By contrast, a 15.4" display at 1920x1200 is 147 ppi. Young or old, with or without glasses, very few people are going to find that 147 ppi comfortable or even usable.
Now, some spec freak might be thinking to himself "Well, I won't use the display at that high a res very often, but at least the resolution is there if I need it". Someone who is thinking like that, however, probably doesn't understand that fixed-pixel devices like LCDs don't scale to different resolutions the same way, or a well, as CRTs.
Good points. Besides, Apple cannot cater to all especially to those spec freaks and the few who may need it for their work. I would think, providing a decent resolution that is actually usuable and comfortable for most applications is more important.
The 1680 x 1050 resolution would probably be good for me. The 1920x1200 would be too for me on a 15.4, although it might be nice on the 17" Powerbook...
Dell today announced a new Laptop sporting a 15.4" display.
Available resolutions are:
WXGA (1280 x 800)
WSXGA+ (1680 x 1050)
WUXGA (1920 x 1200)
Yeah, but that's Dell, they are cheap, so they offer alternatives. Apple does not need to concern itself with something like that - one size has to fit all if you pay the Apple premium, you know?
You are the Namer! I used to use whore a lot more in my day to day banter, my fave being "corporate whore", though I also liked syphilitic whore when I was feeling particularly exasperated/comical, then I noticed your use of spec whore and thought, hey, I like that.
OK, in my opinion, there will not be a 1680x1050 resolution 15.4" PB. We have this discussion every time a new release comes around, and the same thing happens every time - people cry about the resolution not going high enough.
I think it's fine, but that's just me.
It appears we are on the same side of this argument. I apologize. I get so tired of hearing more resolution. I happen to like something near wysiwyg not the hyper-small-built-to-sell-not-to-use specs. The marketing hacks will give us what we clamour for even when it is stupid.
It appears we are on the same side of this argument. I apologize. I get so tired of hearing more resolution. I happen to like something near wysiwyg not the hyper-small-built-to-sell-not-to-use specs. The marketing hacks will give us what we clamour for even when it is stupid.
You just don't get it. If Apple were to increase the DPI of their displays they would also have to make a resolution independent Mac OS. That means that things don't get smaller with higher resolutions, they just get more detailed. So text wouldn't need to be cranked up to be readable on a higher DPI, text would still be the same physical size, it just would be more easier to read because of better font-smoothing and rendering. That's what we are asking for. Now do you understand?
You just don't get it. If Apple were to increase the DPI of their displays they would also have to make a resolution independent Mac OS. That means that things don't get smaller with higher resolutions, they just get more detailed. So text wouldn't need to be cranked up to be readable on a higher DPI, text would still be the same physical size, it just would be more easier to read because of better font-smoothing and rendering. That's what we are asking for. Now do you understand?
Not good enough, you've got to get all those horrible flash page designers to stop making pages with miniscule text, or punch up the Quartz Extreme technology to the point where it can scale windows and their contents intelligently, smoothly, and seamlessly.
Revised UI guidelines for OSX are just the tip of the iceberg.
You just don't get it. If Apple were to increase the DPI of their displays they would also have to make a resolution independent Mac OS. That means that things don't get smaller with higher resolutions, they just get more detailed.
As has been pointed out in this thread and elsewhere, that resolution isn't high enough for resolution independence. You want more than 200ppi, preferably 300, before that becomes worthwhile. That demands another generation or two in graphics acceleration technology, because a screen that huge (in pixels) will crush any current notebook GPU.
Oh, and Apple couldn't just flip a switch and make OS X resolution independent, either. That's going to take some doing.
Basically, the resolutions between 100ppi and 200ppi are a no-man's land. Too fine for the current scheme, and too coarse for resolution independence. Apple currently has their notebook display resolutions straddling the compromise between desktop size and legibility.
Not good enough, you've got to get all those horrible flash page designers to stop making pages with miniscule text, or punch up the Quartz Extreme technology to the point where it can scale windows and their contents intelligently, smoothly, and seamlessly.
Uhm, *cough* OpenGL?
OpenGL allows you to scale *anything* in smooth steps as much as you like, it abstracts away the notion of a 1:1 relationship between a software pixel and a colored dot on a screen.
Apple rigs QuartzExtreme to conform to this 1:1 relationship, but this is no defining part of QE (think Exposé).
As has been pointed out in this thread and elsewhere, that resolution isn't high enough for resolution independence. You want more than 200ppi, preferably 300, before that becomes worthwhile. That demands another generation or two in graphics acceleration technology, because a screen that huge (in pixels) will crush any current notebook GPU.
Are those 300+ ppi displays coming anytime soon or is that just for way off in the future?
Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
These Apple apologists on here never cease to amaze me. Heck, why dont we make them 800x600 instead? Thats good enough isnt it? Dont need more than 64 MB of RAM now do we? Heck, why dont we just put a G3 in them, I mean you dont really need to power of a G4 do you? Nor does anyone need the grotesque power of the G5! 15.4" screen on a laptop? You only need 12.1". Lets all call up the guys at IBM and tell them to have the day off! I mean, we dont really need any advances in technology do we? We've got the light bulb! Lets not advance any further!
Why should you folks be the end all of Apple's decisions? Its no wonder Apple is such a backward-thinking company when all of its fanatics stem from the same notion that whatever it offers should be taken as a God-send. The technology exists, and the point of a company is to market favorable options to the consumer. For one thing, I will take all the desktop I need. You can continue to have a browser window fill your whole screen if you want, that just isnt me. Heck, if my monitor had 85 Hz refresh rate at something higher than 1600x1200 I would be using that. If you really think that you need a magnifying glass to use those resolutions on that display, JUST RESET THE THING TO WHATEVER YOU WANT IT TO BE AT. Is that so hard? You can have your choice, and I will take mine. Options my friends, we all love to have them dont we? I guess Dell is just so cheap they are using much more advanced tech in their displays than Apple are.
SGI used to sell a 17" 1600x1024 (same resolution as a 22" Cinema Display) flat panel display. The text was frigging tiny and had me squinting.
That's the monitor I'm using right now. I love the resolution. A friend of mine used to say that the text was way too small, but he ended up buying one & liking it, too.
There's no question that Apple's laptop displays are too low-res...
You just don't get it. If Apple were to increase the DPI of their displays they would also have to make a resolution independent Mac OS. That means that things don't get smaller with higher resolutions, they just get more detailed. So text wouldn't need to be cranked up to be readable on a higher DPI, text would still be the same physical size, it just would be more easier to read because of better font-smoothing and rendering. That's what we are asking for. Now do you understand?
I afraid you are the one who doesn't understand. A fractal based os will not make a bit of difference. The smaller the pixels the smaller the image it is hardware not software . You are thinking about a printed image and dpi that is not the same as screen resolution. People want more real estate to open more windows and pallettes and such. Increased pixel resolution will not yield more detai
These Apple apologists on here never cease to amaze me. Heck, why dont we make them 800x600 instead? Thats good enough isnt it? Dont need more than 64 MB of RAM now do we? Heck, why dont we just put a G3 in them, I mean you dont really need to power of a G4 do you? Nor does anyone need the grotesque power of the G5! 15.4" screen on a laptop? You only need 12.1". Lets all call up the guys at IBM and tell them to have the day off! I mean, we dont really need any advances in technology do we? We've got the light bulb! Lets not advance any further!
Why should you folks be the end all of Apple's decisions? Its no wonder Apple is such a backward-thinking company when all of its fanatics stem from the same notion that whatever it offers should be taken as a God-send. The technology exists, and the point of a company is to market favorable options to the consumer. For one thing, I will take all the desktop I need. You can continue to have a browser window fill your whole screen if you want, that just isnt me. Heck, if my monitor had 85 Hz refresh rate at something higher than 1600x1200 I would be using that. If you really think that you need a magnifying glass to use those resolutions on that display, JUST RESET THE THING TO WHATEVER YOU WANT IT TO BE AT. Is that so hard? You can have your choice, and I will take mine. Options my friends, we all love to have them dont we? I guess Dell is just so cheap they are using much more advanced tech in their displays than Apple are.
You contradict yourself many times in this post. You say "The technology exists, and the point of a company is to market favorable options to the consumer." The reason why they don't offer higher resolutions on their laptops is because up until now, the market for people who want to run their 12" ibook at 1600x1200 is not that big. I wonder why Apple still sells thousands upon thousands of ibooks and powerbooks? Obviously the resolution is NOT THAT BIG OF A DEAL.
In addition, generally, people who will use lots of screen real estate will get the 15" or 17" powerbook.
oh and "Why should you folks be the end all of Apple's decisions? " WE ARE THE ****ING CONSUMERS, AND LIKE YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY STATED, THE POINT OF A COMPANY IS TO MARKET FABORABLE OPTIONS TO THE CONSUMER.
By the way, I don't even own an apple computer. I'm planning on it, but up until now I've used a PC. Mainly for editing. If you don't know, that takes up a lot of screen real estate.
If you really think that you need a magnifying glass to use those resolutions on that display, JUST RESET THE THING TO WHATEVER YOU WANT IT TO BE AT. Is that so hard?
Have you actually seen an LCD monitor not running at it's natural resolution?
Comments
I won't be buying until we have AT LEAST 2000 horizontal pixels. I absolutely need this for my work.
A 23" Cinema display only has 1920 horizontal!
A 15.4 with 1920 horizontal.
