powerbook new screen resolution

Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
Is the new screen resolution on the 667 and 800 powerbook G4 too small? Can anyone let me know if they have seen it and think that it is too small and fonts etc are tiny. The new ones have increased resolution at 1280-by-854.

This is the resolution I am enquiring about as to its smallness.



I went to see it in a store on display - It looked impratical and rediculously small. I would like to know anyones thoughts.

<img src="confused.gif" border="0">
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 58
    dstranathandstranathan Posts: 1,715member
    I ordered a new Ti 667 last week. I will let ya know what I think. I also own the first gen Ti 400 and the second gen Ti 550/CD-RW, so I will have plenty of insite into the changes-for better or worse.
  • Reply 2 of 58
    keyboardf12keyboardf12 Posts: 1,379member
    you will love the res i bet. i didn't like the old res but this new one is just right.
  • Reply 3 of 58
    murbotmurbot Posts: 5,261member
    [quote]It looked impratical and rediculously small<hr></blockquote>



    Well, I'm sure this is the first time I've read that kind of comment on the new resolution. I think it's great - and if you spend any amount of time working on one, you'll start to appreciate how nice the extra workspace is. Definitely not too small at all.
  • Reply 4 of 58
    catfishcatfish Posts: 1member
    I've got one of the new TiBook 667s and the resolution is great. A 15" screen at only 1024 x 768 is a tremendous waste. The new screen are just about perfect.
  • Reply 5 of 58
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    It sounds like the new res is just right, though I've yet to see a new one myself.



    Some people like even higher 1400x1050/1440x1080 or 1600x1200 15"LCD, even 14"! (for the former)



    I think that's just too small for a 15", at least under current OSes/video cards.



    If I run my 17" CRT (about 16" vis) @ 1280x1024, everything just looks too small. 1152x864 looks just right, 1024 looks better for badly formatted web pages/text -- annoying small fonts that my browser won't let me change.



    LCD's do look a lot crisper than CRT's, so they could probably stand a bit more pixel density before getting too squinty. I think Apple's choice is just about right for a 15" display. Given that it's a little wider and shorter than 4:3 15"ers they could probably stand to go into the 1440x960 range, but I bet it looks pretty good already (as far as pixel size goes).



    Reports say the new display also looks brighter than the old 1152 unit.



    If you need it, and have the cash, go ahead, I think you'll like it -- Though, I might be inclined to advocate a wait and see approach. Tech news has produced a lot of rumbling from analysts, investors, suppliers, buyers... industry followers/insiders, generally, that LCD production is set to ramp up big time by the end of '02. LCD prices could fall dramatically. Apple is ussually slow to adopt a price drop, but seeing as how they bumped the prices of the iMac -- and the PowerBook (it went back to previous levels when the DVI books came out) -- they may be inclined to drop prices sooner rather than later.
  • Reply 6 of 58
    emaneman Posts: 7,204member
    Too small? I find it great, better than the old Tis.
  • Reply 7 of 58
    macaddictmacaddict Posts: 1,055member
    Too small? WHAT? It will never be good enough until we get 1600 x 1200 on 12" screens.
  • Reply 8 of 58
    dstranathandstranathan Posts: 1,715member
    Just turned my new 667 on...



    I love the res!



    I love the new keyboard (snappy,tight and tactile)



    My iSub and Soundsticks hate the new Ti 667 (don't know why yet...)



    And now for the Wolfenstein test! :0)



    I owned a Ti 400 (1st gen) and a Ti 550 (sedond gen)



    Anyone know the Apple internal codename for these new 2002 TiBooks? Mercurury and Onyx are the other 2 Ti rev codenames...
  • Reply 9 of 58
    agent302agent302 Posts: 974member
    [quote]Originally posted by dstranathan:

    <strong>

    Anyone know the Apple internal codename for these new 2002 TiBooks? Mercurury and Onyx are the other 2 Ti rev codenames...</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I think it's ivory. Strange about your soundsticks. I have the same computer as you, and they work fine, actually seem louder off of the TiBook than they were off of an iMac.
  • Reply 10 of 58
    ghost_user_nameghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member
    Is anyone here a professional web designer? If so can you tell me if the new Powerbook resolution is not good for deigning in - reason beign is that flash pixel specific fonts such as Hooge or Large 9 will surely look tiny! - I really think this new resolution is not a good move for graphics applications - I can forsee going for meetings with web clients and they say - huh what is that tiny text - Flash specific fonts acurate to the pixel will surely look tiny tiny now



    I think the new resolution is a bad move



  • Reply 11 of 58
    agent302agent302 Posts: 974member
    [quote]Originally posted by kittylitterdesign:

    <strong>I think the new resolution is a bad move



    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I think that puts you in a very small minority.
  • Reply 12 of 58
    murbotmurbot Posts: 5,261member
    The guy designs kitty litter, what do you expect?



