Comments on: Laptops, Screen Sizes, and Resolutions, Oh My!

By: Carl Farrington

Carl Farrington — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 10:52:05 +0000

I am typing this from a 13″ white MacBook that I’ve repaired for somebody. I’ve been playing on it for a couple of days, and I am finding some things that I really like about the system (most obviously the two-finger scrolling for now, and of course that MagSafe. The OS is lovely but that goes without saying). The build quality is average bordering on poor (plastic chipped off all around the front top edge of the base, keyboard requires punching keys, bezel has same plastic chipped bits), but overall I am somewhat tempted. I use Fedora on my own machine so could quite easily live with a non Windows system.

So, the announcement of the new 13″ aluminium MacBook, with a really clever touchpad, and stonger materials, plus better overall look, is extremely tempting to me.

The only problem is screen resolution (hence how I ended up at your blog - thanks to Google). My Thinkpad T43p has 1400×1050 in a 14.1″ panel, and my Fedora desktop machine has 1920×1200 (27″ Dell Ultrasharp).

I really couldn’t live with 1280×800 in a laptop. I don’t want a bigger screen - for me, the perfect size for a laptop is 13.3″ - 14.1″.

So for now I am still left looking at the Thinkpad X300, which is too expensive for now and given the choice I’d prefer the Mac just for something different and to explore other niceties of the Mac system.

If Apple gave the option of a higher resolution screen in the new 13″ aluminium MacBook, I reckon I’d buy one right away.

By: Tom Reestman

Tom Reestman — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:50:22 +0000

Homunculus,

The 12″ PB is a great machine, but in terms of resolution it’s 1024×768. The new MacBook has more vertical space at 800, and a lot more horizontal space.

Yes, it also has a larger footprint, but it’s thinner and the weight is a lot closer now. Along with all the other advantages I really think the 12″ is long in the tooth. The performance difference between the two machines will be astounding.

In my opinion, yesterday’s 13″ MacBook announcement made it as close to a 12″ PB replacement as Apple is going to get anytime soon.

By: 17-inch MacBook Pro Will Be Late, Not Absent | The Apple Blog

17-inch MacBook Pro Will Be Late, Not Absent | The Apple Blog — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:16:18 +0000

[...] Pro at yesterday’s notebook event. For those interested in Apple’s Pro line of laptops, screen real estate is a valuable commodity indeed. Designers need the space for working on large documents and [...]

By: joecab

joecab — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:49:57 +0000

I’m with Homunculus: I still love my little 12″ PB, but it HAS been six years now. And if Apple comes out with any halfway decent subnotebook of comparable size, I’m on it.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 04:34:41 +0000

I’m holding onto my 12″ PB as long as I can. The vertical space and overall compact size has no equal. I upgraded every component I could and we’ll see how long this beauty can hold out. Can’t stand the size/shape of the macbook. It’s lack of vertical space is terribly annoying to me. Long live the 12″ PB!!

By: Jim

Jim — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 21:14:25 +0000

I couldn’t agree more. I can’t stand these wide-format screens. I’m tired of scrolling web pages, and don’t watch videos on my laptop - so these stupid widescreens are a waste (actually, it’s a ploy by the manufacturers because they’re smaller than a normal screen.

My 20″ LCD screen I bought about 5 years ago for my desktop has a 1600×1200 resolution, yet most 24-28″ LCD screens today still only have a 1200 vertical resolution.

By: Tom Reestman

Tom Reestman — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 18:20:41 +0000

Jon,

“I just don’t get where you come up with $75.00. Did you just pull that number out of your head?”

Better pulling it out of my head than some other part of my body.

Seriously, when they introduced the option for the MBP over a year ago, it was (and still is) $100. My target of $75 is simply based on the thinking that it could come down a bit, especially on the lower-end models.

By: Brujo

Brujo — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 17:21:19 +0000

re:to jon, 75 sounds reasonable to ME, look at gas and such that ends with .99 to make the human mind more complacent!?

By: Jon

Jon — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 15:24:33 +0000

Good thoughts. I just don’t get where you come up with $75.00. Did you just pull that number out of your head?

By: Ted

Ted — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 05:45:15 +0000

oh I see. Thanks.

By: Ryan W

Ryan W — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 05:29:26 +0000

@Ted, Macs don’t have to compete, like HP, Dell, and Sony do. Therefore, they can control their prices. If Dell posts something too high, then HP, and Sony can post something of the same value, but for a lower price, and Dell wont make anything. They are a little bit too overpriced though.

By: Ted

Ted — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 01:00:45 +0000

why are mac laptops so expensive? I mean you can get a good windows laptop fully loaded for 700.

By: Curtis Carmack

Curtis Carmack — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 00:27:03 +0000

I couldn’t agree more. Even with my ageing eyes, I can’t seem to give up my Dell laptop with its 15.4″ screen and 1920×1200 resolution. They don’t even offer that option anymore. Works great with Ubuntu, too. Of course I wish it were a Mac . . . I’m hoping we get those options you’re wishing for, as I would jump on it immediately. Heck, I used to have a Fujitsu with a 10.6″ screen that resolved 1280×768 — that was an awesome machine (though very underpowered).

By: Tom Reestman

Tom Reestman — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 23:39:27 +0000

Darrell,

I have a 24″ iMac with 1920×1280, which is why I thought that same resolution on a 17″ MBP would be impossible for me. But it wasn’t that bad.

Part of the reason is that with a desktop, of course, you sit further back from it (in my case, frequently with my feet propped on my desk, wireless keyboard in my lap), whereas the laptop is much closer.

For sharing documents/settings on both systems and, more importantly, for screen sharing, having your desktop and laptop the same resolution is a huge convenience.

By: Darrell Etherington

Darrell Etherington — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 22:49:42 +0000

I definitely understand your points Tom if the MacBook is your primary device, but I’ve always had a desktop and a notebook, and I want each to give me the best of what it’s designed for. Meaning, I want my laptops portable and my desktops deep resolution-y. I find my 13.3 inch perfect (although I miss the wonderful 12 inch powerbook and have even considered buying one used) for writing and quick design edits on the go, but that’s only because I know the iMac’s at home for the big stuff.

By: MacRat

MacRat — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 22:22:24 +0000

I’ve been waiting for a 20″ MacBook Pro. My 17″ is just too small.

By: Robert Thille

Robert Thille — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 22:22:03 +0000

I’d pay $200 for a 15″ macbook with a high-res 17″’s resolution (1920×1200)

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=207751

Sure I might have to run my text at higher point sizes or sit closer to the display (I run my laptop on my desk most of the time), but I don’t want the extra physical size of the 17″, but I want the resolution. I find that most UIs these days waste lots of space/pixels on elements that I don’t need to be anywhere near as big as they are and leave precious little space for the ‘content’ that I actually care about being able to see a lot of at the same time.

By: Lloyd

Lloyd — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 22:13:15 +0000

I whole-heartedly agree and hope that Apple steps up resolutions (at the very least as a BTO).

I seems like the thing people are least excited about in regards to the upcoming updates are the hardware specs. There’s been very little speculation over which chips the Macbooks / MBPs will get or RAM bumps etc.

P.S. I’m more familiar with the saying “there’s no replacement for displacement” but I get the metaphor