[EMC]

I want to buy a mac laptop. I really do. But the screens piss the hell out of me. I am constantly multitasking and need lots of screen space. (even with expose) I use a 1280x1024 display at work, and I find the resolution constraining as it is. If I get say a 15in mac laptop, the resolution I get is only 1280x850ish. The iBook is even worse, coming in at 1024x768.

Now, have any of you ever looked on Dell's website? A piece-o-...-laptop for $800 can come with a 14inch 1400x1000 resolution screen. My friend has a 15' screen that's 1600x1400.

Now, I am not far-sighted in the least and I don't mind reading tiny print. But apple needs to give me an option here. What's the point of having a portable laptop for work when you need to plug it into a non-portible monitor everytime I want to work?

Now, the 17in laptop screen has a high enough resolution for me, but it's simply to big for my travel needs.

will apple up the resolution on their smaller models anytime soon?

[MrForgetable]

12 inch 1024x768 is already damn small. I'm not sure how much tinier the pixels can get before they are too tiny to see. They may change it, but I doubt it.

[SEkker]

Apple has had a long history of keeping the pixel density reasonable for most users. LCDs do not work well at non-native resolutions, so I really doubt Apple will ever put super-high resolution screens in their laptops. My wife is a case in point -- she is not far sighted, but she does not like the density of the 12" PB or iBook. She'd want a 14" at a minimum.

I truly do not understand the utility of the 1600/1400 15" screens -- you have to expand the fonts to read the text.

If you need the extra real estate, buy a 12" and a cheap 19" Dell LCD for the price of the 15".

[Maflynn]

I really hope they don't up the resolution.

I wanted a 12" iBook/PB due to its size and ease of travel, I just couldn't read it. The 15" PB is just about perfect as long as its on my lap or close, I cannot imagine anyhting smaller in either model, it would be unreadable to vast majority of users.

Great for dell for making such a high resolution laptop, but I don't want a headache or eye fatique from using one for a couple of house.

To be honest this is the first time I heard someone ask for a higher resolution on the 12 and 15 models

Mike

[iMacfan]

Yeah, I'm not a fan of ultra-high res screens either, especially as anything other than full res looks pants on an LCD screen. It's for this reason (and cost) that I've a 12"PB and an 18" Samsung screen, with the same res as most 17"ers. I'd say that the combo is the perfect mac setup if speed is not the ultimate factor.

David

[iMacfan]

Oh, I forgot : EXPOSE!!

This feature looks like a gimmick, but being able to see all windows at once makes a 12" screen almost as usable as a cinema display.

[Randman]

Not too many things you can't do on a 17 screen. Maybe it's the workflow and "multi-tasking" that need to be adjusted to get the best out of what you want. If not, there's always external monitors, or a 20-inch iMac.

[drive-thru]

Exposé basically increases your screen size, you can use it to drag text and images between windows or apps. I found out yesterday that you can also drag things between apps by dragging, Cmd-Tab and dropping to the new app.
Obivously for some apps like Illustrator or Photoshop, where a lot of real estate is taken up by palettes, you can't compromise this way. Having said that, I would imagine a 15" PB would suffice for the occasional work done on the road. Most people would probably hook up to an external monitor to do most of their work, but if you need to do a lot of work on the move then buy a laptop with a screen size and resolution you are comfortable with using, be it mac or pc.

I would advise that you try out any laptop before you buy it if the screen size and resolution is important to you. I haven't seen any of the pc laptops with super-high resolutions, but I can't imagine being comfortable with smaller pixels than in my 12" iBook.

[Crusoe]

Anything higher would make them unusable. Squinting while working on a laptop is a very bad combination.

Apple has set the perfect resolution for every laptop they have (cept the 12" powerbook that should be a 13" widescreen).

[shabbasuraj]

We who want righer resolutions wish to have more choices.

Apple screen technology is really lagging, this is no secret. The angles and the brightness is just not up to par with the competition.

