Screen resolution of 17 inch PowerBook
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>
MOD EDIT - sorry kitty, the "screen reson" was getting to me... had to fix your spelling.
[ 01-09-2003: Message edited by: murbot ]</p>
Comments
Just wondering.
Economies of scale have clearly caused the re-use of the iMac LCD in the PB.
<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.
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.
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
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>
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.
<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>
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.
That is really useful information, and a point I have long wondered about. You help people ! !
Thanks ! ! ! !
Sincerely,
Dr. Ledgard
<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>
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>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.
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.
<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.