What is your favorite screen resolution for a 15 inch laptop

Discussion in 'Community Discussion' started by dmmcintyre3, Apr 28, 2009.

?

What is your favorite resolution for a 15 inch laptop?

  1. 1920x1200 (My Favorite)

    16 vote(s)
    20.5%
  2. 1680x1050

    25 vote(s)
    32.1%
  3. 1449x900 (The Current MacBook Pro)

    30 vote(s)
    38.5%
  4. 1280x800/1280x854

    2 vote(s)
    2.6%
  5. 1024x768

    2 vote(s)
    2.6%
  6. 1024x600 (Netbook)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  7. 800x600

    3 vote(s)
    3.8%
  1. dmmcintyre3 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
  2. emt1 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2008
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    #2
    OMGZ like i TOTALY love 800x600 its the best! I VOTE 800x600!!!!
     
  3. DoFoT9 macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #3
    i voted 1440x900 because its the only res ive delt with. i find it quite a nice res to work with for the size of the screen. i wouldnt mind 1680x1050 - i think it would be a nice combination of the two.

    i think that 1920x1080 is just a tad to small for a 15inch, bit hard to read.
     
  4. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #4
    The 1440x900 on a 15.4" MBP screen has the same pixel density as the 1280x800 does on the 13.3" MB (around 112 ppi), so you can say that the 15" MBP gives around 1.8" more horizontal desktop space. Just put a ruler against the horizontal edge of the MacBook's screen, and imagine that the screen extended an extra 1.8" (4.5 cm) to the right or left. That's how much extra space you'd have to work with. To me, this isn't enough of a difference to warrant the extra cost of the 15" MBP over the MacBook.

    A 1680x1050 resolution 15" MBP would have the same pixel density as the 17" MBP (around 130 ppi), so things will look equally small on such a screen as it would on a 17" MBP. If the text and icons on the 17" MBP look too tiny for you, then you don't want anymore than a 15" MBP with a 1440 x 900 resolution. In other words, you should be happy with what we have now.

    A 15" screen with 1920 x 1200 resolution would be unbearable. Things would be much smaller than they would be on a 17" MBP, which I'd consider my limit.


    Anyway, I voted for 1680 x 1050. :)
     
  5. DoFoT9 macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #5
    naww i wanna vote twice :( no fair! :p
     
  6. DoFoT9 macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #7
    8cents by my count :)

    that was very interesting to read though. it clears a few things up for me - showing that a 1920x1080 17inch = same DPI as a 1680x1050 15inch. never knew that.

    so basically thats saying that if your eyes can handle the HD 17inch, then you will be fine with a 1680x1050 15inch. right?
     
  7. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #8
    Yep, that's exactly it. The only difference is that the 15" will have a smaller desktop than the 17", but that's only because the screen is physically smaller. Pixel density would be around equal on both screens (if a 1680 x 1050 screen existed).


    Oh, and if you like the pixel density of the current 15" MBP's screen (1440x900 resolution), but you wanted a 1920 x 1200 resolution because you want that much desktop space, you'd need to make a 20.5" MBP. A screen with a higher ppi is probably a better solution though. ;)
     
  8. Chundles macrumors G4

    Chundles

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    #9
    2560x1600 with a resolution independent OS. Mmmm, crystal clear....

    But I'd say 1680x1050 would be nice.
     
  9. DoFoT9 macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #10
    intersting, i did think about modding my laptop to put in a HD screen, looked very easy and quite cheap (around $350 AUS ). it might be either that or a bigger external display (currently got a 1440x900 19incher)

    oh dont we all wish!!! is that coming in SL btw?
     
  10. djellison macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Location:
    Pasadena CA
    #11
    I had a none widescreen 1600 x 1200 15" screen, and far from beign unbearable, it was fantastic.

    Of course, it's a problem if the OS can't increase the size of fonts and icons to render itself legible at this higher point-per-inch.

    Doug
     
  11. twoodcc macrumors P6

    twoodcc

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Location:
    Right side of wrong
    #12
    i voted 1920x1200, though it would be very small. but gotta love it
     
  12. DoFoT9 macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #13
    you can always increase the systems font size and whatnot. my young eyes would cope i reckon.

    i wonder if SL has the res independence.
     
  13. magamo macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2009
    #14
    Voted for 1680 x 1050 too. I like the way things look on a 17" MBP. I want as much work space as I can get, but a higher resolution would be too much for my eyes.
     
  14. Chundles macrumors G4

    Chundles

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    #15
    It was SUPPOSED to be in Tiger, then it was touted as a feature before Leopard's release but nothing has happened.
     
  15. DoFoT9 macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #16
    hmmmm.. blast... i am using the zoom feature basically everyday. i hate the crappy quality.
     
  16. Dagless macrumors Core

    Dagless

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Location:
    Fighting to stay in the EU
    #17
    I had a 15" laptop from 2003 with a 1680x10-something resolution (not 1050, wasn't widescreen). Horrible thing to use, was good for games though.

    1680x1050 on a 20" is perfect for me :).
     
  17. pimentoLoaf macrumors 68000

    pimentoLoaf

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2001
    Location:
    The SimCity Deli
  18. hogmog macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Location:
    Thames Valley, UK
    #19
    When you get past a certain age 1440 x 900 is readable. Anything higher has me reaching for the screen res settings to turn it down. Of course a res independent OS could change that .....
     
  19. ViciousShadow21 macrumors 68020

    ViciousShadow21

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Location:
    To your left or right
    #20
    1680x1050 would be perfect for me. but the 1440x900 is good. i just love widescreen in general
     
  20. lAciDl macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Location:
    Tinton Falls, NJ
    #21
    i choose 1680x1050 but only because its a more popular choice and i doubt apple will release a 1920x1200 15" anytime soon. i would prefer the 1920x1200 res but would be happy enough with the 1680x1050.
     
  21. Malfoy macrumors 6502a

    Malfoy

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    #22
    i want 2560x1600 on a 15. they need to get on that.
     
  22. dmmcintyre3 thread starter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    #23
    1920x1200 is not much smaller than 1680x1050

    I would like to know who was the second person to vote for 800x600

    is it possible to view who voted for what?
     
  23. cherry su macrumors 65816

    cherry su

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2008
    #24
    I used a Sony P (8" widescreen, 1600 x 768, 200ppi) for an hour at the sony store. The screen was amazing. It convinced me to upgrade my MBP (1440x900, 110ppi) to a HDMBP (1920x1200, 150ppi).
     
  24. dmmcintyre3 thread starter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    #25
    How do you like your 1920x1200 15 incher?

    I'v used 1680x1050 on 15 inch but have seen 1920x1200 on 15 inch.
     

Share This Page