Apple LCD resolutions
Arrrgggh!
Apple really needs to do something about its LCD screen resolutions. The only LCD screen that's feng shui (as far as all the LCDs are concerned) is the iBook's 12.1" 1024x768 or 106 DPI. Everything else simply doesn't have enough pixels.
The iMac's 15.1" LCD and the 15.1" Apple Studio display both are at 1024x768. They are a full 3" bigger than the iBook yet have the same resolution. If the iMac had the same DPI as the iBook screen, it'll have 1280x960 screen resolution, which would make it even more attractive. Arggh. Same thing the ASD.
Apple could just use the same DPI from the iBook for all of its LCDs and have (give or take):
14.1" iBook would have a 1200x900 resolution.
15.1" iMac/ASD would have 1280x960 resolution.
15.2" Powerbook would have a 1340x900 resolution.
17.0" ASD would have a 1400x1120 resolution.
22" ACD would have a 1980x1240 resolution.
This is such an old complaint too. I will say I would love to get the new iMac if I wasn't spending $2.5K on something else. Maybe the Summer. My iBook will just have to satisfy me for now. It would just be nice to play AOE2 at a higher resolution...
Apple really needs to do something about its LCD screen resolutions. The only LCD screen that's feng shui (as far as all the LCDs are concerned) is the iBook's 12.1" 1024x768 or 106 DPI. Everything else simply doesn't have enough pixels.
The iMac's 15.1" LCD and the 15.1" Apple Studio display both are at 1024x768. They are a full 3" bigger than the iBook yet have the same resolution. If the iMac had the same DPI as the iBook screen, it'll have 1280x960 screen resolution, which would make it even more attractive. Arggh. Same thing the ASD.
Apple could just use the same DPI from the iBook for all of its LCDs and have (give or take):
14.1" iBook would have a 1200x900 resolution.
15.1" iMac/ASD would have 1280x960 resolution.
15.2" Powerbook would have a 1340x900 resolution.
17.0" ASD would have a 1400x1120 resolution.
22" ACD would have a 1980x1240 resolution.
This is such an old complaint too. I will say I would love to get the new iMac if I wasn't spending $2.5K on something else. Maybe the Summer. My iBook will just have to satisfy me for now. It would just be nice to play AOE2 at a higher resolution...
Comments
<strong>Arrrgggh!
Apple really needs to do something about its LCD screen resolutions. The only LCD screen that's feng shui (as far as all the LCDs are concerned) is the iBook's 12.1" 1024x768 or 106 DPI. Everything else simply doesn't have enough pixels.
The iMac's 15.1" LCD and the 15.1" Apple Studio display both are at 1024x768. They are a full 3" bigger than the iBook yet have the same resolution. If the iMac had the same DPI as the iBook screen, it'll have 1280x960 screen resolution, which would make it even more attractive. Arggh. Same thing the ASD.
Apple could just use the same DPI from the iBook for all of its LCDs and have (give or take):
14.1" iBook would have a 1200x900 resolution.
15.1" iMac/ASD would have 1280x960 resolution.
15.2" Powerbook would have a 1340x900 resolution.
17.0" ASD would have a 1400x1120 resolution.
22" ACD would have a 1980x1240 resolution.
This is such an old complaint too. I will say I would love to get the new iMac if I wasn't spending $2.5K on something else. Maybe the Summer. My iBook will just have to satisfy me for now. It would just be nice to play AOE2 at a higher resolution...</strong><hr></blockquote>
hmmm... i dunno, i think it might b a struggle for some, looking at a 106dpi display from 9-5 every day of the week to do pixel perfect design (well, for me it would anyway). But still, interesting points. Maybe Apple can't get hold of displays at that size with the resolutions u r quoting. The 12" iBook seems to be a special case.
Most people are nearsighted, especially older people. Text looks too small on the 12" iBook's screen to be comfortable. In fact, that's the first thing my mom said when she first peered at her new iBook's screen - followed by "I'll get used to it."
I work with people who run 17" CRTs at 800x600. It's sad, but true.
<strong>I work with people who run 17" CRTs at 800x600. It's sad, but true.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I work with people who run 19" CRTs at 800x600.
He saw it and yelled at me for making the change, then promptly switched it back.
PC users...
but yeah i think that apple could boost the resolution on some of its products, but i think for a consumer machine 1024x768 is fine. Also many consumers are older people (grandparents, etc) and they often have very poor eye site.
I run my iMac at 1024x768, but i'm young with good eyes, not everyone is as lucky.
Most people are nearsighted, especially older people. Text looks too small on the 12" iBook's screen to be comfortable. In fact, that's the first thing my mom said when she first peered at her new iBook's screen - followed by "I'll get used to it."
