new macbook pro screen res

[tim100]

after watching the last keynote announcing the macbook air, i thought the new macbook pro would get a screen res increase. the 15 does have a bto option for higher screen res but the 13 does not. more importantly most will buy the standard configuration.

are the standard screen res too low? have i bought too much into apple marketing higher screen res or is it really important left out of this update?

 

[Evil Spoonman]

Everybody likes more pixels. It is somewhat unfortunate that the 13" MBP didn't get a 1440x900 display. Whether it was for technical or marketing reasons (I assume the former), the current display's aptitude depends entirely on what you are doing. I don't think I'd want to use Photoshop very often on it. Web browsing, skype, IM, email, all the usual jazz… it should be just fine.

 

[Invisible Elf]

Considering the current 13.3" MBP has slightly higher resolution than my old 15.4" laptop it's really not that bad IMO, even though it's odd that the MBA has higher.

 

[tim100]

Considering the current 13.3" MBP has slightly higher resolution than my old 15.4" laptop it's really not that bad IMO, even though it's odd that the MBA has higher.

i just cant understand why the mba has higher res than mbp

 

[karohan]

i just cant understand why the mba has higher res than mbp

I agree. It seems extremely dumb that they are doing that. I don't have a problem with the 15", but it makes no sense with the 13". If Apple had a problem with such a high resolution, they shouldn't be offering it in their Airs too.

 

[Evil Spoonman]

I agree. It seems extremely dumb that they are doing that. I don't have a problem with the 15", but it makes no sense with the 13". If Apple had a problem with such a high resolution, they shouldn't be offering it in their Airs too.

The only reason I can think of is that Apple has trouble getting high enough panel quality at that resolution. The Air is more of a consumer machine, perhaps Apple decided that panel quality wasn't as important there. Yet felt that it was still important with the MBP.

The only other explanation that comes to mind would be marketing.

 

[ScottFitz]

When the 13 MBP is phased out in favor of the 13 MBA, it'll seem like an upgrade. I see the Air being the "entry level" laptop from Apple by the end of 2012. Just speculation on my part.

All that guessing aside, i agree with you all. Makes no sense today. On the 15 I just ordered, I upgraded to the higher Rez screen. I'm hoping to get 3 years out of MBP I just ordered. Tried to step up my specs a bit.

 

[tim100]

When the 13 MBP is phased out in favor of the 13 MBA, it'll seem like an upgrade. I see the Air being the "entry level" laptop from Apple by the end of 2012. Just speculation on my part.

All that guessing aside, i agree with you all. Makes no sense today. On the 15 I just ordered, I upgraded to the higher Rez screen. I'm hoping to get 3 years out of MBP I just ordered. Tried to step up my specs a bit.

1) why would apple phase out the popular 13 mbp? i think apple needs more than an entry level machine at the 13 inch size. is mba entry level?

2) will you keep it 3 years if the next gen has ssd no optical drive, is marketed as no moving parts.

 

[adnoh]

The only reason I can think of is that Apple has trouble getting high enough panel quality at that resolution. The Air is more of a consumer machine, perhaps Apple decided that panel quality wasn't as important there. Yet felt that it was still important with the MBP.

The only other explanation that comes to mind would be marketing.

Dont agree.

The MBP has a P in the name because its a Pro. If the MBA had the lower res and the MBP the higher res, you could argue the logic since the MBA is a consumer model.

Professionals will always take higher res screens as they can be more productive. The way apple has done the exact opposite its stupid...just stupid.

Thanks steve.

 

[Evil Spoonman]

Dont agree.

The MBP has a P in the name because its a Pro. If the MBA had the lower res and the MBP the higher res, you could argue the logic since the MBA is a consumer model.

Professionals will always take higher res screens as they can be more productive. The way apple has done the exact opposite its stupid...just stupid.

Thanks steve.

That is completely untrue. I am a professional, I know a lot of professionals. Myself, and many of my friends, would pick the lower resolution display every time. Quality matters, especially when you are doing visual work.