I agree completely with the original poster, resolution on Apple laptops are dismal and by no means at a 'professional standard' in terms of overal quality (nit brightness, contrast, and viewing angles). I personally think 'Pro' means the best available, and I think these screens are not the best, mediocre at best.

Honestly, I feel that the resolution of the 17" PB is a joke. All that real estate and you cant get to 4 digit X 4 digit resolution?

I mentioned in another thread, that a few weeks ago, I walked into a Sony store and every Vaio notebook screen on display made my 12" RevC PB screen look like dated technology. Each screen was brighter, had noticeably higher contrast, and easily out did my screen with regards to viewing angles.

Fortunately, Apple does the other hardware components well enough (i.e., keyboards, thinness, etc..) that the majority of users are happy with their purchase and are willing to look past the weak screens. I am one of these people.

Hopefully Apple will address this issue in the G5's new form factor.

At least give us BTO's. If Dell can do it, then Apple can do it. PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[drive-thru]

Just out of curiosity...would having a brighter screen require the screen casing to be thicker? Is this the trade off (brightness vs. thickness) or is it a non-issue?

[mrmister]

It's no secret that the latest Sony screens look great--very bright, wonderful contrast, etc. But shabbasuraj shouldn't conflate increasing pixel density (which many think makes screens unreadable) with better screens--it's two different issues. I don't think anyone doesn't want better screens...we just don't all want 1600 x 1200 resolution on a 15" PowerBook.

[shabbasuraj]

Originally posted by mrmister:
It's no secret that the latest Sony screens look great--very bright, wonderful contrast, etc. But shabbasuraj shouldn't conflate increasing pixel density (which many think makes screens unreadable) with better screens--it's two different issues. I don't think anyone doesn't want better screens...we just don't all want 1600 x 1200 resolution on a 15" PowerBook.

That is fine.

To each his own.

I would actually love an increase in pixel density. And I would actually welcome a 1600 X 1200 15" or 17" resolution screen.

I guess this is why some people love the colour blue, and some people love the color red.

If Apple can BTO a computer with specific graphic cards, hard drives, lighted keybpards and whatever else, then perhaps they can have BTO screens also

.

[SEkker]

Screen resolution is not the same thing as an arbitrary color choice. This is a real ergonomic issue. For the majority of people, there is a maximal pixel density, which is around the current font settings.

If I had my way, I'd like a computer screen with close to 150 dpi - but with text still being presented at the same size as this PB17. That would be much nicer on the eyes to read than anything we have now. How do I know? I have such a screen on my CLIE, it's much more enjoyable to read than this computer LCD.

As for screen quality, the coatings Sony uses does have its drawbacks, but many like them. This is just one of those technology cycles -- when Apple released the latest edition of their powerbooks, their screens were state of the art. My PB17 is now nearly 2 years old, and I think the current screens are the same as found in the revAs.

In addition to annodizing the aluminum, I expect the next real PB change to include some meaningful screen changes. Perhaps even a swivel model, to allow tablet function.

[Powaqqatsi]

Originally posted by shabbasuraj:
We who want righer resolutions wish to have more choices.

Apple screen technology is really lagging, this is no secret. The angles and the brightness is just not up to par with the competition.

I agree completely with the original poster, resolution on Apple laptops are dismal and by no means at a 'professional standard' in terms of overal quality (nit brightness, contrast, and viewing angles). I personally think 'Pro' means the best available, and I think these screens are not the best, mediocre at best.

Honestly, I feel that the resolution of the 17" PB is a joke. All that real estate and you cant get to 4 digit X 4 digit resolution?

I mentioned in another thread, that a few weeks ago, I walked into a Sony store and every Vaio notebook screen on display made my 12" RevC PB screen look like dated technology. Each screen was brighter, had noticeably higher contrast, and easily out did my screen with regards to viewing angles.