Think I would need a magnifying glass to see stuff on that!
Originally posted by murbot
I won't be buying until we have AT LEAST 2000 horizontal pixels. I absolutely need this for my work.
Your "work"? Since when does selling 3-week old hardware on eBay require 2000 pixels?
I'm here all week, gang...
(People, he was JOKING about the 2000 pixels, okay?)
Originally posted by shetline
By contrast, a 15.4" display at 1920x1200 is 147 ppi. Young or old, with or without glasses, very few people are going to find that 147 ppi comfortable or even usable.
Now, some spec freak might be thinking to himself "Well, I won't use the display at that high a res very often, but at least the resolution is there if I need it". Someone who is thinking like that, however, probably doesn't understand that fixed-pixel devices like LCDs don't scale to different resolutions the same way, or a well, as CRTs.
Good points. Besides, Apple cannot cater to all especially to those spec freaks and the few who may need it for their work. I would think, providing a decent resolution that is actually usuable and comfortable for most applications is more important.
Originally posted by BNOYHTUAWB
Dell today announced a new Laptop sporting a 15.4" display.
Available resolutions are:
WXGA (1280 x 800)
WSXGA+ (1680 x 1050)
WUXGA (1920 x 1200)
Yeah, but that's Dell, they are cheap, so they offer alternatives. Apple does not need to concern itself with something like that - one size has to fit all if you pay the Apple premium, you know?
This stinks so much
You are the Namer! I used to use whore a lot more in my day to day banter, my fave being "corporate whore", though I also liked syphilitic whore when I was feeling particularly exasperated/comical, then I noticed your use of spec whore and thought, hey, I like that.
Nothing wrong with whoring it up now and again.
Originally posted by murbot
OK, in my opinion, there will not be a 1680x1050 resolution 15.4" PB. We have this discussion every time a new release comes around, and the same thing happens every time - people cry about the resolution not going high enough.
I think it's fine, but that's just me.
It appears we are on the same side of this argument. I apologize. I get so tired of hearing more resolution. I happen to like something near wysiwyg not the hyper-small-built-to-sell-not-to-use specs. The marketing hacks will give us what we clamour for even when it is stupid.
Originally posted by taliesin
It appears we are on the same side of this argument. I apologize. I get so tired of hearing more resolution. I happen to like something near wysiwyg not the hyper-small-built-to-sell-not-to-use specs. The marketing hacks will give us what we clamour for even when it is stupid.
You just don't get it. If Apple were to increase the DPI of their displays they would also have to make a resolution independent Mac OS. That means that things don't get smaller with higher resolutions, they just get more detailed. So text wouldn't need to be cranked up to be readable on a higher DPI, text would still be the same physical size, it just would be more easier to read because of better font-smoothing and rendering. That's what we are asking for. Now do you understand?
Originally posted by KANE
You just don't get it. If Apple were to increase the DPI of their displays they would also have to make a resolution independent Mac OS. That means that things don't get smaller with higher resolutions, they just get more detailed. So text wouldn't need to be cranked up to be readable on a higher DPI, text would still be the same physical size, it just would be more easier to read because of better font-smoothing and rendering. That's what we are asking for. Now do you understand?
Not good enough, you've got to get all those horrible flash page designers to stop making pages with miniscule text, or punch up the Quartz Extreme technology to the point where it can scale windows and their contents intelligently, smoothly, and seamlessly.
Revised UI guidelines for OSX are just the tip of the iceberg.
Originally posted by KANE
You just don't get it. If Apple were to increase the DPI of their displays they would also have to make a resolution independent Mac OS. That means that things don't get smaller with higher resolutions, they just get more detailed.
As has been pointed out in this thread and elsewhere, that resolution isn't high enough for resolution independence. You want more than 200ppi, preferably 300, before that becomes worthwhile. That demands another generation or two in graphics acceleration technology, because a screen that huge (in pixels) will crush any current notebook GPU.
Oh, and Apple couldn't just flip a switch and make OS X resolution independent, either. That's going to take some doing.
Basically, the resolutions between 100ppi and 200ppi are a no-man's land. Too fine for the current scheme, and too coarse for resolution independence. Apple currently has their notebook display resolutions straddling the compromise between desktop size and legibility.
Originally posted by Matsu
Not good enough, you've got to get all those horrible flash page designers to stop making pages with miniscule text, or punch up the Quartz Extreme technology to the point where it can scale windows and their contents intelligently, smoothly, and seamlessly.
Uhm, *cough* OpenGL?
OpenGL allows you to scale *anything* in smooth steps as much as you like, it abstracts away the notion of a 1:1 relationship between a software pixel and a colored dot on a screen.
Apple rigs QuartzExtreme to conform to this 1:1 relationship, but this is no defining part of QE (think Exposé).
