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.
The 13.3" resolution SUCKS.
- Thread starter pismodude2
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
I am amazed by your statement.
Lenovo is known to have some of the worst panels in the industry, particularly the x201/x301 notebooks.
We have both in my offices, there's not one person who would choose the Lenovo's over the 13" MBP screen. In fact, it's the one thing they comment about often, how the displays are poor compared to the MBP, resolution is second to panel quality.
Live side by side testing is the only way to settle the argument. It's split opinions here and I'm surprised. Because a screen is higher resolution DOES NOT mean it's better.
^ Agreed. I used a 19" high res monitor before i got the MBP, sure it does fit a lot more windows, but the colors are nowhere near as good as the MBP's glossy. Same goes for my Toshiba L300 and HP DV2550.
Apple seems to be one of the only manufacturers moving towards higher pixel density displays. I had a 15.4 toshiba satellite and the resolution was 1280x800. The only problem is that they also have to start making an OS that can handle a higher resolution.
It actually wouldnt be too hard to port all the existing applications for a higher definition since everything is made in Xcode and its all uniform. I guess it would be almost identical to porting apps for the iPhone 4s display.
It actually wouldnt be too hard to port all the existing applications for a higher definition since everything is made in Xcode and its all uniform. I guess it would be almost identical to porting apps for the iPhone 4s display.
Well, OS X does support larger resolutions, up to 2560x1600 - the largest resolution you will find in a computer monitor. I have seen a 15.4" HP with a 1920x1200 display, but it legitimately hurt my eyes to look at. I know several people that have that computer, as it was recommended by my university for engineers, but all of them run it at 1440x900 or maybe 1680x1050, which looks rather fuzzy.
What I meant was having a way so that applications will display at a normal size on the higher resolution, similar to the way the iPhone 4 makes applications designed for the other hardware look nice and not stretched or pixelated.
thanks, i ordered one....i will give this a go,
looks really promising
1440x900 would be awsome!
how much did you pay? it doesn't say anywhere on the site
how long did they say it will take to get to you?
and once you post back with your results, i'll order one too (unless of course they update the 13" with better resolution this fall... i can see it happen seeing as how apple is pushing this retina screen on the iPhone 4)
and thanks a lot OP, i've been looking for this
Clearly, many of you missed the part where I asked you to respect those of us who DO want a higher resolution 13.3" screen. So I'll just go ahead and kindly ask you to stop spamming, opinions about the old screen being 'the greatest panel evarrr' do NOT help this thread achieve what was intended, thanks. We're aiming for productivity here, although it seems that we really are limited in this area...
To the person who bought the 1440x900: Did it work, how much was it, and how good is it in appearance and battery life affect?
I wouldn't mind even such a small bump, it really bums me out to have a computer closer to the iPhone resolution than some of the larger MBP model screens. 160p difference between my computer and phone? Ugh.
To the person who bought the 1440x900: Did it work, how much was it, and how good is it in appearance and battery life affect?
I wouldn't mind even such a small bump, it really bums me out to have a computer closer to the iPhone resolution than some of the larger MBP model screens. 160p difference between my computer and phone? Ugh.
IN your car analogy, you've spent the same money you would have spent buying the M3 off the rack. Like I said...illogical.
The form factor of the 13", in terms of the screen, is not that much smaller than the 15". All Apple really did is go a little wider and lower the bezel presence somewhat. Most hardly notice a difference; it's the screen resolution difference that really does it and the smaller bezel. I'm okay with a 1440 on a 13" though it's right at the borderline of tolerance. What I'm saying is, putting a 1680 res or higher on a screen that small is absolute lunacy. It totally defeats the purpose of the resolution when it's limited by physical real estate.
But whatever, to each their own. I guess if people want to go blind that's their decision.
It is when you have had a taste of something better.
Imagine how the feeling whenever I go mobile with any laptop after spending everyday glued to my triple thirty-inch display... Gotta be said, I don't mind using the MBP17 with it's gorgeous high-res display. But man it's a pain whenever I choose the MacBook!!
Don't really understand why Apple couldn't offer Hi-Res across it's entire mobile computer range, useful for those of us whom want it.
Well, those are some stupid engineers, the kind which can't do nano engineering on laptops so we have to wheel them around on a dolly when by now a 17" laptop should not weigh more than three pounds.
Six years ago laptops were the same dimensions and weight as now. Six years ago cell phones resembled hand grenades.
1920 x 1200 is too small? Then scale up the icons to 150% and in your browser hold down the CTRL and then hit the "+" key. Every push makes everything bigger with no reduction in resolution.
--
Really, 17" laptops should weigh under three pounds? I don't agree with you at all because there is steady progression going on in the fields of power (CPU/GPU) and speed (SSDs). Battery tech has to get much better before we can start seeing slimmer laptops that last longer with more powerful components. We are already seeing heat and battery life problems in mobile phones because the tech is not keeping up with the power progression involving mobile chipsets. My HTC Incredible gets about two and a half hours of battery life when doing heavy web browsing over 3G, for example.
