MacBook Air 11" Screen Big enough (For those of you with the MBA 11")

[Diversion]

The bezel is wide because the laptop is so thin. The bezel on the 13-inch is equally as wide. The 13-inch has a significantly bigger footprint than the 13-inch Pro because of this. A bigger display would not have fit, in either notebook.

As for me, I have no problems with screen real estate on the Air. It's got a higher pixel density than the 13", so things are smaller on the smaller screen. It actually has more screen real estate than a 13" Pro.



The 13-inch has a ppi of 127. The 11-inch has a ppi of 135. Those are pretty close, you but you'll probably be able to discern the difference. Screen elements and text will be physically slightly smaller on the 11".

You sound pretty far reaching on how the 11" is able to compete. 135 vs 127 pixel density between the two. You can't even detect this difference with your own eyes. They are meant to look comparible, that was Apple's intention. The aspect ratio is what OSX leverages, not the resolution. We can get into why Apple decided to make the Retina panels look more or less the same exact size as the Air's display. Text and content displayed are about the same (except for the 11" being the odd guy out with 16:9).

OSX is obviously coded with 16:10 aspect ratio.. Every single LCD they've sold is 16:10 besides the Thunderbolt display and the 11".. The Thunderbolt display works well because of its sheer absolute resolution.

The problem is with HIDPI mode making everything bigger than it should.. If they just made the 11" run at a better DPI at the OSX level it would be a lot more useful. I know you can use 3rd party tools to fix this but I didn't want to mess around with it and just opted for the 13"

 

[sk3tch]

Love my 11" MacBook Air - very usable, readable - if anything I wish it were smaller! My friend has the new 13" and it's actually really not that much bigger. I'd say go with whatever and you'll be happy...for me, I'd buy a 10" or 9" if they had one haha.

 

[curtoise]

You sound pretty far reaching on how the 11" is able to compete. 135 vs 127 pixel density between the two. You can't even detect this difference with your own eyes. They are meant to look comparible, that was Apple's intention. The aspect ratio is what OSX leverages, not the resolution. We can get into why Apple decided to make the Retina panels look more or less the same exact size as the Air's display. Text and content displayed are about the same (except for the 11" being the odd guy out with 16:9).

OSX is obviously coded with 16:10 aspect ratio.. Every single LCD they've sold is 16:10 besides the Thunderbolt display and the 11".. The Thunderbolt display works well because of its sheer absolute resolution.

The problem is with HIDPI mode making everything bigger than it should.. If they just made the 11" run at a better DPI at the OSX level it would be a lot more useful. I know you can use 3rd party tools to fix this but I didn't want to mess around with it and just opted for the 13"

So I'll save a trip to the store then? I just want to know if the fonts (resolution) will look the same or bigger on a 13"

 

[Diversion]

So I'll save a trip to the store then? I just want to know if the fonts (resolution) will look the same or bigger on a 13"

They look comparable.. Slight bit smaller I bet on the 11".. I mean, I saw where you had issues seeing your 11" from a small distance. I don't think it's going to change much going to the 13".. Apple's idea with this whole DPI thing is to keep everything looking the same across all Macbooks, just improve the clean lines of text. So what you will notice on the 13 is that the text/fonts look nearly identically from the 11" but now you have a lot more room to fit windows, etc. if that makes sense.

I'm having a hard time describing how Apple uses their DPI modes but end result is that Apple treats content on a physical level, not a resolution level. Where as Windows treats everything at an absolute resolution level. 1080p on an 11" would make the text unbelievably small... Apple would make 1080p on an 11" look identically to the current 1366x768.. no extra room for content. This is why you'll need a 3rd party utility to set native mode on OSX. Since you have bootcamp, just boot into Windows and you'll see what I mean. I bet you'll find you can fit a whole lot more on screen in Windows than you currently can in OSX.

 

[zen]

Initially I thought the screen was fine. I've been using the 11" model for about two years (have upgraded with each revision).

