Screen resolution of 17 inch PowerBook

ghost_user_nameghost_user_name
Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
You only get 160 horizontal pixels more on that display, and 50 vertical pixels. It's a respectable jump, but not earth shattering. When the Ti DVIs went from 1152 pixles to 1284 pixels (horizontal), it was a slightly bigger leap in resolution, percentage wise. I think the 17" PB, like the Ti DVIs, will really hit its stride if the resolution gets bumped a year from now, to something like 1600x1024. Now **that** will be impressive, as opposed to merely respectable.



MOD EDIT - sorry kitty, the "screen reson" was getting to me... had to fix your spelling.



[ 01-09-2003: Message edited by: murbot ]</p>
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 24
    ghost_user_nameghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member
    Weren't you complaining about the resolution of the 15" 1280x854 powerbook being too small a few months ago?



    Just wondering.



    Economies of scale have clearly caused the re-use of the iMac LCD in the PB.
  • Reply 2 of 24
    satchmosatchmo Posts: 2,699member
    [quote]Originally posted by Jonathan:

    <strong>

    Economies of scale have clearly caused the re-use of the iMac LCD in the PB.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    That, plus Apple seem to use resolutions which they feel is optimal and comfortable viewing.
  • Reply 3 of 24
    alcimedesalcimedes Posts: 5,486member
    the real stinker about LCD's is that they only have one "true" res., and everything else just sucks. so you're stucking picking whichever you think will be the most comfortable for the most people.



    i'd say they chose wisely though. if it's using the same screen as the 17" iMac, i can attest that it is beautiful.
  • Reply 4 of 24
    maskermasker Posts: 451member
    The 22" cinema display uses 1600 x 1024.



    I'd feel sorry for anyone who crammed that many pixels into a 17" screen.



    While most apps allow for you to edit fonts sizes, you'll inevitably run across instances in which the type is itty bitty. (like some minimal fonts, in flash, message boards, even HTML emails that override your emails font size setting.



    I wouldn't buy a 17" 1600 x 1024 LCD display unless these issues went away.



    MSKR
  • Reply 5 of 24
    emaneman Posts: 7,204member
    kittylitterdesign, do you ever do anything besides complaining about screen resolutions?
  • Reply 6 of 24
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    the screen resolution is fine...pick on apple for their keyboards, and how the laptops look weird with all the space around it
  • Reply 7 of 24
    thttht Posts: 5,443member
    I'll back kittylitterdesign, and say I too wish the 17" Powerbook had 1600x1024 screen resolution, same with the 17" iMac.



    Why? 1024 pixels in height is the most commonly used pixel height because 1280x1024 is a defacto standard. Meaning, many games are hard coded for 1280x1024 and other common resolutions (like Age of Empires II). By having 1600x1024, the 17" Powerbook can run 1280x1024 without resorting to spanning or some sort of interpolation if it's even possible.



    Heck, I think the 15.2" Powerbooks should be bumped to 1440x960. The best option for Apple is to simply have a BTO option for higher res screens for it's 15 and 17 inch Powerbooks and the 17" iMac.



    [ 01-09-2003: Message edited by: THT ]</p>
  • Reply 8 of 24
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    I seem to recall a little spat we had about the obscenely small type KLD likes to use on his flash pages, and now you want a screen to have even smaller dots. I hope you've learned to use legible fonts.
  • Reply 9 of 24
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    There are some 16" laptop screens that use 1600x1200 resolution. Too high if you ask me, but that's more than 1600x1024, and the screen is smaller. Others use 1440x1050. Compare the pixels per inch on the various Apple laptops...



    12" iBook/PowerBook: 106

    14" iBook: 91

    15.2" PowerBook: 101

    17" PowerBook: 100

    17" at 1600x1024: 112

    16" 1440x1050: 111

    16" 1600x1200: 125



    It looks as if Apple is moving towards 100 or so ppi. That's true of their desktop LCDs as well, with 96 and 98 on the 17" and 23" displays, respectively. 112 might be too high for some, but it would only be a little above the iBook's ppi.



    Hope this helps.
  • Reply 10 of 24
    cubitcubit Posts: 846member
    [quote]Originally posted by ast3r3x:

    <strong>the screen resolution is fine...pick on apple for their keyboards, and how the laptops look weird with all the space around it </strong><hr></blockquote>



    On this one I have to agree. This 17" machine seems to have its own desktop built in! Should put note pads there or something! Compared to the Pismo, the new PB still look boxy., with a huge surface area.



    Still, I like them more than the 15.2. I'm about ready to jump (holding out for this), but if the 12" had ADC I'd have bought two of those, so I could plug them into my Cinema 22 and LCD Studio "15, because a portable really should be and nothing tops the ease of use of the iBook now, but who wants G3 any more? I've already got that in Pismo.



    [ 01-10-2003: Message edited by: Cubit ]</p>
  • Reply 11 of 24
    junkyard dawgjunkyard dawg Posts: 2,801member
    Another important point is the target market of the Lapzilla: Digital Video. The DV editing process is nearly resolution independent, since DV has a lower resolution than ANY of the PB LCDs. A higher pixle density might make menu bars a bit smaller, but for viewing the maximum amount of a DV image, screen area is more important than pixle density, as long as the LCD's pixle density is higher than the resolution of the DV that's being edited.



