Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Scooterboy · Oct 21, 2003, 05:48 PM

Y'know I've been posting here and there about latptop screens and higher resolutions and what not, wondering why Apple laptops don't feature the "latest screen technology" found in some PC laptops. I've read posts about X-brite screens on Sony Vaio's and I finally had a chance to compare them to PowerBook screens. Here's what I found:

1. The new PowerBook screens are very, very bright. So are the X-brite screens.

2. The X-brite screen on the mini-Vaio looks to be very high resolution and high ppi (points per inch). The PowerBook 15" seems to have the highest ppi of the 3 PowerBooks.

3. The X-brite screens have a shiny coating that looks like glass and seems to protect the TFT beneath. The PowerBook screens have the same matt finish as previous PowerBooks and most PC laptops.

Subjective assessment: I like the Powerbook screens better than the X-brite screens that I saw. The glassy, shiny surface of the X-brite screen reflects lights and objects like a mirror. This may be nice when you want to see who's standing behind you but overall it is distracting. I was very impressed with the PowerBook screen brightness. They must be using a different backlight than the one in my iBook.

andrewb_nyc · Oct 21, 2003, 09:03 PM

How did the brightness and contrast of the 15 compare to the 17?

I am currently torn between the two...

Robster1958 · Oct 22, 2003, 08:50 PM

must beg to differ:

I have had my "mini" VAIO for about 6 weeks now and find i hardly use my 12" iBook anymore. For added reference, I had up until a few months ago a TiBook also.

Sticking to this topic of screens, i can say almost objectively that the Sony is better in all applications. After using the Sony for a while (like now), i will sometimes switch to the iBook in another room. The iBook (and by extension the 12"PB) looks downright fuzzy. Specifically:

DVD's -- the Sony screen has much better black level and apparent contrast. Image depth is better too. The glass thing makes it look CRT-like to me....and by the way, it only reflects light when the screen is off. The screen is actually very non-glaring and has a very wide viewing angle, on both axes. Also, despite the smaller size, the Sony actually provides about 90% of the area of the iBook when viewing 16:9 aspect ratio films. Overall, the much higher pixel density makes this Sony the best portable dvd player i have ever had (and i've had several)...very film-like presentation.

Web pages -- again, because of the much higher pixel density, the usability of the VAIO is amazing. Despite the smaller size, I can actually get more readable info on the Sony vs. the iBook...and i have done this comparison with both units next to each other. In fact, I can easily and usefully put two web pages side-by-side on the sony, which i can't do effectively on the iBook.

MS Word -- When using 12 point type on Word, i use a magnified (30-40%)view and it looks gorgeous. The resolution is stunning. Again, the iBook is fuzzy...really fuzzy.

I wear glasses for distance, but am fine for reading. Your mileage could vary based on eyesight, distance to screen etc. Also my Ti Book (the the newer screen) was materially better than the 12" although still not as good quality resolution as the sony. But with the larger number of pixels and its wide screen, the Ti Book is a ton better than the 12" macs.

But before this gets into a PC vs. Mac flame, I must admit I am platform agnostic, but form-factor manic. And the Sony TR1 form factor is so much better than the 12" macs (iBook or PB), and the screen is one huge reason. If i could get the Sony with OS X, i would have. But it is a little strange for Apple to be ceding form factor to Sony, imo. I used to hear my friends telling me if they could only get my TiBook with wintel guts...such was Apple's superiority in form factor.

shabbasuraj · Oct 22, 2003, 10:20 PM

I agree with the above...

Apple is really lagging the PC world in terms of overall screen rez...

I want another notebook for my household in addition to my 12" PB RevA, and really want a 17" PB but I am discouraged with the low screen rez of this model...

I have used a 17" PB for a week and loved the machine however I kept wishing for a higher resolution to make use of all that available real estate...

I hope this is addresed in the RevC? or in the G5 PB...? I have no probs with the 12" PB... the 15" PB could benefit from a slightly higher resolution IMHO...

a possible answer to this is for Apple to offer BTO's for those willing to pay for higher resolutions...

lates....

