Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by boonlar, Apr 20, 2010.
There are 6 year old 15" laptops that have 1920x1200 so why don't the new mbp have the option?
I think it would be counter productive for the majority of people's uses.
I wouldn't want it.
because its apple they do things thier way
because small fonts like this on a computer are STUPID
I bet if they did have the 1920x1200 option everyone here would get it and praise the hell out of it. How are more pixels ever a bad thing?
umm increase font size?
because there would be one less reason to get the 17
Probably cost prohibitive at the quality requested from the supplier.
130-135 ppi is a fantastic pixel density... more is borderline excessive.
Does that work throughout the OS and within images?
It'd be nice... if Mac OS X was actually resolution-independent
dudebro, it took FOREVER for us to get the 1680x1050 option... funny, I went through two 15" MBPs waiting for 1680x1050 and ended up buying a 17" this time around, lol
so do I, That's way too small !!!!!
It would be something rational if mbp had a stronger video card
I had a 15" Dell Pentium 3 a few years ago with a 1920x1200.
Def good for coding and stuff like that.
When Apple decide to catch up and make OS X resolution independent then it'd be sweet. Until then I'm not sure I'd be able to use the pooter properly at that res.
Plus as someone else said, they like to stagger the specs so people will get the more expensive 17 inch if they need a higher resolution like that.
LOL! Dude, seriously, small fonts are only a result of high resolution (1920X1200 or 1920X1080), as a 3D and 2D graphics artist, I need something that is of high resolution as I need as much detailed pixel information when working in Photoshop, and for a lot of modern day games, these stuff are usually developed with the higher resolution in mind, so the lower the resolution the lesser the quality of pixel information you receive. It's all about details
+1 on the res independence thing. Of course you could get by with 19x12 on a 15 inch by changing os and web font sizes, but it would definitely be awkward for some people, and even young eyes might have to strain for certain things that cant be adjusted. I'm thinking about things like synth parameters in Logic.
i wish. dude, we didn't even get a res bump on the 13" mb/mbp/mba - talk about cheap asses at apple.
So why bother and buy a laptop with higher resolution then? Quite provocative innit? Bash me! C'mon! lol
People keep saying this but there isn't a single OS that is truly resolution independent. Others only provide an illusion of such but when you try using it, things just start looking plain weird.
Apple sells to 75% of the market with their standard configurations, 20% of the market with BTO, and the other 5%, well dell and alienware can take those. Apple doesn't want those customers.
Does this mean we should not expect Apple to bring this technology to Mac OS X, because other OS's don't support it? Or are you simply trying to correct all the misinformant numpties around here sprooking off that Windows (incorrectly) has RI?
They didn't give a high-res option on the 13" MBP because the only step up is to 1440*900. They'll up the res on the 13"ers when 1680*1050 becomes standard on the 15"ers, the same way they're giving a high-res option on the 15"ers now that 1920*1200 has been standard on the 17"ers for a while
I agree. Would make no sense to sell different sizes with same resolution. 1680x1050 will become a standard in 15" in an update or two, then 13" may get an option for 1440x900 and 15" may get an option for 1920x1200 if 17" gets 2304x1440