[Eug]

One of the first things I noticed when I got my TiBook was it had a brighter screen than my iBook 600, with better contrast and truer whites. The other thing is that the iBook 600 had a denser pixel spacing - higher dpi. OK, but a little high for my tastes.

Well, I've been using the TiBook for 3 months now, and I went back to the store yesterday for another reason and had a chance to recheck the the 12" AluBook and the iBook.

The screen on them now drives me nuts. No matter how I adjust them, I can't stand how it looks.

I wonder if the next incarnation of the smallest PB will have the same issues. I'd still consider at 12" (or preferably 13") if it had a better screen. I find the 15" TiBook a bit larger than ideal for me for carrying around.

[U n i o n 0015]

I think the 12" screen is pretty good color-wise. I usually have the brightness up nearly full though when I use my roommmate's PB. Still, everything displayed on the 12" screen is too tiny for my crappy eyes, so the 15" is the one for me.

[tfr]

The 1024x768 is about right on on the 12". The resolution on 15" was the one thing that held me back from "switching" for a long time - I was just used to do better than that. My last PC laptop was a Dell Latitude C840, with 15.0" running at 1600x1200 - excellent. Dell has now released a 15.4" wide screen, that runs at 1950x1200 - even better.

The 1440x900 on the 17" could be bigger IMHO. I don't know why Apple hasn't caught up with the technology in this area.

[bbales]

I have a 12-inch PB and it's fine for me, though when I looked at it at the store, the 15-in was a definite pull! It came down to money -- I wanted a G$ processor, I wanted a sperDrive; I did not want to spend 3 grand.

So -- it's the 12-inch. And it works just fine -- probably b/c I use my desktop for daay-to-day stuff.

Beth

[claughery]

I do agree... I think that the screen on the Ti's are better... BUT I just can't tell you enough how much more I like the overall construction of the AL models!

[Dave Hagan]

Let's hope on the next iteration of the small PowerBook, they can give it a screen with the wide aspect ratio (like the other models).

[ichibod]

The biggest reason that kept me from getting a 12" is the bad screen. Looks like it came from an iBook, and it just isn't as viewable from as many off-center angles as the 15" so I am taking a chance with the 17" but all reports seem to make the 17" out to be a good screen.

That and the slower speeds...

[b3b0p]

Why do people think the 17" should have higher resolution? Have any of you seen the Dell with 1600x1200 on a 15 LCD? It is Tiny Tiny Tiny. I know no one who runs it at 1600 x 1200 and because they don't run native res it looks very fuzzy and would drive me up the wall.

I have the 17" and have seen the 17" iMac. The Screen resolution is absolutely Perfect. You can view it up close or far away and easily make out what is on the screen. 1440 x 900 is plenty of space to fit on screen. Especially a portable. If you need more then 1440 x 900 then get an external monitor for super serious work. Surely you can live with 1440 x 900 on the road, no?

I mean geez, that is still pretty high res! Just think 1440 x 900, come on, that is alot of screen!

Sorry, vents cool and clean now.

Oops! This is about the 12". Yes I saw the 12" and the screen is not as bright and looks fuzzy after looking at the 15" and 17". My Girl friend has one. It works for her but she has not seen my Ti and Al book (she's in Minnesota).

Cheers,
Chris

[StiZeven]

Not all 12" PowerBooks are the same. I wasn't impressed with the 12" LCD at all the stores at first either. For the longest time I kept saying to myself that the 12" PowerBook at the Wiz had a MUCH better display than the one in DataVision (NYC). But, I just chalked it up to my eye's having a poor memory.

When my MiniBook was finally delivered I noticed the screen looked great, just like that one in The Wiz. Then, a couple of weeks later my cousin (who loved mine) ordered the 12" PowerBook as well. So, they were sitting side by side on my desk and I couldn't help but notice that her screen was dimmer than mine (at same brightness level) and the whites where more yellow tinted where mine are whiter and brighter. Then I noticed the text and couldn't believe the difference! The text on my screen was noticeably smooth and crisper (all text) compared to hers which looked a bit jagged. We are both running the same exact resolution and color profile with the same font smoothing level. When I stood up from the desk and looked at the two PowerBook's side by side I also noticed that mine had a better viewing angle as well!? These are definitely two VERY different LCDs. I of course didn't say anything about any of my observations as I didn't want to hurt her feelings but at the same time I was a little annoyed that Apple is not consistent with their LCDs. I mean, it IS a PowerBook - not a $999 iBook.