PS: I know this will never happen...

mike one · Oct 22, 2003, 10:41 PM

apple's profit margins must be pretty kick a$$ considering how much apple hardware costs that doesn't even come close to having cutting edge screen technology.

apple screens right now are pre-2002 technology. the pc world has had 1400 and 1600 displays in 15" laptops for some time now.

i've ranted about this for over a year now. i would pay 200-400 USD more for a higher res display and that would be futher gouging, but man the more pixels you have the more info you can display, i.e. the more work you can do without minimizing and hiding and dragging windows all over the place...

damn, space.app has saved me so many times from so much frustration with such a pathetic dpi....

nobitacu · Oct 22, 2003, 10:46 PM

I agree that Apple makes the best LCD screens on the market.

Ming

Scooterboy · Oct 22, 2003, 11:04 PM

Originally posted by andrewb_nyc:
How did the brightness and contrast of the 15 compare to the 17?

I am currently torn between the two...

The 15" was brightest. The screen was my favorite of all the screens I saw.

I was comparing the Vaio X-brite screen with the new 15" PowerBook screen. Both these screens are far better than my 12" iBook screen.

shabbasuraj · Oct 22, 2003, 11:07 PM

Originally posted by nobitacu:
I agree that Apple makes the best LCD screens on the market.

Ming

I don't get it...?

lates...

mac freak · Oct 22, 2003, 11:18 PM

Frankly, who would want a 15" laptop screen that runs at 1600x1200?! Everything would be far too small at such a res on such a small screen, and a more reasonable res, like 1280x960 or 1024x768, would look like *CRAP* since it would not be the native res of the screen (this is an inherent problem with LCD displays and the reason I'll never buy one for desktop use).

I mean, I guess it's good for gaming... but really, who does much 3D gaming on a laptop?

Scooterboy · Oct 22, 2003, 11:19 PM

I'll add that I was in a brightly lit CompUSA and the X-Brite screens were reflecting the room lights while the Vaio's were running with full screen brightness. The X-brite screens look very classy and tough with that shiny surface, but not so much better IMHO. I didn't get a chance to watch any DVD's on either machine, and that has been an issue on my iBook, where I have to adjust the screen to just the right viewing angle.
Also, this is a personal taste issue, but I feel the mini Vaio design is too "busy" and "gadget-y" with extra chrome little switches and overly bold, italic fonts on the keys. The Apple laptops, all of them now, feature slot load optical drives and an austere but refined aesthetic that I prefer. The built-in swivel cam on the Vaio is pretty cool

(although I'm buying an iSight soon).

Scooterboy · Oct 22, 2003, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by mac freak:
Frankly, who would want a 15" laptop screen that runs at 1600x1200?! Everything would be far too small at such a res on such a small screen, and a more reasonable res, like 1280x960 or 1024x768, would look like *CRAP* since it would not be the native res of the screen (this is an inherent problem with LCD displays and the reason I'll never buy one for desktop use).

I mean, I guess it's good for gaming... but really, who does much 3D gaming on a laptop?

I do, and now that laptops are shipping with some good gaming video cards, I expect more people to do this.

What video card does that mini-Vaio ship with and how does it compare to the video cards shipping in iBooks and PowerBooks?

Allenzi35 · Oct 22, 2003, 11:31 PM

Originally posted by shabbasuraj:
I don't get it...?

lates...

Niether do I.

I do agree with the above posts though. I haven't viewed the TR1 screen but I have looked at the new UXGA Xbrite on the GRT and it's amazing. You would think that the glossy glass finish would reflect everything but it doesn't. It does not look like a LCD at all. The blacks are black and colors are deep. You almost can't see a pixel with a magnifying glass.

This is my biggest gripe about Apples screens. What's the use of having a 15" widescreen laptop that can't display more info than a 12". Larger than life, cartoon like icons are cute for kid's but I want high res. sharp text and the powerbook display are far from it. Why is it that the most expensive part of a laptop is the screen and Apple chooses to charge top dollor for laptops and give you 3 year old screens. I love my tibook but the screen resolution and OS X's INability to correctly smooth fonts just stinks.

