Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

mike one · Jul 22, 2003, 09:46 AM

seriously, will they?

i can't imagine buying a 15" lcd with such a low resolution screen...... don't want to start a flame war, don't care if you love you 1158X768 or whatever it is, just want to know if we will ever have better screens in our powerbooks?

euphras · Jul 22, 2003, 01:32 PM

I just don�t see that a higher res. screen is equal to "better screen". When i sit in front of my Ti (1280x854) in a normal +/- working seat position i can definetely not resolve the pixels (and yes my eyes are good, 100% on right, 90-95% on left). I only see pixels when i move frontwards (about 40 cm eye-screen distance). So Physics tell me that i can not resolve, and consequently not really use higher resolutions.

Comments??

Pat

galarneau · Jul 22, 2003, 01:48 PM

I used a Dell Inspiron 8200 for a few days, and it had a 15" screen running at 1600x1200. I loved it. It was the best screen I have ever used on a laptop.

At the very least, I think Apple should bump the 15" TiBook to the 14xx resolution that the 17" has, and then move the 17" to 1600x1024.

More pixels are better. Trust me on this one, or go try out one of the PC notebooks running at 1400x1050 or 1600x1200 resolution. Then come back and tell me 1280x854 is 'good enough'. It isn't.

Axo1ot1 · Jul 22, 2003, 01:48 PM

Yeah my friend has a Dell laptop with a 1600x1200 15" screen. It makes my eyes bleed trying to read any of the text in the OS. THe only thing it seems good for is watching DVDs

slimmy · Jul 22, 2003, 02:06 PM

I think that Apple should definitely increase pixel resolution. Why not give us the choice? Those who think higher res causes eyestrain go back down to comfortable settings.

Slim

QUOTE]Originally posted by Axo1ot1:
Yeah my friend has a Dell laptop with a 1600x1200 15" screen. It makes my eyes bleed trying to read any of the text in the OS. THe only thing it seems good for is watching DVDs [/QUOTE]

cowerd · Jul 22, 2003, 02:20 PM

hose who think higher res causes eyestrain go back down to comfortable settings.

LCDs only have one resolution. Everything else is interpolated and looks like shite.

Eug · Jul 22, 2003, 02:59 PM

will powerbooks ever get a higher pixel density???

I sure hope not by 2005 (since I want a new laptop then), unless OS X.4 gets built for 120 dpi or something.

OS X.2 (and presumably OS X.3) looks best with a laptop screen close to 96 dpi IMO.

jtbowden · Jul 22, 2003, 04:33 PM

I think that part of it has to do with the availability of quality LCDs at the required sizes Apple wants.

I have noticed a few 17" PB copies on the other side of the fence and they are all 1440x900, just like the PB 17. I think that if Apple could aquire higher resolution screens, that meet Apple quality standards, AND are not significantly more expensive, they would use them.

They have to make trade offs to reach price points that will translate to volume sales and reasonable profit margins.

Point is, if Apple used standard aspect-ratio LCDs, this wouldn't be a problem because the market is flooded with 3/4 screens. You pay a price for the cool factor.

And by-the-way, I love my 17"er. Best laptop I've had, including my Pismo.

Mastrap · Jul 22, 2003, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by slimmy:
I think that Apple should definitely increase pixel resolution. Why not give us the choice? Those who think higher res causes eyestrain go back down to comfortable settings.

[/B][/QUOTE]

LCD screens have one resolution, everything else looks terrible. Not an option, sadly.

neutrino23 · Jul 22, 2003, 05:25 PM

I think the current 15" PB screen is about 105 dpi. Apple could keep the same aspect ratio and bump the resolution to 1350 x 900 at about 112 dpi. This is probably about as high as I'd want to go.

It is nice to have more pixels for things like spread sheets.

On the other hand, some items come to you at fixed pixel sizes (movies) and suffer on a higher density display. OS X may mitigate this somewhat using Quartz to control the screen via command option + or command option -.

Eug Wanker · Jul 22, 2003, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by neutrino23:
I think the current 15" PB screen is about 105 dpi. Apple could keep the same aspect ratio and bump the resolution to 1350 x 900 at about 112 dpi. This is probably about as high as I'd want to go.

It is nice to have more pixels for things like spread sheets.

On the other hand, some items come to you at fixed pixel sizes (movies) and suffer on a higher density display. OS X may mitigate this somewhat using Quartz to control the screen via command option + or command option -.

The TiBook is ~101 dpi. The iBook is 106 dpi and that's too high IMO. (I had one.)

If you want to use a high resolutions for a spread sheet, you might be better off either buying a 17", or else a PC laptop.

I think that if Apple could aquire higher resolution screens, that meet Apple quality standards, AND are not significantly more expensive, they would use them.

