Typically, how often does Apple upgrade the screen resolution on the MacBook Pros?

Libertine Lush

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Nov 23, 2009
679
2
Typically, how often does Apple upgrade the screen resolution on the MacBook Pros? I'm hopeful that they'll improve the res for the 15" MBP whenever the refresh arrives. Are refreshes usually accompanied by resolutions improvements?

If the MBP stays at 1440x900, I've already spent considerable time looking at the Sony Z--a 13" with up to 1920x 1080 res. I may get that despite it having no TRIM support for it's RAID 0 SSDs. (I like Win7 a lot, so that's not a hinderance.)

Thank you.
 

psingh01

macrumors 65816
Apr 19, 2004
1,366
351
I doubt there will be a resolution upgrade too. I don't expect their 15" would ever have 1080p screen. Maybe a 1680x1050, but even that is wishful thinking.
 

maflynn

Moderator
Staff member
May 3, 2009
63,860
30,383
Boston
Apple hasn't changed resolutions for a very long time and personally I'm happy about that bmy recommendation is to get the Sony
 

Jaro65

macrumors 68040
Mar 27, 2009
3,703
563
Seattle, WA
Agree with the above posts. Don't expect any resolution change with the next refresh. I would love higher resolution on my 15" MBP, alas things are where they are....
 

Libertine Lush

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Nov 23, 2009
679
2
Wow. I didn't expect such a consensus of opinion. So I just looked up Wikipedia, just in case they might have some info tracking the timeline of the MBP resolution. Well no wonder you all agree: since the 2006 debut, the 15" has stayed stagnant at 1440x900.

So now in the anticipation that it'll remain unchanged, I'll consider possibly getting the 17" or the Sony Z. A 17" is bigger than I had planned, but a quad-SSD RAID 0 setup without TRIM is certainly an absurd inconvenience. I've spent hours perusing another forum for Sony Z owners and they're not quite sure yet how to address the eventual SSD performance degradation. (I wouldn't get an SSD for the 17" either, since OSX doesn't support TRIM.)

Thank you all for your replies!
 

darrellishere

macrumors 6502
Jul 13, 2007
337
0
Well apple were going too implement blu-ray across the range.
So maybe we will see a resolution bump then! Job's did say mac were going to go through the stratosphere this year! (Blu-ray, touch screen's etc!)
 

abs1nthe

macrumors member
Mar 14, 2010
30
0
Well apple were going too implement blu-ray across the range.
So maybe we will see a resolution bump then! Job's did say mac were going to go through the stratosphere this year! (Blu-ray, touch screen's etc!)
what??? this is utterly wrong. When did Steve Jobs say anything about Blu-Ray and touch screens?
 

Libertine Lush

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Nov 23, 2009
679
2
Job's did say mac were going to go through the stratosphere this year! (Blu-ray, touch screen's etc!)
I'm new to Apple products, but is my sense correct that it seems with the MBP line, the major improvements tend to occur with refreshes that occur later in the year?
 

gfiz

macrumors 6502
Dec 18, 2009
349
1
Virginia
There is no way in my mind that Apple cannot increase the resolution of the 15" especially, if not the 13" too. 1440x900 for a 15" screen is pretty ridiculous nowadays. 1680x1050 at a minimum. Hopefully the 13" would see 1440x900.
 

Z1NX

macrumors member
Jun 10, 2009
73
0
There is no way in my mind that Apple cannot increase the resolution of the 15" especially, if not the 13" too. 1440x900 for a 15" screen is pretty ridiculous nowadays. 1680x1050 at a minimum. Hopefully the 13" would see 1440x900.
I don't quite get what's so bad about it. I mean, forget about the tech. specifications. Looking at the screen alone, is there anything wrong with it how it is now? I mean, yeah, a bit less screen real-estate, but it's not that noticeable, is it?
 

gfiz

macrumors 6502
Dec 18, 2009
349
1
Virginia
I don't quite get what's so bad about it. I mean, forget about the tech. specifications. Looking at the screen alone, is there anything wrong with it how it is now? I mean, yeah, a bit less screen real-estate, but it's not that noticeable, is it?


it's different for everyone I guess, to me it's huge, and I'd think that's the overall consensus as most 15" laptops nowadays are coming out with resolutions > 1440x900, which means there's a market demand for them.
 

maratus

macrumors 6502a
Jun 12, 2009
630
146
Canada
Latest Intel drivers now support TRIM even for RAID 1 or RAID 0 arrays (and looks like they work on Vaio Z without any problem)
 

zedsdead

macrumors 68040
Jun 20, 2007
3,233
530
I disagree with most of the posts. I think we will see a resolution change this time around, especially if they go 16x9 like the iMac did.
 

