# Apple laptop displays



## DJ Rep (Sep 13, 2004)

Is it just me or does the so called "industry leading" laptop displays suck! I am sitting here typing this on a 15" Powerbook current TOTR but I only get a native resolution of 1280 x 854 now lets be honest compared to other wintel laptop displays this is pants! I mean alienware have just brought out a laptop with a display of only 16.1" that has a native res of 1600 x 1200! thats a huge difference in pixels but not a huge difference in display size (just over 1 inch) now from what I understand apple use TFT XGA displays in their laptops and their flat panel displays, whereas the higher resolution display wintel laptops use UXGA, is that the reason for the higher pixel count? I love apple laptops, I really do but one thing that has always bugged me and I am sure others is the displays I wish apple would live up to their claims of "rejecting the panels that other companys except" well this maybe true but the wrong way around! The powerbook is due for an upgrade soon an I hope beyond all hope that apple get inline with the rest of the industry and release a 17" with 1920 x 1200 or something allong those lines to get with the likes of sony and release a 1600 x 1000 (widescreen) or nearest for the 15".


----------



## Randman (Sep 13, 2004)

Have to disagree with you. The screen on my 17 is perfect.


----------



## soulseek (Sep 13, 2004)

it is a fact that wintel laptops do have better resolution screens on laptops.
what i am wondering (as a non-expert) is if resolution plays such an important role in screen quality.. ??

does a 1600*1200 screen quality mean its better than my 12inch powerbook display ? im not so sure.

for example, if i compare My screen with my dads 15inch Ti powerbook screen (of higher resolution) id say mine looks much much better, and thats what i care bout since this is my LAPTOP, and not my desktop machine...


ill be waiting for answers..


----------



## Viro (Sep 13, 2004)

Take a look at the new Sony VAIO laptops. Their LCD screens are *gorgeous*. Much brighter and clearer than any other laptop TFT on the market. Hope Apple incorporates those soon into their laptops.

Higher resolution doesn't necessarily mean a better screen. It just means that you get more screen real estate. While that is nice, I don't see that as being very important. 1024x768 suits me just fine. I do agree that 1400x1050 and above resolutions on laptops are a nice touch though.


----------



## DJ Rep (Sep 13, 2004)

Yes I know that a higher res is just for more screen real estate and thats what I would like, you know when you have like 4 to safari windows open and you expose them, but without the blur - that would be cool! Anyway the powerbook cycle is soon so hopefully they might up their displays a bit as it has been a while since they have


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Sep 13, 2004)

actually higher resolution means less transparency for the TFT. Either this gets compensated with a brighter lamp that will suck more energy (deadly for a mobile device) or the screen remains darker. I find 1280x854 for a 15.2'' more than enough and I think the over-resoluted screens are useless.
Also: imagine the menu on a 15.2'' screen and 1900x???. I don't want to bend down to the screen to see what's the time..


----------



## DJ Rep (Sep 13, 2004)

@ soulseek yes I can see your point of view but if you don't have a desktop system and your kick ass powerbook could be used as a replacement you may want the higher resolutions


----------



## Randman (Sep 13, 2004)

I don't have a desktop at home and my 17 does kick ass and I'm happy with its resolution.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Sep 13, 2004)

I have thought this for the last couple of years. I love my Powerbook G4 15" 1.25ghz, but the display is the weakest part of the machine. All of Apple's laptops displays look washed out compared to the sharpness of some of the Wintel competitors. Part of it is OS X. Quartz uses a great deal of anti-aliasing, which makes images on the display look a little flatter. Windows is still using a bitmapped display engine, and as a result, much of the stuff looks sharper.

But it goes deeper than that. I was walking through Fry's last week looking at the Wintel laptops, and several of the newer models with the "XBrite" technology looked amazing. The display looked incredibly vibrant and almost glass like. It really put the display on the Macs to shame - especially the iBooks. 

I love my Mac, but Apple really needs to see what is currently being offered on the other side and get with the program.


----------



## texanpenguin (Sep 13, 2004)

The problem with such a high res at a consumer level is that people can't USE them, and LCD screens scale horribly. Windows allows you to make everything bigger (screen fonts, screen elements etc), whereas Mac OS X doesn't. Dell tries to sell people the WUXGA resolutions and tells them to turn on Large Screen Fonts in Windows Display Properties, for clarity. You can't do that on OS X.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love a higher resolution on my PowerBook, but there's no middle-ground on OSX. I use my PowerBook at home with a 17" CRT monitor running 1600x1200px spanned onto my PowerBook, so it's maximum screen real-estate... and my screen looks way nicer than my friend's high-res Dell, in brightness and clarity, plus its Colour Calibration is PERFECT in OS X.


----------



## Veljo (Sep 13, 2004)

I also think that the screens are nice. I think that the G5 Powerbook will be something to remember, so I wouldn't disregard anything Apple has on the cards yet


----------



## diablojota (Sep 13, 2004)

Well, i just have to say my 12" iBook display is far brighter, and much superior to my 15" Fushitsu-Siemens C-series Lifebook.  My iBook is also much older.  Plus, I can actually see at angles on the iBook, whereas on my Fujitsu, I can't get more than a 25° angle without losing the crispness and coloration.