But now, when it comes time to replace it, I'm going for a 15" Macbook Pro. I just need the extra screen real estate - the 11" is fine for the internet, email, etc, but I find even basic work in MS Word or Excel too cramped.

In terms of portability, clearly the 11" is a winner. However, I realised that by the time I put it in its case, and then put that in my bag along with the power supply and whatever else I need to carry, my bag weighs a tonne anyway. The 15" MBP is much heavier, but I'm not sure that's going to make any difference.

 

[Diversion]

Initially I thought the screen was fine. I've been using the 11" model for about two years (have upgraded with each revision).

But now, when it comes time to replace it, I'm going for a 15" Macbook Pro. I just need the extra screen real estate - the 11" is fine for the internet, email, etc, but I find even basic work in MS Word or Excel too cramped.

You're missing the point.. There's really no extra screen real estate on the 15" either (without a tool that changes you to native res).. Apple sets the OS to mimic the same amount of space on the 13" to the 15" and so on. Apple does this so that one persons experience from one device to the next is consistent. The only weird one that loses some real space is the 11" MBA.

 

[sparkie7]

The extra height real estate on the 13" works much better. Not to mention it has the SD card slot which for some is very useful, where the 11" doesn't. Plus extra batt life makes the 13" a no brainer. Esp at only 100 buck extra.

 

[zen]

You're missing the point.. There's really no extra screen real estate on the 15" either (without a tool that changes you to native res).. Apple sets the OS to mimic the same amount of space on the 13" to the 15" and so on. Apple does this so that one persons experience from one device to the next is consistent. The only weird one that loses some real space is the 11" MBA.

The OS UI elements may be scaled, but the retina MBP can run at 2880 x 1800, which is significantly higher res (and more real estate) than the 1366 x 768 of the 11" MBA. Even when the rMBP scales to 1920 x 1200, or whatever it is out of the box, that's more space.

On my Thunderbolt display, I can have three full-page Word documents open side by side and work on them with ease. That's not possible on a MBA, because my TDB is a higher res screen.

 

[Diversion]

The OS UI elements may be scaled, but the retina MBP can run at 2880 x 1800, which is significantly higher res (and more real estate) than the 1366 x 768 of the 11" MBA. Even when the rMBP scales to 1920 x 1200, or whatever it is out of the box, that's more space.

Yes I already said that if you're running in native mode (requires a utility) then this entire discussion is way out in left field. Most people care about how Apple designed OSX to run not how we can scale it down to native resolution.

By your standards, if we run the 11" and the 13" MBAs at native resolution, the 11" would end up looking like a better contender against the 13". . But the way Apple presents the 11" right now makes it look like a big waste of space.

 

[zen]

Yes I already said that if you're running in native mode (requires a utility) then this entire discussion is way out in left field. Most people care about how Apple designed OSX to run not how we can scale it down to native resolution.

By your standards, if we run the 11" and the 13" MBAs at native resolution, the 11" would end up looking like a better contender against the 13". . But the way Apple presents the 11" right now makes it look like a big waste of space.

I'm not sure the rMBP needs a utility to run at native res - last time I tried one in an Apple store, you can switch it from the Display system pref.

But that aside, I don't follow your logic. My TBD has more screen real estate than my MBA by a country mile.

 

[defomicron]

You sound pretty far reaching on how the 11" is able to compete. 135 vs 127 pixel density between the two. You can't even detect this difference with your own eyes. They are meant to look comparible, that was Apple's intention. The aspect ratio is what OSX leverages, not the resolution. We can get into why Apple decided to make the Retina panels look more or less the same exact size as the Air's display. Text and content displayed are about the same (except for the 11" being the odd guy out with 16:9).

OSX is obviously coded with 16:10 aspect ratio.. Every single LCD they've sold is 16:10 besides the Thunderbolt display and the 11".. The Thunderbolt display works well because of its sheer absolute resolution.