Nope. Apple specifically chooses lower dpi screens, because that's what the OS and the apps are built for. They even say so in one of their support documents.

schmoe · Jul 22, 2003, 06:03 PM

Amen, I really hope Apple gets some better screens in the PowerBooks by G5 time. After using a ThinkPad 14" 1400x1050 for a few months the Ti 15"s antialiased text looks so fuzzy. I also still get ugly red artifacts on the File menu's "i" with sub-pixel antialiasing on "best for LCD". On the thinkpad I turned off antialiasing all together because the text was so crisp.

Fyre4ce · Jul 22, 2003, 06:33 PM

Originally posted by Eug:
I sure hope not by 2005 (since I want a new laptop then), unless OS X.4 gets built for 120 dpi or something.

OS X.2 (and presumably OS X.3) looks best with a laptop screen close to 96 dpi IMO.

Windows XP has a variable dpi. That is, you can take a 1600x1200 screen and scale it such that everything is the same size as it would be on an 800x600 screen, just twice as sharp.

Since OS X doesn't have this capability I think that's why Apple is reluctant to increase the resolution of their screens.

That said, 1600x1200 screens are 2-3 years old now, and frankly I'm disappointed that we don't have anything higher than we do. Hopefully the next PowerBook revision will have that feature.

mike one · Jul 22, 2003, 07:41 PM

Originally posted by Fyre4ce:

That said, 1600x1200 screens are 2-3 years old now, and frankly I'm disappointed that we don't have anything higher than we do. Hopefully the next PowerBook revision will have that feature.

this seriously is the point. unbelieveable, really. especially seeing as how the lcd is such a big cost of a laptop, and powerbooks already have such a big pricetag, that are lacking so drastically in the area of dpi......

i honestly doubt apple could put a powerbook together with a respectable lcd that anyone could afford. imagine the 17" with a 1600x1400 resolution. obscene! and the 17 technically, if it had a cutting edge screen would be ABOVE 1600, above!

*falls over and dies, at end of useless rant*

Karim · Jul 22, 2003, 07:44 PM

My magic 8-ball says: "IT IS DECIDELY SO" in answer to your question.

When I ask it when it keep's saying "ASK AGAIN LATER"

cowerd · Jul 22, 2003, 07:46 PM

Windows XP has a variable dpi. That is, you can take a 1600x1200 screen and scale it such that everything is the same size as it would be on an 800x600 screen, just twice as sharp.

As long as you stay in the OS, the minute you switch to an app you're back to 1600x1200 and minute UI elements.

Since OS X doesn't have this capability I think that's why Apple is reluctant to increase the resolution of their screens.

Apple seems to be more reluctant to sacrifice useability for the sake of larger he-man numbers. When the entire UI scales, including app elements, you will see Apple increase LCD pixels densities.

mrmister · Jul 22, 2003, 08:59 PM

"Apple seems to be more reluctant to sacrifice useability for the sake of larger he-man numbers. When the entire UI scales, including app elements, you will see Apple increase LCD pixels densities."

Exactly. **** 1400 x 1600 bullsh!t unless the OS (and all apps) scale for it properly...because at current res. it will be too miserly for reading.

Eug Wanker · Jul 22, 2003, 09:25 PM

Yep, Windows has variable dpi settings. I do use the higher setting in Windows, but things do get garbled on certain apps and web pages.

holygoat · Jul 22, 2003, 10:18 PM

GNOME lets you pick the DPI to use - and rescales everything on the fly as you scroll through values. My Dell is 133dpi - and that's what I have it set at. Perfectly readable at any font size.

One of the things I like most about my Linux system.

mike one · Jul 23, 2003, 12:13 AM

i personally don't care if the "OS" is scaleable.
whatever, i don't spend my days staring off at apple eye candy.

every app i use is scaleable, from acrobat, to word, to spartan, to chemdraw, photoshop, keynote, safari, eudora, X11, etc etc etc

these are the things i need more space for, hence a larger dpi makes sooooo much sense.
larger dpi means that fonts can be displayed CLEANER at smaller sizes(or scaled down sizes if you prefer).

1024X768 is good for about one web browser window and that is about it, or about 1 app at a time.

i honestly don't think we will see an upgrade in apple dpi on any powerbook for well over 1 year. i think that is pathetic.

Sharky K. · Jul 23, 2003, 05:15 AM

Originally posted by Mastrap:

LCD screens have one resolution, everything else looks terrible. Not an option, sadly. [/B][/QUOTE]
not if you lower the resolution by 4 so you get 4 pixels showint the same as 1 pixel at high resolution. So if they make the resolution 4 times as high it would be possible to have a very high resolution and a nice lower resolution.

But then the high resolution is not fun any more.

tahoe3 · Jul 23, 2003, 05:35 AM

"LCD screens have one resolution, everything else looks terrible. Not an option, sadly"

Maybe those with XGA screens or something. I've seen UXGA screens at the higher resolutions and they look great. It doesn't take much to adjust the font properties to suit the higher resolution

arekkusu · Jul 23, 2003, 08:13 PM

Personally I will not buy a 15" Albook if it ships with a 1280x800 screen. I just don't want to give up those extra 54 rows.

