Apple laptop displays

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...
 
I think you can only choose between 72/96 dpi in Windows. I remember struggling with tiny fonts on a very high resolution before.
 
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.
 
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
 
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. ;-)
 
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 :p 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 :p
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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 :D

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? :rolleyes:
-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 :p Then again you can always lower the resolution to 1280x854 or even 1024x768 ;)
 
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.
 
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...
 

Attachments

  • Calibration.jpg
    Calibration.jpg
    18.1 KB · Views: 7
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:

dpi1.gif


Selecting Custom will bring up this dialog:

dpi2.gif


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.
 
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.
 
fryke said:
Also: The iMac's display has more depth (space, not colour) to allow 'better' lights.
Click to expand...
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."
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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 :)
 
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.
 
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 :D ).

Kap
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top