Sequin

macrumors regular
Mar 21, 2010
184
0
I've been planning to buy a Macbook Pro, but was amazed when I saw how little resolution they have. That's why I'm going to get a 15" screen, but even that size seems small to me. I've been using 1680x1050 on my 15" laptop for years now. I decided to wait for the upgrade in hopes that they increase the resolution size to something more typical to today's computers.
 

metalblaze

macrumors member
Feb 17, 2010
36
1
I disagree with most of the posts. I think we will see a resolution change this time around, especially if they go 16x9 like the iMac did.
I concur. Undoubtedly, MBPs will have 16:9 ratio. Thats what is becoming the industry standard, and will save Apple some $$$ as well. Now, whether I like it or not compared to 16:10....well, that's a different issue.:rolleyes:
 

Libertine Lush

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Nov 23, 2009
679
2
Latest Intel drivers now support TRIM even for RAID 1 or RAID 0 arrays (and looks like they work on Vaio Z without any problem)
Yea! I noticed that very late last night after I started this thread.

Seeing as it's been nearly a year since a refresh, hopefully that means more substantial improvements are implemented. Along with a few others here, 1440x900 is unacceptable to me--especially at its pricepoint, especially for a "premium brand." And I do notice the significant difference in screen real estate, which was why I'm hoping the 15" gets bumped up, or it'll be either a 17" or the Sony Z.
 

Jaro65

macrumors 68040
Mar 27, 2009
3,703
563
Seattle, WA
You're right: 1440x900 isn't optimal, but the use of Spaces does make it a bit more bearable. I would really like 1680x1050 on a 15" MBP. In the end, I ended up getting a 17" MBP.
 

iBunny

macrumors 65816
Apr 15, 2004
1,254
0
The only way I will stay with the 15" is if they up the Res.

If not, I will be getting a 17" @ 1900x1200 and calling it a day :D
 

mrCAMPO

macrumors newbie
Mar 18, 2010
16
0
Using Spaces is still an inconvenience, rather I can imagine most people who can't utilise the shortcuts quickly enough would naturally just spread out whatever they are multi tasking on.

I would love a 1680x900 resolution at a bare minimum for the 15".

Have you seen the new VAIO Z @ 1920x1080p? Its incredibly sharp and the colours just pop nicely. I cant speak for some people who like things at bigger resolutions, but I still have perfect vision and I have always used large screens with high resolution rates (since the 24" 1920x1200 screens came out)
 

Libertine Lush

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Nov 23, 2009
679
2
Using Spaces is still an inconvenience
It's surely no substitute for a decent resolution on such high priced laptop from the most premium of computer brands. Having had a iMac 27" (2560 x 1440) and spent considerable time reading and lusting over the Sony Z(1600x900 to 1920x1080), makes it even more difficult to settle for 1440x900 in a 15" screen. I'm typing now on a $399 HP that's almost the same resolution.
 

mrCAMPO

macrumors newbie
Mar 18, 2010
16
0
It's surely no substitute for a decent resolution on such high priced laptop from the most premium of computer brands. Having had a iMac 27" (2560 x 1440) and spent considerable time reading and lusting over the Sony Z(1600x900 to 1920x1080), I can't settle for 1440x900 in a 15" screen. I'm typing now on a $399 HP that's almost the same resolution.
I can understand your point too. Even the 1600x900 screen is tops, but it is a shame that they only do the 1080p res for the top of the range Z (with the 256gb SSD)

The achilles heel for the macbook are options. If they can expand the macbook pro line with such examples like extra screen res configs, I'm sure a lot of people would appreciate such luxuries for a "Professional" lineup. I just don't see why the iMacs were given more priority with the refresh as opposed to the macbook line.

Having said all of that. I am eagerly anticipating what the new macbook pro refresh is going to be like. Considering the delays, I expect Apple to at least compete with most of what Sony is offering. Sony right now is killing it in terms of utilising the latest tech and applying into such small form-factors.

I want to finally own a macbook pro with some decent specs... :)
 

Furrybeagle

macrumors 6502
Sep 13, 2004
285
4
The screen on the 17” is beautiful. I don’t understand why Apple can’t use a screen with a similar pixel density on the 15”. Of course, I don’t understand why Apple axed the ExpressCard slot, either.

Okay, I do understand why. I just think they were wrong.

Personally, I don’t think it’s completely impossible that Apple would update the screens on the next refresh. I mean, they did put 1440x960 screens on the final PowerBook G4 15” revisions (from late 2005), which was kind of a random update if you think about it.

Maybe that’s just wishful thinking. :(