MBP 13" has less resolution than MBP 11"

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by miata, Nov 7, 2010.

  1. miata macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    Location:
    Silicon Valley, Earth
    #1
    Does this seem really weird to anybody else?

    MBP 13" = 1280 x 800
    MBP 11" = 1366 x 768

    The MacBook Pro has 2% less pixels than the 11" Air.:eek:
     
  2. Chundles macrumors G4

    Chundles

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    #2
    No. Steve explicitly stated that the 11" MacBook Air has more pixels than the 13" MacBook Pro.

    The 13" MacBook Air has the same number of pixels as the 15" MacBook Pro.
     
  3. iBookG4user macrumors 604

    iBookG4user

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #3
    The OP said that the 13" MacBook Pro had less pixels than the 11" MacBook Air, so they are correct.
     
  4. kasakka macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    #4
    MBA was updated recently. 13" MBP will be updated eventually and it'll have the same res then. Simple as that.
     
  5. miata thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    Location:
    Silicon Valley, Earth
    #5
    OK. I guess if Steve approved it can't be weird. Something must be wrong with me.:eek:
     
  6. RKpro macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2008
    #6
    When I watched the keynote live, I distinctly remember Steve saying the 13" air had more pixels than the 15" pro. I laughed.

    On another note, more importantly the 1440x900 on 13" means we may see even higher pixel density on the next 15" refresh. I would really love 1920x1200, but Apple couldn't possibly do it until they find something even higher for the 17" screens.
     
  7. milan03 macrumors 6502

    milan03

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    New York City
    #7
    I don't see anything laughable at Steve's statement. I can laugh at your comment.
    What Steve said is that 13" Air has more PPI than the 15" MBP. Nothing to laugh about. You get the same resolution as 15" base model sqeezed in 13.3"
     
  8. RKpro macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2008
    #8
    Go view the keynote, at 01h:15m:15s. I stand corrected. :p
     
  9. alust2013 macrumors 601

    alust2013

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Location:
    On the fence
    #9
    1920x1200 on a 15" is painful...
     
  10. aimbdd macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    East Cost
  11. miata thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    Location:
    Silicon Valley, Earth
    #11
    And it looks like crap. That is the problem with MacOS. I sure hope Lion delivers resolution independence.
     
  12. jclardy macrumors 68040

    jclardy

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    #12
    My bet is they just get rid of the 1440x900 15" and have all of them with the current "High-Res" option at 1680x1050. Although if it is a major overhaul they may go for something bigger.

    Then the 13" gets the 1440x900 like the air.
     
  13. deeddawg macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2010
    Location:
    US
    #13
    That would potentially alienate a lot of owners with less than stellar eyesight unless Apple also makes is simple to do wholesale system font size changes.

    What works great for young eyes doesn't work so great after 40... :)
     
  14. ReallyBigFeet macrumors 68030

    ReallyBigFeet

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    #14
    I wear glasses so obviously my eyesight isn't stellar. My 15" Hi-Res took a little while to get used to, and I do tend to use the zoom feature on websites like this one that are mainly text-based, but I do have to say that I adapted to it far faster than I thought. Now I find myself really wanting nothing less than this resolution.

    Which is why I chose the 13" MBA. Although the native resolution is a step down from my 15" Hi-Res, the PPI is almost identical. Moving from the Hi-res to the "normal res" MBA's screen is seamless. My eyes can't even tell the difference.
     
  15. karkid macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2010
    #15
    they should put 2560x1440 in the 17 inch and 1920x1080 in the 15:rolleyes:
     
  16. mike5411 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    #16
    you have to account for the 16:9 and 16:10 display ratio difference between the two. They are as close as they can be when taking in account the ratio.
     
  17. miata thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    Location:
    Silicon Valley, Earth
    #17
    Yes. And another good reason to put the Dock on the side rather than the bottom.
     
  18. SudoSSD macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2010
    #18
    Let's just hope 10.7 will offer a resolution independent GUI.
     

Share This Page