This is of course is due to the fact that Apple (like all computer makers) use different LCD manufacturers in the same product line up (just like the random Fujitsu and Toshiba hard drives) and which one you wind up with is random. However, after seeing both side by side, I can tell you that one is definitely superior to the other. But, unlike the HD, you can not see the LCD manufacturer's name listed in the System Profile.

Like my TiBook, I almost never have the brightness turned all the way up on my MiniBook, but with my Cousin's, you'd most likely have to keep it all the way to the max. Now there is no denying that the TiBook's screen is wider and brighter, but my MiniBook's screen is almost as vivid, sharp and crisp. Having said all that, I am assuming the PowerBook Eug saw had the less desirable LCD display. I would also love to see the next revision MiniBook to have a wider and higher resolution display. Apple is a little too shy in the resolution area. If people don't like UXGA, then give them the option to have SXGA and so on.

[Mr. Blur]

Originally posted by tfr:
The 1024x768 is about right on on the 12". The resolution on 15" was the one thing that held me back from "switching" for a long time - I was just used to do better than that. My last PC laptop was a Dell Latitude C840, with 15.0" running at 1600x1200 - excellent. Dell has now released a 15.4" wide screen, that runs at 1950x1200 - even better.

The 1440x900 on the 17" could be bigger IMHO. I don't know why Apple hasn't caught up with the technology in this area.

i have rolled out a number of dell (c810) and compaq (e500) laptops with these high-res 15" screens and *every* user has asked me to change the resolution because everything was too small. i think apple has got the screens just right now, especially on the 15" - they're ideal.

[velocipede]

Just to add my 2 cents worth..
Having just gone from an iBook to an 800 mHz TiBook (for about $1800 from CompUSA with 3 years free warranty, I have to add ) I have to say I'm already spoiled by the screen. I'm seriously considering selling the 19" LCD I had plugged into my iBook, this one's just so nice! The iBook screen was functional, but I definitely found myself squinting to view text that wasn't just at the right size. With the TiBook it just all looks good....

[MusicalTone]

I saw the 12"in a store the other day and it looked a bit washed out compared to the Ti.

I have had my 15" SD for a couple of weeks now and must say that the resolution, whilst absolutely lovely for viewing phtos and videos etc. is too high for my comfort when viewing webtext (I realise there are various text zooming and sizing options but they all push webpages out of shape as they only affect the text), and is my ony regret about the 15".

I look forward to a day when there are some common standards out there for screen design/resolution/viewability issues. Oh yes, and the next generation of computer screens (flexible plastic anyone?)


antonio

[squish]

i agree that the Ti could be higher rez, but I have one and i think it's fine.

I also find that my Ti/SD is brighter/crisper than wintel notebooks that other people have...

[icruise]

I haven't used a Tibook for any length of time, but the screen on my 12" doesn't seem that much worse in terms of color or angle of visibility than the tibooks I have used. I do wonder if the maker of the screen doesn't make a difference. The resolution is of course a different matter, but I find the using it most of the time along with a nice 17" LCD monitor makes the res of the internal screen something of a moot point.

[SOLIDAge]

using my 12" Al Book w/ 1 notch BELOW 1/2 my screen is bloody 5x brighter then my old 15"

[euphras]

Quote:

"using my 12" Al Book w/ 1 notch BELOW 1/2 my screen is bloody 5x brighter then my old 15"


You can�t compare an old Ti screen with a new 12" one. Backlight and colour films fade during use.

[jindrich]

regarding screen resolution i dont think the "more is better" at all.

thru the years i've workd with a lot of screens/resolutions, back from the original apple 13"RGB at 640x480, thru 17" CRTS at 800x600 and 1024x768, the ibooks 12", the titaniums 15"..etc. My choice would be the titaniums.

Of all them i can tell you the ibook's/minibooks 12" at 1024x768 is just TOO dense for text. Period (i wont mention dells 15" running at 1600x1200). You can enlarge text size to have it bigger, but then what's the advantge of having more pixels? you end up having LESS usable screen.

On the other hand A LOT of very serious websites in europe define text size (and everything else in between) in their css files in pixels, to avoid the layout to fall apart when the final user enlarges/diminishes. In those cases (wich are thousands) you CANNOT enlarge text size by any mean.

hope apple doesnt follow dell and other crazy manufactures trend putting out gazillion dpi in their screens.

oh, and i'm young, so go figure what older people think about this same matter. I know some who just won't buy the otherwise great 12 minibook because they simply can't read on that screen.