Now a business professional who mostly surfs the web, does email, presentations, spreadsheets, and text documents would definitely pick resolution over quality.

 

[Invisible Elf]

Won't a "professional" have a proper monitor in his office anyway? I mean sure you won't always be in your office, but at meetings or on the train I'm sure you can live with the slightly lower resolution

 

[brentsg]

Won't a "professional" have a proper monitor in his office anyway? I mean sure you won't always be in your office, but at meetings or on the train I'm sure you can live with the slightly lower resolution

He just said he'd take a higher quality panel at lower resolution, so yes I t looks like he could live with the lower resolution.

Everyone is focused on the res, but the MBA still has a lower quality panel.

 

[adnoh]

That is completely untrue. I am a professional, I know a lot of professionals. Myself, and many of my friends, would pick the lower resolution display every time. Quality matters, especially when you are doing work visual work.

Now a business professional who mostly surfs the web, does email, presentations, spreadsheets, and text documents would definitely pick resolution over quality.

If you picked the MBA over the MBP you dont need a pro grade laptop.

what exactly is "work visual work" and how does that benefit from lower resolution?

 

[andrewface]

people need to realize that the 13 inch mbp is actually just a macbook (nonpro) in an aluminum case. These machines have the same configurations that the standard macbooks had in comparison to the real 15-17" pro's back in the day. It's simply a clever marketing move to call the lower end macbook a pro. I don't get why people are surprised that these don't come with dedicated graphics, high res screens, etc...

 

[TomCondon]

people need to realize that the 13 inch mbp is actually just a macbook (nonpro) in an aluminum case. These machines have the same configurations that the standard macbooks had in comparison to the real 15-17" pro's back in the day. It's simply a clever marketing move to call the lower end macbook a pro. I don't get why people are surprised that these don't come with dedicated graphics, high res screens, etc...

except numbnuts the new pro has a core i5/ core i7 and has 4 gigs of ram as standard and a bigger hard drive


where do you get these people?

 

[andrewface]

except numbnuts the new pro has a core i5/ core i7 and has 4 gigs of ram as standard and a bigger hard drive


where do you get these people?

well keep dreaming.

 

[TomCondon]

well keep dreaming.

what exactly do you mean, keep dreaming? this was released....

 

[andrewface]

what exactly do you mean, keep dreaming? this was released....

that the 13" macbook pro is the same thing as the 15-17" ones. Those are different processors numbnuts (dual core vs quad core). Of course the low end computers have been upgrade along side the higher models but they are still lower end machines with lower end components. The only thing similar appears to be the RAM if you go with the higher end 13.

 

[Brummer2011]

Look:

I think it´s like this:

Apple thougt what screen res the small air should get, 1024x600? no! 1280x720? no! 1366x768? yes!

But the 13 inch air must not have a lower res (1280x800) than the smaller one...

sooo it has 1440x900, which is one step forward to 1280x800

HOPE I´M RIGHT ^^

 

[djasterix]

people need to realize that the 13 inch mbp is actually just a macbook (nonpro) in an aluminum case. These machines have the same configurations that the standard macbooks had in comparison to the real 15-17" pro's back in the day. It's simply a clever marketing move to call the lower end macbook a pro. I don't get why people are surprised that these don't come with dedicated graphics, high res screens, etc...

That's not true now. The 13" MBP has i5/i7 processors, FireWire and Thunderbolt. And the display has the same resolution, but better quality.

 

[TomCondon]

that the 13" macbook pro is the same thing as the 15-17" ones. Those are different processors numbnuts (dual core vs quad core). Of course the low end computers have been upgrade along side the higher models but they are still lower end machines with lower end components. The only thing similar appears to be the RAM if you go with the higher end 13.

alright, while your grammar is incredibly poor ( a trend with you whining people, incidentally), what I think you are saying is that the 13" macbook pro is a "lower end" model of the 15"? if this is right then I can only say to you; well done.

Your original point, while equally poorly expressed was that the 13" pro is just a 13" macbook in an aluminum casing. This is incorrect, as the macbook pro 13" has much higher specs, such as the processor, faster and more ram, bigger hard drive and backlit keys, etc ,etc.