  • Reply 13 of 58
    cosmonutcosmonut Posts: 4,872member
    I haven't seen the new TiBooks' screen res, but it seems to me you all are going to have horrible vision in the future with reading such small text.
  • Reply 14 of 58
    ghost_user_nameghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member
    I don't design kitty litter! I design for many clients such as Universal pictures (Jurassic Park 3, ET 20th Anniversery sites) to ManUtd.com football site. My latest site design is <a href="http://www.watkins-syndicate.co.uk"; target="_blank">http://www.watkins-syndicate.co.uk</a>; for Lloyds of London.



    here you will see a font called Standard used - font site 8 - a flash pixel acurate font. I believe that the new screen resolution for the powerbook is a absolutly rubbish and too small becuase of pixel size 8 fonts embedded in Flash..unlike html where the user can increase font size through browser preferences.



    Check out my clients at kittylitterdesign.com and you'll see I am far from designing kittylitter!!!



    Oh and just to recap - the new resolution is a terrible terrible move by Apple - I am amazed no one else agrees????

    <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
  • Reply 15 of 58
    emaneman Posts: 7,204member
    [quote]Originally posted by CosmoNut:

    <strong>I haven't seen the new TiBooks' screen res, but it seems to me you all are going to have horrible vision in the future with reading such small text.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    That's what my parents said before I got my iBook, because some people think 1024x768 is too small on a 12" screen. Your eyes get used to it. I'm sure it's the same thing with the Ti's resolution.
  • Reply 16 of 58
    resres Posts: 711member
    [quote]Originally posted by kittylitterdesign:

    <strong>Is anyone here a professional web designer? If so can you tell me if the new Powerbook resolution is not good for deigning in - reason beign is that flash pixel specific fonts such as Hooge or Large 9 will surely look tiny! - I really think this new resolution is not a good move for graphics applications - I can forsee going for meetings with web clients and they say - huh what is that tiny text - Flash specific fonts acurate to the pixel will surely look tiny tiny now



    I think the new resolution is a bad move



    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I'm a web designer and I just got my 800MHz PowerBook in last week. I love the screen's resolution. I can have all of my favorite photoshop pallets open at the same time without covering up the image I'm working on. The screen is very sharp and I have no trouble reading 9pt type.



    For doing presentations you can always switch to a lower resolution if you want, although it will not be as sharp.



    Apple did a good job on this one -- for a change
  • Reply 17 of 58
    murbotmurbot Posts: 5,261member
    Just messing with your screen name bro, no ill feelings intended. (see the )
  • Reply 18 of 58
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    I think, also, that resolutions are just getting too small. I approve of the simple act of resolution enhancing, but when text is still pixel based, it makes it hard. If the PDF based Quartz display layer could sense rez, and then display accurately, I'd be much warmer to the idea of high rez.
  • Reply 19 of 58
    resres Posts: 711member
    [quote]Originally posted by kittylitterdesign:

    <strong>



    -snip-



    My latest site design is <a href="http://www.watkins-syndicate.co.uk"; target="_blank">http://www.watkins-syndicate.co.uk</a>; for Lloyds of London.



    here you will see a font called Standard used - font site 8 - a flash pixel acurate font. I believe that the new screen resolution for the powerbook is a absolutly rubbish and too small becuase of pixel size 8 fonts embedded in Flash..unlike html where the user can increase font size through browser preferences.



    -snip-

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I checked your site out on my my new PowerBook and you are right -- although I can still read it, the type is too small. But the type is also too small on the 20" and 16" monitors hooked up to my other computers (I always run things at fairly high resolutions).



    That is the problem of using fixed sized fonts on the web.



    Just curious, what resolution/monitor-size combination did you design the site for?
  • Reply 20 of 58
    alcimedesalcimedes Posts: 5,486member
    hmm, took a look myself. The font is too small on a 24" monitor running at 1600x900 (widescreen baby!) but is just readable at 1024x768 on a 21" but i personally think those 21"s are running well below what people normally would run on a 21.



    alcimedes
Sign In or Register to comment.