Why is everybody crying about the 1280*800 ?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Sarngate, Feb 23, 2011.

  1. Sarngate macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 15, 2010
    #1
    It's fine on a 13'' screen...

    Genuinely interested.
     
  2. LoganT macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    #2
    Because people don't want "fine" on a pro machine.
     
  3. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #3
    13" MBA as 1440x900 as standard so it does sound a bit lame that 13" MacBook Pro has only 1280x800.
     
  4. aiqw9182 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    #4
    Which is why I think the 13 MBP will be demoted to the normal MacBook. Or maybe they'll just offer an $100 upgrade option.
     
  5. TheNewDude macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2010
    #5
    Yeah, i'll definitely put my money on there being a 1440x900 screen. The questions is just how much the upgrade will cost.

    And to answer the OP... The 1440x900 screen offers more tighly packed pixels in the same space as before making pictures look sharper. Just like the retina display on the iPhone4. (Still not as dense as the iP4 though).

    This will look sharper, crisp and clear on a higher resolution screen. Something you will be staring at 100% of the time you are using your computer! ;)
     
  6. Skyldig macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2008
    #6
    Everything looks so big in 1280*800 and there is not nearly enough space on the screen for me to even just comfortably surf on the internet.

    It's a dealbreaker for me. If it comes with a cheap BTO it will be ok, but I could never work on a 1280*800 screen. I would rather go with the low-clock C2D in the Air, although I don't think I'll be buying a Mac this time round if 1440*900 is not an option in the MBP.
     
  7. vincenz macrumors 601

    vincenz

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    #7
    You could just get the 13" and then an external display. That way, you'll have the best of both worlds.
     
  8. jamesryanbell macrumors 68020

    jamesryanbell

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2009
    #8
    I'm lolling about it personally. "I'm waiting for the Pro!" Have fun with a slower machine (due to the SSD) with worse res. Mistake to wait.

    Air wins.

    (I don't even own an Air...I just think it's funny)
     
  9. lilcosco08 macrumors 65816

    lilcosco08

    Joined:
    May 27, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton
    #9
    Much slower processor=faster?

    Pro is rumored to get an SSD for OS+apps and higher res.

    Wait and see, my friend
     
  10. tigress666 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
    Location:
    Washington State
    #10
    People are spoiled.

    Honestly, I love my MBP's screen, it's gorgeous (it's actually better quality than the Sony monitor I use when I have it as a desktop).
     
  11. MultiBat macrumors member

    MultiBat

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Location:
    Sweden
    #11
    For my own amusement I wrote my own wishlist for the refresh of the 13" MBP.

    I actually wrote 1280x800 resolution in my dream refresh.
    Why?
    When I tried it in a store I liked it better than the 13" MBA screen when writing text. The text felt a bit small on the 1440x900 screen for my taste.

    Did I get all i wanted on my wish list?
    Almost. Just that 256 GB SSD missing... :)
     
  12. JoJoCal19 macrumors 65816

    JoJoCal19

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Location:
    Jacksonville, FL
    #12
    Because it's not fine. My almost 5 year old MacBook has a 1280x800 screen.

    As long as its a BTO option for $100 or less I'm fine and I really have zero problem with the IGP 3000 because I don't play games on my Mac.
     
  13. JoJoCal19 macrumors 65816

    JoJoCal19

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Location:
    Jacksonville, FL
    #13
    Why would you want to pay extra Apple tax for it? Get an OWC SSD for half the cost Apple will charge. Its easy to swap in.
     
  14. dyn macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2009
    Location:
    .nl
    #14
    Some will indeed be staring because the letters are too tiny to read properly. Hi-res screens only make sense with something called resolution independence. Apple has done little to nothing with that. Some are praying for it to be in 10.7.

    So that's the problem: tighter packed pixels means smaller fonts which means that some people will have a very hard time to read the screen. They need to jack up the font size every time or use a magnifier. Hi-res screen aren't necessarily an advantage.
     
  15. gonnabuyamacbsh macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2010
    #15
    x2. straight bs. definite deal breaker for me. I'm not gonna pay for an upgrade that should be standard. Apple is trollin hard these days...
     
  16. zakk385 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2011
    #16
    My thoughts exactly. I have no need for a gaming GPU. I do, however, need a better resolution than 1280x800...
     
  17. kasakka macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    #17
    It is ok, but the 13" MBP could easily take a higher resolution display, as seen in the MBA. Sure, I can hook up my 2560x1600 30" display to my 13" MBP but I sure as hell won't carry that setup with me.

    At the 13" 1440x900 I don't feel that text becomes too small, just like the 15" 1680x1050 is a great display/resolution ratio.
     
  18. alt macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Location:
    Bend, Oregon
    #18
    x800 is unacceptable...just sayin'

    Not at the price you are paying...just not right.
     
  19. wordoflife macrumors 604

    wordoflife

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    #19
    He pretty much summed it up right there.

    _____________________

    People need to remember that we're looking at the specs on the box. They might have an option to go with a higher resolution online.
     
  20. gregoryalee macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2011
    #20
    Most of my clients now have macbook pros which is amazing considering not one of them had one in 2007 when I got my first mac. A lot of them at 30+ years old do not run at native resolution even on a 17" screen. Looks like crap to my eyes but who am I to complain if they honestly have a problem with tiny fonts and elements. I am a little surprised by the poo pooing before we even know what model we are looking at?:confused:
     
  21. zer0sum macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    #21
    If you have ever used a photo editing app or vmware/parallels etc. you would be dying for at least 1440x900

    :D
     
  22. gregoryalee macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2011
    #22
    Personally I wouldn't choose or recommend a 13" screen for editing much of anything. My wife has a 13" macbook and it's ok but the physical size of the screen (not the resolution) makes editing no fun. The graphics experts that I know want BIG screens on laptops. Multiple virtual machines displaying on the desktop is a PITA.
     
  23. INEEDANOTEBOOK macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2010
    Location:
    Icy City
    #23
    +1. That is exactly why I didn't get an Air.
    And also for the keyboard. The Air's keyboard is too soft to my taste.
     
  24. LoganT macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    #24
    It would be like if Apple released an iPhone Pro but instead put a 480x320 screen instead of 960x640 screen.
     
  25. MultiBat macrumors member

    MultiBat

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Location:
    Sweden
    #25
    Pay extra? I meant that the 256GB SSD would be in there in the base model. :D
    But now I will most likely go the route you said.

    Ah! Another one like me! The MBA keyboard IS too soft! :)
     

Share This Page