Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Why is everybody crying about the 1280*800 ?

Maybe I'm missing something, but can't you always go to system prefs and choose a lower resolution? You can't choose a higher one. So if you get the highest, you can just use it for the things that require a higher res... right? But if it's not an option.... you can't.

What am I missing here?
 
As I understand it, OSX does not work that way because it is not resolution independent. If it were, you could scale up and down at will, and as you say, you could have a computer that's readable for those without 18-year-old eyes, and yet with a huge number of dpi.

Again, only in my limited understanding, since it's not resolution independent, the higher resolution screens make text smaller and smaller as the resolution goes up.

I actually prefer the super-low resolution on my old iBook 14" for this reason. Yes, it's low quality and sort of "blurry," but at least I'm not having to read with a magnifying glass.

You can use Command-->+ to make things larger, but that makes websites and stuff go out of whack.

If there is a better way, I hope someone will post it here. I'm already finding my MBP 13" 2010 to be too "small" in text size for my comfort.
 
For the 13" MacBook Pro there are just two things that I REQUIRE if I want to get it:
1. A 1440x900 or higher res screen
2. Pretty much any graphics that are dedicated and better than the 320M

Somehow, those are the two things that these idiots forgot. Unless there is a cheap 15" MacBook Pro or a 13" MacBook Pro with better graphics, I'm done...
 
mattk3650 said:
For the 13" MacBook Pro there are just two things that I REQUIRE if I want to get it:
1. A 1440x900 or higher res screen
2. Pretty much any graphics that are dedicated and better than the 320M

Somehow, those are the two things that these idiots forgot. Unless there is a cheap 15" MacBook Pro or a 13" MacBook Pro with better graphics, I'm done...
Click to expand...

Yeah man, Apple are such idiots for not giving you a more powerful GPU than the vast majority of users need. I have NO idea how they've got $50bn in the bank.
 
Sarngate said:
Yeah man, Apple are such idiots for not giving you a more powerful GPU than the vast majority of users need. I have NO idea how they've got $50bn in the bank.
Click to expand...

Remember, their dedication has been on their iOS products and Mac Lion is a great representation of that :p
 
Sarngate said:
Yeah man, Apple are such idiots for not giving you a more powerful GPU than the vast majority of users need. I have NO idea how they've got $50bn in the bank.
Click to expand...

I dont even own a macbook pro, i was just lurking on these forums but when i read your comment and was like "WHAT" lol. Those integrated intel HD graphics are total crap, in fact they might even be worse than the crappy 320M. Let's get an actual, decent mobility graphics card in there please
 
Hellhammer said:
13" MBA as 1440x900 as standard so it does sound a bit lame that 13" MacBook Pro has only 1280x800.
Click to expand...

I have to agree, you can never have too much screen real estate.

The thing is, OS X is not yet resolution independent(unlike windows, which at least has this one right) which I think is what is holding Apple back from higher resolutions
 
I've got 1920x1200 on my laptop, and the 1280x800 is just unbearable to switch back to. I need to be able to multitask. :p If the resolution matches that of the 13" MBA I will most likely get one though.
 
flipster said:
I dont even own a macbook pro, i was just lurking on these forums but when i read your comment and was like "WHAT" lol. Those integrated intel HD graphics are total crap, in fact they might even be worse than the crappy 320M. Let's get an actual, decent mobility graphics card in there please
Click to expand...

+10000000

people are so blind. i will be getting a 15 mbp and wouldnt pay more than 200 dollars for an integrated graphics laptop. come on.

i get the tradeoffs (battery, cpu), but still.
 
This HW sounds like it belongs in a $700 PC, not a $1,000+ laptop with the name Pro attached to it.
 
dyn said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's why I order mine with base resolution, 1280 x 800 in a 13" is just great for a lot of people, 1440 x 900 in a 15" is also great, but on a 13" is not for everybody.
 
1280 x 800 sucks for anything but casual use. I did a 20 page spreadsheet the other night and almost went blind with all the scrolling I had to do. That was pretty much the last straw for me, I need more real estate.
 
1280x800 is ok for doing 1 task at a time, like checking facebook or doing a word doc (emphasis on use of the word OR). More than that, and it gets annoying pretty fast.

You could argue that we got by just fine on 640x480 and 1024x768 back in the day, but when you have 2560x1440 on your desktop or 1920x1200, it starts to get irritating.

Sony makes a 13" laptop with both 1600x900 and 1920x1080 LCDs as options. Why can't Apple? The 13" isn't really a power-user computer, it's just for people that sit at Starbucks >>
 
pricej636 said:
1280 x 800 sucks for anything but casual use. I did a 20 page spreadsheet the other night and almost went blind with all the scrolling I had to do. That was pretty much the last straw for me, I need more real estate.
Click to expand...

This is why I hate it and why I'll be updating. I'm constantly managing data between databases and spreadsheets. I'm used to my 1920 monitor at work, so the 1200 rez bothers me to no end.

I'm upgrading to the 15" just to get the 1650 monitor though I do prefer the 13" machine.
 
I must be one of the few who are actually content with the 1280x800 on the 13" Pro.


For the "and / or" argument, multitasking is rather simple with a press of the F3 key. :eek:
 
mattk3650 said:
For the 13" MacBook Pro there are just two things that I REQUIRE if I want to get it:
1. A 1440x900 or higher res screen
2. Pretty much any graphics that are dedicated and better than the 320M

Somehow, those are the two things that these idiots forgot. Unless there is a cheap 15" MacBook Pro or a 13" MacBook Pro with better graphics, I'm done...
Click to expand...

That's how I feel about the 1440x900 screen. Either they give me the a $100 BTO option for it on the 13" OR, and that's a big OR because I doubt it will happen, they make the 1650 high res option standard on the 15" and start the 15" at $1500.

If neither happen then I'm done with Macs as my personal computer. And that's a pretty damn hard thing for me to do as I've been using them since the IIe days :( Unfortunately I will no longer pay a price premium for substandard features. Not when the new Dell XPS can be maxed out with QUAD core i7, 650GB 7200 RPM HD, 8GB RAM, 525M dedicated GPU, and 1080P LED screen for $1300.
 
The resolution is a disgrace on the 13' especially since the Air has a higher resolution 13" screen. I was all set to buy as well, but cannot with this poor resolution screen. Very disappointed!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back