[mavherzog]

Am I the only one that has been disappointed by the native resolutions of the iMac line? (as well as the MBP and MB's) The 24" iMac in particular. 1920x1200 belongs on a 15" laptop display...not a 24" MONSTER! C'mon Apple!

[ibook_steve]

What resolution are you expecting on a 24"? And how much more are you willing to pay for these higher resolutions?

Steve

[butterfly0fdoom]

Well, my 19" monitor has the same resolution as the 15" MPB. And I'm not disappointed at the native resolution for any of the Mac products (besides those 14" iBooks... that was disappointing, although iBooks in general disappoint me).

[Tomchu]

"1920x1200 belongs on a 15" laptop display"

Are you kidding? Someone is out-of-touch with industry standards.

[pcguy1]

There is people who love tiny tiny font and consider it OH so cool, you know the type, I have the most ram and the hightest resolution.and the most fan blah blah!

[mavherzog]

Originally Posted by Tomchu 

"1920x1200 belongs on a 15" laptop display"

Are you kidding? Someone is out-of-touch with industry standards.

It's called WUXGA. And it is available on MANY 15" widescreen laptops (1920x1200). I've personally owned three different 15" laptops with WUXGA displays.

Explain to me exactly what "industry standard" I am out of touch with? The pixel density of a 15", WUXGA display is perfect for me. It is simply disappointing that a display that is 9 inches bigger can't offer me any more desktop real estate.

[mavherzog]

Originally Posted by pcguy1 

There is people who love tiny tiny font and consider it OH so cool, you know the type, I have the most ram and the hightest resolution.and the most fan blah blah!

I'm curious why those of you who don't agree with my display preferences feel the need to try and insult me.

[mavherzog]

Originally Posted by ibook_steve 

What resolution are you expecting on a 24"? And how much more are you willing to pay for these higher resolutions?

I'd be willing to pay an extra $800-1000 for a 24" iMac if it had a native resolution of at least 2560x1600.

[Jonaziz]

I've searched around a bit and every 24-inch monitor I've come across has a native resolution of 1920x1200. From BenQ's FP241W/VW/Z to Dell's 2407P to Samsung's 244T to Gateway's 24-inch offering to the Acer 24-inch line. That shows a pretty clear industry standard and even as we talk the 26-inch and 27-inch displays being released by Dell, Samsung, and LG are all 1920x1200 [even though that is a bit silly in my opinion].

I don't suppose you'll care to hear this, but the standard for 24-inch is WUXGA and there's no change in sight for that.

[P]

There are laptops with significantly higher resolutions than those Apple use for their iMacs and Macbooks, but it is in no way the standard. Juct checked Dell - 15.4" is 1280*800, 17" is 1440*900. Apple has resisted high resolution small displays, because there is no way to zoom the text under OS X - the interface becomes tiny (under Win, you can by increaseing the size text is rendered at and then increasing the size of interface elements in one of the panles of the Display properties. Not perfect, but better than nothing). Since resolution independent interface is now confirmed for Leopard, expect this to change once Leopard is released.

[Salsa]

Originally Posted by mavherzog 

I'd be willing to pay an extra $800-1000 for a 24" iMac if it had a native resolution of at least 2560x1600.

I think Apple made the business decision that there are too few "consumer" market customers who feel the same way. Most people with such demanding needs are pros who also need other features of the Mac Pro line. AFAK, even most customers of the Mac Pros don't bother upgrading to the dual link video cards that can support so many pixels.

[Salsa]

Originally Posted by Tomchu 

"1920x1200 belongs on a 15" laptop display"

Are you kidding? Someone is out-of-touch with industry standards.

Originally Posted by mavherzog 

...Explain to me exactly what "industry standard" I am out of touch with?...

Maybe Tom is talking about industry standards for displays in "consumer" grade (as opposed to pro) displays. Personally, I can't think of a single person I know who has more than a WUXGA display at home for e-mail, web, calendar, and iPod syncing. In fact, everybody I know has less.

