4 ms·
One of the reasons that I finally jumped over to the Mac was the fact that it was one of the few laptops that provided 1680x1050 at around 15". My previous 2 W
by prof_hobart 14y ago
One of the reasons that I finally jumped over to the Mac was the fact that it was one of the few laptops that provided 1680x1050 at around 15".
My previous 2 Windows laptops had been that resolution, but when I came to upgrade about 2 or 3 years ago, that resolution seemed to have been abandoned for 15" laptops by pretty much everyone apart from Apple. Most of them had gone to 1440 or even less. A handful of pretty expensive, at least Apple price, and usually quite bulky, ones offered 1920x1200 but given that the scaling didn't look too great on them at the time I though that this might be just a bit too small for me, and if I was going to be paying about the same price for a Windows PC as I was paying for a Mac one - and not get the resolution I wanted anyway on Windows, I thought I'd bite the bullet and see what all of the Mac fuss was about.
- FireBeyond 14y agoI am a little surprised by this - both Sony and Dell have had credible 1920x1080 options at 15" for several years (admittedly I prefer x1200, which has also been available) - both have also had 1920 13" options for at least a year.
- bitcartel 14y agoAre these matte? Put one next to a glossy display and the difference is glaringly obvious (pun intended!).
- FireBeyond 14y agoYes, matte! (well, at least on the ones I know about - my Sony is matte - Glossy is better for little more than the store)
- prof_hobart 14y agoLike I say, the 1920 seemed too small to me, given the not particularly great scaling in Windows at the time if I did want to use other resolutions, and the ones that I did find were usually around Apple prices anyway.