What about 1680 x 1050 Pixel on 15.4" for new PowerBook

bnoyhtuawb · August 28, 2003 3:59PM

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)

Now that 1680x1050 display in a new 15.4 Powerbook would immediately trigger my buying reflex ... I guess even at 1Ghz G4 ...

Source for Dell spec:

http://www.dell.com/us/en/dhs/produc...inspn_8600.htm

murbot · August 28, 2003 4:00PM

I won't be buying until we have AT LEAST 2000 horizontal pixels. I absolutely need this for my work.

bnoyhtuawb · August 28, 2003 4:05PM

Quote:

Originally posted by murbot

I won't be buying until we have AT LEAST 2000 horizontal pixels. I absolutely need this for my work.

change jobs

ast3r3x · August 28, 2003 4:16PM

Quote:

Originally posted by murbot

I won't be buying until we have AT LEAST 2000 horizontal pixels. I absolutely need this for my work.

What do you do that you need 2000?

jll · August 28, 2003 4:19PM

I want QUXGA-W

taliesin · August 28, 2003 4:26PM

Quote:

Originally posted by murbot

I won't be buying until we have AT LEAST 2000 horizontal pixels. I absolutely need this for my work.

Will it come with a free microscope to read the goddamned text?

Why not really dream, how about 4000000000 horizontal pixels ? That way you can have the equivilent of a stadium diamond-vision in a 15.2 inch form factor. Sheesh

applenut · August 28, 2003 4:35PM

Quote:

Originally posted by taliesin

Will it come with a free microscope to read the goddamned text? Why not really dream, how about 4000000000 horizontal pixels ? That way you can have the equivilent of a stadium diamond-vision in a 15.2 inch form factor. Sheesh

so you dont think its possible apple could produce a resolution independant Mac OS X?

murbot · August 28, 2003 4:40PM

S A R C A S M

Look it up.

2000 horizontal pixels on a 15.4" display. Jesus christ.

1920 x 1200 on a 15.4 is stupid enough.

And there is no goddamned way Apple is going to stick a 1680x1050 resolution into a 15.4" display. If you want to dream about it because it's something you'd like, I guess that's one thing... but we all know the possiblity of this ACTUALLY happening anytime soon is something like NEVER%.

kane · August 28, 2003 5:04PM

Quote:

Originally posted by murbot

And there is no goddamned way Apple is going to stick a 1680x1050 resolution into a 15.4" display. If you want to dream about it because it's something you'd like, I guess that's one thing... but we all know the possiblity of this ACTUALLY happening anytime soon is something like NEVER%.

You sure are fast at calling your beliefs the truth. Don't presume to think you know what other people than yourself think or feel. I hope they uppen the resolution on the 15.4-inch display sometime in the near future. Why? Because I, and a lot of people with me; would like them to do so. Because it makes sence. 1280x865 is not enough pixels for such a relatively large display. Likewise 1440x900 on the 17-inch is also quite a few pixels short. 1440x900 would do alot better on the possible coming 15.4-inch than on the 17-inch. All this would then come bunded with a resolution independent Mac OS X.

murbot · August 28, 2003 5:14PM

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.

ryaxnb · August 28, 2003 5:19PM

Here's my optimum choices:

14": 1024x768 OR 1152x864

15.4": Exisisting res

17": 1500x1150

tht · August 28, 2003 5:25PM

Build-To-Order is our friend.

matsu · August 28, 2003 5:50PM

In response to the thread topic. NO FRIGGIN DOG DAMNED WAY!

A 15.4 could go to 1366x854 (if such a panel existed and the loss of those 54 vertical pixels really bothers you, or they could just stick with 3:2 if they aren't going to change anything else.) It ***might*** produce a tolerable 1440x900, given that it is a touch bigger and the res woul only be a little higher.

Perhaps the 17" could tolerate 1600x1024, but 1680 seems high even for that.

1680x1050, 1920x1200 on a 15.4" !!! Why these resolutions even exist is beyond me. They are unuseable given the current state of modern UI and web development, and it would be far better for panel makers to supply something saner at that size say 1366x854 or 1440x900.

If you can read those other crazy spec whore resolutions comfortably for extended periods of time, then perhaps you'd better serve society by watching the mexican border at night, or scrutinizing NASA parts bins, or perhaps as a last line of defence against radar/sonnar failure in the dead of night?

The military is looking for a few good men to replace Iraq casaulties.

agent302 · August 28, 2003 5:54PM

1280 x 854 IS the perfect screen resolution on a 15.2" widescreen monitor. People, be nice to your eyes.

murbot · August 28, 2003 5:54PM

THANK YOU MATSU.

*smooch*

*fondle*

matsu · August 28, 2003 6:35PM

Quote:

Originally posted by murbot

THANK YOU MATSU.

*smooch*

*fondle*

Somehow that's less threatening in light of recent threads!

agent302 · August 28, 2003 6:48PM

Hey Hey, I tried to help too....

recondite · August 28, 2003 7:19PM

why is it that mac users seem to be the only people who think that lower res is better? and that less options are better?.

I am one of the many people who think the powerbooks could use an resolution upgrade. The dell that im using currently has a 1600 by 1200 display, its 15 inch... and its more than 3 years old. If you are the type of person who thinks that too much resolution is not a good thing stop and think what the powerbook is aimed towards. Anything to do with media weather it be photoshop or fcp could definiatly use the extra resolution. Expecialy photoshop.

The squinting bs is getting kinda old, buy glasses or something.

But regardless of the resolution il still be buying the new 15inch, cause its other features definatly make up for the screen dpi, which in my opinion is one of its only shortcomings

airsluf · August 28, 2003 8:02PM

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.

shetline · August 28, 2003 8:08PM

Quote:

Originally posted by recondite

The squinting bs is getting kinda old, buy glasses or something.

Or more precisely, the squinting BS is from getting kinda old.

But seriously... I seem to amaze a lot of my coworkers simply by running a 20" monitor (19" viewable) at a "mere" 1600x1200, which means a pixel density of about 105 pixels per inch (ppi).

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.

My sister has a PC laptop with a 15.x" 1600x1200 display (~130 ppi). She runs it at 1024x768 (about 84 fuzzy pseudo pixels per inch), with all of the system fonts magnified. If it weren't for marketing via bigger-must-be-better specmanship, she'd probably have a crisper, brighter 1024x768 native resolution display.

Don't think extra pixels don't come at a cost in quality: because of the way LCD works, the more pixels you cram into a display, the dimmer it gets and the worse the contrast, because the conductors running between the pixels don't shrink as much as the pixels do. You end up with a higher percentage of your display being devoted to the gridwork in between the pixels at the cost of the area available for the pixels themselves.

A 15.4" display at 1920x1200 will only bring bragging rights, but little tangible benefit, for most users. Directly using the native resolution of 147 ppi, it's too squinty and small for the great majority of users. If you're looking forward to the brave new world of resolution-independent graphics, however, 147 ppi isn't enough resolution to do that well. Most users will end up using a fuzzed-out lower non-native resolution, and/or magnifying all fonts so that text and bit-mapped graphics are out of proper proportion to each other, all on a display that isn't as bright, crisp, and well-contrasted as it could have been had the native resolution been something closer to the more sensible 90-110 ppi range.

pscates · August 28, 2003 9:31PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Matsu [BIf you can read those other crazy spec whore resolutions comfortably...[/B]

My current favorite phrase, spec whore, seems to be making the rounds! I coined a new term! All kneel, for I am The Namer.

What about 1680 x 1050 Pixel on 15.4" for new PowerBook

Comments