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 just 1280 x 800?
- Thread starter eshroom
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
mainly because i think apple would be happy with the screen resolution there. if they offered bigger/smaller resolutions i think that it would make everything either to big or too small. if they had say 1650x1080 everything would be so tiny on the screen!!! so yea..
I feel that 1280x800 on a 13-inch display is more than adequate for most uses in the MacBook, as it provides the best readability; likewise I feel the same about the 1440x900 on the MacBook Pro's 15-inch display.
I have used 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 on 15-inch displays and I find that the text is too small due to the pixel density, whereas with the current resolutions you can see it comfortably without having your eyes glued to the display.
Perhaps in Snow Leopard we will see full DPI scaling, in which case you should be able to change the DPI setting accordingly to gain more space if you find that the current resolutions are too low.
I have used 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 on 15-inch displays and I find that the text is too small due to the pixel density, whereas with the current resolutions you can see it comfortably without having your eyes glued to the display.
Perhaps in Snow Leopard we will see full DPI scaling, in which case you should be able to change the DPI setting accordingly to gain more space if you find that the current resolutions are too low.
hehehe... but I rather enjoy my 3 year warranty. Though I feel it is a sftware feature, windows with the same display lets you jack up the resolution.
I don't understand this logic at all. All you do is change the minimum font size settings. Yours apparently is set to a number of pixels per letter that leads to too small letters when on a higher resolution screen. It would lead to too large letters on a lower resolution screen, so you'd have to decrease the minimum font size.
There's simply no argument against higher resolution. It's always better.
Apple's laptops screens have lower resolution than the competition because that's cheaper for the company and the average users, which are now more average folks than graphics people, don't care enough at this point.
i completely agree with you on this, that is why apple still only offers 1920x**** on the 17-inch MBPs. the resolution is just too high for smaller displays.
i agree with you that SL will have DPI scaling, i also hope that you will be able to zoom in and not have the zooming errors!
changing the minimum font size settings will not fix this. you need to think about everything else. there are the "traffic light" buttons on every window to think about, there's the scrolling bars, and a whole bunch of other stuff that im too lazy to think about.
higher res isnt always better, it requires more RAM from the GPU, more processing from the GPU, more battery life must be used to power it, the light to power the screen need to be bigger, the list goes on.. so yea..
YOU JUST ANSWERED YOUR OWN QUESTION! apples laptop screens have the lower screen resolutions because thats what they use, i am sure they have tested it over and over again. and yes most of the MB users are the 'average' users, if you want higher density res screens, get a MBP! simple as that.
OK, so because things like buttons will become too small to use as efficiently as before, this is a reason to prohibit all the advantages that can be gained by increasing the resolution. If this is the case why does safari let you zoom out so much you can no longer read anything, or why can you make icons so small on your desktop that they're unrecognizable? Also I should note the examples you used, as with many functions in OS X all have keyboard short-cuts, which any seasoned mac user will be familiar with.
As macbook123 says, it is purely about money. Cheaper technology, and more encouragement to go pro. Simple. Look at some of the 13" competition:
Lenovo ThinkPad X300 6478 - 1440 x 900
Dell XPS M1330 - 1920 x 1200
As for getting a pro, having gotten rid of the mid-priced macbook which you could build yourself, I would have got a Pro except they're too big for my needs. Also, I don't think I should have to pay for a resolution higher than 1280 x 900 on a notebook costing as much as mine.
ESPECIALLY a reason, efficiency & usability of the OS plays a key role in the overall impact of the whole system. if there is a bad UI implemented then its not even worth using.
i have absolutely no idea what you mean by safari letting you zoom out... it only lets me zoom out 3 times, i can still read it easily.
oh, i am probably one of the most familiar person you will ever meet with shortcuts, i have been using macs since i was little.
then what are you waiting for!>!!?!?!? go and buy one of those pathetic machines! sure, you will save probably half of your money.. but goodluck still being able to use it after 3,4,5 years on the latest OS.
yes, you can build a macbook yourself.
i dont understand the last sentence...