----------



## soulseek (Sep 13, 2004)

that is something i forgot  mentionin about screens. viewing angles..

i must say my powerbook is extremely good when viewing from the side or top...
i dont know exact angles but its quite impressive..

and somethin also as important is battery consumption 
noone has actual facts. but i know that my battery lasts quite a bit in comparison to all my friends laptops


----------



## Viro (Sep 13, 2004)

Agreed. Powerbook and iBook battery life tends to be very good in general. Only the Centrinos in the Wintel world can come close to the iBook and Powerbooks in terms of battery life. 

My Powerbook lasts about 3 hours when doing CPU intensive tasks. Not too shabby. I've seen an Athlon64 laptop that barely lasted over an hour when I used it the way I use my Powerbook


----------



## hulkaros (Sep 13, 2004)

Apple laptop displays DO NOT suck!


----------



## fuzz (Sep 13, 2004)

i have a dell m60 and a 15" Al Powerbook.  I'm used to the screen on my powerbook at 1280 x 854 so I thought 1900 x 1200 on my Dell was just too many pixels crammed in a 15" display.  My eyes strain when using it b/c everything's so small.  And it doesn't look right when I've it on any other resolution (ie, 1200 by xxx).  The only reason I got it was for industrial design projects.  I hardly use it anymore.  Anyone interested in buying it?


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Sep 13, 2004)

hulkaros said:
			
		

> Apple laptop displays DO NOT suck!



I have to agree with that.  While Apple's portable LCD displays do not offer the highest resolution, nor do they offer the brightest displays (both which suck battery life like you wouldn't believe as they go up), they most definitely do not suck.  They are of extremely high quality and suit most laptop users beyond their needs.

Suck is an extremely strong word, and I think it's been used incorrectly in this thread.  Perhaps if the thread started off something like, "I think my Apple laptop's screen could use some improvement," it would be better received.  Not trying to "flower" things up or anything, it's just that Apple's laptop screens don't suck.


----------



## adambyte (Sep 13, 2004)

Yeah. I am fine with my PowerBook's resolution... what's more important is the brightness, sharpness, and overall quality... which are all the exact opposite of sucky.


----------



## jeb1138 (Sep 13, 2004)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> Suck is an extremely strong word



lol


----------



## DanTekGeek (Sep 13, 2004)

if im not mistaken, mac displays are just the same as equivilent wintel displays. iirc, powerbook have an sxga display, just like an equivilent thinkpad.


----------



## jimbo61 (Sep 13, 2004)

powerbook G5's are coming!!!, then wintel well have to play catch up once again, also apple will have the first 64bit laptop which will make a huge impact


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Sep 13, 2004)

powerbook G5's are coming? Where? To me? And from where? And what does it have to do with the current screens?


----------



## DanTekGeek (Sep 13, 2004)

we know they are coming eventually, but we know it will be quite a while.


----------



## Lycander (Sep 13, 2004)

Haven't we been here already? I already told everyone that Apple will not be the first to deliver a 64-bit CPU in a laptop. AMD64's have been in laptops for some time now, and no they're not wicked expensive they're in the $1500+ range. And before that, SPARC chips were in laptops as well. These are really special purpose and expensive, so you don't see them sold to the consumer market.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Sep 13, 2004)

slightly slipping off topic


----------



## DJ Rep (Sep 13, 2004)

well maybe I was wrong to say they suck as such but I was just suddenly dissapointed when I read about the alienware offering such higher resolutions
Sorry for the maybe accepted flamebait
I mean I do like my laptop screen but just a higher resolution would suit _me_ maybe not you but thats just my opinion, what I would love is if apple stocked multiple flat panels with different resolutions but all at the same size and as a BTO option you could have the "super" screen with say 1600 x 1000 for 15" widescreen and "ultra" with 1900 x 1200 maybe charging an extra $100 USD for the 1st option and 200 for the second.
What do you think?


----------



## Lycander (Sep 13, 2004)

Bare in mind that putting higher quality LCD panels in Mac notebooks will mean:

1) high prices
2) further limiting availability

#1 is something we've been acustomed to, but I don't think people will appreciate delays in shipping these systems.


----------



## dflett (Sep 13, 2004)

I think having the multiple options is a good idea - let's the consumer decide what's best for them. That is what Dell used to do a few years ago when I had to buy Wintel laptops - you choose 1024x768 up to 1400x1050 on the same model laptop.

Personally I prefer a higher resolution over more physical area for coding.


----------



## Lycander (Sep 13, 2004)

dflett said:
			
		

> I think having the multiple options is a good idea - let's the consumer decide what's best for them. That is what Dell used to do a few years ago when I had to buy Wintel laptops - you choose 1024x768 up to 1400x1050 on the same model laptop.
> 
> Personally I prefer a higher resolution over more physical area for coding.


The native resolution of an LCD screen is it's maximum resolution. Those Dell laptops you mentioned have screens that are capable of res. that high, the original complaint is why Apple doesn't use LCD displays that can go that high.

Furthermore, I think another common complaint is that text rendering isn't very customizable. In most other OSes, the user can change font family and size of any text that shows up on the screen - provided that it's real text and not a flat image. And I'm also a little annoyed by the differences in font rendering between Carbon and Cocoa programs. Cocoa programs render text far better than certain Carbon apps, and I'm basing my judgement on Jaguar and backwards, haven't tried Panther yet.