Fortunately, Apple does the other hardware components well enough (i.e., keyboards, thinness, etc..) that the majority of users are happy with their purchase and are willing to look past the weak screens. I am one of these people.

Hopefully Apple will address this issue in the G5's new form factor.

At least give us BTO's. If Dell can do it, then Apple can do it. PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I fully agree. They just need to make it BTO.

[mrmister]

"If Apple can BTO a computer with specific graphic cards, hard drives, lighted keybpards and whatever else, then perhaps they can have BTO screens also"

BTO screens is a lot more expensive than these other choices, as then you have to source multiple providers for your resolutions, which cuts into how big an order you need of each type, which cuts directly into what kinds of price breaks you can get from suppliers.

They may do it, as prices keep dropping on LCDs...but I wouldn't hold your breath.

[Commodus]

What I want is for OS X to have resolution independence (there will supposedly be some elements of that in Tiger). That way, you can have a higher resolution (1680x1050, for example) but keep the UI elements large if you want them that way. So Apple could, at least in theory, appease both camps: the people who want max resolution even if it means wearing glasses, and the people who want lower resolutions for ease of viewing.

[Powaqqatsi]

Originally posted by mrmister:
"If Apple can BTO a computer with specific graphic cards, hard drives, lighted keybpards and whatever else, then perhaps they can have BTO screens also"

BTO screens is a lot more expensive than these other choices, as then you have to source multiple providers for your resolutions, which cuts into how big an order you need of each type, which cuts directly into what kinds of price breaks you can get from suppliers.

They may do it, as prices keep dropping on LCDs...but I wouldn't hold your breath.

Good point

[iREZ]

I don't see how the 12" can have more pixel's and frankly I wouldn't want any more. Instead I'd rather see a brighter screen or a 13" widescreen with the same depth (height) as the 12" but widescreen, now that would be awesome.

[Ruahrc]

I'm with commodus, i think once Tiger is out they will start increasing the resolution of LCD's on laptops. That way cou can still have a crisp display with a very high pixel density yet also have the option for large desktops for those users who prefer it that way also.

The one thing I do like about the lower-res screen is that if apple started putting 1900x1400 screens on 15' laptops (I think Dell has one like that) then gaming would suck because the res is too high to run well, and you'd be stuck with interpolating the screen down which looks blurry. Granted the PB's aren't gaming beasts as they are but it's nice to be able to game in native LCD resolution with no hiccups on older games like War3.

Ruahrc

[wilsonng]

Does Tiger's Core Image technology have the ability for independent resolution? I thought I saw something about users being able to do something with resolution but I can't remember where I read it or may have mis-read it somewhere.

Originally posted by Ruahrc:
I'm with commodus, i think once Tiger is out they will start increasing the resolution of LCD's on laptops. That way cou can still have a crisp display with a very high pixel density yet also have the option for large desktops for those users who prefer it that way also.

[shabbasuraj]

Originally posted by mrmister:
BTO screens is a lot more expensive than these other choices, as then you have to source multiple providers for your resolutions, which cuts into how big an order you need of each type, which cuts directly into what kinds of price breaks you can get from suppliers.

They may do it, as prices keep dropping on LCDs...but I wouldn't hold your breath.

I find it hard to believe that a single LCD provider can't provide Apple with a choice of screens with different resolutions.

Anyone here know for sure?

[solitere]

Originally posted by iMacfan:
Oh, I forgot : EXPOSE!!

This feature looks like a gimmick, but being able to see all windows at once makes a 12" screen almost as usable as a cinema display.

This app is even better than exposé, try Desktop Manager
http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/21594

it have som minor quirks but otherwise a awesome desktop manager.

[Visnaut]

Originally posted by EMC:
Now, the 17in laptop screen has a high enough resolution for me, but it's simply to big for my travel needs.

It's really not as bad as some people make it out to be.

I too purchased a 17" for the sole reason that I need a lot of screen real-estate, and I'm completely satisfied in that respect.

