new MBPro 17" with HDdisplay

Z

zoranb

Registered
1. Is this really worth the xtra money to order. If so, in what way?
Okay its the MBPro 17" but why order it with the HDef display and not the 1680x1050? Will the HD display only work for watching a movie or for OSX too?
2. Should i also wait for the 17" with led display to appear later on or not? Or can we say that the difference led/lcd isnt that big worth to wait for it for another 3-6months?
 
zoranb said:
1. Is this really worth the xtra money to order. If so, in what way?
Okay its the MBPro 17" but why order it with the HDef display and not the 1680x1050? Will the HD display only work for watching a movie or for OSX too?
...
Click to expand...
Neither 17" MacBook Pro display meets the legal definition of high-definition because their aspect ratios are 16:10 rather than the standard of 16:9. However, both exceed the number of pixels required to show high-def. The 1680x1050 can display every pixel of a 720p high-def video within a window. The optional 1920x1200 display can show every pixel of a 1080p video with space left over. If movies are the deciding factor, then you will be hard-pressed to see the difference on a monitor as small as a 17" MacBook display.
 
if movies arent a deciding factor should i go for ordering the MBPro with the HD resolution or not? Why not?
 
Price? I haven't checked how much more it costs, but I guess it's a difference. The higher resolution screen simply shows you more. On the other hand, it shows you everything _smaller_. (That problem will be countered with Leopard's resolution-independence, though, when you buy that in October or so.)

Generally, think of it this way: If you're out to buy a really _highend_ notebook now, you'll want it to be top-notch for at least a year. You want it to be good in two years. Display resolution will increase in coming years. Even if you think it won't increase that _much_ until 2010, you still have to agree that display resolutions for notebooks basically never went _down_. ;)

I'd go for the 1920 one. But I'd try both in a store somewhere. Right now, you can't increase the size of, say, the menubar etc. in OS X, so it _will_ be smaller on the high-res model. (Again: Only until you get Leopard, which lets you choose these things.)
 
intresting info fryke thanx, perhaps somebody that owns a 17" can make us a screen capture to see what we are really talking about!
 
zoranb said:
intresting info fryke thanx, perhaps somebody that owns a 17" can make us a screen capture to see what we are really talking about!
Click to expand...

It may be difficult to see i on a screen capture.... the screen capture will be identical to a 24" iMac !
 
I have a 17" Powerbook with the 1680 resolution, I also have a 24" monitor with the 1920 resolution.

While I would love to have the real-estate of the 1920 resolution on my Powerbook, it is simply going to be too small. I'd prefer higher resolutions on smaller displays and was terribly happy to see the 1680 on the 17" PB, vs the standard 1440 that is typically associated with 17" wide-screens.

The ONLY advantage, outside of pure 1080 HD selection, is if you typically use a 24" display, and had to disconnect and become mobile, your resolution, your window location, everything would be the same. That is attractive to me personally, but I can't imagine the reduction in screen size that would be. In fact, I'm going to take a screen shot and try it out.

Okay... I took a screen shot of my 24" display... went into photoshop and reduced it to about the size of a 17" display, then I placed it on top of the original screen size, to give you an idea... since looking at it in other resolutions, would not give you the full effect. This allows you to compare the same resolution against each other.
 

Attachments

  • Picture 5.png
    Picture 5.png
    946.5 KB · Views: 10
bugger that, if it seems too small, get a pair of reading glasses. more screen real estate is always good. the first 15" powerbook couldn't go higher that 1152x768. then it went to 1280x856, now it's at 1440x900 and still, no-one's complaining. the first iBooks were 800x600! that's next to useless nowadays!
 
I actually agree. The more I looked at it, I was cool with it. :) Makes me want one now. :)
 
I have a 1400x1000 (or nearly) 14" display on my Dell... It's ok but that's the limit.
 
ScottW said:
Okay... I took a screen shot of my 24" display... went into photoshop and reduced it to about the size of a 17" display, then I placed it on top of the original screen size, to give you an idea... since looking at it in other resolutions, would not give you the full effect. This allows you to compare the same resolution against each other.
Click to expand...

so which of the two is the 1920 res and which is the 1680?:)
 
fryke said:
Price? I haven't checked how much more it costs, but I guess it's a difference. The higher resolution screen simply shows you more. On the other hand, it shows you everything _smaller_. (That problem will be countered with Leopard's resolution-independence, though, when you buy that in October or so.)

I'd go for the 1920 one. But I'd try both in a store somewhere. Right now, you can't increase the size of, say, the menubar etc. in OS X, so it _will_ be smaller on the high-res model. (Again: Only until you get Leopard, which lets you choose these things.)
Click to expand...
If it the size thing was sutch a big problem would Apple really go for giving sutch an option of the HD res?
 
ahaaaa now i get it, well, its really very small...
now im having second thoughts on this...
and about Leopard, what exactly would it do to sutch resolutions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top