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.
Why Apple Won't Put Higher Res Screens in the 15" MBP
- Thread starter Dwalls90
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Nope, last Powerbook revision is 15.2" all 15" Macbook Pro's are 15.4" screens.
http://www.apple-history.com/
Which is what I said (although my wording seems unclear, it should be clear since there is only one 15" 1280x854 » 1440x960 transition and that is the one I mentioned).
Let me clear it up:
Early 2005: 15.2", 1280x854
Late 2005: 15.2", 1440x960
Early 2006: 15.4", 1440x900
So no, the pixel density has not remained the same for the last decade (even after discounting the early 2006 display size/resolution adjustment), which was the original point. And I don't know how 1280x854 to 1440x960 is "a slight change."
And furthermore,
Late 2001: 15.2" 1152x768
Early 2002: 15.2" 1280x854
Go into an Apple store and play on a 17"er MBP, this may sway you, so nice. Plus it makes a difference depending on what you need it for.
i.e. In Ableton/Logic this could enable you to have more samples to trigger/instruments to edit on the screen leading to easier but more complex abilities for live performance.
Actually I was very much care about the 1680 option for 15' MBP. That is the only reason i am still waiting for that...
Hope apple can notice this.
+1
Hopefully the next revision (Oct-Nov 09??) will offer the 1680 resolution.
the more hardware-pixels on a screen the clearer any equally-sized image / text is, if the software manages it properly. if the image /text on a screen is too small, it is the fault of software, not the hardware. HD screens are wonderful because, properly used, they are clearer and easier on the eyes than lower density screens. on the other hand, if you just want more information on a screen, you either have to reduce the size of the images/text (which can surely strain the eyes), or get a bigger screen / have more "real estate".
I think it's because they don't want people to go blind(although this statement could easily be disproven by the blinding default LCD screen brightness)
I recall getting a Dell Inspiron 8200 in 2002 that had a free "upgrade" to an ultra-xga LCD, which was 1600x1200. It drove me nuts. The screen was a 4:3 aspect ratio 15 inch, so the text was microscopic. I couldn't stand it, and lowering the resolution made it blurry.
Higher resolution is for bigger monitors. 1440x900 on the 15.4" is fine, IMO.
I recall getting a Dell Inspiron 8200 in 2002 that had a free "upgrade" to an ultra-xga LCD, which was 1600x1200. It drove me nuts. The screen was a 4:3 aspect ratio 15 inch, so the text was microscopic. I couldn't stand it, and lowering the resolution made it blurry.
Higher resolution is for bigger monitors. 1440x900 on the 15.4" is fine, IMO.
My Gd. If they increase the rez on the 13 or 15" any more they'll have to supply magnifying glasses with them.
Seriously, for 99% of the population that uses there laptops to do stuff like write reports and stuff, the current res is perfect. I mean it's freaking 720p. Don't tell me you need a 1080p screen for a 13 or 15" laptop. What is needed is a resumption of the matte option.
Seriously, for 99% of the population that uses there laptops to do stuff like write reports and stuff, the current res is perfect. I mean it's freaking 720p. Don't tell me you need a 1080p screen for a 13 or 15" laptop. What is needed is a resumption of the matte option.
I'm so used to 1440x900 on 14" screens that the 15" is a bit largish... be nice if there was a 14" MBP with that resolution, would help with portability. Then again, I'm used to high resolution displays on smaller screens... which drive most people nuts. I know people who still prefer running 1024x768 regardless of monitor size!
A BTO option would be nice on the 15" for 1680x1050 (not a standard option though).
A BTO option would be nice on the 15" for 1680x1050 (not a standard option though).
The 17" has the same PPI as the resolutions we're talking about for the 13" and 15" and that is perfectly usable.
Higher resolution = more working space.
We're not talking about needing it to watch 1080p movies, so don't even bring that into the discussion.
I think the 60 rows of pixels were lost (early2006) to make room for the iSight camera.
Uh. No, the screen became larger but lost 60 rows of pixels. Supplier issue, I'd presume.