At first, you'll be gawking at it's size, but you quickly get used to it. In fact, when you put it beside most 15" PC laptops it actually feels smaller due to the small bezel and slim form factor. It even fits in a Targus case of mine that was made for a 15", the padding is just a little bit more snug on the sides.

I'm not sure what your specific travel needs are, but it's certainly not the large behemoth most perceive it as. In day to day use, you barely take note of it.

[crouchingtiger]

For me (and I think a significant number of other people) it's very simple:

1) No one is disputing that the current resolutions are great and probably represent the ideal for a majority of customers. But...
2) the fact is that higher resolution screens as an OPTION would make Powerbooks that much more appealing for the significant numbers of people who have perfectly good eyesight, and/or do work that requires screen real estate more than anything else (graphics, video, spreadsheets, etc, etc.).

I'd personally love to have 1400x900 or 1600x1050 or even 1920x1200 options on the 15" Powerbook. My colleague's Dell notebook has the 1920x1200 screen and I think it is absolutely fantastic, although I would probably go for the 1600x1050 option myself.

It seems like Apple should be willing to sell such options and to charge a hefty premium for it -- that would fit in perfectly with their business model for the last 5 years or so. Given that it appears that most customers buying Powerbooks aren't shopping on price alone already, it seems like you will draw more people to the Mac platform and you will make more money doing it.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by crouchingtiger:
2) the fact is that higher resolution screens as an OPTION would make Powerbooks that much more appealing for the significant numbers of people who have perfectly good eyesight, and/or do work that requires screen real estate more than anything else (graphics, video, spreadsheets, etc, etc.).

More options is just not practical; it probably wouldn't bring in more buyers to compensate for the money Apple would have to spend developing the new options and maintaining proper supply.

[shabbasuraj]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
More options is just not practical; it probably wouldn't bring in more buyers to compensate for the money Apple would have to spend developing the new options and maintaining proper supply.

I think it will bring in more customers and make its existing user base more satisfied. New resolutions would be simply another incentive for PB users to make the switch to the new form factor.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by shabbasuraj:
I think it will bring in more customers and make its existing user base more satisfied. New resolutions would be simply another incentive for PB users to make the switch to the new form factor.

I think it could bring in new users, and that's great; I just think that the money Apple would need to spend in development, supply, etc. would prevent this from happening any time soon (if ever).

[crouchingtiger]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
More options is just not practical; it probably wouldn't bring in more buyers to compensate for the money Apple would have to spend developing the new options and maintaining proper supply.

This sounds like a nice, reasonable explanation but unfortunately I just don't believe it is true. Apple has shown time and time again that they are perfectly willing to slice up their product lines with niche products/options: Look at the low-end iBook of the last several years that had only a CD-ROM and in some cases half the VRAM of the other iBooks. Look at the 14" iBook which many people derided at the time as being one of the least welcome products ever introduced by Apple (and which has proven to be quite a solid performer). Look at the 128 MB VRAM option on the current Powerbooks, the backlit keyboard option, combo drive vs. superdrive, etc, etc. It just doesn't make sense that they couldn't add LCD resolution to that list. It's not as if the video circuitry wouldn't support a higher resolution internal display, as evidenced by the fact that Dell offers exactly the BTO resolutions we are talking about.
Apple has only a few percent market share in the (huge) computer market but they are hardly a small company that can't implement some product diversification (like in the examples above).

Furthermore, as I stated in my original post, they could charge a hefty premium for the higher resolution screen that would cover their costs and much more and (a little sadly, to be sure) their core base wouldn't bat an eye!

It seems ridiculous to me that they wouldn't at least TRY to expand their base by offering these high-end options. Sure, if it proves to be unprofitable, then I'm sure they will stop doing it!

[shabbasuraj]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
I think it could bring in new users, and that's great; I just think that the money Apple would need to spend in development, supply, etc. would prevent this from happening any time soon (if ever).