Not as tight as the 1280x800 on my HP 15.4" business notebook Its why I bought an external 1650x1080 monitor though
Sony are awesome on the pixel front. Their business premium 11.1" TT series offers 1366x768 and their 13.1" Z series can be configured with 1600x900
But spaces and expose makes it for it on the new Macbook I love it so much... and despite the pixel count I noticed OSX scaled my two open word doc so both were displayed side-by-side
Its why I bought an external 1650x1080 monitor thoughSony are awesome on the pixel front. Their business premium 11.1" TT series offers 1366x768 and their 13.1" Z series can be configured with 1600x900
But spaces and expose makes it for it on the new Macbook
I love it so much... and despite the pixel count I noticed OSX scaled my two open word doc so both were displayed side-by-sideI have to agree. Even on my desktop I have a 21" 1600x1200 and 22" 1920x1200 monitor side by side and it's noticeable that the 21" screen with larger pixel size (and thus slightly larger fonts) is more pleasant to use for reading text. It's all due to the 4:3 vs 16:10 measurement of the diagonal screen area, the 21" display is about 2 cm taller than the 22" monitor.
I wouldn't want to have 1920x1200 on a 15" screen, I'd find it too small and if you increase font size then isn't the added resolution kinda negated by that?
Rather than higher resolution panels, I'd like to see better panel technology. **** the TN panels, at least the Macbook Pros should come with S-PVA or S-IPS panels IMO.
yay another person who agrees! i totaly agree with you, what is the use of making everything bigger?? that is just a waste of the bigger screen! it's pretty much just like scaling everything upwards.
here here to the S-PVA or S-IPS(these ones please) panels, im sure apple would like to add another $500 onto the price though
which kinda sucks. yup and this is pretty much the main reason why it isn't a higher screen resolution nor better quality display.
I understand all the people who don't want to make things smaller for their own reasons but to me it doesn't make sense why not to at least give the OPTION to have a larger resolution if we like tiny text. I think 1440 resolution on a macbook is nice and it would be nice to at least have the option to run it if we wanted.
A higher resolution display is more expensive. A higher resolution 13-inch display is MUCH more rare than 1280x800 and is therefore even more expensive.
End of story really.
Not as tight as the 1280x800 on my HP 15.4" business notebook
Sony are awesome on the pixel front. Their business premium 11.1" TT series offers 1366x768 and their 13.1" Z series can be configured with 1600x900
But spaces and expose makes it for it on the new Macbook
Hint: Mac OS X is still stuck thinking that screens are 72dpi, as opposed to the Windows standard of 96dpi. This makes text look smaller on a Mac when compared to a Windows box running at the same resolution.
You're rigth about the Lenovo, not about the Dell.
Other 13" with 1600*900 resolution is Sony Z, weighing 1,49kg.
That would make the type smaller on the PC, not the Mac. The MacBook's display is more like 110dpi.
My results using 2 (two) 17" CRT monitors (my preference over LCD)
Compaq & Windows XP and MS Word text using Times New Roman, font size 12
Mac & Leopard and MS Word 2008 text using Times New Roman, font size 12
The text of a document typed on the Compaq is larger than the text of that same document transferred to the Mac.
I would not spend £1000 on a machine which I just wanted for web surfing and word-preocessing, and if I did, it would be an air.
I pay good money for my notebook, I don't think it's unreasonable to want the option of a higher resolution. I'm not saying you HAVE to use this resolution. It's just a matter of choice.
There is no reason why one should need to ramp up the actual text size in various different applications just to be able to read it; not only is that a hassle to have to adjust each individual application, but it wouldn't apply to the user interfaces for many applications, so menus and other elements will still be small and potentially hard to read. As a designer, and someone with OCD, having different font sizes and scaling settings everywhere would drive me absolutely insane.
If you need a larger screen resolution on a notebook, get an external display with the resolution of your choice and connect it to your MacBook... problem solved.
It wouldn't be a hassle if there was a system-wide minimum font size setting. I am under the impression that this is part of OS X since years, but correct me if I'm wrong.
We're in the MacBook forum so I assumed you were comparing two laptops using their LCD displays. You might want to let us know that you're not comparing two laptops.