[Ken_F2]

Compaq and Dell recently unveiled notebooks using the same 1920x1200 LCD panel found in the $1999 Apple HD Cinema Display. These notebooks also have 1394, so they can support HDTV.

When can we expect Powerbook G4 notebooks to be available with this 1920x1200 LCD panel?

[Scotttheking]

moving to powerbook...

[icruise]

I don't think it's that likely and time soon, since Apple doesn't generally seem to like ultra high-res displays. Since such a display would make text very small in many cases, I tend to agree with them. Until OS X allows for system-wide scaling of fonts and GUI elements, don't think we will be seeing this.

[Riemann Zeta]

I personally think that those 14" 1600*1200 USXGA and 15" 1920*1200 displays are insane. My friend has a Dell Inspiron 8200 with the 14" 1600*1200 and the text is impossible to read. Thus, he resizes all of the GUI elements and text, which screws up many applications. His UI looks like a computer screen in a funhouse mirror. Until all OSes have true fully vector-based 3D compositing GUIs, the super-mega hires displays have little value (in my opinion). Perhaps the only value is if you also want to use your laptop as an HDTV, but since no laptops don't come with direct Y/Pr/Pb inputs, you would have to buy lots of expensive converters and get some sort of HDTV program anyway.

[k2director]

I'd be happy with 1600 or so horizontal pixels, with whatever vertical res follows the PB 17's widescreen format.

I think it will happen in about a year, but I doubt we'll ever see anything much higher than that.

[geekwagon]

Probably the same time they start allowing people to choose which LCD to use like Dell and Compaq do. They can't do it to the whole line because at least as many people *wouldn't* want it as *would* (including myself.)

Any panel bigger than 1400x1050 for a 15" is just insane, IMHO. Sure, you can make the text bigger, but on lots of websites most of the controls and such are graphics.. can't increase the size of those easily.

[Commodus]

Apple's much more likely to go with a resolution which increases the resolution only slightly, in order to keep the 17" as the resolution king (that's usually the main reason to get a 17", after all). I think that they'll probably use a resolution like 1344x840 or 1360x850. At least one of those resolutions is actually supported by the 20" Cinema Display if you check its display settings.

Alternately, Apple could increase the 17" model's screen resolution at the same time it does so for the 15". It'd be nice to have a 1440x900 15" model while the 17" used 1680x1050.

[Wesson]

that does seem oddly big for a resolution i would want optimal on my powerbook, to each their own though....

[Hornet]

Personally I cant wait! Apple will have to eventually move up to 150dpi screens from ~100dpi screens. I want more screen real estate than just 1280x854 sometimes. The 17" has a slightly bigger screen, but for me, it doesn't seem nearly higher res enough to justify the increased machine size etc. So, I'd like to see screen sizes representing the desktop displays: the 20" res in the 15, and the 23 in the 17. They should also bump the desktop displays a heck of a lot too.

1920x1200 would be a bit too small at 15 but I'd like it at 17. Editing HDTV at native res in FCP!! this is what these POWERbooks are for!

[BigDaddy]

Originally posted by Riemann Zeta:
I personally think that those 14" 1600*1200 USXGA and 15" 1920*1200 displays are insane. My friend has a Dell Inspiron 8200 with the 14" 1600*1200 and the text is impossible to read. Thus, he resizes all of the GUI elements and text, which screws up many applications. His UI looks like a computer screen in a funhouse mirror. Until all OSes have true fully vector-based 3D compositing GUIs, the super-mega hires displays have little value (in my opinion). Perhaps the only value is if you also want to use your laptop as an HDTV, but since no laptops don't come with direct Y/Pr/Pb inputs, you would have to buy lots of expensive converters and get some sort of HDTV program anyway.

That is funny your friend has a computer that was never made by Dell. The 8200 all have 15 inch screens. The 4150 was 14 but did not have the UXGA.

[Riemann Zeta]

I think you might need a bit more than a 1 Ghz G4 with a 4200 RPM HDD to do 1920*1200 HDTV (is HD compressed?) real time encoding and editing.

Edit:

Addressing the comment above: My appologies, it was a 15" UXGA (I looked up the specs).

[Jansar]

uhm...

1920 x 1220 on a 15 inch screen is a really dumb idea (just throwing that one out there for Dell and Compaq technicians). It looks good on a 23" Apple display, nothing else. In that case, someone will need a friggin' microscope to look at the desktop icons.

[tritonus]

1440 x 900 fells fine on my PB 17". Maybe up to 1600 x 1000, but not any higher please.

[Powaqqatsi]

My mother has 1400-somthingx1000-something on her ThinkPad with 14,1" LCD (I think, could be a 15") And I already think this is impossible to read (well, to be productive with). And I have have VERY good and young eyes so there you have my opinion. The screens on the PowerBooks could be bumped a bit more, but not such insane resolutions like the Dells and Compaqs.

