[dialekt]

Can anyone elaborate on resolution independance please? I just bought the latest 17" Macbook Pro and apparently I seem to be the only crazy one that feels that the new 1920x1200 resolution doesn't seem suited for such a small screen. Everything feels tiny. I've been talked out of returning this machine twice due to "workarounds". Adjusting fonts and icons etc. Today/Tonight may be my last night with the machine..I don't want to be making a mistake I'll regret later. Anyhow I'm planning to get the 1680x1050 version ..but if resolution independance helps my eyes then I'm all for it. Or any other suggestions for global font increase. How do you guys feel about this Macbook Pro? Would you rather have this one or a lower resolution one? It just feels weird to me because I see the same resolution on the 24" Imac and it looks COMPLETELY suited for a monitor of that size. lol..loooked perfect. This is kinda sad because it would be my second hit of losing over 200.00 at a restocking fee. Because I started with the 15" LED version but decided I wanted more of a "one for all/end all be all" machine that I could use everyday with no desktop.


Heeeeeelp me because I'm about 3 hours away from going into the apple store

[rjt1000]

In case you havent tried it: in System Prefs > Displays, you can choose a lower resolution. The drawback is that using other than the native resolution of a screen yields somewhat poorer results. But, try it out for a couple of hours and see what you think. I have done this with my 12 inch PB where the native resolution yields text that is a little small for my middle age eyes. This is a more universal fix then changing font size in each application. And you can change back to the native resolution whenever desired.

[irunat2am]

This may be a completely retarded question seeing as I'm still relatively new to macs...but can't you just lower the resolution settings in your display options? There is no fricken' way they ship out laptops with fixed resolutions, right? o.O

Confused.

Meh. I must sleep. Good luck.

[peeb]

You can certainly change the resolution, but the problem is that the LCD panel has a certain hardware resolution, so looks crappy if the logical resolution doesn't match the physical. As panels get better and better res, things get smaller and smaller. Leopard will fix this, enabling fonts, icons etc to scale arbitrarily. In the mean time, its putting up with things being small, using workarounds like font size etc, or putting up with things looking blurry.

[all2ofme]

What peep said. If it's fine otherwise I'd hang onto it and wait until Leopard's out. If it does as people are expecting it'll be a boon to have the high-res screen.

[Atheist]

I say return it and get the one that suits your needs. I don't understand why people are trying to talk you out of it. That's just silly. If the screen resolution is too small for your eyes then is seems a waste of money. Get the one YOU want!

[peeb]

I wasn't trying to talk him out of it. Obviously, he should buy the machine that he feels suits his needs.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I wasn't trying to talk him out of it. Obviously, he should buy the machine that he feels suits his needs.

Wasn't referring to you. The OP states that he was already talked out of returning it twice.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

Wasn't referring to you. The OP states that he was already talked out of returning it twice.

Ah, the perils of asking for advice online.... The fix in Leopard is long overdue though.

[Clive]

I really think you’re all over-estimating the scaleable interface that may be in some portions of Leopard, and what resolution independence really means.

Text and icons are already as scaleable as you're ever going to want them. All that Apple could add to this are scaleable mouse pointers/cursors and window widgets. As all of these things are made of pixels, at fixed sizes, I really don’t think they are going to scale that well.

About the best you can do with this, is, in the Finder, click on a list view window, press cmd-j, click the "all windows" radio button and then change the font size up to 14pt or so. There are similar controls in most applications.

High res screens are a real benefit in truly scaleable environments - ie when showing text in a web browser – but they really don’t help much when the media is pixel-based, because the media either looks small, or unsharp due to scaling. There’s no easy way around this.

[dialekt]

Yeah I can't stand the fuzziness when changing the resolution. How many would opt for the hi res versus the lower res one? For some reason I find it more practical. But I am just worried that the world may catch up to 1920x1200 or something and I've ruined the whole "future - proofing" concept. Yes Leopard sound appealing but what about dual booting in vista/xp..does it fix that OS ? Probably not. Has anyone here used a 17" Macbook Pro by itself and as a main monitor? Am I dilusional for not wanting to use an external?

[gudrummer]

I too think that it has to suit your needs.I bought the 17 HD because it helps me with FCP,although i admit that i'm using my glasses more than before buying it.Having a second screen will probably help you a lot and lcd prices are lower than ever.

[mduell]

Running an LCD at a non-native resolution looks like poo (unless you run at an integer divisor, like 960x600 on a 1920x1200).

Leopard is supposed to add resolution independence, so you can set it to scale all windows 'bigger'. My understanding of it differs from Clive's; as far as I know, everything (menu bar, application windows, file icons, etc) will be scaled up.

Higher res screens are great for photos and HD video, and of course you can fit more on screen if your vision is good enough.

[dialekt]

Yeah well I'm gonna give this program called Tinker Tools a shot and see if the "global font/appearance" settings help. I plan on using Final Cut Pro and similar programs. But at the same time what was everyone editing on before the 17" Hi res came out? lol I just know that if I grab an external for the 17" mbp then I'll be angry as heck because I would have defeated the whole purpose for buying such a large laptop ya know? 15" MBP LED+Del 2407 doesnt sound too bad right now. We shall see..gonna test tinker tool in about 10 minutes or so

Apparently my 17" macbook pro's wireless/wifi is WEAK AS HECK. My 12" powerbook is working properly though. Sad.

[bcaslis]

I think you should return it if it doesn't meet your needs. You are the only one to judge that. I have one also, my main reason is for using it with Aperture where all those little pixels help. But to be honest, I'm having second thoughts about the resolution also. For me however, it's a tradeoff between the screen pixels and the physical size. Personally I wouldn't get the 17" in 1680. Been there and done it, in my mind the 15" at 1440 is close enough to make the smaller one the better choice. The 1920 resolution though tips the scales again. If I decide to not keep it, I'll be going back to the 15" rather than the 17" with less resolution.

