5 ms·
Why is that a boneheaded move? I think that 1280x800 fits plenty of information on a 13" screen. I usually run an external display for more space. If anything,
by dlevine 16y ago
Why is that a boneheaded move? I think that 1280x800 fits plenty of information on a 13" screen. I usually run an external display for more space.
If anything, 1400x900 on the new MBA seems a little bit small (and Apple doesn't allow you to bump the size of everything up like you can in Windows). It's interesting that 1680x1050 is still an upcharge on the 15".
- jarek 16y ago> Why is that a boneheaded move? Because people want higher resolutions without using an external display. Or at least a choice.
- AJ007 16y agoThe fact that a 1920x1080 is only available on a single production laptop, the Sony Vaio Z and a small number of 17" laptops (possibly some 16"ers too) makes me suspect that the market for high resolution screens is very slim. The best I can tell, the availability of high resolution screens on laptops has actually dropped over the past few years rather than increased. It seems rare now that screen resolution is even an option on laptops. Personally I'm one of the people who is in the market for high resolution laptop screens. Unfortunately its a choice between high resolution and durability or size. I'm never traveling with a 17" screen again and I don't really want a poorly engineered Vaio Z.
- jarek 16y agoWe're talking about the 13". You do realize 1280x800 and 1920x1080 aren't the only choices, right? You don't have to look far, Apple's own Macbook Air comes with a 13" 1440x900. (And to rub it in, a 11" 1366x768.)
- aaronblohowiak 16y agoAnd the macbook air has a higher resolution in an 11" form-factor