Why just 1280 x 800?

[illegallydead]

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.

Not on an LCD it doesn't. On old CRT's you could actually play with what resolution you wanted (as most good monitors 15"+ could go to 1280x1024 at least), but since LCD's have only one native resolution, they are incapable of going higher than that. It is a hardware limitation absolutely. Software cannot make pixels magically sprout up

 

[Mercellus]

Not on an LCD it doesn't. On old CRT's you could actually play with what resolution you wanted (as most good monitors 15"+ could go to 1280x1024 at least), but since LCD's have only one native resolution, they are incapable of going higher than that. It is a hardware limitation absolutely. Software cannot make pixels magically sprout up

If you could scale the DPI down (all displays at 96 DPI by default I believe) to say something like 88 DPI, it would in theory give you more screen space and have the same effect as having a higher resolution display.

 

[Tom B.]

Once Snow Leopard is out (assuming that it does have Resolution Independence) I'm sure Apple will start to offer higher resolution screens on their laptops. Probably just as a custom configuration at first, but hopefully as the default not too long after. I would have chosen a 1440x900 screen for my 13" MacBook if I could have, even without the promise of resolution independence.

 

[Jpoon]

Apple believes in making choices for its customers.

Thus, Apple believes that we don't need any options for higher resolutions or better screens for the MacBooks.


Jobs has spoken.

 

[aethelbert]

Once Snow Leopard is out (assuming that it does have Resolution Independence) I'm sure Apple will start to offer higher resolution screens on their laptops. Probably just as a custom configuration at first, but hopefully as the default not too long after. I would have chosen a 1440x900 screen for my 13" MacBook if I could have, even without the promise of resolution independence.

Psssh, resolution independence was among the many things that they so nicely dropped out on 10.5 without telling anyone. I'll doubt it in 10.6 as well.

 

[Mercellus]

Psssh, resolution independence was among the many things that they so nicely dropped out on 10.5 without telling anyone. I'll doubt it in 10.6 as well.

I wouldn't say that... 10.5 has a lot of support for resolution independence and high-resolution resources are included, but it's not fully activated and probably won't be until 10.6.

 

[mckyvlle]

That would make the type smaller on the PC, not the Mac. The MacBook's display is more like 110dpi.

Here's an old post from MSDN explaining where Microsoft got 96 dpi and how it affects font size:
http://blogs.msdn.com/fontblog/archive/2005/11/08/490490.aspx

» On the positive side, it made text much more readable at equivalent point sizes on screen and paper. Eleven point text on Windows matched eight point on the Macintosh. «

 

[D.M.S]

I could go for 1440*900 resolution on a macbook though

 

[DoFoT9]

I could go for 1440*900 resolution on a macbook though

would be nice wouldnt it!

 

[mknawabi]

You're stuck at 1280x800 simply because Apple wants you to pay more for 1440x900. And even more for 1920x1200. That's just how their price tiers work. Get over it.

 

[darngooddesign]

You're stuck at 1280x800 simply because Apple wants you to pay more for 1440x900. And even more for 1920x1200. That's just how their price tiers work. Get over it.

Honestly, if Apple did up the res they would either increase it across the board and the pricing levels would stay consistent, or they would offer it as a premium BTO which would show the consumer that they could get a 1440 MacBook for 1799 or just pay 200 more for the MBP. Its the same kind of thing they do now.

 

[deetle]

Well , the puny res on the MacBook is my only hold out. Only 800 pix vertical , come on. This is not even a normal page hight.

 

[darngooddesign]

Here's an old post from MSDN explaining where Microsoft got 96 dpi and how it affects font size:
http://blogs.msdn.com/fontblog/archive/2005/11/08/490490.aspx

» On the positive side, it made text much more readable at equivalent point sizes on screen and paper. Eleven point text on Windows matched eight point on the Macintosh. «

Exactly my point.

Eleven point text on Windows matched eight point on the Macintosh.

Just as I said, 12 point on a PC is smaller than 12 point on a Mac.

 

[cryonic49]

for what it's worth, it seems that it may be possible to get x300's lcd (1440x900) into the new alu macbook, as lp133wx2(macbook's panel) is also used in some x300s.