    I've got bad eyes so the ultra-high resolution displays for PC laptops are ridiculous to me. Even on my 19" CRT (18" viewable), 1600x1200 is a bit too small. I can only imagine how tiny that pixle density would appear on a 17" display.



    For me the 12" PB is the sh!t because of it's portability. I'd rather have a desktop and an ultra-portable laptop, rather than a single, unexpandable Lapzilla....but if I HAD to have only one computer then it would be the Lapzilla. What a totally bitchin' laptop!



    Apple really came through on this keynote. I sure hope they can pull off the magnitude of effect with the desktops, and soon. The PPC 970 would do nicely.
  • Reply 12 of 24
    jet powersjet powers Posts: 288member
    It'd be nice if they offered choices.....for some $$$ more, you could get a different res.
  • Reply 13 of 24
    hledgardhledgard Posts: 265member
    Great post Luca ! !



    That is really useful information, and a point I have long wondered about. You help people ! !



    Thanks ! ! ! !

    Sincerely,

    Dr. Ledgard
  • Reply 14 of 24
    bradbowerbradbower Posts: 1,068member
    I agree with KLD, insane as (s)he may be... on the basis of which Luca elaborated on very eloquently. The PPI are not going to be a problem wtih 1600x1024 on a 17", I was in fact surprised when Apple announced such a low resolution. It appears Apple starts out machines and displays with annoyingly low resolutions and takes some coaxing to raise said resolutions, such as has been the case for plenty years with laptops. It's got to do with the competition as well: some 15" PC laptops have 1600x1200 resolutions and they're fine (sure, it's Windows, and yes, this isn't the default res the LCD Is made for, but it's plenty usable for those who really need the resolution!). It begs the question, Apple is making the best laptop in the world, why can't it be as flexible with the resolution?
  • Reply 15 of 24
    multimediamultimedia Posts: 1,035member
    [quote]Originally posted by kittylitterdesign:

    <strong>You only get 160 horizontal pixels more on that display, and 50 vertical pixels. It's a respectable jump, but not earth shattering. When the Ti DVIs went from 1152 pixles to 1284 pixels (horizontal), it was a slightly bigger leap in resolution, percentage wise. I think the 17" PB, like the Ti DVIs, will really hit its stride if the resolution gets bumped a year from now, to something like 1600x1024. Now **that** will be impressive, as opposed to merely respectable.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I'd take that a step further and say that full UXGA 1600 x 1200 is what the market really wants in a 16" 4:3 screen that is already all over the high end Wintel portable world.



    How many more years will it take for Apple to learn to follow good ideas as well as to come up with others? <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />



    [ 01-10-2003: Message edited by: Multimedia ]</p>
  • Reply 16 of 24
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    I dunno, I ordered the 12 and the PPI is fairly tight for my shitty eyes, but most of the time I'll be scrunche in close working on something, and at my desk I'll be plugged into my 17 anyway. I think Apple's resolution choices are fairly rational and am not inclined to complain about them so much.



    question: about the 16x12 wintelon books, how is 16x12 NOT their native res, either it s or ir isn't and everything else is scaled, or did I miss something?
  • Reply 17 of 24
    multimediamultimedia Posts: 1,035member
    [quote]Originally posted by Matsu:

    <strong>I dunno, I ordered the 12 and the PPI is fairly tight for my shitty eyes, but most of the time I'll be scrunche in close working on something, and at my desk I'll be plugged into my 17 anyway. I think Apple's resolution choices are fairly rational and am not inclined to complain about them so much.



    question: about the 16x12 wintelon books, how is 16x12 NOT their native res, either it s or ir isn't and everything else is scaled, or did I miss something?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    UXGA is native 1600 x 1200 and is available on a number of different brand Wintel laptops like Dell and Sony among many others.
  • Reply 18 of 24
    idaveidave Posts: 1,283member
    IMHO, 1024x1600 (112 ppi) would be a bit much for the 17" PowerBook unless system-wide font size adjustment is implemented in OS X. Sure, 112 ppi would be sharp and the desktop space would be great, but I think 900x1440 is about right, for now.
  • Reply 19 of 24
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    Think of it this way. You have control over the size of:



    The Dock

    Icon sizes

    Font sizes for labels

    Font size in a browser



    You don't have control of:

    Text in the menu bar

    Label text above icons in the dock



    On my iBook, with its high resolution screen, the menu bar text and the label text on the dock are both plenty large enough to be readable. 12 pt. text is about the smallest I can read comfortably on this display. At worst, you would just have to set your labels font size to 13 or 14 pt. instead of 12 pt., and you could make your icons a bit bigger if you find it necessary. And remember that browsers always have the ability to change text size too.



    As mentioned in an article (at lowendmac.com, I think) recently, it might be possible to use a different method of resolution scaling that would give access to many different resolutions while keeping quality essentially the same. I think it has something to do with Quick Draw and antialiasing the screen after magnification, instead of before. If anyone knows more about that, let me know.
  • Reply 20 of 24
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    [quote]Originally posted by bradbower:

    <strong>...some 15" PC laptops have 1600x1200 resolutions and they're fine (sure, it's Windows, and yes, this isn't the default res the LCD Is made for, but it's plenty usable for those who really need the resolution!)</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Sorry, I should have been clearer, I reponded to this, which didn't make sense to me, how is it not "the default res the LCD is made for?" It must be, the number of pixels is fixed.
Sign In or Register to comment.