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.
What do you recommend: 1920x1200 or 1680x1050?
- Thread starter 109582
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If I were to buy a 17" MacBook Pro, I would choose the 1920 x 1200 resolution model because of more space and it's true HD. I don't care so much about "everything looks smaller". Everything will look nicer on the screen too because of the higher resolution.
I own the 1920x1200 17" and have also owned a 1680x1050 17". I strongly prefer the high-res display. I don't find the UI elements to be too small at all, although some others have already said they do. But again, with resolution-independence in Leopard, it won't be an issue for anyone for too much longer. In the meantime, icon sizes and font sizes can be increased if desired, until resolution-independence comes along. In this sense, the hi-res is a little more future-proof. Even if you do find it to be a little too small for the time being---don't worry, it's not microscopic or anything---it is certainly livable until 10.5 debuts.
My $.02.
My $.02.
this is what universal access and voiceover are for. increasing text size often isn't enough. even if it was, it's moot because of resolution independence and that it's a better idea to get the higher resolution display to begin with (better zoom).
I Was A HD Widescreen Holdout
1920 x 1200 display was on my MUST HAVE list before I would pull the trigger on my next mobile Mac and my first 17" model. Except for the NON-LED part, which apparently won't be solved until 2009 due to the size of this display, this new 17" MBP is perfection. I think anyone who doesn't opt for the Widescreen version for a mere $100 more is shooting themselves in the foot. Now I'm only contemplating waiting one last time for Leopard to ship in it.
While I don't really need it, I definitely want one.
1920 x 1200 display was on my MUST HAVE list before I would pull the trigger on my next mobile Mac and my first 17" model. Except for the NON-LED part, which apparently won't be solved until 2009 due to the size of this display, this new 17" MBP is perfection. I think anyone who doesn't opt for the Widescreen version for a mere $100 more is shooting themselves in the foot. Now I'm only contemplating waiting one last time for Leopard to ship in it.
While I don't really need it, I definitely want one.
I have a PC laptop with a 17" screen at 1920x1200 and I find it a pain. Sure, you can change the font size, but many programs and websites don't work well with large fonts. Menus get skewed, content is hidden, etc.
How old are you? Seriously, that makes all the difference.
It is rather pointless giving you advice on that. You have to go to a shop and look at both of them, and check whether the high resolution is too small for you or not.
It is confirmed for developers yes - but it is not 100% confirmed that the user will have the ability to set this factor. If you read down your own link you'll see that Apple say the "expect" to make it a user setting in future OS'es. Whether it is in Leopard or not remains to be seen. But I hope so.
does this resolution independence mean that you can play games at any resolution, including lower ones so as to get better graphics card performance?
1920 x 1200 display was on my MUST HAVE list before I would pull the trigger on my next mobile Mac and my first 17" model. Except for the NON-LED part, which apparently won't be solved until 2009 due to the size of this display, this new 17" MBP is perfection. I think anyone who doesn't opt for the Widescreen version for a mere $100 more is shooting themselves in the foot. Now I'm only contemplating waiting one last time for Leopard to ship in it.
While I don't really need it, I definitely want one.
2009??? where did you hear that at...if thats the case, imma pull the trigger on the 15".......I thought it would be by next upgade???
how do you "subscribe" to a thread?? ....srry for all the posts
+1
The 1920x1200 is the only reason (ok, 256MB vram is a reason to, but not worth such an insane amount of money) to get anything except the base 15.4"-modell.
No, you can always do that, the resolution independence means that you can change the size of the user interface no matter what resultion you use. That is a window border can be the same size whatever if you are running 1920x1200 on 17" MBP or 1024x768 on 24" CRT. It will just be much more detailed on the MBP of course.
Go to an Apple Story, if you can, and take a look yourself. I have to tell you, it's not too small if you're doing development work... also, can't you fiddle with fonts within programs?
I ran Final Cut Pro and the extra room was amazing.
I ran Final Cut Pro and the extra room was amazing.