The problem is with HIDPI mode making everything bigger than it should.. If they just made the 11" run at a better DPI at the OSX level it would be a lot more useful. I know you can use 3rd party tools to fix this but I didn't want to mess around with it and just opted for the 13"

OS X is NOT coded for any specific aspect ratio. The first machines to run it had 4:3 displays.

The Retina screens are NOT similar to the Air's display. They are pixel doubled versions of the MacBook Pro displays.

Example: the 13-inch MacBook Pro has a resolution of 1280 x 800
The 13-inch Retina doubled this to 2560 x 1600
The 13-inch MacBook Air has a resolution of 1440 x 900

Talking physical size, window elements on the Airs will be smaller than on the Pros. Window elements on the 11" Air will be slightly smaller than on the 13" Air.

 

[Diversion]

I'm not sure the rMBP needs a utility to run at native res - last time I tried one in an Apple store, you can switch it from the Display system pref.

But that aside, I don't follow your logic. My MBP has more screen real estate than my MBA by a country mile.

Well you haven't provided what native res your MBP. What logic are you missing here?

1440x900 vs 15" Retina MBP = rougly looks the same amount of screen real estate in OSX without any resolution tweaks. Anybody can walk into a Apple store and put the two side and side and see that's true. It's all because of Apple's UI scaling as you say, its scaled to look similar on both screens.

It ruins productivity for me though, its a huge waste of resolution to scale everything up.

----------

OS X is NOT coded for any specific aspect ratio. The first machines to run it had 4:3 displays.

The Retina screens are NOT similar to the Air's display. They are pixel doubled versions of the MacBook Pro displays.

Example: the 13-inch MacBook Pro has a resolution of 1280 x 800
The 13-inch Retina doubled this to 2560 x 1600
The 13-inch MacBook Air has a resolution of 1440 x 900

Talking physical size, window elements on the Airs will be smaller than on the Pros. Window elements on the 11" Air will be slightly smaller than on the 13" Air.

Someone needs to provide photos/screenshots. . Last time I looked both screens are presented to look nearly identical retina vs Air 13, etc. Get native resolution out of your head, i'm talking about Apple scaling only.

 

[defomicron]

Well you haven't provided what native res your MBP. What logic are you missing here?

1440x900 vs 15" Retina MBP = rougly looks the same amount of screen real estate in OSX without any resolution tweaks. Anybody can walk into a Apple store and put the two side and side and see that's true. It's all because of Apple's UI scaling as you say, its scaled to look similar on both screens.

It ruins productivity for me though, its a huge waste of resolution to scale everything up.

Apple doesn't scale the UI on their computers to make them look similar. You can change a setting on the Retina MBP's to scale the UI, but Apple doesn't scale it by default.

Someone needs to provide photos/screenshots. . Last time I looked both screens are presented to look nearly identical retina vs Air 13, etc. Get native resolution out of your head, i'm talking about Apple scaling only.

The only scaling Apple does by default is doubling.

The 13-inch Retina MBP has a native resolution of 2560 x 1600. Scaled, it has an effective resolution of 1280 x 800.

The 13-inch MBA has a native and effective (because it is not scaled in any way) of 1440 x 900.

Thus, screen elements on the MBA are smaller and you have more screen real estate.

 

[Diversion]

Apple doesn't scale the UI on their computers to make them look similar. You can change a setting on the Retina MBP's to scale the UI, but Apple doesn't scale it by default.

Last time I looked I read this "Apple provides an option to run at 1920×1200 through System Preferences, but as of now there is no built-in approach to running the retina display at the screens true 1×1 native resolution of 2880×1800. "

Is this not true anymore? Do they allow you to run at the full 2880x1800?

 

[defomicron]

Last time I looked I read this "Apple provides an option to run at 1920×1200 through System Preferences, but as of now there is no built-in approach to running the retina display at the screens true 1×1 native resolution of 2880×1800. "

Is this not true anymore? Do they allow you to run at the full 2880x1800?