Just because cell phones have developed into radically different devices does not mean that the laptop is in a dire state or isn't being developed enough.
I can't imagine 17" notebooks to be less than 3lbs. The battery itself is a lot of the weight. You have to remember all of the components that go into a notebook. To make a 17" notebook to be less than 3lbs will require some extraordinary engineering and a LOT of money. It will also result in it being less powerful... like the Macbook Air, which is 3lbs.
What do you estimate the cost would be to produce a 17" <3lbs notebook? How much money would it be to the consumer? It would make Apple look like they only produce notebooks for the rich elite.
If you are responding to my post, and it appears that you are because you have not quoted anyone, nor directed this at a specific person, then I don't think you know what you're talking about. In this case, when discussing an exact screen size, to increase one is to increase the other, and vice versa.
If there are more pixels per inch on a 13.3" MacBook Pro screen, the resolution will be higher. If there is a higher resolution on a 13.3" MacBook Pro screen, the pixels per inch will be higher. To complain about one on a 13.3" MacBook Pro screen is to complain about the other, they are directly correlated.
And that's, that.
MacBook Pro 13.3" @ 1280×800 is 113 PPI
MacBook Pro 15.4" @ 1440×900 is 110 PPI
113 > 110
It's NOT only resolution but the size of the display that determines sharpness and PPI (Pixels Per Square Inch)
So.. 13.3" owns 15.4" in terms of PPI.
And that's, that.
MacBook Pro 15.4" @ 1440×900 is 110 PPI
113 > 110
It's NOT only resolution but the size of the display that determines sharpness and PPI (Pixels Per Square Inch)
So.. 13.3" owns 15.4" in terms of PPI.
And that's, that.
Wow. Did you not see how many times I said 'when discussing the 13.3" display'? This thread is only about the 13.3" display. The Pixels Per Inch on the 13.3" display and the Resolution on the 13.3" display was what we were talking about. That is a completely different display, with a higher resolution. Resolution is what I am complaining about. Read the title of the thread, dude.
Please, just delete your post now. It is not contributing at all.
WTH dude, can you not read?
I'm comparing the 13.3 vs 15.4 ppi.
I'M TALKING ABOUT THE 13.3 1280x800 [read my post again! lol].
WTH is the world coming to.
WTH dude, can you not read?
I'm comparing the 13.3 vs 15.4 ppi.
I'M TALKING ABOUT THE 13.3 1280x800 [read my post again! lol].
WTH is the world coming to.
Can YOU not read? I understand what you were doing, do you? You were comparing the PPI on the 15.4" screen to to the 13.3" screen. You were doing this in a thread dedicated to finding alternatives for the 13.3" screen.
In other words, you were trying to offer the alternative of no alternative, trying to make everyone feel like what they have is great, due to the high(ish) PPI. This is a thread about getting new panels, not feeling good about what we already have, which is why I'm trying to get you to stop spamming.
Read my original post if you still don't understand the point of this thread, but don't just jump in and try to tell us what we have is the "bestest thing ever :-D". This is a thread for the people who are NOT happy
mad: <-- see that?) with what they currently have, and no amount of comparisons nor explanations on your part or anyone elses' will make our hardware better for day-to-day use.The processor is the only nano engineered part in the machine. The processors are getting smaller, and running cooler.
Nano tech is not just about getting smaller. It is also about increasing strength as well. There is no need for an aluminum unibody that is so heavy. A case could be nano engineered and manufactured that weighed perhaps 25% as much, yet was stronger than what Apple sells now.
Foxconn probably can't do it. Engineers at General Dynamics, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman can. Unfortunately, they are busy producing death machines to commit mass murder in our name in Pakistan and make us tens of millions of enemies to keep the Military Industrial Complex rolling along sucking our blood to the tune of one out of three tax dollars collected.
--
I don't think there is anyone offering higher res displays for the unibodies. It would have to be LED and basically you'd have to replace the whole lid to install it because the glass front and bezel are pretty much glued together afaik.
Ideally Apple would offer a higher res display on the next iteration of the 13" MBP. Due to the bezel size, they could fit in a slightly bigger display (maybe even 14") if some display manufacturer makes one, with 1440x900 resolution at most.
Since OSX isn't resolution independent, scaling stuff simply doesn't work. Browsers can scale what they are rendering, but with a too high res compared to display size means everything else like top menu bar etc are going to be difficult to read. 1680x1050 is pretty much perfect for the 15", but I'm not a fan of 1920x1200 for the 17"..it's already too small IMO.
Ideally Apple would offer a higher res display on the next iteration of the 13" MBP. Due to the bezel size, they could fit in a slightly bigger display (maybe even 14") if some display manufacturer makes one, with 1440x900 resolution at most.
Since OSX isn't resolution independent, scaling stuff simply doesn't work. Browsers can scale what they are rendering, but with a too high res compared to display size means everything else like top menu bar etc are going to be difficult to read. 1680x1050 is pretty much perfect for the 15", but I'm not a fan of 1920x1200 for the 17"..it's already too small IMO.
- Status