6 ms·

I find 1280x800 for 13'' and 1440x900 for 15'' pathetic. I have a 15'' ThinkPad R60 with 2048x1536, yes, you read that right. But today not even ThinkPad scree

by 4ad 15y ago

I find 1280x800 for 13'' and 1440x900 for 15'' pathetic. I have a 15'' ThinkPad R60 with 2048x1536, yes, you read that right. But today not even ThinkPad screens have a good resolution, X220 has a 1366x768 screen. I had a better screen resolution in 1995. I like MacBooks and ThinkPads from a hardware perspective but I won't buy a new one until they start using higher resolution screens.

rprime 15y ago
That's the exact same reason I haven't yet bueyd an macbook, they're resolutions are utterly low. I hope Apple will start to innovate more rather than bumping to the newest CPUs/GPUs each year.
- 4ad 15y ago
  I think there was a drop in screen resolution with most laptop vendors, not only Apple.
Udo 15y ago
I like MacBooks and ThinkPads from a hardware perspective but I won't buy a new one until they start using higher resolution screens. They have higher resolution screens. My 15" MacBook Pro has got 1680x1050, at the store they'll actually ask you what resolution you want. The only thing I regret is not getting a glossy display (the non-glossy one is way uglier). 2048x1536 is not available though, as far as I know - I don't think I'd have opted for that even if they did, but that's a matter of preference (and eyesight I suppose). But you're right, 1440x900 shouldn't be the default config for the 15". I had a better screen resolution in 1995. Wow, you must have had so much better hardware than me in 1995! ;-) I vaguely recall my flickering 1024x768 workstation from that era, it was monstrous.
- 4ad 15y ago
  I didn't know that they have optional higher resolution screens. Is this true also for the 13'' model? In 1995 I had a massive 24'' Trinitron CRT (I think it weighted close to 100 pounds).
  - Udo 15y ago
    I didn't know that they have optional higher resolution screens. Is this true also for the 13'' model? I'm not sure, but probably not. In 1995 I had a massive 24'' Trinitron CRT (I think it weighted close to 100 pounds). I remember those! Around that time I did my first experiments with multi-screening (smaller than 24" though) and at one point the table collapsed underneath the rig!
  - cicloid 15y ago
    Those were the times... I remember when a desk cracked under pressure from the monitor... ;)
  - masklinn 15y ago
    > I didn't know that they have optional higher resolution screens. Is this true also for the 13'' model? Nope, even though they have it on the Air (it's kind-of retarded, the 11" Air has the same resolution as the 13" MBP (roughly, 1366x768 versus 1280x800 so the 11" Air has a slightly higher pixel count), and the 13" Air has the same resolution as the base 15" MBP). Considering their previous behavior, at one point Apple will make 1680x1050 standard on the 15" and make 1440x900 a BTO option on the 13", but I don't understand why they have not done so already. They might be waiting to drop the 13" MBP altogether (replacing it with the Air) if they ever redesign MBPs, in which case you'd have the 11" Air in 1366x768, the 13" in 1440x900, the 15" Pro in 1680x1050 and the 17" in 1920x1200
- bluekeybox 15y ago
  Similarly, if you want 1440x900 in a 13", get a MB Air.
  - 4ad 15y ago
    I would, if it had firewire, I'm doing audio work as a hobby and have some pro audio interfaces.
    - maximilian 15y ago
      It has firewire if you hook it up to a thunderbolt display :). What I really want is a 15" quad-core macbook air.
    - ConstantineXVI 15y ago
      If you're willing to shell out for the Thunderbolt Display, it has FireWire. Think there are much cheaper/smaller FW/TB converters on the way as well.
- zobzu 15y ago
  cause glossy causes reflections and sucks. non glossy is for people who actually work on their laptops glossy are for people who wanna show off. the latter generally dont need a high resolution, and people dont notice its of lower rez when they're showing off. only by using it. thats how the glossy trend started, too sorta sad if you ask me
  - whiskers 15y ago
    Completely unnecessary comment. But as an anecdotal counterpoint I love glossy screens. The colours are more vibrant and there is less of the "soft fuzz" that matt screen surfaces cause to the image. I use my laptop as a workhorse for hours at a time without an issue. Different people like different things. Who knew?
alexpogosyan 15y ago
They offer optional 1680x1050 glossy or anti-glare 15" screen for $150. I especially like the 1050 part, 16x10 screens are so much better for coding.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- 4ad 15y ago
  Yes, they are. I didn't know about the optional 1680x1050, the massive price is unjustified IMHO. I would pay $150 for 1680x1050 on the 13'' model though.
  - kayoone 15y ago
    OSX still isnt resolution independent like Windows 7 is for example. The interface would be tiny on a 13" running 1680x1050. I think thats one of the main reasons they dont go for higher resolutions. Even on my 15" with 1680x1050 its pretty small.
    - seclorum 15y ago
      I've got 1920x1200 on my 2007 MBP, which is the older 'higher resolution screen' option for the MBP, and OSX' resolution dependence is a serious pain in the butt. I've been holding off on upgrading my MBP until some progress is made in this department, but it looks like it won't be for another year.