The only scaling Apple does by default is doubling.

The 13-inch Retina MBP has a native resolution of 2560 x 1600. Scaled, it has an effective resolution of 1280 x 800.

The 13-inch MBA has a native and effective (because it is not scaled in any way) of 1440 x 900.

Thus, screen elements on the MBA are smaller and you have more screen real estate.

 

[Diversion]

Apple doesn't scale the UI on their computers to make them look similar. You can change a setting on the Retina MBP's to scale the UI, but Apple doesn't scale it by default.



The only scaling Apple does by default is doubling.

The 13-inch Retina MBP has a native resolution of 2560 x 1600. Scaled, it has an effective resolution of 1280 x 800.

The 13-inch MBA has a native and effective (because it is not scaled in any way) of 1440 x 900.

Thus, screen elements on the MBA are smaller and you have more screen real estate.

I get what you're saying, but we're talking about real estate out of the box between a RMP.. and it's nearly the same working space compared to a 13" MBA..

 

[defomicron]

I get what you're saying, but we're talking about real estate out of the box between a RMP.. and it's nearly the same working space compared to a 13" MBA..

But it isn't. You get 160 more effective pixels vertically and 100 more horizontally.

But this thread isn't even about that, I truly don't understand why your brought it up.

The 11" Air has more screen real estate than the 13" Pro.

11" Air: 1360 x 768 or 1,044,480 pixels.

13" Pro: 1200 X 800 or 960,000 pixels.

The point of me saying that is to say that there is plenty of real estate on the 11" Air screen to get most work done. It isn't hampered in this area. Yes, it is less than the 13" Air, but it isn't unusably less.

 

[Diversion]

But it isn't. You get 160 more effective pixels vertically and 100 more horizontally.

But this thread isn't even about that, I truly don't understand why your brought it up.

The 11" Air has more screen real estate than the 13" Pro.

11" Air: 1360 x 768 or 1,044,480 pixels.

13" Pro: 1200 X 800 or 960,000 pixels.

The point of me saying that is to say that there is plenty of real estate on the 11" Air screen to get most work done. It isn't hampered in this area. Yes, it is less than the 13" Air, but it isn't unusably less.

It's not unreasonable on the 11" but definately annoying for me, a lot of website pictures can't even display from top to bottom without scrolling on the 11".. Yet there's plenty of room on the 13" due to the extra height.

 

[dmk1974]

I just bought an 11" 2013 MBA to likely replace my 13" 2012 MBA. Both are the base models with 4 GB RAM and 128 GB SSD.

Historically, the 11" had significantly less battery life (like 3.5 hours vs 5 hours in real-world use) along with a slower processor. But now, the 2013 11" and 13" MBA's have the same exact processor steps and the only differences now are:

Screen Size:
11.6" vs 13.3" (13": 15% longer on diagonal)
16:9 ratio vs 16:10 (13": 11% taller per ratio)
1366x768 vs 1440x900 (13": 24% more pixels, 17% more vertical rows)
135 DPI vs 127 DPI (11": slightly sharper)
57.5 sq.in vs 79.5 sq.in. (13": 38% more surface area)
Weight:
2.38 lb. vs 2.96 lb. (13": 24% heavier)
Footprint:
85.2 sq.in. vs 114.4 sq.in. (13": 34% bigger)
Battery Life:
7 hours vs 10 hours real-life usage (13": 43% longer)
SD Reader:
11" No vs 13" Yes

While the 13" unit seems to give you a lot more for just $100 more, I am still kinda hooked on the 11" unit. I love the size and portability, but I do wish it was 16:10 to give more vertical rows. Battery life is still better on the 13 of course, but coming from 2012, the 11" really got a big boost.

 

[Diversion]

I just bought an 11" 2013 MBA to likely replace my 13" 2012 MBA. Both are the base models with 4 GB RAM and 128 GB SSD.