[holstien]

I keep hoping that OSes will start using resolution independant GUIs. The thought is that you could increase the resolution of the display so that pictures would be sharper, but also zoom fonts and icons so that they would be readable. This is in comparison to the current method where you essentially have to change the resolution to make things readable vs. making big pictures "see-able" on a high resolution display.

[Cadaver]

At work a few years ago I had a Dell D800 laptop with a 1920x1200 15" display.
Hated it. Used it connected to a 20" external 1600x1200 display because text on the laptop's displays was uncomfortably small (and I have decent eyes). And raising the DPI in Windows XP still wasn't a great solution, as certain dialog box's OK/Canel buttons would get pushed out of the field of view, making it impossible to click on them. Windows XP update EULA's were the worst... I had to reduce the DPI back to 96 just to install OS updates, then raises them back up.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by mavherzog 

I'd be willing to pay an extra $800-1000 for a 24" iMac if it had a native resolution of at least 2560x1600.

If you'd pay that much more why not get a Mac Pro?

[mavherzog]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

If you'd pay that much more why not get a Mac Pro?

I am seriously considering it. It be cheaper to pay $1000 more for a more pixel-dense 24" iMac though.

[mavherzog]

Originally Posted by Cadaver 

At work a few years ago I had a Dell D800 laptop with a 1920x1200 15" display.

I currently sit in front of two 15" WUXGA displays and love it. It's all about preference. I just wish there was a more pixel-dense option with the iMac's (at least a WUXGA option for the 17" or 20" iMacs).

At the very least, I'd like to see a WUXGA option with one of the MBP's. (THAT is a PRO machine and there is no reason not to have the option there, IMO)

Maybe I just need to buy an IBM T221 display?

[Salsa]

My 12" iceBook has a 1024x768 display. How does that pixel density compare to what you want? I find it a tolerable compromise for a notebook and at least Apple has gone that dense in the past so maybe they will again in the future.

[P]

Originally Posted by holstien 

I keep hoping that OSes will start using resolution independant GUIs.

Leopard will have a resolution independent GUI,

[centerchannel68]

I have a 24" iMac, and I love the resolution. Anything more would be uncomfortably tiny, forcing me to sit closer to it.

[badnewsblair]

Two things at play here.

First, Mav's expectations. I am just curious here, nothing slanderous; Is this your first iMac?

Second, the iMac's category of "home" computer. It is part of the "lower tier" of the Apple brand, the consumer computer. There for, most people in the market for an iMac (we are talking a resounding percentage here) do not need such a tight resolution. That way, Apple can guarantee better/more stable performance for a machine that really is supposed to work it's way into the living room anyway.

Mav, you sound like more of a Pro user to me. Any thought of spending that extra cash to move up in the product line?

[mavherzog]

Originally Posted by badnewsblair

First, Mav's expectations. I am just curious here, nothing slanderous; Is this your first iMac?

I've owned 3 iMac's. I do NOT currently own a 24" iMac (although I recently spent a lot of time on one). I would not buy one blindly and then be surprised by the resolution.

Originally Posted by badnewsblair

Mav, you sound like more of a Pro user to me. Any thought of spending that extra cash to move up in the product line?

Cash is not really an issue. I thought for sure that, at the very least, when the various MBP lines came out during the Intel switch, there would finally be an Apple WUXGA laptop to purchase. Unfortunately, no. The 30" ACD's plus a Mac Pro do offer some more desktop real estate...but I'd still prefer higher resolution offerings at smaller sizes.

I'm not trying to flame at all. Just expressing the fact that my personal preference in a display are not available with the current Mac line (consumer nor pro).

Resolution independence sounds really great...But from the Leopard tech overview, it doesn't sound like you'd be able to GAIN higher resolution...it's more about crisper functionality at lower-than-native resolutions.

[mavherzog]

Just to add a bit.

I am an avid Mac owner/user and this hasn't been a deal-breaker for me. It's just that I wish there were some higher pixel density Apple options out there for me.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by P 

Leopard will have a resolution independent GUI,

I'm still really curious to see how this will look - LCDs are inherently tied to a single optimum resolution. Unless you can exactly halve that resolution (e.g. 800x600 on a 1600x1200 display), any other resolution will make text and images look fuzzy, because it has to use multiple transistors for a single pixel.