----------



## dflett (Sep 13, 2004)

The Dell laptop I was talking about (the 7500) could be ordered with different screens. If you like hi res 15 inch then you could order 1400x1050 as the native resolution and if you preferred bigger pixels you could order a 15 inch screen with 1024x768 native resolution (and get a slight reduction in price.) At least that offered the consumer choice which is a good thing in my book - and Dell must have sold enough of each option to make it viable for them. 

The argument about OS not being prepared for ultra hi-res screens is a valid one though. They will all have to change soon because very high res screens are already with us - IBM has a 21 (24?) inch TFT screen with a horizontal resolution of around 6000 pixels IIRC. Currently it is less that usuable because the Windows start bar is only a couple of mm high on it!!! And it was $10000 last time I looked.

But back to the thread - I would very much like to see the option on the next generation of PowerBooks of a ordering a higher resolution screen than 'standard'.


----------



## soulseek (Sep 13, 2004)

macs are all about making it simple for the consumer...

as my maths teacher said today, 'i dont see the reason why i have to use a PC when macs are so much simpler'

apple will not start offering a laptop with 2 diff. resolution screens.

if u want that u can go buy and AMD64 laptop and put whatever u want on it... but OOPS, i forgot, thats not a laptop because once u take it off the power plug then the battery life is sucked out as if theres a black hole around


----------



## fryke (Sep 13, 2004)

As a graphics professional, I'd have to say there's no middle ground. My 15" PB's screen resolution is about perfect. If we had a freely scalable UI in Mac OS X (coming partially in Tiger and probably fully in later OS releases), I'd be all for 300 dpi displays, but we haven't. I've got enough screen real estate with 1280x854 on my PB. If I wanted more pixels, I'd also want the display to be bigger. Unless we're talking 300 dpi, and not like currently with some PC notebooks, 120 or 140 dpi.


----------



## Will_Richo (Sep 13, 2004)

hulkaros said:
			
		

> Apple laptop displays DO NOT suck!



I agree! I have used Windoze for 11 years, and have had lots of laptops and base stations, thought that my tft screen on my p4 was good, until i got the 15 powerbook, could not believe how good the screen was/is.

1280 x 854 I love it


----------



## DJ Rep (Sep 14, 2004)

Well I suppose I have not had a lot of expreience with so called inferior displays. Maybe your right that it wouldn't be practicle to have a higher DPI at present due to the graphics unscalablity of the OS so prehaps when we have OS 10.6 ot .7 THEN prehaps we will see options in terms of native resolutions.
@Soulseek be nice theres no need to suddenly spout off about AMD64 and be all sarcastic, just trying to have a nice thread, oh and btw if apple released OS X for AMD64 I think I would have bought that instead


----------



## blue&whiteman (Sep 14, 2004)

my ibook 12" screen is great.  very crisp with great color considering it only does 1024x768.


----------



## hulkaros (Sep 14, 2004)

@DJ Rep:
Care to let us know what's unscalable on OS X? Are you sure you even know what you are talking about? You should better read here  http://www.macosx.com/forums/showpost.php?p=327930&postcount=43 and then let us know what exactly do you mean by "unscalability" of OS X?


----------



## Lycander (Sep 14, 2004)

hulkaros said:
			
		

> @DJ Rep:
> Care to let us know what's unscalable on OS X? Are you sure you even know what you are talking about? You should better read here  http://www.macosx.com/forums/showpost.php?p=327930&postcount=43 and then let us know what exactly do you mean by "unscalability" of OS X?


I'm not speaking on behalf of DJ Rep, he might have a different opinion, but this is mine. I'm not refuting the technological capabilities of the rendering engine of OSX. What I am *complaining* about is the fact that I can't change the size of text seen on the screen. Take for example: a pop-up dialog box displaying a system notification message ("Ding! Fries are done!") To my knowledge there is no way to change the size of that text in the dialog box. I can not make it bigger or smaller. If I compare that rendered text on a 12" iBook screen versus a 14" iBook screen - they both are set to 1024x768 resolution by default - the text on the 14" screen will look "physically" bigger. So when you're dealing with a physically smaller display area at the same resolution, it doesn't scale well meaning the objects you see in the screen are just physically smaller. That's a no-brainer. But again, the complaint is that we can not make text bigger when the visible area is physically smaller. Text is arguably more important that it be easily readable, whereas with shapes and colors our eyes can easily recognize.

Now lets examine web browsers. If the text on a website is too small to read, we can press a few keys to enlarge the text size, and that effects all text on the webpage, unless the CSS blocks it somehow, and obviously static images of words will not change. This is what I want to be able to do with any other normal text shown in the OSX UI. I want to be able to make the icon labels bigger, I want to make text in dialog boxes bigger. As of right now, the only time we can change fonts and size, is in an editable textbox. I want to change the settings on non-editable controls. That's how I feel the OSX UI is lacking, and "doesn't scale well." If the technology to do so is in place, then what's missing is the panel in Sys Prefs to change it.


