I'm kind of glad they don't come in one inch differences. 😅 For me, mobility and an ability to work in crammed cafes are so important that it will definitely be the 14 inch model. However, if they would also sell a 15" option with tiny bezels, that would be a really difficult decision...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Upcoming 14-Inch and 16-Inch MacBook Pro Display Resolutions Likely Revealed in Latest macOS Monterey Beta
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The current 16" MacBook Pro IS their old 15" laptop with tiny bezels (which allows it to have the 16" display).
All this talk of laptops makes me really, really, really want a refreshed iMac (the larger size). I've been living with a 16" MBP for a few years now. While I like having the portability when I need it, I'm really tired of connecting/disconnecting cables to the external display, the sleep crashes/restarts with an external monitor connected, etc.
I'll be going with a fully-stocked iMac and possibly a MacBook Air for the few times I need to do some quick work outside my home/office.
I'll be going with a fully-stocked iMac and possibly a MacBook Air for the few times I need to do some quick work outside my home/office.
Yeah that's true, but the current 15" is too large for me. However, the current 15" without bezels would be a different story. But I'm not complaining at all, I'm sure I'll be extremely happy with the new 14".
It's not ALL THAT DIFFERENT!
If it were 10" high, it's only 15.4" wide instead of 16"...
Yes, it would basically mean a 15.4" MacBook Pro with the height of the current 16" MacBook Pro...
Dude there is no ProBullshit.
Its just a 120HZ ... Panel
The ProBullshit its to grab another 100$ for nothing.
It's not, the 16" is bigger than the 15". While the bezels are a little smaller they don't totally makeup for the larger screen.
15" Weight and Dimensions: 4.02 lbs., 0.61" H x 13.75" W x 9.48" D
16" Weight and Dimensions: 4.3 lbs., 0.64" H x 14.09" W x 9.68" D
Holy hell they are idiots for doing that. Vertical height is why I was looking forward to the 14” display. 16:10 is the best thing about Mac laptop displays, in my view. I like to keep my dock and menu-bar visible so I need all the vertical pixels I can get. Absolute idiots.
Never mind. My mistake. 16:10.4. More vertical height. This is amazing!!
Last edited:
Get Blade Adavnced - 165HZ , all the ports you need without the mambo jambo of apple.
And you can upgrade both RAM & NVME.
The “proper” display to view 4K content on is a separate monitor plugged in to your MacBook Pro, not the built-in display. This display can be a color accurate monitor, a 4K or HDTV or a typical display that the deliverable content is going to de displayed on.
Lots of spec chasing going on in this thread that simply isn’t necessary. Most potential buyers are going to be way more interested in how many 4K or 8K streams the CPU and GPU can support in FCP X or daVinci Resolve that whether or not the display is 4K native. Besides, editing true 4K/DCI4K at native res requires a 5K or 6K monitor to be able to have the menus, tools and timeline visible along with the content itself.
Been waiting over 6 years to buy a new mbp worthy of replacing my 2011 15". There was no way I was buying a butterfly keyboard and I wasn't happy with the sea of dongles I would have required.
Hoping the new mbp has some decent ports returned and has fixed the heat issue and fan spin-up noise when using an external monitor.
Fingerz crossed.
Hoping the new mbp has some decent ports returned and has fixed the heat issue and fan spin-up noise when using an external monitor.
Fingerz crossed.
I have a MBP 15 2017 which was my first MBP ever and I love it, I think the design is beautiful but the keyboard, oh God the keyboard, already gave me a problem the first time and yesterday (09/23/2021 ) The letter "E" seemed to have a problem that was corrected only a little later but we all know how that works, unfortunately I have until December of this year; or for Apple to fix the keyboard problem for free after that I would have to pay I for a problem that has never been my fault, so I have to change it in one way or another this same to; o and I hope it is because of the new "M1X" I want them to leave the touch bar because it is simply beautiful
If I understood you correctly, your argument is that macOS method to render at 2x and then downsample results in diminished image quality. I have heard this argument before, but to be honest, I could never follow. I've been using scaled resolutions on retina Macs since 2012 and I have never noticed any discernible degradation when downsampling is involved.
And less anecdotally, I do not understand why rendering directly over a fractionally matched pixel grid (where a logical pixel does not nearly matches physical pixels), like Windows does, would somehow result in lower image quality than rendering to a higher-resolution image and then downsampling to the physical pixel grid, like macOS does. Depending on the algorithm chosen, the result should be either the same (since Windows needs to do pixel interpolation while rendering) or simply wrong (if they don't do interpolation).
Maybe by "sharp" you mean that by drawing directly, Windows can "snap" the images to the pixels? That is true, but that's also mathematically wrong and will mess up curves, corners and line widths in some cases. Then again, Windows has been rendering fonts wrongly for years to achieve "sharpness", even thought he fonts would be butchered at smaller sizes.
I have a MBP 15 2017 which was my first MBP ever and I love it, I think the design is beautiful but the keyboard, oh God the keyboard, already gave me a problem the first time and yesterday (09/23/2021 ) The letter "E" seemed to have a problem that was corrected only a little later but we all know how that works, unfortunately I have until December of this year; or for Apple to fix the keyboard problem for free after that I would have to pay I for a problem that has never been my fault, so I have to change it in one way or another this same to; o and I hope it is because of the new "M1X" I want them to leave the touch bar because it is simply beautiful
Apple gave up on "true 2x Retina" a while ago when they "upgraded" your 1440x900 (2x) to 1680x1050 (1.714x).
It does, especially when you want some influence on the scaling. E.g., if you want to fit more content, or less content, than the exact 2x scale. (IOW, whenever downsampling/upsampling is on.)
Sure, but the premise of this thread is that Apple increasing the physical resolution is nice because it improves sharpness. That's moot for people who won't use the native resolutoin.
What Windows does is render to the native resolution. Elements that are properly aware of the scaling are just pixel-perfect. Elements that aren't or can't be, such as bitmap images or apps that are incompatible, are indeed resampled.
Like, if you have 12pt text and the scale is 100%, it gets rendered at 12pt. But if the scale is 150%, it gets rendered as if it were 18pt.
Agreed. A 16-inch display is too small for that to make any difference. If anything, if the idea is to edit(!) 4K content, which is indeed a typical use case on an MBP, you'd surely want a resolution larger than 4K, which is just completely impractical on such a small display. Just hook up a 5K or 6K display.
It’s hard for forum commenters to piss and moan about when you (and I) present rational and logical solutions to such problems that Apple “creates” to feed their greed by screwing customers! /s
This reminds me of all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over the XR’s less than HD resolution and how Apple was either screwing people over or cheaping out because customers would not be able to enjoy “true” HD resolution video content and that was appalling to the technorati here on MacRumors. True to form, the iPhone XR was Apple’s best seller and survived quite a long time before being discontinued, but I digress.
Lol, 15.4:10 is more vertical height than 16:10. If it makes it easier for you 15.4:10 is the same as 16:10.4
Ah, I agree that it's moot. The slight increase in PPI won't have any discernible difference to the user.
If UI elements are snapped to the pixel grid, then the rendered result is simply wrong. "Pixel-perfect" is an oxymoron if the logical pixels and physicals pixels don't overlap precisely. But again, Windows has the tradition to render it's UI wrong in order to achieve "sharpness", even if it looks awful.