I work with people who run 17" CRTs at 800x600. It's sad, but true.</strong>
No need to explain it Amorph. I fully realize the sorts of reasons for not using certain DPI screens. It was just my rant. I rarely if ever do so, but what the hay...
Nearsightedness is being able to see objects clearly when they are close to you. When people get older, they'll tend to get farsighted (ie, lose their nearsightedness) and have to get reading glasses. For those who are both, they have to get bifocals.
The great advantage LCDs have over CRTs is the perfect sharpness. My experience tells me that a slightly fuzzy CRT is worse than smaller but perfectly sharp text. So, in some aspects, I don't think it would be that bad.
<strong>Originally posted by Composer:
'splain how feng shui relates to pixels and monitors. Really, I'm curious.</strong>
I hijacked the term for my usage so it doesn't have to really relate, just get the idea across. But I can give it a try from a manufacturing and marketing viewpoint.
Apple has a variety of LCD screen sizes and sells them at certain price points. By using the same DPI screen, Apple can order LCD screens in even more bulk from its contractor, it reduces the cost of the production since the LCD contractor just will produce an LCD of the same DPI but difference sizes screens (instead of multiple DPIs and screens), since these screens are cheaper due to increase bulk and production, Apple can reduce prices over its entire LCD product lines, and since increased screen size means increased resolution, Apple has a resonant marketing effect with the "more is better for less" computer market psychology. A balanced, elegant, and appropriate operation for Apple. Feng Shui.
As far as the mystical aspects of feng shui, I don't really subscribe to it, so I wouldn't be able to really explain it anyways.
This UI feature would zoom the entire screen and all its contents, somewhat like the zoom feature in a variety of applications.
SdC
<strong>
No need to explain it Amorph. I fully realize the sorts of reasons for not using certain DPI screens. It was just my rant. I rarely if ever do so, but what the hay...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah, that must have been what threw me off.
[quote]<strong>Nearsightedness is being able to see objects clearly when they are close to you. When people get older, they'll tend to get farsighted (ie, lose their nearsightedness) and have to get reading glasses. For those who are both, they have to get bifocals.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's more like the THT I know and love.
[quote]<strong>Apple has a variety of LCD screen sizes and sells them at certain price points. By using the same DPI screen, Apple can order LCD screens in even more bulk from its contractor, it reduces the cost of the production since the LCD contractor just will produce an LCD of the same DPI but difference sizes screens (instead of multiple DPIs and screens), since these screens are cheaper due to increase bulk and production, Apple can reduce prices over its entire LCD product lines, and since increased screen size means increased resolution, Apple has a resonant marketing effect with the "more is better for less" computer market psychology. A balanced, elegant, and appropriate operation for Apple. Feng Shui.</strong><hr></blockquote>
True, I suppose - I don't really know how LCD manufacturing works except that the screens are cut from big sheets of glass, and higher resolution screens are more expensive to create.
There are also WYSIWYG benefits to having identical resolutions (pixel sizes) on all shipping displays. In fact, it occurs to me that Apple has come pretty close to that ideal, except for that one iBook model - which screams "compromise." Interesting that you would pick that one to standardize on.
[edit: removed stray text from the quotes]
[ 01-09-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
I'm one of those people who can stand seemingly absurd resolutions. I'm thinking about buying the NEC FE700M so I can crank it up to 1600 x 1200 at 75Hz. That's a 17" monitor too.
True, I suppose - I don't really know how LCD manufacturing works except that the screens are cut from big sheets of glass, and higher resolution screens are more expensive to create.</strong>
More expensive yes, but Apple would be standardizing on one sheet of LCD glass (since the different sizes would simply be cut from the same glass), and so the cost increases for a higher DPI are nullified. All of the LCD product lines should benefit if they standardize on one contractor and DPI, if I understand LCD manufacturing correctly (which includes yield percentages and such).
However, I do think there are probably some issues with increased backlighting requirements and decreased viewing angles for higher DPI screens. Not positive though.
<strong>There are also WYSIWYG benefits to having identical resolutions (pixel sizes) on all shipping displays. In fact, it occurs to me that Apple has come pretty close to that ideal, except for that one iBook model - which screams "compromise." Interesting that you would pick that one to standardize on.
</strong>
The higher the better. It won't be great until we can see things on a monitor like it is on a piece of paper.
The issue of legibility is a UI issue - not a hardware one - that Apple should be able to solve with Quartz (once all the apps move to Quartz and QuickDraw is retired). It's as simple as the magnification on the Dock. In fact, it is one that Apple is required to solve because flat panel DPI will only increase in the future. Something in the 300 range would be fantastic.