 

[ozred]

1) after watching the last keynote announcing the macbook air, i thought the new macbook pro would get a screen res increase. the 15 does have a bto option for higher screen res but the 13 does not. more importantly most will buy the standard configuration.

2) are the standard screen res too low?

3) have i bought too much into apple marketing higher screen res or is it really important left out of this update?

1) I've used both Mac & PC Laptops for years. For some reason Apple has lagged behind the industry for a long time. One of the reasons I bought a new 15" 2010 because they _finally_ claimed to offer hi-res. I was greatly disappointed (yet not surprised) to find as usual, Apple mislead us, offering only a medium resolution. It's my only major complaint with Apple, they make up stories and claims of superiority to suit them. They cannot be trusted to deliver what they say they do.

Apple is highly successful in misleading the public, without ever being held accountable. That's what master marketing and windfall profits do. They give Apple a pass, just like Michael Vick essentially got off scott free for his vicious and criminal enterprise.

2) if you're quite old with poor vision the standard low resolution display is fine. Apple uses it because it's cheap and enhances their per unit profit. They are the only laptop maker I'm aware of that does not offer what the industry defines as a hi resolution display. They are too expensive for Apples profit matrix.

3) depending on your usage patterns the lack of a true hi-res display could be a huge problem.

Finally since I've been honest and shared my years of laptop experience, prepare to watch this post be assaulted by the Apple followers who are hyper sensitive to any post that fails to praise Apple and hide their shortcomings. This is an Apple forum, just like other Apple forums, it's an entirely different standard. Apple is a religion not to be questioned.

Cheers

 

[David-fr]

Even with the res of the 15 inch im not happy, i'll be returning mine to the store for a refund and then get the high res online.

I'm amaze how such powerful machine with that much video ram, elegance and HIGH price point does not have a top of the line resolution!

 

[Brummer2011]

Errr...

What resolution would you like/expect/recommend?

Because all the other 15" laptops have the crappy 1366x768 16:9 res, which is a joke!

 

[Commonmind]

1) I've used both Mac & PC Laptops for years. For some reason Apple has lagged behind the industry for a long time. One of the reasons I bought a new 15" 2010 because they _finally_ claimed to offer hi-res. I was greatly disappointed (yet not surprised) to find as usual, Apple mislead us, offering only a medium resolution. It's my only major complaint with Apple, they make up stories and claims of superiority to suit them. They cannot be trusted to deliver what they say they do.

Apple is highly successful in misleading the public, without ever being held accountable. That's what master marketing and windfall profits do. They give Apple a pass, just like Michael Vick essentially got off scott free for his vicious and criminal enterprise.

2) if you're quite old with poor vision the standard low resolution display is fine. Apple uses it because it's cheap and enhances their per unit profit. They are the only laptop maker I'm aware of that does not offer what the industry defines as a hi resolution display. They are too expensive for Apples profit matrix.

3) depending on your usage patterns the lack of a true hi-res display could be a huge problem.

Finally since I've been honest and shared my years of laptop experience, prepare to watch this post be assaulted by the Apple followers who are hyper sensitive to any post that fails to praise Apple and hide their shortcomings. This is an Apple forum, just like other Apple forums, it's an entirely different standard. Apple is a religion not to be questioned.

Cheers

You've made it nearly impossible to refute your logic by accusing anyone with a different opinion than your own of being motivated by brand loyalty.

I also have several years of experience using both mobile platforms, professionally and for personal use. Apple offers a 17" model with a 1920x1200 resolution, more than fair for a display of that size. They offer a standard resolution (which you'd find on the majority of displays in this screen size, by many PC manufacturers) on their base 15" models, with an available upgrade to 1680x1050.

Anything higher than a 1680x1050 resolution on a 15" display would be uncomfortable to use. I'll give you that it's highly subjective, but as an individual who works in the web development and multimedia industries and enjoys higher resolution for productivity reasons, even I find anything past that starts to get silly.