Nothing touches the Xbrite from Sony right now and Apple needs to get with it.

Robster1958 · Oct 22, 2003, 11:42 PM

The video card is an integrated 64 MB provided on the Intel motherboard. Before you dismiss this in favor a separate graphics card, keep in mind that the VAIO ships with 512MB of RAM standard (one chip plus free slot), so sharing 64 is no big deal. Furthermore, and i'm going deep here!, I remember reading about performance advantages of embedded graphics...in rendering speed, heat, and power use. Also as with Apple controlling the hardware design totally, having Intel control the hardware is not a bad idea per se. Centrino chipset is surprising fast, glitch-free and miserly with battery...oh...and reasonably cool.

Like i said, i have been using the VAIO for 6 weeks now....and i mean using: ultra-portability is a big selling point for me with its smaller footprint and lighter weight. So my observations are not just based on store displays. Truthfully, i thought the sony would be a good portable dvd and a cool gadget, but i have been very positively surprised by its power in all applications.

Yes i could make a few design tweaks if i could...but as mentioned, the built-in camera is way cool..zero hassle relative to isight, not as good quality certainly..or as cool looking as iSight, but more usable in everyday use: it's always there. Also the trackpad does have 2 buttons

Allenzi35 · Oct 22, 2003, 11:52 PM

Originally posted by Robster1958:
The video card is an integrated 64 MB provided on the Intel motherboard. Before you dismiss this in favor a separate graphics card, keep in mind that the VAIO ships with 512MB of RAM standard (one chip plus free slot), so sharing 64 is no big deal. Furthermore, and i'm going deep here!, I remember reading about performance advantages of embedded graphics...in rendering speed, heat, and power use. Also as with Apple controlling the hardware design totally, having Intel control the hardware is not a bad idea per se. Centrino chipset is surprising fast, glitch-free and miserly with battery...oh...and reasonably cool.

Like i said, i have been using the VAIO for 6 weeks now....and i mean using: ultra-portability is a big selling point for me with its smaller footprint and lighter weight. So my observations are not just based on store displays. Truthfully, i thought the sony would be a good portable dvd and a cool gadget, but i have been very positively surprised by its power in all applications.

Yes i could make a few design tweaks if i could...but as mentioned, the built-in camera is way cool..zero hassle relative to isight, not as good quality certainly..or as cool looking as iSight, but more usable in everyday use: it's always there. Also the trackpad does have 2 buttons

The TR1 is nice but the deal breaker is not the shared graphics. It's the small, slow ipod HD that it uses. That killed it for me. 2.5's are up to 80GB and 1.8's are only 40.

shabbasuraj · Oct 23, 2003, 12:07 AM

Originally posted by Allenzi35:
Niether do I.

I do agree with the above posts though. I haven't viewed the TR1 screen but I have looked at the new UXGA Xbrite on the GRT and it's amazing. You would think that the glossy glass finish would reflect everything but it doesn't. It does not look like a LCD at all. The blacks are black and colors are deep. You almost can't see a pixel with a magnifying glass.

This is my biggest gripe about Apples screens. What's the use of having a 15" widescreen laptop that can't display more info than a 12". Larger than life, cartoon like icons are cute for kid's but I want high res. sharp text and the powerbook display are far from it. Why is it that the most expensive part of a laptop is the screen and Apple chooses to charge top dollor for laptops and give you 3 year old screens. I love my tibook but the screen resolution and OS X's INability to correctly smooth fonts just stinks.

Nothing touches the Xbrite from Sony right now and Apple needs to get with it.

I completely agree with the above...this is the exact question I am asking myself...

why splurge for a 15" or 17" when the amount of info that can be displayed on the screen is only nominally better than on the 12"...

Apple really is lacking in this area of the PBs... this is my only gripe...I love my Cinema Display but only if the 17" PB screen could be better...

So now I am looking at another 12"... now I have to decide between the PB and the new iB...(or maybe a slightly used 17" PB)

lates...

elvis2000 · Oct 23, 2003, 12:10 AM

Originally posted by Allenzi35:
The TR1 is nice but the deal breaker is not the shared graphics. It's the small, slow ipod HD that it uses. That killed it for me. 2.5's are up to 80GB and 1.8's are only 40.

