Screen Real estate on macbook

Discussion in 'MacBook' started by sonictim, Apr 1, 2009.

  1. sonictim macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    #1
    hey guys, it's been around two months since i bought my 2.4 GHz unibody MB and i've got to say it's blazing fast and just awesome, but i have one big problem. the lack of real estate on the 1280 x 800 screen, i knew this before buying it and i didn't think that it would be such an issue but when it's your only/main machine it can be a bit annoying when using photoshop or other screen-real-estate-hogging-apps. well anyways on to my point, i was contemplating two options, sell the macbook, get an old MBP with 17 in screen. Or buy a 23 in 1650 x 1080 monitor. i'm really dying to have a bigger screen but a really like the macbook, please let me know your opinions.
     
  2. The Reason macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2008
    #2
    Go with the screen. I have a 22 inch Acer at work, and a 19 inch no name at home. Portability is a must with me. (I came from an old 17 inch pro, taking with me everywhere it got too heavy.)
     
  3. sonictim thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    #3
    Good to know because I haven't really had any hands on experiences with the "17 MBP.
     
  4. brad.c macrumors 68020

    brad.c

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Location:
    50.813669°, -2.474796°
    #4
    I have the 15" MBP, and a 24" 1900x1200 monitor. I run about half and half between full portable or desktop mode, but when I have the external attached, I still appreciate having both screens. IOW, if you can get by with the MB as a portable for a good chunk of the time, and go to your desk when you need more space, I recommend getting the monitor.
     
  5. sonictim thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    #5
    alright, i've decided to go all out and get a nice 1920 x 1200 monitor, does anyone have any suggestions?
     
  6. brad.c macrumors 68020

    brad.c

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Location:
    50.813669°, -2.474796°
    #6
    Depends on your budget. Mine is the Dell 2407WFP-HC, which I'm happy with, but since your UMB has a mini display port connection, you'll need to add the cost of the adaptor to the equation.

    What about the Apple 24" LED?
     
  7. NewMacbookPlz macrumors 68040

    NewMacbookPlz

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
  8. sonictim thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    #8
    The led display seems way to pricey when you can get basically the same thing for much cheaper, the Dell 2407WFP-HC sounds awesome and is hundreds cheaper than the led display. I think i'll look around some more before i make the final decision and i might have to wait a while for it.
     
  9. aznguyen316 macrumors 68020

    aznguyen316

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    #9
    yeah the MB is too awesome to give up, esp for that portability. Good luck w/ finding an external.
     
  10. enigmatut macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Location:
    MA
    #10
    be mindful of screen size vs resolution

    IMHO a 23" monitor that is 1680x1050 would not be ideal as a desktop extension (using both the MB screen and the monitor). That resolution on a 23" screen would make all elements look "big" in comparison to the 1280x800 on the MacBook screen.
    I highly recommend a 24" monitor with the 1920x1200 resolution. There are some deals out there for monitors like this (check Dell and online retailers), but if you can swing the $$ go for the new Apple 24" display for it's ease of integration and it's sheer awesomeness.
     
  11. brad.c macrumors 68020

    brad.c

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Location:
    50.813669°, -2.474796°
    #11
    The Apple 24" LED is pricier than the Dell, but it needs no video adaptor for your MB's mini display port, has speakers and most impressively a built in AC adaptor for your MB. These tidbits narrow the price difference to where the (arguably) superior Apple monitor may be worth the extra expense.

    In addition, although not necessary with your MB, it also has a microphone and iSight camera. Um, woot. :)
     
  12. Aaleck macrumors 6502a

    Aaleck

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    #12
    I must say, I have an older MBP and was considering buying a new UMB and with all of you complaining about the screen size, which i thought "well it's not that bad, i think i can cope with it" i'm actually swerving towards the UMBP instead... would get the 17" but I can't really see me spending an extra $800 for an extra 2".. if only i were rich
     
  13. sonictim thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    #13
    The thing about the 17 in MBP screen is that it has a really high res screen 1920 x 1200 and that is amazing, the same resolution as a 24 in monitor, as the 15 in is 1440 x 900 the same as a normal 17 in monitor. So if you need that extra screen real estate the 17 in is a better choice.
     
  14. darngooddesign macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2007
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #14
    I use this on my 15" uMBP when I need more vertical screen space for Flash. They were made to squeeze more res out of hackintoshed netbooks. The 75% should give you the working equivilent of 1650x or so.

    They create some artifacts in finder, nothing major mind you, but it will get the job done. Don't worry, running the 100% returns everything back to normal, but you have to restart whichever application was running when you launched these scripts; for the finder just logout and in again.

    Display Scale 100% http://files.me.com/ammonsc/e68idz
    Display Scale 75% http://files.me.com/ammonsc/klldq2

    From: http://mydellmini.com/forum/virtually-increase-your-dell-mini-screen-resolution-t2179s10.html-sid=1a1b3b8965fd58163625f6f6c52a3f0a#p38355


    PS. You can create your own scale amount by editing one of those in Automator.
     
  15. brad.c macrumors 68020

    brad.c

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Location:
    50.813669°, -2.474796°
    #15
    I'm looking at my 24" Dell, and trying to imagine how the 1920x1200 resolution would look compressed into a 17" space, and whether or not it would cause eye strain if that was my only configuration. That's something you might want to consider.
     
  16. Aaleck macrumors 6502a

    Aaleck

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    #16
    thats true, but for what I do I can't really justify spending an extra $800 on the screen... even though I'd love to have one

    and really, thats why I thought the MacBook wouldn't be so bad, because of the high resolution but I guess it's not that high, well not enough to make it seem as good as a MBP
     

Share This Page