3 ms·

My 2011 $1k laptop (which I still use at times) had a full hd screen and 4 RAM slots. PCs have always offered a full range of specs, but most people just go for

by jeswin 6y ago

My 2011 $1k laptop (which I still use at times) had a full hd screen and 4 RAM slots. PCs have always offered a full range of specs, but most people just go for cheaper options. Even a couple of years back, most laptops were shipping low res screens.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
robertoandred 6y ago
1080p isn't high res compared to the MBP retina screens.
- jeswin 6y ago
  When I bought it though, Macs were shipping with lower resolutions than 1080p. And not long after the Macbooks went retina, I bought a laptop with a 4k screen - which again the Macbooks don't match. My point is that PCs have offered high end specs at affordable (but above average) price points even before Macs had them. And the fact that many PC laptops still offer low res screens point to price being the deciding factor which moves the PC industry forward, not Apple.
  - rthille 6y ago
    My 2010 MBP 17" has a higher than 1080p resolution (1920x1200), and the "Early 2009" did too: https://everymac.com/systems/apple/macbook_pro/specs/macbook-pro-core-2-duo-2.93-aluminum-17-early-2009-unibody-specs.html https://everymac.com/systems/apple/macbook_pro/specs/macbook...
    - jeswin 6y ago
      Thanks for the correction. I was looking at 13/14/15" laptops at that point - which maxed out at 1440 by 900 on the 15" I believe.
      - sxg 6y ago
        1680x1050 was available on the 2010 15" MacBook Pro, but I think 1440x900 was the default option.