The thought is that you could increase the resolution of the display so that pictures would be sharper, but also zoom fonts and icons so that they would be readable.

I'm trying to picture this, and I just can't. Could it be likened to using vector images over raster images, since vectors can be infinitely resized without losing any image quality? If that's the case, then any image that ISN'T vector will not look right on certain resolutions.

I suppose I'll just have to see it IRL for it to make total sense to me.

Originally Posted by mavherzog 

It's just that I wish there were some higher pixel density Apple options out there for me.

I definitely understand where you're coming from. Regardless of industry standards, it's ALWAYS nice to have options. I bought my Dell Latitude D600 laptop in mid-2003, when 14.1" displays like the one it had were typically XGA (1024x768). For only $100 more, I was able to upgrade to an SXGA+ display (1400x1050) it made a significant difference when I was working in Photoshop or Visual Studio where palettes and toolbars took up much of the screen real estate. Nearly everyone who saw my laptop's display wished that they'd had that option when they bought their own computers.

Of course, for those who want to use a 24" iMac as a TV replacement, lower-resolution displays are actually better for low-resolution images like those found on standard DVDs and broadcast television.

But I agree that it would be really nice if Apple provided more options for their machines - especially in the iMac line, since it's 90% non-user-upgradable.

[himself]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I'm still really curious to see how this will look - LCDs are inherently tied to a single optimum resolution. Unless you can exactly halve that resolution (e.g. 800x600 on a 1600x1200 display), any other resolution will make text and images look fuzzy, because it has to use multiple transistors for a single pixel.

I'm trying to picture this, and I just can't. Could it be likened to using vector images over raster images, since vectors can be infinitely resized without losing any image quality? If that's the case, then any image that ISN'T vector will not look right on certain resolutions.

I suppose I'll just have to see it IRL for it to make total sense to me.

The feature is partially implemented in Tiger (it has to be activated manually, and is very unstable), but it works by scaling text and UI elements without changing the display resolution. Of course, this means that those UI elements need to be vector art, or they need to be bitmaps rendered at various sizes so the system can interpolate their appearance when scaled.

scroll down near the middle of this page for a snippet about the feature as it appears in Leopard.

[P]

Resolution independent GUIs are quite tricky to implement well, but apparently Apple thinks that it now has the graphics horsepower to do it. The thinking is that you should use the native resolution on an LCD and then zoom everything on screen so that it becomes bigger. For text it's quite easy: Almost all text is vectors by now (Truetype and Postscript Type 1 both are, only old Type 3 fonts aren't) so you just decide to render it at a higher resolution. The default Mac resolution (since 1984) is 72 dpi, which was correct back then but is a bit low today. By adjusting the dpi of the interface upwards towards the actual resolution of the display, you will once again get text in the same size as on paper. For other vector-based interface elements, you do the same. For bitmaps, you scale by a factor of (actual dpi)/72, since 72 is the dpi the program expects. OS X already scales a lot, just turn on maginification in the Dock or zoom in using Easy Access. Looks quite nice, doesn't it?

[himself]

The whole dpi thing is really meaningless when you're dealing with on-screen graphics. Regardless of a screens pixel density, 72 pixels is 72 pixels, whether they're defined as being crammed into one inch or a centimeter. It only mattered in the days when people expected the scale of on-screen graphics to be equivalent in size to printed material, which few people expect these days.

As for bitmap scaling in Mac OS X's resolution independent GUI, it will be handled the way it has always handled in the Mac OS; each icon (actually, an icon file) will contain multiple versions, each at a different size. Each version of the icon image will represent one step in the scaling process. For example, if your icons are presented at a size lower than 128 pixels, but higher than 64 pixels, it will use the 128 pixel image, and scale it down. If it is between 64 pixels and 32 pixels, it will use the 64 pixel image and scale down. You could present only the largest icon size, and the system will handle the resizing for you, but the results weren't always pretty. In Leopard, I think the maximum icon size has gone up to 512 pixels square, whereas now they are 128 pixels.