      - b3b0p 15y ago
        This is 17" inches though, correct? The Vaio Z has an option to get 1920x1200 (or is it 1920x1080?) last time I looked and it is only 13" I believe. It does come at cost though and does not run Mac OS X. However, the option is there. I think the default is even 1600x900 which is still better than 1280x800. Which is what I'm stuck with since I currently have the 13" Macbook Pro. I wish Apple would increase the resolution also, I've been holding off upgrading as well. I'm tempted to even go as far as getting the 17" with the higher resolution next time. Then again, I would have to buy all new laptop bags since none of mine would fit and I'm kind of a bag fiend, I go for those nice Waterfield Designs bag and currently love my Muzetto. Buying another, larger version would not be cheap.
elithrar 15y ago
> I had a better screen resolution in 1995. It's worth pointing out that resolution is one thing, and pixel density another. We're moving towards much denser displays—in fact, Lion has some neat resolution independence features built-in—but we're probably another refresh off seeing them.
- 4ad 15y ago
  I think we're moving towards much denser displays for phones and tablets, but not yet laptops. There were various dense displays in the last 10 years, but they didn't become market standard. And I'm pretty sure I had higher pixel density on my 1995 Trinitron than in my 2011 high-resolution ThinkPad ;-).
- beagle3 15y ago
  I had a 15" 4x3 1600x1200 CRT screen that was perfectly sharp in 1997. And on my desktop I still have an 15" 1280x1024 LCD one from 2004; I think that in 2005, I wasn't able to get a 15" one anymore, and had to get a 17". And these days, even 17" ones with 1024 or 1080 lines are not that popular. My friend had a Sony laptop with 1900x1440 14" display, which was a little pricey for me at the time, so I didn't get it. But it was definitely not the only one available. These resolutions are even less common today. Or, in the words of kids today, WTF?
- masklinn 15y ago
  > We're moving towards much denser displays—in fact No, not on laptops. Colleagues had 1920x1200 15" laptops in the early 2000s. Laptop screen densities have been going down, and the 1366x768 resolution is a fucking plague these days.
ugh 15y ago
OS X doesn’t have resolution independence. That’s why the resolution is what it is. Apple tried (for years) and it was working – more or less – but with Lion they just dropped that. What they have now is a HiDPI mode which quadruples the size of UI elements. It’s not yet completely done (some bitmaps still have to be updated). They are following the lead of iOS in that respect. What this hints at is a 2880×1800 screen in some future 15" MBP. To figure out when a MBP like that will arrive you only have to find out when it becomes feasible to sell it for around $2000 (while also keeping the performance and battery life at least constant). I’m not sure whether it’s currently even possible to buy 2880×1800 panels for any price, not sure where screen technology is standing in that respect. By the way, a 2880×1800 15" panel merely (well …) has 230 PPI. Apple couldn’t even call it a Retina display.
- whiskers 15y ago
  Because of the greater viewing distance to a laptop panel they should still be able to give it the "Retina" tag.
- prof_hobart 15y ago
  Not sure what resolution independence has to do with available screen resolutions. Apple already offer multiple resolutions (mine's the 15" with 1680x1050).
  - ugh 15y ago
    Because anything beyond 1440 is uncomfortable for large numbers of people. 1680 is sort of ok but would suck as a default.
    - RobAtticus 15y ago
      Agreed, when I first got my MBP at 1680x1050 I found it extremely tiring on my eyes when I used it for periods of time (as little as 30 minutes). I guess I've gotten used to it though.
    - prof_hobart 15y ago
sliverstorm 15y ago
The X220 is a poor candidate to complain about. It is their ultralight, ultraportable model. If you are unwilling to sacrifice specs for size, weight and battery life, then it's the wrong model for you in the first place.
- 4ad 15y ago
  Erm, no. The X200, their previous model, has a better 1440x900 screen. Screen resolution has nothing to do with portability, there's nothing to sacrifice. All previous X series models had the high resolution option, now with the latest model it's just not there. And it's not only the X series that doesn't have good screens anymore. I have 5 ThinkPads, all of them high resolution, and all of them have a higher resolution than any ThinkPad sold today. And I own two X series models.
  - sliverstorm 15y ago
    Ah, you are talking about a lack of a high-res option. I was not aware they got rid of that. If I had to guess, I'd bet lack of demand killed it off. Most people seem comfortable with the standard resolutions of today, and if I recall from my X61, the high-res screen was an extra $200. As for portability, I believe a higher resolution screen tends to result in a small hit on battery life, and the back of my mind is telling me they tend to be bulkier. Grain of salt though.

by 4ad 15y ago

rprime 15y ago

That's the exact same reason I haven't yet bueyd an macbook, they're resolutions are utterly low. I hope Apple will start to innovate more rather than bumping to the newest CPUs/GPUs each year.

