Why no 1920x1200 on 15" MBP?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by boonlar, Apr 20, 2010.

  1. boonlar macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    #1
    There are 6 year old 15" laptops that have 1920x1200 so why don't the new mbp have the option?
     
  2. PAC88 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    #2
    I think it would be counter productive for the majority of people's uses.
     
  3. riotgear macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
  4. blazezaku macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2009
    Location:
    Hong Kong
  5. entatlrg macrumors 68040

    entatlrg

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Location:
    Waterloo & Georgian Bay, Canada
    #5
    because small fonts like this on a computer are STUPID
     
  6. boonlar thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    #6
    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?
     
  7. fuzzielitlpanda macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    #7
    because there would be one less reason to get the 17
     
  8. striatedglutes macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #8
    Probably cost prohibitive at the quality requested from the supplier.
     
  9. Kiddo86 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    #9
    130-135 ppi is a fantastic pixel density... more is borderline excessive.
     
  10. dejo Moderator

    dejo

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Location:
    The Centennial State
    #10
    Does that work throughout the OS and within images?
     
  11. admiraldennis macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #11
    It'd be nice... if Mac OS X was actually resolution-independent
     
  12. snouter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    #12
    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
     
  13. henry72 macrumors 65816

    henry72

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2009
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #13
    so do I, That's way too small !!!!!
     
  14. Leo72 macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2009
    Location:
    Ankara, Turkey
    #14
    It would be something rational if mbp had a stronger video card ;)
     
  15. snouter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    #15
    I had a 15" Dell Pentium 3 a few years ago with a 1920x1200.

    Def good for coding and stuff like that.
     
  16. Dozerrox macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2009
    Location:
    Exeter
    #16
    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.
     
  17. Hawke macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Location:
    Dublin, Ireland
    #17
    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
     
  18. sgtCaspian macrumors newbie

    sgtCaspian

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2010
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #18
    +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.
     
  19. acurafan macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    #19
    i wish. dude, we didn't even get a res bump on the 13" mb/mbp/mba - talk about cheap asses at apple.
     
  20. sweetie81 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    #20
    So why bother and buy a laptop with higher resolution then? :D Quite provocative innit? Bash me! C'mon! lol
     
  21. neteng101 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2009
    #21
    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.
     
  22. sammich macrumors 601

    sammich

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Location:
    Sarcasmville.
    #22
    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.
     
  23. drayon macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2007
    #23
    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?
     
  24. Scarlet Fever macrumors 68040

    Scarlet Fever

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Location:
    Bookshop!
    #24
    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
     
  25. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #25
    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
     

Share This Page