wait to see what they do with a rMBA. I'm assuming it'll be similar to the retina screen on the 13" rMBP which would just be sick. The existing MBA, with a great screen, would be untouchable by any other laptop IMO.

 

[motrek]

...
Those of you saying that a 1080p screen would suck on the 13" are kidding yourselves. I've used a few Windows laptops with 13" @ 1080p and it is TOTALLY USABLE, and easy to read. The screen real estate is wonderful. You're lying to yourselves if you don't believe this to be true. I would only agree with this if you had poor vision, in which case, fair enough, but none of the posts are mentioning that. It sounds more like you're the same kind of forum posters who said people don't need big phones, and now have the 6+. Its a crap idea right up until Apple does it right? Ugh.
...

The current 13" MBA screen is 127 DPI and I remember reviewers complaining about it when it was first released, saying the text and graphics were a little too small for comfortable use. I don't know if they had bad eyesight or not. I have good eyesight and I use an 11" MBA with similar resolution and often find myself zooming in on web pages so I can move my head back and relax while reading the pages.

Switching to 1080p would bump the resolution up a full 30% to 165 DPI. If some people thought 127 DPI was too small then certainly most people would think 165 DPI is too small.

The PC laptops I see at stores with 1080p displays usually have Windows's high DPI mode enabled so everything is rendered at 125% or 150% of its normal size. I assume that's why you think it looks fine although I could be wrong.

 

[phairphan]

Agreed. I still use a Thinkpad x61 Tablet and it's a 12.1" at 1400x1050. Screen elements are small, but I greatly appreciate the real estate. I have a 13" Air and, while I generally adore it, I wish it had a bit more screen real estate.

Maybe Apple will rewind the clock to the final days of the PB G4 and offer different resolution screens as an option. Ha ha ha.

 

[Gym Hellwig]

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?

This has to be a joke. It just has to be.

----------

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"?

Do you have any idea how INSANELY common it is for people to watch Netflix in bed on a laptop?

I mean, come on. Literally every person I know who owns a laptop uses it to watch movies/tv.

 

[soulreaver99]

Do you have any idea how INSANELY common it is for people to watch Netflix in bed on a laptop?

I mean, come on. Literally every person I know who owns a laptop uses it to watch movies/tv.

Using laptops to watch netflix in bed was so 5 years ago. People use tablets these days... the ones with RETINA (or 1080+) displays. Just sayin

 

[motrek]

...
I mean, come on. Literally every person I know who owns a laptop uses it to watch movies/tv.

I wonder how you would do in a double blind study to see if you could differentiate between even 720p video and 1080p video on a 13" display while you watched it in bed. I would bet money that you couldn't tell the difference. You have a 1M+ pixels flying at your eyeballs 24+ times per second and you're going to tell me that a few here or there are going to make a meaningful difference to you?

 

[nksk]

People in this thread are pretty crazy. The MBA not having a better screen (and effective resolution) is the only thing holding back a fantastic laptop from being a perfect laptop. The 13" Air, as is, is phenomenal. But I don't own one, because the screen just isn't good enough and its a dealbreaker.

Exactly. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Arguments about watching movies on laptops and the iPhone having 1080p. The first is irrelevant because the primary benefit is in regular desktop use, and the second is irrelevant because iOS widgets are designed for that resolution.

In fact, the whole premise of the thread is weird. The obvious answer is that Apple is going straight to Retina, so who cares about 1080p. Now, if someone wants to discuss why *that's* taking so long, that would at least make sense as a topic.

 

[Ulenspiegel]

Exactly. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills...

Ah, those damn pills... I forgot to take one in he morning. I keep them under my MacBook Air.

 

[wrightc23]

Hopefully we shouldn't have to wait too long now.

I run my rMBP 13" in it's native resolution (2560x1600) and it's great, lots of desktop real estate. Icons and fonts scale really well.

I also have a Thinkpad x240 with a 12.5" IPS 1920x1080 LCD and that's just about perfect for that size of display. Windows 10 scales really well it's just a shame so many applications on windows don't, however it's still perfectly usable.

I wouldn't want to go back to a lo-res display now.

 

[motrek]

...
I also have a Thinkpad x240 with a 12.5" IPS 1920x1080 LCD and that's just about perfect for that size of display. Windows 10 scales really well it's just a shame so many applications on windows don't, however it's still perfectly usable. ...

That's the problem, though. The OS should handle scaling (which OS X does) and not the applications. Windows is fundamentally broken if its applications have to do scaling themselves.

 

[26139]

Huh?

Even upping the 1440x900 TN panel to 1920x1080 will have no noticeable impact on size and a negligible one battery life.

And I find arguments like yours against higher-resolution panels bizarre. It's perfectly reasonable to enjoy FHD content on a 13" screen (or an 11" screen, for that matter), particularly if it is being viewed at a distance common to laptops of about 2 feet. And many people find multitasking in multiple programs/tabs easier with 960px-wide windows than 700px.

If neither of the above scenarios appeals to you -- or if your eyesight is somehow bad enough to require up-scaled text and icons at 1080p on a 13" screen but good enough that you care about aliasing or image quality of said scaled UI elements -- that's all fine and well. But it's a fallacy to assume that your use-case scenario is the only reasonable one, or that we should strive to accept a lower status quo simply because we're generally fans of a company and its products.

You're accusing me of thinking and saying a lot of stuff I never stated, inferred, or implied.

Could you explain to me why 1080p is some sort of magical number for laptop screen resolution, please? I use my laptop for things other than watching video 99% of the time.

----------

I wonder how you would do in a double blind study to see if you could differentiate between even 720p video and 1080p video on a 13" display while you watched it in bed. I would bet money that you couldn't tell the difference. You have a 1M+ pixels flying at your eyeballs 24+ times per second and you're going to tell me that a few here or there are going to make a meaningful difference to you?

Nearly impossible to do on such a small screen.

On a larger TV, still not easy but obvious after you've had some experience.

 

[Woochoo]

Maybe because they haven't released a 2015 Macbook yet?

Please... People giving good reasons and you come up with that?

Btw, I've a 13" MBP with a 1280x800 res. and I still can't see a crystal clear difference with a retina MBP. Maybe using those 800p drove me blind?