----------



## btoth (Sep 14, 2004)

Before I bought my 15" PowerBook I bought a nice Gateway Centrino with the 15" 1400x1050.  At first I thought that was the sharpest display I'd ever seen... everything looked so bright and crisp.  After the first week of owning it though, I found that the contrast sucked... yeah, the screen was bright but shades of the same color next to each other looked washed out.  Also, after that week of using it a lot, I realized that it was giving me eye-strain and headaches from reading the tiny print. 1400x1050 was just way to high for a small 15" laptop display.  Of course, turning down the res to even 1280x1024 was bad and was way to fuzzy for serious work.  I ended up returning it at lost $200 on the restocking fee.

Even on most desktop LCDs... the native resolution for a 15" is 1024x768.  17" are usually 1280x1024 and 19" are when you get into the 1600x1200 (for good displays).  Trying to make a small screen have the same resolution as a much bigger screen seems like a gimmick to me.  

Months later I looked at the PowerBooks and found that the screen resolution was just perfect for daily reading and work.  Now, the icons could be spaced a bit closer together to save some screen space, but otherwise it's a good resolution.  Plus, with the Apple's 72dpi instead of the 96dpi of the PC, I think that helped too. 

Two things I dislike about my Apple display though... I can't use it outside (where I could use the Gateway outside) and the dead pixels drive me crazy.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Sep 14, 2004)

btoth said:
			
		

> Now, the icons could be spaced a bit closer together to save some screen space, but otherwise it's a good resolution.



Which, I might add, has nothing to do with the display or the screen itself -- rather, the software that the machine is running.

Also, how many dead pixels do you have, and have you tried to fix them yourself (via the "gentle rubbing" method)?


----------



## Lycander (Sep 14, 2004)

btoth said:
			
		

> Plus, with the Apple's 72dpi instead of the 96dpi of the PC, I think that helped too.


You do realize you could have adjusted that and turned it down to 72. But you're happy now and that's what matters.


----------



## DJ Rep (Sep 14, 2004)

@Lycander thats exactly what I meant as with the text size, its been a while since I used XP but AFAIR you can do the same in GUI properties or something. now what would be ultra cool if, like is safari where you can just click bigger text size if you could do that in a preferences somewhere, or even apply it system wide to pictures as well then you could have scalable web pages.
@Hulk no I don't really no what I am talking about I'm just a 9 year old kid


----------



## hulkaros (Sep 14, 2004)

@Lycander:
If changing text in OS X is THAT important to you then you can afford spending $10 on this:
http://www.unsanity.com/haxies/silk 

@DJ Rep:
That explains it all


----------



## DJ Rep (Sep 14, 2004)

Lol I was joking I am actually 16 but I still don't know much, I've only owned macs for about 4 months I was all on linux before that


----------



## hulkaros (Sep 14, 2004)

:rotfl:

:thumbsup: Keep it up! :thumbsup:


----------



## soulseek (Sep 14, 2004)

DJ Rep said:
			
		

> @Hulk no I don't really no what I am talking about I'm just a 9 year old kid



it seems you are... you dont even know how to spell yet


----------



## Lycander (Sep 14, 2004)

hulkaros said:
			
		

> @Lycander:
> If changing text in OS X is THAT important to you then you can afford spending $10 on this:
> http://www.unsanity.com/haxies/silk


That only affects Carbon apps, what about the rest of the system?


----------



## DJ Rep (Sep 14, 2004)

@soulseek
lol oh yer oops I was in a hurry it was time for my nappy change soon


----------



## texanpenguin (Sep 14, 2004)

As I said, Dell tries to convince people to get the highest resolution display you can buy for their laptops, and then to turn all the font sizes up in Windows, and in Internet Explorer.

It's so that most people can't see the lack of anti-aliasing Windows XP has on its window edges et-cetera, and so the whole interface looks more crisp, in the same way a printed image at 1200DPI looks better than 200DPI.

I mean, it's perfectly reasonable. I would like Apple to give us that kind of control over the elements of the display. Or at very least, just a simple command that turns all the screen fonts up.

I run 1600x1200 DPI on a 17" CRT, and that's MINISCULE, but it gives me enough screen space to do what I need to do (A3 compositions most of the time)


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Sep 15, 2004)

To my opinion the pc world is trying to attract (?fool?) their customers with numbers. bla bla bla Ghz, bla bla bla GB, bla bla bla resolution...
And what do we know about those numbers? They don't mean much if not even a thing..


----------



## hulkaros (Sep 15, 2004)

@Zammy-Sam:
100% true! :thumbsup:

@Lycander:
You probably didn't even try Silk and you just like to argue... Well, in any case and just for the people here to learn the truth about the AWESOME shareware app ( but with the price of donationware  ) Silk, just study the following pictures!


----------



## Lycander (Sep 15, 2004)

hulkaros said:
			
		

> @Lycander:
> You probably didn't even try Silk and you just like to argue...


How could I? I just got my iBook last night! Programmers have to sleep to ya know!


@Zammy-Sam:
Apple sales people do the same thing, the guy who sold my last iMac kept telling me it's 4 times faster than a Pentium 4. Ya, ok buddy.

No seriously, with Apple computers it's easier to show people what you can do and how fun/easy it is to do it. PC buyers... well we're bean counters so we like numbers anyways.

Crap now I'm developing multiple personality disorder.