4ad 15y ago
I think there was a drop in screen resolution with most laptop vendors, not only Apple.

Udo 15y ago

I like MacBooks and ThinkPads from a hardware perspective but I won't buy a new one until they start using higher resolution screens. They have higher resolution screens. My 15" MacBook Pro has got 1680x1050, at the store they'll actually ask you what resolution you want. The only thing I regret is not getting a glossy display (the non-glossy one is way uglier). 2048x1536 is not available though, as far as I know - I don't think I'd have opted for that even if they did, but that's a matter of preference (and eyesight I suppose). But you're right, 1440x900 shouldn't be the default config for the 15". I had a better screen resolution in 1995. Wow, you must have had so much better hardware than me in 1995! ;-) I vaguely recall my flickering 1024x768 workstation from that era, it was monstrous.

4ad 15y ago
I didn't know that they have optional higher resolution screens. Is this true also for the 13'' model? In 1995 I had a massive 24'' Trinitron CRT (I think it weighted close to 100 pounds).
- Udo 15y ago
  I didn't know that they have optional higher resolution screens. Is this true also for the 13'' model? I'm not sure, but probably not. In 1995 I had a massive 24'' Trinitron CRT (I think it weighted close to 100 pounds). I remember those! Around that time I did my first experiments with multi-screening (smaller than 24" though) and at one point the table collapsed underneath the rig!
- cicloid 15y ago
  Those were the times... I remember when a desk cracked under pressure from the monitor... ;)
- masklinn 15y ago
  > I didn't know that they have optional higher resolution screens. Is this true also for the 13'' model? Nope, even though they have it on the Air (it's kind-of retarded, the 11" Air has the same resolution as the 13" MBP (roughly, 1366x768 versus 1280x800 so the 11" Air has a slightly higher pixel count), and the 13" Air has the same resolution as the base 15" MBP). Considering their previous behavior, at one point Apple will make 1680x1050 standard on the 15" and make 1440x900 a BTO option on the 13", but I don't understand why they have not done so already. They might be waiting to drop the 13" MBP altogether (replacing it with the Air) if they ever redesign MBPs, in which case you'd have the 11" Air in 1366x768, the 13" in 1440x900, the 15" Pro in 1680x1050 and the 17" in 1920x1200
bluekeybox 15y ago
Similarly, if you want 1440x900 in a 13", get a MB Air.
- 4ad 15y ago
  I would, if it had firewire, I'm doing audio work as a hobby and have some pro audio interfaces.
  - maximilian 15y ago
    It has firewire if you hook it up to a thunderbolt display :). What I really want is a 15" quad-core macbook air.
  - ConstantineXVI 15y ago
    If you're willing to shell out for the Thunderbolt Display, it has FireWire. Think there are much cheaper/smaller FW/TB converters on the way as well.
zobzu 15y ago
cause glossy causes reflections and sucks. non glossy is for people who actually work on their laptops glossy are for people who wanna show off. the latter generally dont need a high resolution, and people dont notice its of lower rez when they're showing off. only by using it. thats how the glossy trend started, too sorta sad if you ask me
- whiskers 15y ago
  Completely unnecessary comment. But as an anecdotal counterpoint I love glossy screens. The colours are more vibrant and there is less of the "soft fuzz" that matt screen surfaces cause to the image. I use my laptop as a workhorse for hours at a time without an issue. Different people like different things. Who knew?

