I agree. I do not know why apple choose to have such a huge bezel. I personally like edge to edge displays with a minimal bezel. The older PowerBooks pulled this off much better
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.
MacBook Pro Low Screen Resolution
- Thread starter darklich
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I agree. I do not know why apple choose to have such a huge bezel. I personally like edge to edge displays with a minimal bezel. The older PowerBooks pulled this off much better
You have got to be kidding me. OS X scales at higher resolutions much better than Windows.
I like the Mac laptop screen resolutions just the way they are. If you really need a high resolution and it doesn't make things too small for you to see then get a 17-inch MBP. If you can afford a 15" MBP you can afford a 17-inch for a little more. Not to mention if you really need that much room then you are going to be using an external display anyway.
Much ado about nothing in this thread from a lot of people who don't know what they are talking about.
That comment doesn't make much sense in the context of Mac laptops. The only Mac laptop with a 1280X800 display is the 13 inch MBP and nobody is going to use a 13 inch screen, Mac or PC laptop, at 1920X1080. The highest I would want to go on a 15" MBP is 1680X1050 and still be able to see anything.
Apple can put in as a high of resolution as conceivable as long as the os can take advantage of it as I do not want tiny icons or text.
i would love to see a higher resolution on my 15 inch... My old dell has 1680 by 1050 and it was amazing to use.
But I have my doubts about apple releasing higher res screens. I think they are into improving the quality of the panels more then that actual resolution.
But I have my doubts about apple releasing higher res screens. I think they are into improving the quality of the panels more then that actual resolution.
Hey, I'd love it if my 15" MBP's display was 2560x1600 and am all-hands-in gunning for higher resolutions for the refresh, but I'm trying to see Apple's side of this, and I believe that's their technical reason why their laptop displays are on the lower-resolution side of the spectrum. Vector based UI has been in both Leopard and Snow Leopards plans but keeps getting pushed.
Sony has a 1920x1080 13", which is nice. The HP Envy 13 has a 13" 1600x900, which is much better than 1280x800. I'm using a 15" 1920x1080 and I love it. My old Dell had a 1920x1200 17" display that was great as well, though quality-wise it is nowhere near as nice as the one on the Envy 15.
If apple keeps the MBP 13 at 1280x800, it would be very difficult for me to downgrade to it. It is essentially impossible to look at two documents side by side on that low of a res. And then you have the 16:10 issue with movies and TV shows. 1600x900 would be SO perfect on the MBP 13.
Nope. OSX doesn't scale. At all.
Because it doesn't have proper support for resolution independent user interface, all UI elements are the exact same size in pixels on different resolutions. What this means is that an icon that is 30x30 pixels at 1280x800 will be 30x30 pixels at 2560x1600. Because the resolution is doubled, the same icon simply looks smaller on the bigger screen.
Now, if OSX was resolution independent, at 2560x1600 that same icon could be scaled to for example 60x60 (or more or less, user adjustable) so it would appear the same size on the higher res display. The difference would be that because at 60x60 it occupies more pixels so it will look sharper and more detailed but the user interface remains the same size.
If you apply the lack of scaling and take screen size to the equation, you'll see where the problems come along. A 2560x1600 display is typically 30" and at that screen size the individual pixels making up the LCD panel are still large enough that everything isn't too small.
But if you would cram that same resolution to a 13" display, the problem would be that a single pixel is much, much smaller than on the 30" display. Due to lack of scaling, the 30x30 icon would be so small that it would be hard to see.
The benefit of having resolution independence and a higher resolution screen isn't in more desktop real estate but more detailed UI elements and more book-like fonts. If the user wishes, he could get more desktop space by scaling the user interface down at the expense of everything on the screen becoming smaller and thus harder to click and read.
? Mac OSX, as far as ive always been aware, does not scale AT ALL. Its always been one of its biggest criticisms and the main reason Apple Laptop Displays are so poor in resolution.