[gwright]

All those people that say "argh, it's insane to have that sort of resolution" etc etc, let's just clarify a few points:

a) You can change the screen resolution. All decent graphics cards can make use of full screen anti aliasing at lower res's on LCD panels, and it doesn't look at all bad, especially not if you have an uber-high res and you want a moderate res...

b) There are a lot of people that would much rather have huge screen resolutions on the powerbook. I, for one, prefer high DPI screens - I have good eyesight and I need a lot of screen estate when coding etc. I drool over people that have the 15.1" TFTs with 1600x1200 resolutions; they're crisp, clear and VERY readable (for me, anyway...).

c) They can easily offer two models with different resolutions at the same screen size. They have models with completely different screen sizes, why not make some that have different resolutions?

- George

Originally posted by Ken_F2:
Compaq and Dell recently unveiled notebooks using the same 1920x1200 LCD panel found in the $1999 Apple HD Cinema Display. These notebooks also have 1394, so they can support HDTV.

When can we expect Powerbook G4 notebooks to be available with this 1920x1200 LCD panel?

[zachs]

I don't mind high DPIs on laptops, because the screen is usually close up. However, I don't prefer it on external monitors, because with those I usually like to sit back and with a high resolution, it's hard to read the text etc.

I hope the Powerbooks get up to at least 1600 x 1200 (or whatever the vertical pixels would be).

[holygoat]

I use 1600x1200 on my 15" Dell Inspiron 8100 (133dpi).

It's fine in Windows, and websites are readable too. Games - use a lower resolution, and scale it up or have the image centred.

It's even better in Linux - simply tell Gnome your DPI settings, and it dynamically resizes everything. You can also set sizes for all interface elements (icons, panels, etc.) and even default zooms in Mozilla if you want. Beautiful and usable.

I don't see why it's necessary to stick to 100 dpi for text readability - it would make more sense to use Quartz to scale display elements and resize screen fonts on a higher-res display: better quality, or more display area; a choice, not a compromise.

*sigh*

The 12" PB would be superb with 1280x960 res.

[michaelb]

Originally posted by Ken_F2:
Compaq and Dell recently unveiled notebooks using the same 1920x1200 LCD panel found in the $1999 Apple HD Cinema Display.

This is a rather uninformed statement.

If it was the "same LCD panel" it would be 23" in size.

There is an enormous difference between the high-quality, superb contrast, brightness and color definition of a Cinema Display, and the much less dynamic screen definition on a laptop, particularly a DELL laptop.

As to whether this *resolution* is necessary on a 15" screen... Ultimately, technology will evolve to where pixels are too small for the human eye to distinguish and screen displays will appear paper-like.

OSes will evolve to display text and graphics as vectors to use all of these micro-pixels.

However, whether current laptop and OS technology suits a very small dpi combination, or whether the computer makers are just playing the "numbers game" in a very competitive market is really the question.

Just think of this, 9 pt Geneva / Arial is still used in a lot of current applications for property labels, etc. You'd need your nose to the screen to read it at 1920x1200 crammed into 15".

Maybe it's a conspiracy by optometrists! So many computer users already have crap eyesight.

[Axo1ot1]

Originally posted by Riemann Zeta:
(is HD compressed?)

HD is the antithesis of compressed.

Those notebooks are really heavy handed bumble**** responses to the 17" PB. They pretty much missed the point entirely :-/

[cc_foo]

I don't see why it's necessary to stick to 100 dpi for text readability - it would make more sense to use Quartz to scale display elements and resize screen fonts on a higher-res display: better quality, or more display area; a choice, not a compromise.

*sigh*

The 12" PB would be superb with 1280x960 res. [/B]

Exactly. I agree with this. We can always increase the text size for readibility (command-+ in Safari, or change preferences). Buttons etc might be smaller, but they are a bit oversized on OS X (IMHO) anyway (as are panels, dialog boxes, icons).

There might be a performance hit at higher resolutions, although I think the every increasing chip speed should compensate.

Also, there might be a higher risk of dead pixels (although they should be smaller pixels...).

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by gwright:
All those people that say "argh, it's insane to have that sort of resolution" etc etc, let's just clarify a few points:

a) You can change the screen resolution. All decent graphics cards can make use of full screen anti aliasing at lower res's on LCD panels, and it doesn't look at all bad, especially not if you have an uber-high res and you want a moderate res...

b) There are a lot of people that would much rather have huge screen resolutions on the powerbook. I, for one, prefer high DPI screens - I have good eyesight and I need a lot of screen estate when coding etc. I drool over people that have the 15.1" TFTs with 1600x1200 resolutions; they're crisp, clear and VERY readable (for me, anyway...).

c) They can easily offer two models with different resolutions at the same screen size. They have models with completely different screen sizes, why not make some that have different resolutions?

- George

a) Scaling res down on an LCD looks fuzzy, period, because pixel info is spread over multiple pixels. It looks like crap, regardless of any AA in use... AA probably even makes it look worse in some instances.

b) Powerbooks are targeted at people who do destop publishing, and other graphics professionals. Super hi res displays would make intensive text work and manipulation difficult for most. If you then scale the res down, it gets fuzzy... then what's the point of having an LCD display?

c) This is a fine compromise, but would require them to stock at least 2 different types of displays for every PB model. An expense that I doubt Apple would like to pay.

