Skip navigation
This discussion is archived

Macbook Pro 15" High-Resolution Display

72370 Views 47 Replies Latest reply: Sep 1, 2010 9:20 AM by vfidman94002 RSS
  • andintroducing Level 1 Level 1 (110 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 27, 2010 12:10 AM (in response to Rod Hagen)
    My name's Chris too. Thought you were speaking to me. My bad. The last guy posting was Kevin, not a Chris.

    Kevin, JoeinAV and a few others, including Diglloyd, agreed that the print is quite small and/or gave some of them headaches using the machine. For me, it's more important that people know there COULD be a serious problem with the size of the print on their expensive new high-res machines, rather than trying to assure everyone as Court Kizer and you seem to want to assure people that "If you ordered the 15" MacBook pro the 1680x resolution is the only way to go."

    Obviously that's not the case. Nor is it as clear cut and as good for all as you make it sound.
    15" Unibody Macbook Pro 2.4 Ghz, Mac OS X (10.6.1)
  • Rod Hagen Level 7 Level 7 (31,985 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 27, 2010 12:35 AM (in response to andintroducing)
    andintroducing wrote:
    My name's Chris too. Thought you were speaking to me. My bad. The last guy posting was Kevin, not a Chris.


    If you look at the post of mine suggesting that people simply get an idea of the text size by looking at a 17" MBP , "andintroducing Chris", you will see that it clearly indicates in its 'header bar" that I was replying to Chris Harbig, not you. (These things can get a bit confusing with some of the different "threading" processes that you can choose on these boards, I know, especially when some people use their names and others don't.)

    ...you seem to want to assure people that "If you ordered the 15" MacBook pro the 1680x resolution is the only way to go."


    I've never said anything of the kind, andintroducing. Building "straw men" is a cheap debating trick at the best of times.

    If you are really concerned about people's experiences surely the best solution is just to get people to cast their eyes over a relatively common 17" model so that they can see for themselves what the font size looks like? I find it hard to see why you are so obviously troubled by this suggestion.

    Heck, given that the font size on the 17" is actually even a little smaller than on the 15 high res I would have thought that doing so would actually "favour" your own personal, very frequently expressed, and obviously fervently held, opinion about the matter!

    Rod
    MBP 13"2.26, MBP15"2.2, iMacG520"RevB , MB2CD, MBCD, ,PM5400/180 & earlier, Mac OS X (10.6.3), 7 chooks, 2 dogs, 2 daughters, 1 pear tree, 0 partridges, itinerant bats, magpie
  • Frank Papenbroock Calculating status...
    Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 27, 2010 1:49 PM (in response to andintroducing)
    I wonder if Apple cannot make the size of the system typography changeable? If the pixels get smaller and smaller isn't the the logical next step?

    I would buy a new MacBook Pro immediately, if they would offer a anti-glare low res display, or if there would be a way to switch the size of the system type, so even people over 35 have a chance to read the words using a native resolution on hi-res displays.
    Mac Book Pro, Mac OS X (10.5.6)
  • Kevin Watterson Level 1 Level 1 (10 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 27, 2010 5:09 PM (in response to Rod Hagen)
    For those of us whose work REQUIRES an anti-glare screen, seeing a 17" for comparable resolution doesn't much matter. Frankly, I have a hard time believing that anyone finds this resolution acceptable. The interface is so tiny that sometimes it is hard just to click on things.
    iBook G4, Mac OS X (10.4.11), iMac Core2Duo Extreme Leopard
  • andintroducing Level 1 Level 1 (110 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 27, 2010 5:23 PM (in response to Kevin Watterson)
    Tell me about it, Kevin!

    But yes, some people not only find it acceptable, they find in preferable. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
    15" Unibody Macbook Pro 2.4 Ghz, Mac OS X (10.6.1)
  • Rod Hagen Level 7 Level 7 (31,985 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 27, 2010 6:16 PM (in response to Kevin Watterson)
    Kevin Watterson wrote:
    For those of us whose work REQUIRES an anti-glare screen, seeing a 17" for comparable resolution doesn't much matter. Frankly, I have a hard time believing that anyone finds this resolution acceptable. The interface is so tiny that sometimes it is hard just to click on things.


    Clearly, given that 17" MBps have sold like hotcakes despite the even smaller font size, many people DO find it acceptable, Kevin.

    But that doesn't help with your own problem, I know.

    Have you looked at applications like "Path Finder", which, for example, provides an alternative Finder interface within which you can re-size many UI fonts etc - see http://www.cocoatech.com/ for "Pathfinder" itself and http://forum.cocoatech.com/showthread.php?t=5652&highlight=font+size for some discussion of its strengths and weaknesses in this area.

    One word of warning with Pathfinder at present. It currently appears to force the i5 and i7 models into use of the Nvidia card when it is running, rather than using integrated graphics. The developer is aware of this and looking at it, I understand.

    Well worth a look. I've just being playing with it myself to see whether it would be likely to help you and I suspect it might in many situations. 30 day free trial available.

    Cheers

    Rod
    MBP 13"2.26, MBP15"2.2, iMacG520"RevB , MB2CD, MBCD, ,PM5400/180 & earlier, Mac OS X (10.6.3), 7 chooks, 2 dogs, 2 daughters, 1 pear tree, 0 partridges, itinerant bats, magpie
  • eddychat Calculating status...
    Currently Being Moderated
    May 29, 2010 10:44 AM (in response to b!lski)
    Although you can lower the resolution to 1440x900, it ends up looking fuzzy. I've submitted feedback to Apple suggesting that they offer matte displays with 1440x900 resolution. Tying hi-res to the matte option just doesn't make sense. (Having reflective displays as the default display option makes even less sense.)