I think neither development costs or supply is a limiting factor here as witnessed by the myriad of BTO options currently available. Currently you can have a BTO GPU on the 17" and arguably this is more integrated onto the motherboard then the LCD. (or am I incorrect in this assumption?) And like the original poster stated, the end user would be paying for it in the end.

[mrmister]

Let me repeat myself:

"BTO screens is a lot more expensive than these other choices, as then you have to source multiple providers for your resolutions, which cuts into how big an order you need of each type, which cuts directly into what kinds of price breaks you can get from suppliers."

All the other BTO options currently available do not cut into margins--changing the amount of RAM on a videocard, or the size of a hard drive. Supporting multiple screen densities will cost Apple a lot more--but as costs for LCDs drop, this may happen.

Don't hold your breath, though.

[shabbasuraj]

Originally posted by mrmister:
Let me repeat myself:

"BTO screens is a lot more expensive than these other choices, as then you have to source multiple providers for your resolutions, which cuts into how big an order you need of each type, which cuts directly into what kinds of price breaks you can get from suppliers."

All the other BTO options currently available do not cut into margins--changing the amount of RAM on a videocard, or the size of a hard drive. Supporting multiple screen densities will cost Apple a lot more--but as costs for LCDs drop, this may happen.

Don't hold your breath, though.

Are you certain that a single supplier cannot provide screens to Apple with multiple resolutions?

If not, then your statement does not hold water.

[mrmister]

"Are you certain that a single supplier cannot provide screens to Apple with multiple resolutions? If not, then your statement does not hold water."

It's not a matter of whether they CAN or not--it's the problem of scale. Apple receives discounts on its glass, like any other manufacturer--the larger an order they place, the larger a discount they can jostle for. Since Apple doesn't place such large orders compared to Dell, for example, they need to make the orders as large as possible, so as many different computers use the same glass, like the 12" iBook and PowerBook, and the 17" iMac and PowerBook.

Multiple resolutions would cut severely into profit margins at this time. Things will change as LCD prices drop, but not before.

[shabbasuraj]

Originally posted by mrmister:
"Are you certain that a single supplier cannot provide screens to Apple with multiple resolutions? If not, then your statement does not hold water."

It's not a matter of whether they CAN or not--it's the problem of scale. Apple receives discounts on its glass, like any other manufacturer--the larger an order they place, the larger a discount they can jostle for. Since Apple doesn't place such large orders compared to Dell, for example, they need to make the orders as large as possible, so as many different computers use the same glass, like the 12" iBook and PowerBook, and the 17" iMac and PowerBook.

Multiple resolutions would cut severely into profit margins at this time. Things will change as LCD prices drop, but not before.

You present a plausible case, but with out any actual numbers your or my notion cannot be validated. I think that that it may be plausible for the economy of scale can be offset by charging a premium to customers for a higher resolution screen.

[cmoney]

Originally posted by mrmister:

Multiple resolutions would cut severely into profit margins at this time. Things will change as LCD prices drop, but not before.

I don't see things changing much ever. LCD prices have dropped, but, for example, the price for the 20" widescreen Cinema Display has not dropped. On the other hand, Dell can manage to sell 2 20" widescreen LCD displays with the same resolution and more inputs for a little more than the price of one Apple 20"!

I'd like to see higher resolutions as BTO as well. I'd pay extra for it, even if it's at Apple's typical 100% markup over the rest of the market, simply because there is no upgrade option after purchase. I would've bought a 12" PB last year if not for that dinky resolution.

And for the people saying to buy an external display...duh, what good is a portable that's always tethered to an external display? I want the higher resolution for when I'm using the laptop as a portable!

Anyway, what would be really nice would be true resolution independence. That way it can scale the user interface elements to any resolution. Maybe we can just force people to use Universal Access and turn on Zoom!

[EMC]

Dell is not the only one offering BTO displays. HP does too. In fact, typically you can choose between three resolution sizes.

