Looks like no one’s replied in a while. To start the conversation again, simply ask a new question.

1680X1050 vs 1920X1200

So I just purchased a new 17" Macbook Pro. Before anyone yells at me for not going to a store, the closest Apple store is 2 hours away.

The 1920X1200 resolution is really killing my eyes. Is there enough difference in size (increase of font size) to drop down to the 15" 1680X1050 hi res display to matter? I came from a 15" Macbook Pro with 1440X900 resolution.


To me when I switch my 17" to 1680X1050 the text is bigger and more readable, but blurry.

I've tried adjusting resolutions and fonts in certain programs, but it makes things blurry.

Thoughts / input. Not looking for the "you should have driven 2 hours to the store" responses.

Thanks!

MacBook Pro (17-inch Late 2011)

Posted on Mar 22, 2012 7:24 AM

Reply
4 replies

Mar 22, 2012 7:29 AM in response to justntime

It is not an uncommon thing - I too think that 1920x1200 is too high a resolution for a 17" display and find it very uncomfortable. That resolution to my eyes only really looks nice on something more in the size of 24"-27".


The issue with stepping down the resolution is also an age-old problem with LCDs. The only way they can do it is to merge multiple pixels to make pseudo-pixels at the reduced resolution, and that will always be at the loss of sharpness and definition. An LCD will always look its sharpest and crispest at its true native resolution.


So if it were me, I would return it if you can and opt for the 15". If you need a bigger monitor sometimes, you can get a perfectly nice 25" or so monitor for a few hundred dollars and use that when you need the bigger screen.

Mar 22, 2012 7:43 AM in response to justntime

Every LCD display is blurry when it is operated at a resolution setting lower than its native (highest) resolution setting. This is the inescapable consequence of using the fixed number of physical pixels in the display to try to simulate a smaller number.


The 17" 1920 x 1200 display has 133.2 pixels per inch; the 15" 1680 x 1050 has 128.6. The difference in the size of non-resizable text on the two screens is really minimal. The standard 1440 x 900 15" display has 110.3 pixels per inch, and there's a considerable difference in the size of menu bar text, dialog boxes, tool palettes and toolbars in many apps, etc. between that screen and the two higher-res models.


The magnificent 27" Apple Cinema Display and 27" Thunderbolt Display, at 2560 x 1440, have 108.8 pixels per inch, making them a very close match for the standard-res 15" MBP.

Mar 22, 2012 8:08 AM in response to eww

Thanks eww - I actually meant to specifically say I would go with the 15" in the default resolution (not the high resolution). Just as you say, the high resolution 15" is almost certainly going to also look uncomfortable to anyone who finds the 17" native resolution uncomfortable.


The downside for me personally is they do not offer the anti-glare at the 15" default resolution, and I would prefer an anti-glare of the glossy screen (but, you never can have everything).

1680X1050 vs 1920X1200

Welcome to Apple Support Community
A forum where Apple customers help each other with their products. Get started with your Apple ID.