1024x768 on my 12" PB is PLENTY. Someone mentioned 1280x960... that's just absurd.

[rm199]

I would rather the PB stayed like it is, but with the addition of a second DVI port.

RM

[cambro]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
a) Scaling res down on an LCD looks fuzzy, period, because pixel info is spread over multiple pixels. It looks like crap, regardless of any AA in use... AA probably even makes it look worse in some instances.

I agree LCDs running at a non-native resolution look crappy for serious work. They are fine rescaled for things like iTunes visuals and even games, but not for reading text, doing design, you know, real WORK!

[hadocon]

Originally posted by Axo1ot1:
HD is the antithesis of compressed.

Those notebooks are really heavy handed bumble**** responses to the 17" PB. They pretty much missed the point entirely :-/

What do you mean by this?

[TAZ]

Interesting debate...once again about resolution. It seems that people are often lead to believe that higher nmbers are more often than not better. More gigahertz=better computer. More resolution=better monitor. There is a pointof diminishing returns on most things in life. Want a high speed processor, you get heat and battery drain. Want a high resolution screen and you get unreadable text and icons that are too small to be useful. Most people who favor the use of high resolution always come back with you can always increase your text and icon size to make them legible. If that is the case how has the hoigher resolution truly helped you out? Bigger text means bigger space on the desktop, as do bigger icons. How can you claim to have increased workspace if you have to increase the size of windows displaying your stuff? Am I missing something???

[holygoat]

Originally posted by TAZ:
If that is the case how has the hoigher resolution truly helped you out? Bigger text means bigger space on the desktop, as do bigger icons. How can you claim to have increased workspace if you have to increase the size of windows displaying your stuff? Am I missing something???

You are missing something. Running at a higher resolution provides more choice:
- can run games at higher resolutions
- view larger images on one display, or zoom in on smaller ones
- display more text, or the same amount at a higher resolution
- display more desktop icons/folder items etc., or the same number with higher-quality text and icons.

You see - OS X icons are 128x128. Why should I not be able to have a 1600x1200 display with superb quality, high-resolution text and icons, but still readable on a 15" screen?
Limiting the screen resolution because there is no proper scaling support, and touting it as a feature (as some people here are doing) is wrong - it's a failing, because a high resolution can represent the same information at higher quality, but the reverse is not true.

Gnome and KDE (and even Windows to an extent!) can do it - why not Apple? It should be a fairly simple implementation at the compositing level, as the architecture is already available.

*sigh*

[SEkker]

You do have this option -- add an external monitor.

I have to second the opinion that desktop LCDs are MUCH better than the best laptop. I had a chance to recently compare an Apple 17" LCD for a G4 DT and this PB 17 LCD. It was enough to convince me to buy an external LCD for my main office work.

I think the resolution on the current PB17 is pretty close to optimal for most text reading. I think 1600 x 1200 I would be expanding the viewing options in 95% of applications.

[holygoat]

Originally posted by SEkker:
You do have this option -- add an external monitor.

I have to second the opinion that desktop LCDs are MUCH better than the best laptop. I had a chance to recently compare an Apple 17" LCD for a G4 DT and this PB 17 LCD. It was enough to convince me to buy an external LCD for my main office work.

I think the resolution on the current PB17 is pretty close to optimal for most text reading. I think 1600 x 1200 I would be expanding the viewing options in 95% of applications.

(1) Wouldn't it be better to have both? Certainly, my 1600x1200 laptop screen means I don't need a desktop display, but having two hi-res screens is better than one high, one low. And sometimes you can't carry a monitor with you.

(2) External LCDs are very expensive. A 17" desktop LCD at 1280x1024 is �300; an Apple CD at 1600 is in four figures. I shouldn't have to buy a 23" display just to comfortably see two pages of a document at once.

(3) The quality is dependent on the LCD. The 12" has a really dull LCD; on max brightness it's far worse than the TiBook, though it is portable (which is why it's on my wish list).
My old 15", 133dpi, 1600x1200 Dell (bless its little heart) has a flatpanel that's better than my friend's desktop, despite its age. Bright, clear, readable, and with excellent colour balance.

I agree that the 17" is getting there - but then, it is an enormous screen. At 17" I would be wanting 1920 res. And I don't want to have to buy a 17" PB in order to fit a page of text on the screen!

I fail to understand how anyone can argue against a higher resolution; any potential downside in text readability is counteracted by having a DPI-aware OS (as in Gnome), or just by zooming (exchanging quantity for quality). A win-win choice, no?

[Karim]

I agree with the sentiments that the 17" powerbook has an optimal resolution for its size.

Until Apple comes out with the 23" Powerbook with 1920X1200 screen and matching Apple security tub to fit in at the Airport screening machines I am happy.

And if they did, yes, I think it may just be too big to travel with...