AND IT IS $2200 for a 10.6" laptop!

Surprised nobody has mentioned *that* little nugget.

jw

Robster1958 · Oct 23, 2003, 12:12 AM

i agree. mine has just 30 gigs....not that i am pushing its limits. i use my iBook as my iPod/iTunes syncer, so that saves space.

slow? i can't sense that at all. that's never been a spec i have paid too much attention to given all the factors of spin speed, extraction rates, buffers, ram, etc. it happens to be very quiet also.

btw, sony just released the TR2, with a slightly faster processor (1 Ghz vs 900 Mhz) and the 40 gig hd.

ok..back to the screen. i just got my ruler and calculator:

iBook = 786,432 pixels / 72.8 sq. inches = density of 10,797 pixels per sq. inch

TR1 VAIO = 983,040 pixels / 50.2 sq. inches = density of 19,587 pixels per sq. inch.

advantage sony by nearly double....ok, only 81% better, since i have my calculator.

Robster1958 · Oct 23, 2003, 12:17 AM

yes it is $2,200. and no superdrive. but builtin wi-fi and camera.

on the other hand, if apple would build a PB around that same screen, and with same battery life, i would pay $2,500 for it. (assumin builtin airport and decent ram.)

shabbasuraj · Oct 23, 2003, 12:24 AM

my buddy has this Sony sub notebook in question, and for those who have good eyes, like me, I have no problem with the screen size.. I love it...

at this size, power is not the sole trigger in buying, ultra-portability is...

this can be easily remedied if Apple would just give us BTO on it's current notebook line...

sux to want a higher rez notebook and love Apple machines...

sux to be me...

lates...

Allenzi35 · Oct 23, 2003, 10:00 AM

Also,
Please Apple give us one or the other. They refuse to give us a scroll or hi res. screen. If we had a hi res. screen we wouldn't need a scroll because all the text would fit in one page on the screen. But no, we have a low resolution screen with huge fonts and constantly have to scroll, without a scroll. My old wintel (which I don't miss) had a hi res. and scroll, but I never had to use the scroll because it always fit all the text on the screen.

The Placid Casual · Oct 23, 2003, 10:15 AM

I use a Ti 867 and 17 Apple LCD daily, and have been overall pretty pleased.

Until I used my g/f's laptop yesterday.

It is some HP Wintel nonsense, and I was on it for 45 seconds before I wanted to kill windows 2000 and the battery ran out but... The LCD was much, much brighter, and also wayyy sharper than my 2 Apple screens.

I obviously kept this very quietly to myself, but have been secretly unhappy about it.

Combined with the fact that after 2 months, both Apple screens have also started to go distinctly 'yellow' around the edges, I am somewhat vexed...

Allenzi35 · Oct 23, 2003, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by The Placid Casual:
I use a Ti 867 and 17 Apple LCD daily, and have been overall pretty pleased.

Until I used my g/f's laptop yesterday.

It is some HP Wintel nonsense, and I was on it for 45 seconds before I wanted to kill windows 2000 and the battery ran out but... The LCD was much, much brighter, and also wayyy sharper than my 2 Apple screens.

I obviously kept this very quietly to myself, but have been secretly unhappy about it.

Combined with the fact that after 2 months, both Apple screens have also started to go distinctly 'yellow' around the edges, I am somewhat vexed...

I'm sure your not alone but it's a shame that most people have so much pride they would die before ever admitting it out loud.

RufusRyker · Oct 23, 2003, 12:59 PM

Count me OUT as far as wanting a higher resolution screen (I have the 15"AI). I like the pixel density the way it is.

I really don't understand the concept behind cramming more and more pixels in the same area and lauding the increased "screen realestate." Few programs and no OS are completely scalable. Small text becomes microscopic and people with normal vision have to move closer and closer to the screen to avoid squinting. Most websites are not designed with Super Hi-Res screens in mind.

BTW, I'm typing this on my laptop, and I'm reclining so that there is a comfortable distance between my eyes and the screen.