alexpogosyan 15y ago

They offer optional 1680x1050 glossy or anti-glare 15" screen for $150. I especially like the 1050 part, 16x10 screens are so much better for coding.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
4ad 15y ago
Yes, they are. I didn't know about the optional 1680x1050, the massive price is unjustified IMHO. I would pay $150 for 1680x1050 on the 13'' model though.
- kayoone 15y ago
  OSX still isnt resolution independent like Windows 7 is for example. The interface would be tiny on a 13" running 1680x1050. I think thats one of the main reasons they dont go for higher resolutions. Even on my 15" with 1680x1050 its pretty small.
  - seclorum 15y ago
    I've got 1920x1200 on my 2007 MBP, which is the older 'higher resolution screen' option for the MBP, and OSX' resolution dependence is a serious pain in the butt. I've been holding off on upgrading my MBP until some progress is made in this department, but it looks like it won't be for another year.
    - b3b0p 15y ago
      This is 17" inches though, correct? The Vaio Z has an option to get 1920x1200 (or is it 1920x1080?) last time I looked and it is only 13" I believe. It does come at cost though and does not run Mac OS X. However, the option is there. I think the default is even 1600x900 which is still better than 1280x800. Which is what I'm stuck with since I currently have the 13" Macbook Pro. I wish Apple would increase the resolution also, I've been holding off upgrading as well. I'm tempted to even go as far as getting the 17" with the higher resolution next time. Then again, I would have to buy all new laptop bags since none of mine would fit and I'm kind of a bag fiend, I go for those nice Waterfield Designs bag and currently love my Muzetto. Buying another, larger version would not be cheap.

elithrar 15y ago

> I had a better screen resolution in 1995. It's worth pointing out that resolution is one thing, and pixel density another. We're moving towards much denser displays—in fact, Lion has some neat resolution independence features built-in—but we're probably another refresh off seeing them.

4ad 15y ago
I think we're moving towards much denser displays for phones and tablets, but not yet laptops. There were various dense displays in the last 10 years, but they didn't become market standard. And I'm pretty sure I had higher pixel density on my 1995 Trinitron than in my 2011 high-resolution ThinkPad ;-).
beagle3 15y ago
I had a 15" 4x3 1600x1200 CRT screen that was perfectly sharp in 1997. And on my desktop I still have an 15" 1280x1024 LCD one from 2004; I think that in 2005, I wasn't able to get a 15" one anymore, and had to get a 17". And these days, even 17" ones with 1024 or 1080 lines are not that popular. My friend had a Sony laptop with 1900x1440 14" display, which was a little pricey for me at the time, so I didn't get it. But it was definitely not the only one available. These resolutions are even less common today. Or, in the words of kids today, WTF?
masklinn 15y ago
> We're moving towards much denser displays—in fact No, not on laptops. Colleagues had 1920x1200 15" laptops in the early 2000s. Laptop screen densities have been going down, and the 1366x768 resolution is a fucking plague these days.

ugh 15y ago

OS X doesn’t have resolution independence. That’s why the resolution is what it is. Apple tried (for years) and it was working – more or less – but with Lion they just dropped that. What they have now is a HiDPI mode which quadruples the size of UI elements. It’s not yet completely done (some bitmaps still have to be updated). They are following the lead of iOS in that respect. What this hints at is a 2880×1800 screen in some future 15" MBP. To figure out when a MBP like that will arrive you only have to find out when it becomes feasible to sell it for around $2000 (while also keeping the performance and battery life at least constant). I’m not sure whether it’s currently even possible to buy 2880×1800 panels for any price, not sure where screen technology is standing in that respect. By the way, a 2880×1800 15" panel merely (well …) has 230 PPI. Apple couldn’t even call it a Retina display.

whiskers 15y ago
Because of the greater viewing distance to a laptop panel they should still be able to give it the "Retina" tag.
prof_hobart 15y ago
Not sure what resolution independence has to do with available screen resolutions. Apple already offer multiple resolutions (mine's the 15" with 1680x1050).
- ugh 15y ago
  Because anything beyond 1440 is uncomfortable for large numbers of people. 1680 is sort of ok but would suck as a default.
  - RobAtticus 15y ago
    Agreed, when I first got my MBP at 1680x1050 I found it extremely tiring on my eyes when I used it for periods of time (as little as 30 minutes). I guess I've gotten used to it though.
  - prof_hobart 15y ago

sliverstorm 15y ago

The X220 is a poor candidate to complain about. It is their ultralight, ultraportable model. If you are unwilling to sacrifice specs for size, weight and battery life, then it's the wrong model for you in the first place.

4ad 15y ago
Erm, no. The X200, their previous model, has a better 1440x900 screen. Screen resolution has nothing to do with portability, there's nothing to sacrifice. All previous X series models had the high resolution option, now with the latest model it's just not there. And it's not only the X series that doesn't have good screens anymore. I have 5 ThinkPads, all of them high resolution, and all of them have a higher resolution than any ThinkPad sold today. And I own two X series models.
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  Ah, you are talking about a lack of a high-res option. I was not aware they got rid of that. If I had to guess, I'd bet lack of demand killed it off. Most people seem comfortable with the standard resolutions of today, and if I recall from my X61, the high-res screen was an extra $200. As for portability, I believe a higher resolution screen tends to result in a small hit on battery life, and the back of my mind is telling me they tend to be bulkier. Grain of salt though.