Previous 1 2 3 Next 26 Replies Latest reply: Feb 9, 2013 12:22 PM by dhinged
dhinged Level 1 Level 1
expertise.itunes
iTunes

Can any Mac converts here tell me how their Macbook Pro's 1280x800 resolution is better than my Thinkpad T60p's 1280x1024 resolution? Or its 1400x1050 max resolution? It's a 14.1" screen but I get more height area and it takes up less desk space on a comparably-sized Macbook Pro (17"?). Please someone tell me what I'm gaining with the resolution change.


iPad
Solved by varjak paw on Dec 21, 2012 12:21 PM Solved

So why should we have to justify anything to you? If you don't see a need or any improvement, then stay with what you have. No one here will care what you do. Do whatever you think works best for you.

 

Or are you just trolling?

 

The 15" MacBook Pro would, by your measure, be 1440x900, by the way, not 1280x800. So your information would still seem to be out of date or otherwise inaccurate. Or you're looking only at the 13" model, for which it is by no means unusual for it to have a lower resolution than a 14" screen.

Reply by jjpulizzi on Feb 8, 2013 7:30 PM Helpful

True, the widescreen format means less vertical space and therefore more need to scroll for long documents, large images, etc., but widescreen (for better or worse) isn't going away. According to DisplaySearch, nearly 90% of portable computer LCDs and over 50% of standalone LCD monitors have a 16:9 aspect ratio. I honestly don't know of any laptop manufactures that still use 4:3 or 5:4, so you'd better hold on to the one you have. Those aspect ratios were close to the 3:2 used in very early 35mm cinema, and were used in TV and therefore computer CRTs. Cinema went decisively widescreen in the 1950s and now most TVs are widescreen LCDs.

 

Why the movement toward 16:9? Most likely because flatscreen televisions are 16:9 for "Full HD" (i.e., 1920×1080) video content, and it's cheaper to scale those panels down into computer LCDs. Also, with the same diagonal length 16:10 and 16:9 panels have less area than 4:3 and 5:4 ones (which are closer to being squares) and that also makes them cheaper to produce. At least the 16:10 aspect ratio that Apple uses for their displays is closer to the golden ratio (1.61803…) than the 16:9 screens.

All replies

  • varjak paw Level 10 Level 10

    The current MacBook Pro has a resolution of 2560x1600 for the 13" model and 2880x1800 for the 15.4" model. So your information is out of date.

     

    Regards.

  • dhinged Level 1 Level 1
    expertise.itunes
    iTunes

    This isn't an answer, because that resolution merely doubles the clarity, not the actual amount of information I see on the screen. You still get the same number of lines per screen, which is less than my 1280x1024. So the equivalent of my screen would be 2560x2048, which is still better than your 2560x1600. If we viewed this forum on each of our computers I would see more lines and have to scroll less on my 1280x1024 screen than you would on your 2560x1600 screen. The clarity is a non-issue for me, because it's clear enough at half your resolution, yet I would still see less information on the screen than my current screen. So tell me, what about a Macbook Pro's resolution is better than mine if I don't care about retina display?

  • Csound1 Level 8 Level 8
    expertise.desktops
    Desktops

    Take a walk to the Apple Store and look for yourself, this is a subjective question.

  • varjak paw Level 10 Level 10

    So why should we have to justify anything to you? If you don't see a need or any improvement, then stay with what you have. No one here will care what you do. Do whatever you think works best for you.

     

    Or are you just trolling?

     

    The 15" MacBook Pro would, by your measure, be 1440x900, by the way, not 1280x800. So your information would still seem to be out of date or otherwise inaccurate. Or you're looking only at the 13" model, for which it is by no means unusual for it to have a lower resolution than a 14" screen.

  • dhinged Level 1 Level 1
    expertise.itunes
    iTunes

    I use my 1280x1024 laptop at home (1400x1050 on my other laptop) and they have more screen height than any MacBook Pro in an Apple store. Why would I sacrifice that screen height so I don't see pixelization? I barely notice pixels. I get more screen height, and the laptop takes up less desk space (or is easier to read because the text isn't miniaturized). I'm failing to see any reason to sacrifice screen height for a prettier screen. Why doesn't Apple make a standard ratio screen? This really seems like a downgrade.

  • Csound1 Level 8 Level 8
    expertise.desktops
    Desktops

    dhinged wrote:

     

    I use my 1280x1024 laptop at home (1400x1050 on my other laptop) and they have more screen height than any MacBook Pro in an Apple store. Why would I sacrifice that screen height so I don't see pixelization? I barely notice pixels. I get more screen height, and the laptop takes up less desk space (or is easier to read because the text isn't miniaturized). I'm failing to see any reason to sacrifice screen height for a prettier screen. Why doesn't Apple make a standard ratio screen? This really seems like a downgrade.

    Why don't you stick with your preferences and don't use a Mac.

  • dhinged Level 1 Level 1
    expertise.itunes
    iTunes

    1440x900 is still less area than my other 1400x1050 laptop. What made Apple think 1440x900 is better than 1400x1050? Would Steve Jobs disagree with me? I find it hard to believe any Mac user would find this acceptable.

  • dhinged Level 1 Level 1
    expertise.itunes
    iTunes

    OK, I'll use a superior device. Enjoy scrolling more often.

  • Csound1 Level 8 Level 8
    expertise.desktops
    Desktops

    I prefer the wider aspect ratio's of Mac screens to the old TV look of a squarer screen.

  • dhinged Level 1 Level 1
    expertise.itunes
    iTunes

    That's great that you prefer widescreens. However, you should be aware that you're losing screen height and have to scroll more often. I still don't see how this is an improvement. I was thinking about buying a MacBook Pro, but I've seen no reason why the current versions have better screens than what I have. You're all getting ripped off with widescreen laptops. I blame Steve Jobs for this one, you know, the guy who makes a standard screen (4:3) iPad.

  • varjak paw Level 10 Level 10

    Go buy something else, then. You're free to purchase whatever you think best fits your needs. I don't see why we should have to justify our opinions and decisions to you.

  • saturnotaku Level 3 Level 3

    You won't find a single brand-new notebook on the market today that doesn't use a widescreen resolution, so your complaint has zero merit. Heck, Apple's widescreen resolutions, save for the 11-inch MacBook Air, are superior because they use 16:10 (1280x800, 1440x900, 1680x1050, etc) aspect ratio rather than the far more common 16:9 (1280x720, 1366x768, 1600x900, etc).

  • Csound1 Level 8 Level 8
    expertise.desktops
    Desktops

    Please explain to me how a 16:10 ratio is better than a 16:9

  • OGELTHORPE Level 8 Level 8

    Csound 1 greetings:  10 is one more than 9?  (stupid humor)

     

    Ciao.

Previous 1 2 3 Next