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.
I like MacBooks and ThinkPads from a hardware perspective but I
won't buy a new one until they start using higher resolution screens.
But you're right, 1440x900 shouldn't be the default config for the 15".
I had a better screen resolution in 1995.
In 1995 I had a massive 24'' Trinitron CRT (I think it weighted close to 100 pounds).
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).
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
What I really want is a 15" quad-core macbook air.
thats how the glossy trend started, too
sorta sad if you ask me
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?
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.
And I'm pretty sure I had higher pixel density on my 1995 Trinitron than in my 2011 high-resolution ThinkPad ;-).
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
What I wanted to try and explain was why Apple didn’t substantially and across the line increase the resolution of its computers during the last years, option for a bit more resolution on the 15" MBP notwithstanding.
My point is that I don't think resolution independence has a great deal to do with it. Very few Windows laptops offer much option either (the Dell ones I've just looked at offer 1366X768 and that's it, and from when I last looked round at laptops this seemed to be pretty standard). The reason is simply that companies like to limit the range of products they need to manufacture. Making the same size screen with 15 different resolutions would be hugely costly compared to sticking with 1 or 2.
That’s exactly what I’m talking about. Apple can’t just increase the resolution for everyone and that’s what they would like to do. To be able to do that they need resolution independence.
As I've mentioned, few if any PC laptop manufacturers choose to, so is there any reason to think that Apple would?
Resolution for resolution's sake is pointless if its not useable.
This has not much to do with eyesight. UI elements would stay exactly the same size. That’s the point. It would be like the change from the iPhone 3GS to the iPhone 4.
Compare the screen on the iPhone 4 to the iPhone 3G. Graphical elements are the same size on both but the iPhone 4 has twice the resolution.
Whether a display is "retina" or not depends upon how far the display is from your eyes. I could definitely see Apple stretch a 230 PPI display to be "retina" by arguing that you sit further from your laptop than your smartphone. I haven't done the math, so this is all speculation.
I wonder what the graphics performance on a laptop with a 2880x1880 display would be. Intel's integrated GPUs are the only sane option while on battery and they notoriously slow.
I would pay $150 for 1680x1050 on the 13'' model though.
Even on my 15" with 1680x1050 its pretty small.
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.