----------



## hulkaros (Sep 15, 2004)

Lycander said:
			
		

> How could I? I just got my iBook last night! Programmers have to sleep to ya know!



Feeling tired certainly didn't stop you from "flying" unfounded words on your computer about products that you didn't even try 

Or this "got to sleep" is permanent in your case?


----------



## Lycander (Sep 15, 2004)

Sleep is the only way I could dream about you Hulky Wulky  So sleep is a necessity.

I've been playing around with my iBook for a few hours now, including last night. See all the sights and surfed with various browsers. Not sure if something has changed with the font rendering, or maybe it's simply just because I have a bigger LCD screen now... what I'm saying is everything looks fine now, I don't think I'll be needing Silk.


----------



## hulkaros (Sep 15, 2004)

he he... That's nice to know! You are liking the display that is


----------



## fryke (Sep 15, 2004)

Even Silk does not make Mac OS X' UI scalable. That'll _really_ only come with 10.5 or later, since Tiger only serves developers with an API for it for use in applications, it's not system-wide (yet).

This _will_ eventually lead to what we all want: Fully scalable UI. But that's _really_ only important if we're talking 200 dpi screens and up. Right now, Apple gives us more or less similarly DPI'd screens.

And hulkaros: Please don't bash just anyone who says something bad about the Mac or Mac OS X, because sometimes they're right.

Certainly, Quartz and Quartz Extreme _would_ offer such capabilities, but the OS doesn't to the user, and that's what counts for a user who wants the capability. Because when a user asks, where he can tell the system he's using a 180 DPI screen and he or she wants the system to adapt to it: There's _no_ such setting anywhere in Mac OS X.


----------



## soulseek (Sep 15, 2004)

Lycander said:
			
		

> How could I? I just got my iBook last night! Programmers have to sleep to ya know!
> 
> 
> @Zammy-Sam:
> ...



Where did u buy ur mac from ??? 
cause here in sweden, if u go to any apple reseller ull get a diff. experience.

ull find that the employees use hands on demonstration to sell u macs instead of giving u numbers. in any of the mac stores here ive entered i allways see them demonstrating final cut or garageband . the other day they had a usb pianokeyboard connected to a g5 and where demonstrating garageband.

in general, they really dont use numbers, they just SHow u how everything works so fast and simply !. cause its a mac  
and im sure Apple sale ppl in Authentic Apple Stores in the US are even better trained for such purposes


----------



## soulseek (Sep 15, 2004)

fryke said:
			
		

> And hulkaros: Please don't bash just anyone who says something bad about the Mac or Mac OS X, because sometimes they're right.



its perfectly logical that any OS cannot be perfect!!! different individuals have different needs. 

its just that the Mac (in my opinion) gives the mass an easier, more fun and productive computer experience.
if i wanna make my life difficult by using an OS which may offer more options in some areas ill install linux.
if i wanna waste my time cause my life sucks and ive got nothing to do, ill buy windows, ill have pleanty to do then just even upon installation!...


its certainly important that ppl Discuss and even report to apple their ideas.


what i dont like is the attitude that some ppl have when theyre not satisfied with the mac.

this is a mac forum, and ppl should be enthusiastic about the mac (pretty hard to see nowadays)

if u dont find urself enthusiastic about the mac, maybe fryke and others can make a group and go check out longhorn keynotes (theres something theyll be enthusiastic about)

or maybe u can try One More Thing


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Sep 15, 2004)

Lycander said:
			
		

> Apple sales people do the same thing, the guy who sold my last iMac kept telling me it's 4 times faster than a Pentium 4. Ya, ok buddy.


This is the tactic for switchers. If you want to get understood by ppl in the pc world, you have to talk their language.


----------



## fryke (Sep 15, 2004)

hey soulseek, grab a chair and read what I wrote and you _quoted_ before trying to call me names (longhorn-keynote watcher? where do you take _that_ from?). have I done something to make you think I'm a Windows person? if you have read my posts here on macosx.com - and i've been here quite a while, so it _might_ have happened - you know i'm a Mac person through and through. Heck, even my signature could give you a clue about it. Or are you just making fun of me? Well: Don't, please, because I don't like it one bit.


----------



## hulkaros (Sep 16, 2004)

fryke said:
			
		

> Even Silk does not make Mac OS X' UI scalable. That'll _really_ only come with 10.5 or later, since Tiger only serves developers with an API for it for use in applications, it's not system-wide (yet).
> 
> This _will_ eventually lead to what we all want: Fully scalable UI. But that's _really_ only important if we're talking 200 dpi screens and up. Right now, Apple gives us more or less similarly DPI'd screens.
> 
> ...



Hi there FrykeMan 

I pointed out Silk because people complaining that they cannot change the text of OS X GUI and NOT because of DPI or this and that 

I also pointed out this link http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/quartzextreme/ because there it clearly says that OS X *IS* "device-independent and resolution-independent rendering of anti-aliased text, bitmap images and vector graphics". I think that Apple knows better than anyone else here about their product 

As for DPI options, this and that, can you point to me where exactly at Windows can I enable anything different (with the built-in functions of that OS of course) than 72/96 DPI?