[John123]

Originally posted by b3b0p:
Why do people think the 17" should have higher resolution? Have any of you seen the Dell with 1600x1200 on a 15 LCD? It is Tiny Tiny Tiny. I know no one who runs it at 1600 x 1200 and because they don't run native res it looks very fuzzy and would drive me up the wall.

I have the 17" and have seen the 17" iMac. The Screen resolution is absolutely Perfect. You can view it up close or far away and easily make out what is on the screen. 1440 x 900 is plenty of space to fit on screen. Especially a portable. If you need more then 1440 x 900 then get an external monitor for super serious work. Surely you can live with 1440 x 900 on the road, no?

I mean geez, that is still pretty high res! Just think 1440 x 900, come on, that is alot of screen!

Sorry, vents cool and clean now.

Oops! This is about the 12". Yes I saw the 12" and the screen is not as bright and looks fuzzy after looking at the 15" and 17". My Girl friend has one. It works for her but she has not seen my Ti and Al book (she's in Minnesota).

Cheers,
Chris

I've run the Dell at 1600x1200. Love it.

[Eug]

Originally posted by John123:
I've run the Dell at 1600x1200. Love it.

I hate it personally. So do most (but not all) other people I've talked to who've tried it.

Plus, the TiBook's screen is brighter (at least compared to the one I tried).

[zaphon]

Originally posted by b3b0p:
Why do people think the 17" should have higher resolution? Have any of you seen the Dell with 1600x1200 on a 15 LCD? It is Tiny Tiny Tiny. I know no one who runs it at 1600 x 1200 and because they don't run native res it looks very fuzzy and would drive me up the wall.

Well being a software developer, all I can say is that I love my powerbook. But the screen resolution has been by far the biggest complaint yet. I have worked in several companies now where the 15" dells were a god send. You may not like the 1600x1200 display, but I don't know of anyone with one who is running it at a lower resolution or complaining (and I probably know 25+ people with them). I bought a 12" when it first came out and returned it a day later as the resolution was just a JOKE. I now have the 15" 1Ghz SuperDrive model, and it's okay, but most of the time I have a 21" monitor attached as a second display as well. As I find the powerbook display just a tad to small. And when I'm on the road it's VERY frustrating. I can barely get a few windows open on the desk before it get's cluttered with stuff, and being as there is NO good virtual desktop solution (coming from a unix background, I've tried every virtual desktop solution for OS X I could find, and well their all really crappy), it's difficult to organize anything logically. So yes, I think the resolution SUCKS. The new Dell Laptop does HDTV resolution, like it should. When will apple catch up?

For the record though, I'm not willing to give up my powerbook over it yet. I just wanna voice my opinion that there are those of us who do want the resolution, and it's not so "one sided."

[Mobile Mod]

I dont know, i had a 12: powerbook and just upgraded to the 17" version. I can never go back to that small 12" screen with the low res. This 1440 by 900 is oh so nice...

Justin

[desvenne]

Originally posted by jindrich:
On the other hand A LOT of very serious websites in europe define text size (and everything else in between) in their css files in pixels, to avoid the layout to fall apart when the final user enlarges/diminishes. In those cases (wich are thousands) you CANNOT enlarge text size by any mean.

You're confusing me here. I can enlarge font sizes for web sites through CSS in pixels just fine here (the combo is apple key plus + or apple key plus - ), even moreso, the world wide web consortium specifically asks of web dev guys (of which I am one ) to set font sizes in pixels, and not in points or other, because of the resolution adaptation...

Anyway, maybe we're just confusing matters here, but I'll keep using pixels for my web pages, untill something beter comes along

Cheers.

[jindrich]

desvenne,
oh my, i was talking about windols.
yes on a mac you can make text of a website bigger, even if CSS says just 10px.

[Eug]

So I've heard the 17" screens are much better than the 12", but slightly less bright than the 15".

Is this true? I haven't laid eyes on a 17" yet.

[desvenne]

Sorry for the Off-topicness, but still...

Originally posted by jindrich:
desvenne,
oh my, i was talking about windols.
yes on a mac you can make text of a website bigger, even if CSS says just 10px.

You sure you're not forgetting a setting somewhere in your browser, or are just having trouble with a bug in Internet Explorer?

Because you should be able to enlarge text, even when defined as ^pixels in css, in a browser on the windows platform.

Maybe it's a bug in the browser you're using? I seem to recal IE for windows to have a bug like that, but I'm not sure on the exact type of the bug nor the version number of IE. I'll look it up.

Anyway, I really really love the screen on my iBook (even if it's just 12 inches ), and with the spanning hack enabled and a nice LCD, it's heaven