Originally posted by Amorph
As has been pointed out in this thread and elsewhere, that resolution isn't high enough for resolution independence. You want more than 200ppi, preferably 300, before that becomes worthwhile. That demands another generation or two in graphics acceleration technology, because a screen that huge (in pixels) will crush any current notebook GPU.
Are those 300+ ppi displays coming anytime soon or is that just for way off in the future?
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
Why should you folks be the end all of Apple's decisions? Its no wonder Apple is such a backward-thinking company when all of its fanatics stem from the same notion that whatever it offers should be taken as a God-send. The technology exists, and the point of a company is to market favorable options to the consumer. For one thing, I will take all the desktop I need. You can continue to have a browser window fill your whole screen if you want, that just isnt me. Heck, if my monitor had 85 Hz refresh rate at something higher than 1600x1200 I would be using that. If you really think that you need a magnifying glass to use those resolutions on that display, JUST RESET THE THING TO WHATEVER YOU WANT IT TO BE AT. Is that so hard? You can have your choice, and I will take mine. Options my friends, we all love to have them dont we? I guess Dell is just so cheap they are using much more advanced tech in their displays than Apple are.
Originally posted by AirSluf
SGI used to sell a 17" 1600x1024 (same resolution as a 22" Cinema Display) flat panel display. The text was frigging tiny and had me squinting.
That's the monitor I'm using right now. I love the resolution. A friend of mine used to say that the text was way too small, but he ended up buying one & liking it, too.
There's no question that Apple's laptop displays are too low-res...
Originally posted by KANE
You just don't get it. If Apple were to increase the DPI of their displays they would also have to make a resolution independent Mac OS. That means that things don't get smaller with higher resolutions, they just get more detailed. So text wouldn't need to be cranked up to be readable on a higher DPI, text would still be the same physical size, it just would be more easier to read because of better font-smoothing and rendering. That's what we are asking for. Now do you understand?
I afraid you are the one who doesn't understand. A fractal based os will not make a bit of difference. The smaller the pixels the smaller the image it is hardware not software . You are thinking about a printed image and dpi that is not the same as screen resolution. People want more real estate to open more windows and pallettes and such. Increased pixel resolution will not yield more detai
Originally posted by TigerWoods99
snipppppppppp!
Ho Hum
Originally posted by TigerWoods99
These Apple apologists on here never cease to amaze me. Heck, why dont we make them 800x600 instead? Thats good enough isnt it? Dont need more than 64 MB of RAM now do we? Heck, why dont we just put a G3 in them, I mean you dont really need to power of a G4 do you? Nor does anyone need the grotesque power of the G5! 15.4" screen on a laptop? You only need 12.1". Lets all call up the guys at IBM and tell them to have the day off! I mean, we dont really need any advances in technology do we? We've got the light bulb! Lets not advance any further!
Why should you folks be the end all of Apple's decisions? Its no wonder Apple is such a backward-thinking company when all of its fanatics stem from the same notion that whatever it offers should be taken as a God-send. The technology exists, and the point of a company is to market favorable options to the consumer. For one thing, I will take all the desktop I need. You can continue to have a browser window fill your whole screen if you want, that just isnt me. Heck, if my monitor had 85 Hz refresh rate at something higher than 1600x1200 I would be using that. If you really think that you need a magnifying glass to use those resolutions on that display, JUST RESET THE THING TO WHATEVER YOU WANT IT TO BE AT. Is that so hard? You can have your choice, and I will take mine. Options my friends, we all love to have them dont we? I guess Dell is just so cheap they are using much more advanced tech in their displays than Apple are.
You contradict yourself many times in this post. You say "The technology exists, and the point of a company is to market favorable options to the consumer." The reason why they don't offer higher resolutions on their laptops is because up until now, the market for people who want to run their 12" ibook at 1600x1200 is not that big. I wonder why Apple still sells thousands upon thousands of ibooks and powerbooks? Obviously the resolution is NOT THAT BIG OF A DEAL.
In addition, generally, people who will use lots of screen real estate will get the 15" or 17" powerbook.
oh and "Why should you folks be the end all of Apple's decisions? " WE ARE THE ****ING CONSUMERS, AND LIKE YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY STATED, THE POINT OF A COMPANY IS TO MARKET FABORABLE OPTIONS TO THE CONSUMER.
By the way, I don't even own an apple computer. I'm planning on it, but up until now I've used a PC. Mainly for editing. If you don't know, that takes up a lot of screen real estate.
Originally posted by TigerWoods99
If you really think that you need a magnifying glass to use those resolutions on that display, JUST RESET THE THING TO WHATEVER YOU WANT IT TO BE AT. Is that so hard?
Have you actually seen an LCD monitor not running at it's natural resolution?