Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

The screen size you'd choose, 'IF' ...

If price, weight and resolution where equal which screen size would you choose?

  • 13"

    Votes: 41 27.2%

  • 15"

    Votes: 72 47.7%

  • 17"

    Votes: 38 25.2%
  • Total voters
    151
alphaod said:
15" with a 2560x1600 display. They do make one… I think. At least they did make one for a Thinkpad and it was S-IPS.
Click to expand...
Wow, I didn't know that!
I'd buy it in a second. Probably is super expensive...
Regardless, imagine a 15" MacBook Pro with a 30" screen resolution! Damn! :D

When's Apple coming out with resolution independence!
It's been around since Mac OS X 10.4, can't believe it's still not public.

I mean, I understand the challenges and the issue with legacy software, so I guess it will happen once Carbon libraries are retired...
Apple probably has resolution independence fully working for Cocoa library applications, just keeps it under wraps until all major applications are 64bit Cocoa capable...
 
I've used all three sizes and prefer 15". The 13" is too small for me to be used as my main laptop. I don't always have the luxury of connecting my laptop to an external monitor so during those times I have to use the laptop screen as my main screen.

The 17" is just physically too large for me. I wouldn't want it even if it were as light weight as the Air. If I need a larger screen than 15" then I would connect it to a larger external because 17" is still to small for me when a large screen is needed but it adds a lot of bulk for a laptop.

The 15" just fits my needs better. It's a great compromise between too small and too bulky. All my previous laptops have been 15" so I don't think I'll change from that anytime soon.
 
If I could get a 13" with 1920x1200 resolution, a matte screen and the speed of my 17", I'd have gotten it. However, Apple just doesn't seem interested in doing that. :(
 
I find it laughable (and quite annoying) that Apple hasn't released a 1900x1200 res monitor yet for the 15" MBP. Virtually every other high end 15 incher has at least the option for a 1900x1200 display.

It's the only thing holding me back from purchasing a new MBP! :mad:
 
iSaint said:
I'm curious about your eyesight. I only have full vision in one eye, but peripheral in the left. I also wear reading glasses. I can't decide if the 13" MBP would have enough screen area for my poor eyes. What do you currently use?
Click to expand...

Sounds like you're in a tough place WRT vision. I'm nearsighted, but only moderately, and my vision is much worse beyond about 15 feet than it is within 10. So if I look at anything less than about 10 ft away while wearing my glasses I get headaches, but my vision is still fuzzy at anything more than about 18". I imagine that with smaller pixels it would be even worse.

I'm currently running dual 20" monitors -- an ACD and a Dell -- at 1680x1050 each, and they take up too much of my field of view for bifocals to be practical. I tend to sit at about 3-4 feet and just lean in to put my nose up to the screen when I'm doing graphics work, but it makes for terrible posture. I'm thinking of asking my opthamologist for two separate prescriptions next time I go.
 
mongoos150 said:
I find it laughable (and quite annoying) that Apple hasn't released a 1900x1200 res monitor yet for the 15" MBP. Virtually every other high end 15 incher has at least the option for a 1900x1200 display.
Click to expand...
It is quite puzzling.

I understand that Apple likes a simple product matrix. And seeing how difficult their screens are to disassemble it would be a nightmare to not only offer glossy/matte options but each in two different resolutions...

Then there's the logistical nightmare to stock spare parts for the complete 3 year AppleCare warranty period... It's not just the screen, connection cables are likely different, inverters, fixtures, screws, the lot.

Yet with Apple approaching 10% market share in the US and seeing that other companies with less market share can do it...

Either Apple is terribly greedy (and would rather forfeit another option than risk lower profitability).
Or they are waiting for better times, like perhaps waiting to introduce Resolution Independence.

I'm hoping for the latter. But I'm not sure, might be the former...
:(


Apple can be weird. With some features they are way ahead of everyone else, like when they introduced multitouch, unibody casings, etc.
Yet with other features they're kicking and screaming until literally forced to implement it as everyone else already has it, like with CD burners, Blu-Ray drives or high-res displays...
 
I like that the 15.4" is 1440x990

I had an inspiron 8200 for three and a half years. They "upgraded" me to 1600x1200 for free. I hated it. I squinted my way through every article.

I have a 20.1" S-IPS panel that's 1600x1200 now and it's just right. **** having that resolution on a 15" display!!
 
l.a.rossmann said:
I like that the 15.4" is 1440x990
Click to expand...
I like it also. Unlike CRT monitors we can't really change flat panel resolutions from it's native size without making it look bad so getting the resolution right for each monitor size is very important.

Everyone has their own preference but I prefer not to squint when trying to use anything on my computer. I think the current resolution for the 15" is good.
 
EndlessMac said:
I like it also. Unlike CRT monitors we can't really change flat panel resolutions from it's native size without making it look bad so getting the resolution right for each monitor size is very important.

Everyone has their own preference but I prefer not to squint when trying to use anything on my computer. I think the current resolution for the 15" is good.
Click to expand...

It would be nice to have the option to choose a higher resolution, however.
 
entatlrg said:
fonts would be far too small
Click to expand...
Only if you don't have Resolution Independence switched on.


OSX_ResIndependance_Comparison.png



That's exactly why this is so important.
But with RI your argument is mute. In fact fonts would not only not look smaller, they would look sharper and much more readable on a 2560x1600 15" display.


I just wish Apple get their act together and finally take RI mainstream - and not just leave it a hidden stepchild feature in OS X.
 
Dreamail said:
Only if you don't have Resolution Independence switched on.


OSX_ResIndependance_Comparison.png



That's exactly why this is so important.
But with RI your argument is mute. In fact fonts would not only not look smaller, they would look sharper and much more readable on a 2560x1600 15" display.


I just wish Apple get their act together and finally take RI mainstream - and not just leave it a hidden stepchild feature in OS X.
Click to expand...

If that were on my Inspiron 8200 in 2002 I would've had a much happier three years.
 
mongoos150 said:
That's your opinion. I have excellent sight would love 1900x1200 res on a 15" laptop. Razor-sharp text :cool:
Click to expand...

little more than an opinion ... do some research ... 20/20 vision viewing at 1900x1200 res reading for a few hours or more a day = eyestrain, crisp text or not. If you're doing photo/video editing in the field different story.

Anyway, this isn't a resolution thread...
 
entatlrg said:
little more than an opinion ... do some research ... 20/20 vision viewing at 1900x1200 res reading for a few hours or more a day = eyestrain, crisp text or not. If you're doing photo/video editing in the field different story.
Click to expand...

Do some research? :rolleyes: I'm relying on my own experience. If your eyes become strained, use a larger resolution. I don't have that problem. Higher res also means more screen real-estate.

Apple needs to give the option to the rest of us who prefer larger res screens (like many other manufacturers do).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back