Robster1958 · Oct 23, 2003, 07:47 PM

I'm sure your not alone but it's a shame that most people have so much pride they would die before ever admitting it out loud.
====================

ok...on alternate Thursdays, there will be a self-help forum here at MacNN. speak your mind...we will be non-judgemental....one step at a time...

As for cramming more pixels/real estate, etc: i for one do not understand the dynamics exactly of resolution vs. detail..i went through this before with home theater projectors.

Basically, unless you are dealing with pixel to pixel mapping, there is some sort of scaling going on. i also think that all things equal, more pixels per square inch will provide a more realistic image (e.g. no jaggies on cirles or diagonal lines.) Better anti-aliasing and other tricks can provide better images on the same screen, but pixel density is key.

i think! i know however that the TR1 screen is outstanding.

RayX · Oct 24, 2003, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by nobitacu:
I agree that Apple makes the best LCD screens on the market.

Ming

You do know that Apple doesn't actually make the screens, right?

Based on the specs, Apple appear to be using these panels from LG.Phillips LCD

elvis2000 · Oct 24, 2003, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by Robster1958:
yes it is $2,200. and no superdrive. but builtin wi-fi and camera.

on the other hand, if apple would build a PB around that same screen, and with same battery life, i would pay $2,500 for it. (assumin builtin airport and decent ram.)

Good for you. But to compare, feature-for-feature, the TR to a 15" PBook is not exactly apple to apple (cough).

jw

elvis2000 · Oct 24, 2003, 08:25 AM

Originally posted by RufusRyker:
Count me OUT as far as wanting a higher resolution screen (I have the 15"AI). I like the pixel density the way it is.

I really don't understand the concept behind cramming more and more pixels in the same area and lauding the increased "screen realestate." Few programs and no OS are completely scalable. Small text becomes microscopic and people with normal vision have to move closer and closer to the screen to avoid squinting. Most websites are not designed with Super Hi-Res screens in mind.

BTW, I'm typing this on my laptop, and I'm reclining so that there is a comfortable distance between my eyes and the screen.

Make the text bigger and everything looks much better. Like the difference between 1280x1024 and 800x600 on a good 17" monitor.

jw

legacyb4 · Oct 24, 2003, 09:32 AM

This seems to be the trend in Japan with practically every maker other than Apple pumping out these glossy, shiny screens with super reflective surfaces.

In a dark room with the lights turned low, it might be great for viewing movies, but in a brightly lit environment like the discount shops here, it was a virtual nightmare trying to look at the screen without seeing a reflection of everything in the shop.

Give me a matte finish anyday...

Cheers.

Originally posted by Scooterboy:
3. The X-brite screens have a shiny coating that looks like glass and seems to protect the TFT beneath. The PowerBook screens have the same matt finish as previous PowerBooks and most PC laptops.

Tariq-1 · Oct 24, 2003, 09:36 AM

IF Apple is using LG. Phillips LCD screens on the 12" PowerBook, shame on them! These screens are aweful. Viewing Angle: 50/90,
6Bit 262,144 colors, and a very slow response time of 45ms. I sent my 12" back before even seeing this thread because I thought my screen was terrible. Washed out, poor color and ghosting with the cursor and open windows when moving around quickly. These specs would bear all of these observations out. Incidently, the W 15" screens from LG have better specs BUT still only the limited color range. Why would Apple put these Cheap screens on PB's? Oh, because they are CHEAP!

Tariq

Originally posted by RayX:
You do know that Apple doesn't actually make the screens, right?

Based on the specs, Apple appear to be using these panels from LG.Phillips LCD

Tariq-1 · Oct 24, 2003, 09:49 AM

Not to mention that the line "Work and play in millions of colors on a stunning 15.2-inch (diagonal) widescreen display with 1280-by-854-pixel resolution that�s ideal for watching movies in their original wide-screen format."
At the first paragraph describing the 15" Powerbook would be an outright misrepresentation(thousands of colors, not millions) if they are using the LG. Philips laptop screens shown at the Philips site.

http://www.apple.com/powerbook/index15.html

Tariq