Also, where exactly is that mainstream usage of computer screens that utilize anything above >=150 DPI in order for Panther to had that in mind 2 years ago when it was in development? Now, that the market starts to offer 100-140 DPI monitors, Apple will offer Tiger... Developers will start to get it and then in a mature and organised way in 10.5 they will offer what you are talking about. So, where exactly is the problem? If you like problems try to read more on Longhorn and/or Linux development and then MAYBE you will realize what a GREAT product OS X currently is and will become even better in 6-9 months from now 

As for bashing... You are talking to the wrong person here... I could give you couple names but I think that you already know them... And as for Windows users some times being right ( or perhaps most of the time in here?  ), opinions vary, you know?


----------



## fryke (Sep 16, 2004)

I don't have Windows ready here (pun not intended, I just haven't got a PC here right now...), but I know that you can set different 'sizes' for UI elements in Windows and freely choose font sizes for the interface, which enables you to use a higher DPI screen and keep the actual size of the interface - more or less. Whatever Apple says about Quartz' capabilities, the user has _not_ got the option to use this right now. And that was the only thing I - and others - were talking about. You're still right that Quartz is basically _ready_ for higher resolution screens, but Mac OS X, for the user, isn't. And that's not an opinion, hulk...


----------



## Viro (Sep 16, 2004)

I think you can only choose between 72/96 dpi in Windows. I remember struggling with tiny fonts on a very high resolution before.


----------



## fryke (Sep 16, 2004)

Additionally, in the display prefs (dunno what exactly they're called in Windows) you can click on any interface element and choose its font and size separately. But yes, I certainly hope that Apple will do that more right, when they do it in the future, and simply either let the user choose the dpi of the monitor, but even better would be if the system would simply _know_ what DPI the screen is showing.


----------



## soulseek (Sep 16, 2004)

fryke i though u had and AMD machine using windows 2000 or XP, where did that go ?


----------



## DJ Rep (Sep 16, 2004)

This thread is getting out of hand, I originally started it just to comment on my preference of higher resolution screens not do discuss the ins and outs of OS X and whether or not things are scalable and wot not


----------



## fryke (Sep 16, 2004)

You're right, DJ Rep. However: We're still talking about display resolutions, albeit about the implications of higher resolution displays and (sadly) the various operating systems' abilities to scale their interface parts to higher resolutions.

soulseek: I still have that machine, but I've put it in the cellar for now, since I didn't ever really use it anymore and it wasted too much space. That machine had Fedora Core (linux) and sometimes Win2K, sometimes WinXP on it. It was a test machine for various things and customers (that sadly often use Windows...). I've long thought about it and then decided that VPC on my PB (I had an iBook back then) is 'good enough' for what I have to test. It still never meant I particularly _liked_ Windows, mind you. ;-)


----------



## hulkaros (Sep 16, 2004)

Once and for all, FrykeMan:
1. In Windows you can switch ONLY 72/96 dpi... Although, having 96 dpi may be a "nice" option it isn't all that important actually, especially for the mainstream and even for MOST pros  This IS a fact!
2. Changing font size in Windows it comes in 4 variations: Normal, Small, Large, Very Large. Depending on what you might select those options wreck a havok across the apps AND OS. This IS a fact!
3. I dare ANYONE to select various resolutions in monitors, say >=18 inch, in Windows with the default config of XP and do the same thing in Panther... Everything will look a loot better in Panther with the default configuration while in Windows... Well, let's just say that it pales in comparison... Even when one will try to change this and that in Windows, things will broke in appearance both in the OS and any apps the user has! This IS a fact!
4. Windows has 3 sizes (small, normal, large) for its GUI and from that it lets the user utilize only the 2 (normal, large). In OS X I have icons that can be anything from 16x16 to 128x128. This IS a fact.

If changing resolutions anything from 640x480 to 5120x1600 (dual 30" Apple Displays) in Panther and still being able to see things clearly with the default config isn't scalable then what is? The hit and miss options of last millenium of Windows XP? Come on people! Wake up and smell the amazing technology that Apple is including in Panther and will take steps ahead with Tiger... And THIS IS A FACT TOO!

Oh, and FrykeMan? Keeping Windows in a cellar and away from your computing life, didn't prevent them from eating away your Apple Think Different mojo


----------



## fryke (Sep 16, 2004)

Hehe... Okay, I'll take this critic ("didn't prevent them from eating away your Apple Think Different mojo") seriously and will think about it. Because although it's not the truth (you should maybe know me in real life to see that...), it seems that at least soulseek and you, hulk, don't consider me MacMoJo-enabled anymore.

Sad, because it isn't true. Maybe I have once too often 'moderated' a thread and tried to save some Windows-head from being totally bashed by the Mac-zealots on here, tried to balance things etc.?

Let me just say this: I'm _totally_ biased when it comes to a decision between Mac OS X and Windows. I'm _totally_ biased when it comes to a hardware decision: This PowerBook has _no_ competition in style and usability. (See http://macintosh.fryke.com/cgi-bin/macnews2.cgi/2004/07/20#20040720_pbluxury for my opinion on notebook competition and Apple's PowerBooks...)

But when it comes to the discussion of facts about the scalability of the UI, I have to admit that Mac OS X offers me _no_ (zero, nada) way to scale user interface elements and font sizes, whereas Windows offers its users at least _some_ ways. They don't do it in a good and usable way, but they're doing it. And please: Give yourself a spin and at least admit that Mac OS X does _not_ offer any such setting.