And like some of the other posters, I agree, don't wait for resolution independence. If it doesn't work for you with today's software, return it and get something that does.

Originally Posted by dialekt 

Can anyone elaborate on resolution independance please? I just bought the latest 17" Macbook Pro and apparently I seem to be the only crazy one that feels that the new 1920x1200 resolution doesn't seem suited for such a small screen. Everything feels tiny. I've been talked out of returning this machine twice due to "workarounds". Adjusting fonts and icons etc. Today/Tonight may be my last night with the machine..I don't want to be making a mistake I'll regret later. Anyhow I'm planning to get the 1680x1050 version ..but if resolution independance helps my eyes then I'm all for it. Or any other suggestions for global font increase. How do you guys feel about this Macbook Pro? Would you rather have this one or a lower resolution one? It just feels weird to me because I see the same resolution on the 24" Imac and it looks COMPLETELY suited for a monitor of that size. lol..loooked perfect. This is kinda sad because it would be my second hit of losing over 200.00 at a restocking fee. Because I started with the 15" LED version but decided I wanted more of a "one for all/end all be all" machine that I could use everyday with no desktop.


Heeeeeelp me because I'm about 3 hours away from going into the apple store

[dialekt]

Well seeing how much of an improvement raising the macbook pro on the griffin laptop elevator was.maybe the 15" might suffice because it will be an easier resolution and still in my field of vision. Plus i'll end up 500 bucks richer....and the 1680x1050 didnt work because.....? You'd simply rather have the smaller laptop?:

wow didnt think this would be such a tough decision

I've delayed going into the apple store for an extra 3 hours now.

[Clive]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Leopard is supposed to add resolution independence, so you can set it to scale all windows 'bigger'. My understanding of it differs from Clive's; as far as I know, everything (menu bar, application windows, file icons, etc) will be scaled up.

I just think we're going to be disappointed by the implementation. When Apple first announced the acquisition of Next and the development path of ‘Rhapsody’ everyone was hoping that they’d go down the display PostScript route, true resolution independence. This got diluted into window drawing being handled as PDFs... but eventually Apple just used the same bitmap widget scheme that they had used in "Classic".

One of the reasons for this is that having a scalable OS just caused them too many incompatibility issues - probably to do with Classic support (but without that support OSX would have been a non-starter). Perhaps they have now decided to abandon all Classic support in Leopard (though I haven’t heard that) and given themselves a chance to really go for that resolution independence?

However, I think there are far too many resources in the OS that are pixel-based for them to make this happen effective in one move with Leopard.

JMO

[dialekt]

Yeah so as of now I'm halfway done with making my decision. It's inevitable that I'm going to swap out my hi res 17" ..BUT now that I'm typing here from my 12 pbook with the griffen laptop elevator and see that it looks fine in my field of vision, it makes me place the 15" back in perspective and the fact that one will end up 500.00 richer if I make that choice. But the 17" humongo sc reen is nice as heck. So we shall see in the next hour ..

[Clive]

One solution to the scale problem is at hand in the OS itself. Go to the Universal Access system prefs, turn on zoom.

Now, pressing cmd-opt-+ will zoom the portion of the screen where you cursor is, moving the cursor pans around the screen. I use this a bit when I'm making little graphic elements for web pages, etc.

If you have a 12" right now, I kind of doubt that you'll find pleasure in lugging a 17" around.

[bcaslis]

To me it's a tradeoff between size and pixels. The normal 17" doesn't have enough pixels to make me choose it over the more portable 15". But the 17" HD crams lots more pixels in, but is the same large size. For me it tilts the scale to be about equal. The "perfect" tradeoff for me would be 1680x1050 in the 15" size. For right now I'm staying with the 17" but I have a few more days to change my mind if needed.

Originally Posted by dialekt 

Well seeing how much of an improvement raising the macbook pro on the griffin laptop elevator was.maybe the 15" might suffice because it will be an easier resolution and still in my field of vision. Plus i'll end up 500 bucks richer....and the 1680x1050 didnt work because.....? You'd simply rather have the smaller laptop?:

wow didnt think this would be such a tough decision

I've delayed going into the apple store for an extra 3 hours now.

[firefly]

Personally, I dunno. I have a 15" Macbook and find the resolution very comfortable for everyday use. I wouldn't want any more for web browsing and office tasks. Now when I'm in After Effects I feel like there's not quite enough space and if there was a 1680x1050 option it would be better suited. So I think the answer to whether the HR option is the right choice is down to your own needs. And if 10.5's resolution independence is all thats its meant to be, I would say HR is the one to go for.

I wouldn't want a 17" at the moment though... 15" is about as big as I'd want in a portable.

[bcaslis]

I agree it depends on what you are doing. For normal tasks the 15 is OK. But things are somewhat squeezed in Aperture, so more pixels is good. Not that you can't use the 15" as is for this, but more pixels makes it more pleasant.

Originally Posted by firefly 

Personally, I dunno. I have a 15" Macbook and find the resolution very comfortable for everyday use. I wouldn't want any more for web browsing and office tasks. Now when I'm in After Effects I feel like there's not quite enough space and if there was a 1680x1050 option it would be better suited. So I think the answer to whether the HR option is the right choice is down to your own needs. And if 10.5's resolution independence is all thats its meant to be, I would say HR is the one to go for.

I wouldn't want a 17" at the moment though... 15" is about as big as I'd want in a portable.

[peeb]

It also depends what 'portable' means to you. If you lug it around a lot, I can see a 17 being an issue, if you occasionally move it from site to site, it's not such a big deal.