This talk about ruining Apple's margins because of multiple screen orders from different manufacturers is ridiculous. If you've read anything about LCD manufacturers right now is that they are in crazy competition with eachother. The same screens can go into any laptop regardless of brand, and if they don't give the cutright lowest market price, to any manufacturer like say Apple, Apple can turn around and set their next contract with someone else. Remember, Apple has 7% of the laptop market share. That's fifth overall and a lot more than big-name companies like Sony.

let's not forget that Apple has the largest profit margins as well.

They have nothing to lose with BTO screen resolution.

[shabbasuraj]

Originally posted by EMC:
Dell is not the only one offering BTO displays. HP does too. In fact, typically you can choose between three resolution sizes.

This talk about ruining Apple's margins because of multiple screen orders from different manufacturers is ridiculous. If you've read anything about LCD manufacturers right now is that they are in crazy competition with eachother. The same screens can go into any laptop regardless of brand, and if they don't give the cutright lowest market price, to any manufacturer like say Apple, Apple can turn around and set their next contract with someone else. Remember, Apple has 7% of the laptop market share. That's fifth overall and a lot more than big-name companies like Sony.

let's not forget that Apple has the largest profit margins as well.

They have nothing to lose with BTO screen resolution.

Nicely said.

It is actually a known fact that Apple sources multiple suppliers for their notebook screens. i.e., 15" white spot repair program.

[Filburt]

Which one are you:

• Your eyes cannot see much beyond 100 DPI. Therefore, you believe no one should be allowed to use high resolution screen.
• Your eyes can see 200 DPI and you think small fonts most other people can't read is cool. You are surprised by people actually buying low-resolution Apple products.
• You believe your opinion is merely your opinion and wish Apple would offer both low-resolution and high-resolution PowerBooks (or high-resolution with resolution indepdent UI) so that people would just shut up already.
• You just bought a PowerBook G4 and wish Apple don't adopt G5 for PowerBook because of it. Oops, wrong thread.

[cmoney]

[*] You believe your opinion is merely your opinion and wish Apple would offer both low-resolution and high-resolution PowerBooks (or high-resolution with resolution indepdent UI) so that people would just shut up already.

I'm definitely of this opinion. I want my high res screen but appreciate the fact that most people go blind with the resolutions I like. Just the same way some people like 1600x1200 on a 15" screen and I barely like 1600x1200 on a 20" screen. And here at work, most people with 17" CRTs run it at 800x600! My office mate has a 21" CRT at 1280x1024. So I can definitely understand that my preferences probably aren't gonna be appreciated by the majority.

At the same time, I wish Apple would offer us a little choice here. I can barely function in 1024x768 but I'd really like a 12" Powerbook to replace my 15". And like I said, even if it were a $300 option to upgrade the screen res, I'd still do it. At least we'd have the choice!

[mrmister]

I, on the other hand, would love there to be multiple resolutions. That sounds great, fantastic, wonderful.

But this is APPLE. It would be incredibly un-Apple-like for them to suddenly offer this, and anyone who posts on this thread must know that. I've explained why they do it (e.g. cost) and while I never claimed it would "ruin" their margins, I know it impacts them, and I feel safe predicting there will be no change in their policies anytime soon.

[8minute]

I would be happier with the low res of my 12" screen if I was able to resize the window title bars, the menu bar etc in OS X.

[wilsonng]

Would Tiger's Core Image technology have a resolution independent UI so that we can transcend the current limits of screen resolution (1024 x 768) on the PB 12" for those of us that want a little more resolution?

Originally posted by Filburt:
Which one are you:

• You believe your opinion is merely your opinion and wish Apple would offer both low-resolution and high-resolution PowerBooks (or high-resolution with resolution indepdent UI) so that people would just shut up already.

[Ruahrc]

Originally posted by cmoney:
Anyway, what would be really nice would be true resolution independence. That way it can scale the user interface elements to any resolution. Maybe we can just force people to use Universal Access and turn on Zoom!