----------



## fryke (Sep 16, 2004)

Of course, it also has almost been forgotten by now, but I initially wanted to point out that _because_ Apple does _not_ offer such settings in the OS, it would be quite stupid for Apple to actually offer, say, a 1600x1024 display in the 15" PowerBook. I didn't even _want_ to discuss Windows this thoroughly.


----------



## Macsith (Sep 16, 2004)

Ok Apple does not have the 'brightest' display......BUT it has the most colour 'accurate' display.  As a photographer I do not want a display to introduce artificial tendencies into the image.  For example a lot of consumer laptops have I contrast display with rich colours to attract the consumer's eye in the sea of options at the store.  But if you look at skin tones etc they are unrealistic.

A monitor should be neutral for colour accuracy not overly rich for consumer marketing.  Sony has even gone as far as offering a gloss coating on some of it's laptop displays which is not a good idea (reflection), but it artificially enriches the colour (like gloss paper to a printer).

The bottom line is Apple is a professional option and although it does not have the flashest display it has the most accurate for correct colour representation.


----------



## hulkaros (Sep 16, 2004)

fryke said:
			
		

> Of course, it also has almost been forgotten by now, but I initially wanted to point out that _because_ Apple does _not_ offer such settings in the OS, it would be quite stupid for Apple to actually offer, say, a 1600x1024 display in the 15" PowerBook. I didn't even _want_ to discuss Windows this thoroughly.



I don't know what exactly options do you want Apple to include in OS X but as I already said OS X GUI is actually THE BEST when it comes to display anything between 640x480 and up to 5120x1600 resolutions EASILY without having the user worry for anything... When you will show me ANY Wintel/Amd capable doing the same thing, we may have this discussion again 

The Wintel platform is full of GUI tricks and if you cannot get it, perhaps M$ troubles with Longhorn (the closest to anything Apple is offering now), Open Source community with glitz and cairo, Sun's Looking Glass, etc. could and should give you a HUGE hint on how advanced OS X GUI truly is 

And I think we all know the reasons that Apple isn't including larger resolutions in its portable or even desktop display lines are:
-Lower the stress on battery
-Lower the need for more VRAM from mobile chipsets
-Produce a better color/resolution/viewing ratio
-Let the processing speed of any given portable to manage the native resolution of displays while delivering high numbers in frames per second... Can you imagine an iBook 12"/G4/1GHz playing, say Warcraft 3:TFT in 1280x854 while having the game settings in full? 
-Lower the cost
-If all the above would be otherwise we would have portables which would be bigger in dimensions with batteries that last 2 hours tops and have them choke on high native resolutions of those 1440x990 displays while playing UT2004  Then again you can always lower the resolution to 1280x854 or even 1024x768


----------



## tencargarage (Sep 16, 2004)

I would like to make a comment and ask a question regarding PowerBook displays vs my Imac 17".  I love the brightness of my 17" which is set to appx 60% of brightness.  Yet when I look at PowerBooks 17" and up in a retail store the displays don't approach the brightness of my imac (even running up the display brightness via function keys).  

The same is true comparing the PB display vs IMac's in store (comparing both with in store fluorescent lighting. I have done this in several different stores including newly open stores that have new products.

I thought the displays on the IMAC and current PB's were the same.  What would explain the differences?  I see the comments about power consumption of laptops but these were plugged in via power cords.


----------



## hulkaros (Sep 16, 2004)

Viewing angle is one reason. Also, if the PowerBook display is set say, to half the brightness, for some time and you change it back to full brightness you must give it couple minutes to fully change into the full brightness quality. I know it sounds weird but that's how it works. Finally, the difference could come by their ColorSync calibration function that one can find into the System Preferences and into the Displays pane. View the picture for more...


----------



## Lycander (Sep 16, 2004)

In Windows, as well as KDE/Gnome desktops in Linux, you can change the DPI to ANYTING you want and it's not limited to just 72 or 96. Please observe the following images:







Selecting Custom will bring up this dialog:






So you can in fact change the DPI to other settings besides 72/96. And as fryke said earlier, you can select individiual text components and adjust the font family/size. For example if configure all window title bar text to be a certain font, then all windows will be affected by that setting. Likewise, the same can be done with the text of menu items, icon labels, text in dialog boxes, etc.

I also want to point out the difference between just upping the font size of text, versus changing the DPI. Changing the DPI will make visual elements bigger/smaller and scales accordingly to the physical size of your display. Font sizes is a direct attribute to the text, but DPI is an attribute of how it is visually seen, if that makes any sense... er... We can set a font to have a big size, but if the DPI is low enough we would start to see jagged edges.


----------



## fryke (Sep 16, 2004)

Thanks for the screenshots. 

About 17" PowerBook not reaching the 17" iMac's brightness: Power. Those backlights eat a LOT of energy. The iMac has no problem there, since it's connected to a power outlet, however in a notebook, you don't want to spend that much energy. Also: The iMac's display has more depth (space, not colour) to allow 'better' lights.


----------



## Lycander (Sep 16, 2004)

fryke said:
			
		

> Also: The iMac's display has more depth (space, not colour) to allow 'better' lights.