[centerchannel68]

[QUOTE=shifuimam;3306301Of course, for those who want to use a 24" iMac as a TV replacement, lower-resolution displays are actually better for low-resolution images like those found on standard DVDs and broadcast television.[/QUOTE]

From what I read the CPU upscales the standard res media to fit the 24" screen with a noticeable boost in quality. Watching the village on my iMac was fantastic.

[shifuimam]

So...with this resolution independence, then a 1600x1200 display could potentially have everything scaled to take up the same screen real estate as a 1024x768 display...? That seems like a step backwards in high-resolution displays.

Maybe it's just me, though. I like my GUI to be as small as possible to provide as much screen space as possible for webpages, Photoshop, etc.

[P]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

So...with this resolution independence, then a 1600x1200 display could potentially have everything scaled to take up the same screen real estate as a 1024x768 display...? That seems like a step backwards in high-resolution displays.

Maybe it's just me, though. I like my GUI to be as small as possible to provide as much screen space as possible for webpages, Photoshop, etc.

It's not just you - I like my text tiny as well - but not everyone agrees with us. When setting up a display for my father, I set up that nice big 19" CRT with 1024*768 resolution. I would have run it at 1600*1200 myself, but not even 1280*960 was big enough for him. When people get older, their eyes get worse, and those people have a lot of buying power. Adding a resolution independent interface is good for everyone - you could zoom out as well, and finally fit as much on the screen as you could in OS 9.

[tinkered]

I like the pixel density on my 17" MBP, that said I would always like more. That said, I respect how only the pro line really needs this to be competitive in the market. Frankly I have noticed that most people don't know what to do with real estate, they simply blow their windows up bigger and stick them dead center anyway.

I was considering getting a 30" display, but I found it to be physically to big, I was moving my head instead of my eyes.

I think the bigger issue here is that there is a gap in the desktop line between the iMac and the Mac Pro. A desktop like a Shuttle in the PC world: fast, expandable, independent monitor and yet smaller that a Mac Pro tower, running on a desktop chip and chip set.. I can see how the 24" iMac could be tweaked to fill this roll, but not really.

[himself]

At first I thought I would disagree with mavherzog, but after looking at the iMac 24", the pixel density does seem a little on the light side (especially compared to the 23" Cinema Display). It's not that 1920x1200 isn't good enough, but looking at one today, everything on screen seemed a little larger than I expected. I tend to believe that Apple made this move intentionally, since the iMac is intended to be a simple to use consumer machine -- and as P said, many of the people at which the iMac is targeted may prefer a larger, easier-to-see interface.

[phoenix78]

Much of the time the configurations chosen for a system has alot to do with the cost. iMac's are not a 'pro' line of product and so they will give the consumer the best specs they can for the price they are expecting to sell it for.

its not so much that apple wont give you the high res screen because they think that you dont need it. If you are a user who appreciates the high res and actually require that feature then you should really buy a system that will suit you but of course you will pay more for better spec machines.

Other manufacturers usually give cheaper products than apple becuase they manufacture to a lower standard than apple. I was told this by many apple tech ppl. and even non-apple tech ppl. So yes you can get a high density Dell monitor but im sure you will fine several dead/stuck pixels...

rob.

[phoenix78]

Much of the time the configurations chosen for a system has alot to do with the cost. iMac's are not a 'pro' line of product and so they will give the consumer the best specs they can for the price they are expecting to sell it for.

Its not so much that apple wont give you the high res screen because they think that you dont need it. If you are a user who appreciates the high res and actually require that feature then you should really buy a system that will suit you but of course you will pay more for better spec machines.

Other manufacturers usually give cheaper products than apple becuase they manufacture to a lower standard than apple. I was told this by many apple tech ppl. and even non-apple tech ppl. So yes you can get a high density Dell monitor but im sure you will fine several dead/stuck pixels...

rob.

[centerchannel68]

I think the real reason, like someone previously stated, is that as of right now, there are ZERO 24" LCDs being produced with a higher resolution than the iMacs. That means, NOBODY MAKES THEM, which means, don't complain to apple.

[mavherzog]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

I think the real reason, like someone previously stated, is that as of right now, there are ZERO 24" LCDs being produced with a higher resolution than the iMacs. That means, NOBODY MAKES THEM, which means, don't complain to apple.