Historically, the 11" had significantly less battery life (like 3.5 hours vs 5 hours in real-world use) along with a slower processor. But now, the 2013 11" and 13" MBA's have the same exact processor steps and the only differences now are:

Screen Size:
11.6" vs 13.3" (13": 15% longer on diagonal)
16:9 ratio vs 16:10 (13": 11% taller per ratio)
1366x768 vs 1440x900 (13": 24% more pixels, 17% more vertical rows)
135 DPI vs 127 DPI (11": slightly sharper)
57.5 sq.in vs 79.5 sq.in. (13": 38% more surface area)
Weight:
2.38 lb. vs 2.96 lb. (13": 24% heavier)
Battery Life:
7 hours vs 10 hours real-life usage (13": 43% longer)
SD Reader:
11" No vs 13" Yes

While the 13" unit seems to give you a lot more for jsut $100 more, I am still kinda hooked on the 11" unit. I love the size and portability, but I do wish it was 16:10 to give more vertical rows. Battery life is still better on the 13 of course, but coming from 2012, the 11" really got a big boost.

Those are good ways to compare.. Good stuff. Thanks!

 

[the_fellowship]

I find the resolution fine for Xcode development. I generally work in full screen mode and editing code is fine, even in the split screen mode.

Scrolling around storyboards can be a pain, especially large ones, but then I find that on my 27" iMac too, which is my main Xcode machine, and I tend to do most of the storyboard work on there.

I've not found a way to scale the iOS simulator, but it can be scrolled, running the app on a plugged-in iOS device when debugging allows you to step through the code or watch the debug output whilst it's running, and saves switching back and forth between the simulator and Xcode.

I'd recommend an external screen if you're looking at using the MBA as your main development machine, simply for aiding debugging, but for on-the-go fixes and developing on the hoof I don't think the extra screen real-estate of the 13" would make that much of a difference.

YMMV of course!

Thanks very much for your feedback.

I thought the iOS Simulator window could be scaled using key combination: CMD + 1/2/3 for (100%/75%/50%) respectively?

 

[ValSalva]

More and bigger is not always better. It depends on how and where you use it.

I have an 11" Air. I've been on airplane flights where I didn't have enough room to even open a 13" but was able to use the 11" in my lap. Both are great computers. The 11" is just so amazingly small that I take it places I never thought I'd take a computer that I actually cared about not damaging

 

[mac82]

You're missing the point.. There's really no extra screen real estate on the 15" either (without a tool that changes you to native res).. Apple sets the OS to mimic the same amount of space on the 13" to the 15" and so on. Apple does this so that one persons experience from one device to the next is consistent. The only weird one that loses some real space is the 11" MBA.

You seem to be missing the point. While the 13" Air and the 15"rMBP have the same resolution out of the box, the latter is capable of a much higher resolution, and thus far more actual screen space, than the former. You can open the display preferences pane in system preferences and set the resolution to 1680x1050 or 1920x1200. You only need a special utility if you wish to run the machine at its native resolution of 2880x1800.

 

[iPlodder]

I thought the iOS Simulator window could be scaled using key combination: CMD + 1/2/3 for (100%/75%/50%) respectively?

Thanks, I haven't tried that, I'll give it a go. There's nothing in the menus about scaling, that I could find anyway.

 

[CARABAO]

Been using my BTO 11" air for a year now. It's been great so far... In the last year, I managed to build / develop the following:

• PHP apps
• Flash games
• iOS projects
• Flash banners / design work (Adobe PS / AI / FL / Media Encoder CS6)

No problems whatsoever with the screen but I definitely feel the need now for more screen real estate. During the past year though, I was able to manage the small screen space with expose, spaces and just plain patience. The 11" display is WWAAAAAAYYYY better than the 13" MBP or 13" MB in terms of screen real estate. It won't seem to be as small if you think of it that way.

Take note that I came from a 17" Late 2011 MBP. (sold it to purchase this + an external monitor). Now I'm back again with deciding between getting a 17" MBP or a 15" rMBP. LOL