A little off topic but I really love the zoom feature! Not that I have complaints about my PB 15" screen being too small for me to see but I discovered these hotkeys one day and was really impressed at how far you could zoom in and also how smooth it all was. It is better than any windows zoom implementation I have seen

Ruahrc

[11011001]

I'm with the topic poster, I'd love to see a PB with a bit more resolution! Imagine 4 emacs frames side by side! Oh the joy!

But, I'm not complaining as it is. I just plug in another LCD.

[himself]

The option would be nice (options are always nice), but I think mrmister explained the situation...

a high-pixel density LCD (of the type that DELL uses) cost a good deal more than any of the displays that apple currently uses. Add to this that the number of people who prefer current screen resolutions likely far outnumbers those who prefer higher screen density, it becomes more apparent that apple will have to spend a larger proportion of cash to appease a smaller segment of buyers. Even if buying those displays in volume, the volume will be much less than that for their standard displays, and will thus be the most expensive of the bunch. Plus, these extra displays won't be in addition to their current display volume, but a slice of their current volume. Which means, LCD volume would go down for all of the models that are connected to this option, and the costs for those same LCD's would go up across the board. It would impact profitability (or prices, or both) on both sides. If apple were to make the option available, they wouldn't likely sell in the volume needed to recoup the costs, or those machines would have to be prohibitively expensive. It's not a matter of whether or not apple can do it, because they most definitely could. It's more a matter of cost and profitability, not to mention ergonomics.

I'm sure apple has researched this topic to death, as it is constantly brought up in forums like these, and they've probably come to the conclusion that it wouldn't be worth it. I'm sure that they also see that the increase in pixel densities will make concepts like resolution independent UI (and later, the death of anti-aliasing) more realistic. That is when you are likely to see apple provide ultra-high resolution displays (which may be soon, if Tiger is any indication).

[EMC]

The previous post made a great point.

Many of you say that you can't even see the difference at higher resolutions and something like 150 dpi would be overkill.

Now, ask yourself this, can you tell the difference between anti-aliased text and regular text?

If so, then you could definitely benefit from higher dpi. Because the dpi of a typical LCD screen is below the nyquist rate for the human visual system (at least for the non far sighted) we can perceive aliasing effects on our LCD screens. Therefore, we remove the high-frequency information with "anti-aliased" text. While this removes the jagged-edges (aliased power), it is removing all high-frequency information, thus blurring the text. That is why all anti-aliased text appears blurry.

If the dpi were high enough, their would be no need for anti-aliasing because the text would appear smooth and sharp. The same goes for images and all other graphics on the screen.

While there are many other reasons for higher resolutions (like screen real-estate), the current displays on the Apple laptops are lagging behind their competitors, and an improvement would be noticable to most users, although many users do not realize that they would appreciate a higher dpi screen.

[Eug Wanker]

For most daily computing, screens above about 110 ppi suck with current OSes. I tell that to my friends/colleagues when they're looking for Windows laptops. Of course, they promptly run out and buy a 15" laptop with 1600x1200 screen or something stupid like that. They find it very hard to look at, so they turn it down to 1024x768 (I kid you not). Guess what? Of course, 1024x768 on a 1600x1200 screen looks like ass. Then I show them my nice 101 ppi screen and they finally understand what I'm talking about.

Tiger will be the beginning of resolution independence on OS X, but it will be quite some time before 150 ppi is truly properly supported across the board.

Thus, for the time being, I'm very happy with Apple's LCD screen resolutions. Other options would be nice to have for those very few people that would actually properly make use of them, but Apple has instead chosen to just standardize things across the board. And I wholeheartedly agree with that decision.

In 2005 I will update my laptop, to another with a 101 or 107 ppi screen. By 2007 though, I definitely want Apple to ship 150 ppi screens, with good 150 ppi support in the OS.