I would agree with this. Of course, that doesn't get Apple off the hook for the MBP's (WUXGA displays not offered. And those ARE Pro machines).

[himself]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

I think the real reason, like someone previously stated, is that as of right now, there are ZERO 24" LCDs being produced with a higher resolution than the iMacs. That means, NOBODY MAKES THEM, which means, don't complain to apple.

Well, Apple could've just as easily used a 23" LCD with the higher pixel density in the iMac instead of the 24". And it may even cost the same, or possibly less, since Apple already buys a large supply of those panels for the 23" cinema display. From my perspective, this indicates that Apple intentionally chose to go with the lower pixel density 24" panel for the iMac, and probably for ergonomic reasons. So, Apple probably wouldn't go with the higher rez 24" display for the iMac, even if one were available. But of course, this is just idle speculation.

[tinkered]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

I think the real reason, like someone previously stated, is that as of right now, there are ZERO 24" LCDs being produced with a higher resolution than the iMacs. That means, NOBODY MAKES THEM, which means, don't complain to apple.

Come on, just because they don't make it doesn't mean apple can't do it. Since you can't afford a nice graphics card and tower as you are expecting.

[Salsa]

Originally Posted by himself 

Well, Apple could've just as easily used a 23" LCD with the higher pixel density in the iMac instead of the 24". And it may even cost the same, or possibly less, since Apple already buys a large supply of those panels for the 23" cinema display. From my perspective, this indicates that Apple intentionally chose to go with the lower pixel density 24" panel for the iMac, and probably for ergonomic reasons. So, Apple probably wouldn't go with the higher rez 24" display for the iMac, even if one were available. But of course, this is just idle speculation.

Apple chose the larger screen size for the kids who use it as a TV in their bedroom or dorm and the old folks with bad eyes.

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by himself 

Well, Apple could've just as easily used a 23" LCD with the higher pixel density in the iMac instead of the 24". And it may even cost the same, or possibly less, since Apple already buys a large supply of those panels for the 23" cinema display. From my perspective, this indicates that Apple intentionally chose to go with the lower pixel density 24" panel for the iMac, and probably for ergonomic reasons. So, Apple probably wouldn't go with the higher rez 24" display for the iMac, even if one were available. But of course, this is just idle speculation.

Here's another reason: Games run best in native res. But in order to run well with a native res of much above what is currently offered, it would need a pretty insane graphics card.

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by tinkered 

Come on, just because they don't make it doesn't mean apple can't do it. Since you can't afford a nice graphics card and tower as you are expecting.

Uh... wow. Okay, let's break down the iMac shall we?

Processor: Not made by apple.
Ram: Not made by apple.
Hard drive: Not made by apple.
Graphics card: Not made by apple.
LCD Not made by apple.

By your rational, just because they don't make it doesn't mean YOU can't do it. Apple doesn't make the LCD, and neither do you, so basically you're both on the same playing field. Go research, design, and produce an 24" high density LCD, and let me know how that goes.

[Salsa]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

Uh... wow. Okay, let's break down the iMac shall we?

Processor: Not made by apple.
Ram: Not made by apple.
Hard drive: Not made by apple.
Graphics card: Not made by apple.
LCD Not made by apple.

By your rational, just because they don't make it doesn't mean YOU can't do it. Apple doesn't make the LCD, and neither do you, so basically you're both on the same playing field. Go research, design, and produce an 24" high density LCD, and let me know how that goes.

I think he was being sarcastic.

[aristotles]

Almost nobody offers 24" displays with resolutions above 1920X1200. Heck, I just bought a 26" Acer with a resolution of 1920X1200 and I think it is great. I could not imagine trying to use a 15" laptop screen at that resolution. 1440X900 is a usable resolution for my 15.4" MBP.

The fact that Dell offers displays on laptops is an anomaly and I would suspect that is is not a very popular option among customers.

[centerchannel68]

On a laptop, I can see why a screen with great pixels per inch would be nice, because you generally have the thing only about 1.5-2 ft away from your face. With a desktop, generally you're farther away, so it doesn't make any sense.