Better lights? Wooo, my brain is racing with ideas for modding... but I just bought my iBook a few days, and I haven't sent in AppleCare reg yet. Plus I don't think it covers "stupidity."


----------



## texanpenguin (Sep 16, 2004)

He said iMac, not iBook. He's saying that will all that physical ROOM behind the screen on the iMacs (compared to the tiny space in the 'Books), they can have a more comprehensive backlight compared to the laptops.


----------



## Lycander (Sep 16, 2004)

texanpenguin said:
			
		

> He said iMac, not iBook. He's saying that will all that physical ROOM behind the screen on the iMacs (compared to the tiny space in the 'Books), they can have a more comprehensive backlight compared to the laptops.


Perhaps you didn't see the word "modding" I typed. When I said "modding" I thought that implies craftsman work on the monitor, be it iMac or iBook. And it was said in jest anyways. But thanks for pointing that out the obvious


----------



## dracolich (Sep 20, 2004)

Apple has decided to stick to 100 ppi in most of its products. From the description of the 30' Display:

*Best Resolution for Images and Words*
The quality of the pixels you see impacts how you use your computer. After years of experience, Apple engineers have discovered the ideal resolution to display both sharp text and graphics  a pixel density of about 100 pixels per inch (ppi). Other vendors may offer a larger monitor, but with less resolution, so you end up with fewer pixels, or a smaller monitor with a high resolution that causes eyestrain and headaches. Apples balanced 100 pixels per inch format is optimized for images, yet allows you to easily work with text in email, Safari and sophisticated type treatments in layouts.


----------



## Ceroc Addict (Sep 20, 2004)

I have absolutely no problems with the display on my current 15" Ti PB - both the resolution and brightness are fantastic and almost everyone who has seen me using my PB has commented on how nice the screen looks (it helps to have pictures of beaches and Europe scenery in my Desktop pictures slideshow  ).

I'd "prefer" a bigger screen, just because one exists (17"), not because I need it (now that I have Expose, I could even work happily with a 12").

I think the ideal screen size for the top level G5 PB would be 20", but that'd never happen because of the power drain and weight factors (but it'd be an enormous win for Apple, so I'll keep my fingers crossed  ).

Kap


----------



## fryke (Sep 20, 2004)

You have forgotten to add a  smiley to the 20" PowerBook idea. You _must_ be kidding. They'd only sell those to 7'-8' people...


----------



## Go3iverson (Sep 20, 2004)

fryke said:
			
		

> You have forgotten to add a  smiley to the 20" PowerBook idea. You _must_ be kidding. They'd only sell those to 7'-8' people...



Hey, getting more NBA players to promote your product could be another avenue to sell more Macs!


----------



## Ceroc Addict (Sep 20, 2004)

fryke said:
			
		

> You have forgotten to add a  smiley to the 20" PowerBook idea. You _must_ be kidding. They'd only sell those to 7'-8' people...


I don't seriously believe Apple has a 20" Powerbook in store for us (then again, how many predicted that they'd release a 17"? Plus, they do have a 20" iMac ).

On the other hand, if they did release one (with a reasonable battery life and weight), I'd buy it in a second and I'm only 5'5.

Sure, I'd have to carry it on my shoulder strap, but that would be a small price to pay.  (and I do that anyway)

Kap


----------



## serpicolugnut (Sep 22, 2004)

Apple has some serious QA problems with their laptop displays. I myself have sent my 15" Powerbok 1.25ghz G4 back 3 times (it's currently in for it's 4th trip to the repair center). The largest thread on the Apple Support site is for the "Uneven Illumination" problem prevelant on 15" laptops (and some 12" and 17" models too). 

http://discussions.info.apple.com/webx?14@203.xf4YaBrOxz6.0@.599c3e3f

This G4 is my fourth Mac laptop in 4 years, and my 12th Mac in 10 years. I have spent a ton of money with Apple, and am really disappointed with the quality of this last machine. Design wise it's perfect. But shoddy components and poor QA control has plagued this model from the start. Whoever Apple is using to build these Powerbooks should really be examined from top to bottom.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Sep 22, 2004)

Funny that as I finished writing my last post, Apple has finally publicly acknowledged the problems with these models and issued a call for owners with afflicted models to call Apple if the problem pops up.

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=86632

It's a good first step.


----------



## fryke (Sep 22, 2004)

Albeit a bit late. ;-) ... I'm glad that my PB never 'enjoyed' this problem... However, I firmly believe that this is the first _real_ problem with PB displays, and afaik has been solved, in that it doesn't appear on newer machines. Solving the problem for the affected PowerBooks, however, is better to be solved sooner than later...


----------



## serpicolugnut (Sep 22, 2004)

The white spots issue appears to be solved on the Rev. A 15" AluBooks. But the "uneven illumination" issue is prevelant on the Rev. B machines as well...

I just got word today that my Powerbook repair is on hold awaiting a part. The part - the logic board. So now, I have had the Inverter board, the Display, the battery, and the logic board replaced. It would have been cheaper and easier for Apple just to replace the whole machine at this point.


----------



## Stridder44 (Sep 22, 2004)

I cry everytime I look at my 17inch iMacs display. Im gettin teary eye'd as we speak....just..so beautiful man...*weeps*


----------