I also like the 3x2 aspect ratio of the current 15" TiBook, but I suspect that Apple will change it to the 15.4" 16x10 display in the upcoming AlBook, based on industry rumors.

Unfortunately if you look around (Samsung &c) you'll see that the 15.4" display is only available in the following resolutions:

1280x800
1680x1050
1920x1200

1680 is too big a jump for Apple, and while some people might disagree, I think it's too high a dpi for comfortable use. 1440x900 on a 15.4" display would suit me fine, but there is no such thing being manufactured, AFAIK.

ngrundy · Jul 23, 2003, 11:45 PM

Blah.

And the second apple goes and ups the resolution on their LCDs this will be the dribble that will be filling these forums.

"the resolution is too high, i can't see the screen properly, it should be lower, it should be more in proprotion to the screen"

I for one hope that apple don't go and put LCD's with insane resolutions into their laptops. the only thing it helps do is to lower the mean age that one requires glasses to see the screen.

Resolutions of 1440 and 1600 on laptop LCD's (14"-15") is a MAJOR reason I don't want one. I dunno. I guess I just place some value in my sight.

Mastrap · Jul 24, 2003, 02:33 AM

Originally posted by tahoe3:
"LCD screens have one resolution, everything else looks terrible. Not an option, sadly"

Maybe those with XGA screens or something. I've seen UXGA screens at the higher resolutions and they look great. It doesn't take much to adjust the font properties to suit the higher resolution

Sorry, I didn't make myself completely clear. LCD screens have one NATIVE resolution.

holygoat · Jul 24, 2003, 05:53 AM

ngrundy: This is either retroactive engineering, or laziness.

There is no reason why interface elements cannot scale with screen DPI, producing sharper images at the same size, or allowing more screen real estate.

You're basically saying that no one should have a fast car, because then they wouldn't be able to go slowly.

I find 100dpi to be a waste; 133dpi is far more productive. If it can be done on Windows and Linux, why not on the PowerBooks?

(not that I'd mind having the same UI on a higher-dpi flatpanel - I don't mind smaller sizes at all, and I wear quite strong glasses. I can always hit Ctrl-+ in Mozilla...)

DaedalusDX · Jul 24, 2003, 06:49 AM

Honestly, I think Apple reluctance to use higher resolution LCD displays is not anything to do with cost.

Its a matter of practicality as a manufacturer and principle.

I took a peek at Dell's new 15.4" Widescreen laptops. Indeed, they run the gamut of resolutions on the same size screen... you get to pick between 1280x800, 1680x1050, and 1920x1200 (yikes!) when you order the machine.

Dell runs a fantastic build to order system on their web store. On any desktop or laptop you build there, you have a large number of choices. They likely don't put the machine together until they get the order from you and they custom build it.

Apple, on the other hand, focuses on set uniform models, and gives you the option of changing minor things like RAM, hard drive size, Airport, and optical drive configuration...
stuff like choice of video card is not configurable.

When you BTO a powerbook, for example, Apple very likely takes a stock powerbook of closest configuration to your BTO, and takes it apart, swaps components, and puts it back together and sends it to you.

Why? Probably because their production lines are streamlined this way... adding in more custom configuration options like display would require drastic changes to their production lines... and also, its a matter of principle, Apple prefers to keep their product lines simple. the whole idea of the 4 quadrant product matrix goes along those lines...

This also allows for each laptop to have a higher level of refinement, since the designers do not have to worry about having to swap the screen, the video card, etc etc... conformity in design.

And finally... unrelated to the production issue, Apple, having a strong background in desktop publishing, most likely still sees having display size on the screen as close as possible to print size (meaning no rediculously high res screens) as a virtue...

Do i think Apple is right on all these points? Nah... i think higher resolution is the way to go in the future, and apple will eventually change their ways... it seems to me that Apple, on some level, is not impressed with the somewhat inconsistent dpi scaling on Windows XP, and perhaps are waiting until their software engineers turn out a much better implementation before releasing higher res displays...

Still, i'm quite comfortable at 1280 by 854 on this Powerbook G4.

jasong · Jul 25, 2003, 10:31 AM

very app i use is scaleable, from acrobat, to word, to spartan, to chemdraw, photoshop, keynote, safari, eudora, X11, etc etc etc

No, they aren't (well, maybe X11). The text they display is, but their interface elements just get smaller and smaller the higher your resolution is. I use Dreamweaver MX at 1600 x 1200 in Windows on my CRT at work, and I can barely see the interface elements. I deal with it so I can have more than one window open at a time (of course doing web design at this resolution has it's own set of problems), but it is a strain.

Also, scaling up the elements in Windows causes a lot of problems (weird text wrappings, chopped text, etc). It is a step in the right direction, but definitely not a solution yet.

That being said, I agree that Quartz should be able to handle scaling of interface elements so that we can move to higher resolution screens. Everything really does look better on them - when you can see them that is.

-- Jason