    I bought an i5 with the matte hi-res display, but after a month of use I ended up selling it and taking a $500 loss. I'd rather lose $500 than spend another day squinting at tiny windows with tiny text. It drove me nuts! I replaced my i5 with a refurbished matte Core 2 Duo with native 1440x900 resolution, and couldn't be happier.

    Message was edited by: eddychat
    MacBook Pro, Mac OS X (10.6.3)
  • RockyRoad Level 1 Level 1 (110 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 4, 2010 4:59 AM (in response to eddychat)
    I've had the hi-res 15" for a few days now (glossy).

    Yes the system menus are pretty small, but I don't spend a lot of time looking at them. In the finder I increased the font size a little. In Safari (like this forum), if I'm going to do any extended reading I bump the font size up. In Pages, Word, Excel and stuff I just use a great zoom value and its fine. In Mail I increase the font for the sidebar and text and its good.

    It is the blocks of text that you can't easily enlarge, like flash boxes on websites, that are most annoying. And all the tiny little grey on grey text menus and stuff in apps like Logic Pro.

    I'm happy with it though - especially for how much more I can fit on the screen when not hooked up to my 30" external display.
    Macbook Pro i7 15" (2.66Ghz/8GB RAM), Mac OS X (10.6.3)
  • DCGOO Level 3 Level 3 (760 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 4, 2010 5:52 AM (in response to Frank Papenbroock)
    I would buy a new MacBook Pro immediately, if they would offer a anti-glare low res
    display, or if there would be a way to switch the size of the system type, so even people
    over 35 have a chance to read the words using a native resolution on hi-res displays.


    Every type element in the environment is completely configurable, so I don't understand the size problem at all. I am well over 35 (almost 60) and my problem is bifocals!... I want the largest amount of screen real estate in the smallest geography possible. I drives me nuts to be constantly moving my head around looking at a large panel, just to keep the text in the sweet spot of my glasses.

    I really appreciate my 15" Hi-res display... I can see everything perfectly clearly without moving my head. Makes computing possible again, hopefully for another 20 or 30 years <grin>
    MBP 17, MBP 15 i7, Powerbook G4, iMac 20, 32gig iPhone3Gs, Mac OS X (10.6)
  • prestoncrawford Calculating status...
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 19, 2010 12:35 AM (in response to DCGOO)
    How is "every type" configurable? I don't see it. And I search for the answer and see lots of people asking about it. I first tried out a MBP 15" glossy and found that the glossy caused me to get headaches. Then I got the 15" MBP matte without realizing they uprezzed it (why?). So now I have trouble with fonts. It's ridiculous. I have 20/20 vision. I am a software developer, so I stare at monitors a lot, but otherwise there is no reason this shouldn't work. I've used Linux for years and every system font is configurable. I can't change input box fonts under OS X. I can't change the menu? What can I change exactly?
  • eww Level 9 Level 9 (52,975 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 19, 2010 6:31 AM (in response to prestoncrawford)
    Preston: Some GUI elements in the Mac OS are not size-adjustable, as you've realized. Apple has reportedly been working for years on resolution independence, but it's not yet available. If Linux offers full resolution independence and you want a nonglare MBP, use Linux. This isn't the answer you want, but there it is.
    15" '08 UMBP 2.4GHz/4G/250G; TiBook 1GHz/1G/120G, Mac OS X (10.5.8), iTouch 32G, scanners, projector, tablet, laser and photo printers, Pentax K-7
  • prestoncrawford Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 19, 2010 10:21 AM (in response to eww)
    Well, I'll either return the MBP for a MB and just try to use it sparingly or I'll increase the fonts everywhere and just run Linux within OS X as my main OS (it runs very fast as a VM on the current MBP). Either way, though, I need a portable machine on which to run XCode and do iPhone development.
  • kaafal Calculating status...
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 24, 2010 3:59 AM (in response to prestoncrawford)
    you could try using a utility called switchresX. this will allow you to create a 1440*900 custom setting for the display...
  • vizulefllry Calculating status...
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 26, 2010 11:12 AM (in response to Network 23)
    I fail to understand why anyone would not have an "up-to-date prescription". You have the money for Mac products, but you can't afford Lenscrafters? Sounds like a turkey baster situation without the turkey baster.
    MacBookPro, Mac OS X (10.6.4)
  • eww Level 9 Level 9 (52,975 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 26, 2010 1:55 PM (in response to vizulefllry)
    Call me slow-witted, but I have to ask: how do turkey basters fit into this conversation?
    15" '08 UMBP 2.4GHz/4G/250G; TiBook 1GHz/1G/120G, Mac OS X (10.5.8), iTouch 32G, scanners, projector, tablet, laser and photo printers, Pentax K-7

Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Legend

  • This solved my question - 10 points
  • This helped me - 5 points
This site contains user submitted content, comments and opinions and is for informational purposes only. Apple disclaims any and all liability for the acts, omissions and conduct of any third parties in connection with or related to your use of the site. All postings and use of the content on this site are subject to the Apple Support Communities Terms of Use.