I am very tempted to go for the 1080p HD capable screen option, the $100 upgrade to 1920x1200 in the 17" MBP. This baby has 78% more real estate than my 17" PowerBook. Wow. But I want to hear some first hand reports of how it looks. The system fonts will be very small on this screen until Leopard comes with a rescalable GUI. How legible are they? How is the illumination and image quality?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
1920x1200 17" MBP - Anyone seen it?
- Thread starter technogeek
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm interested in this too. I'm considering getting rid of my 24" Dell monitor and getting the Hi-Res 17" MBP as they both (amazingly) have the same resolution. I might wait until I can see how well Leopard deals with its resolution independent UI promise.
I want to know too. I don't think anyone has one yet, since they need to be ordered from the site and supposedly are not available in the stores yet.
It might take a few days (weeks) to get some feedback.
It might take a few days (weeks) to get some feedback.
+1 to interest in this screen. i'm over the moon at the option but hope it isn't just a 17" screen with tiny little writing on it
I have a related question about it - if I get the 1900 x 1200 17" MBP Screen, will it limit gaming potential as the GPU will have a harder time managing that resolution for 3d gaming?
Am I better off sticking to the standard native res option?
thanks, coogee
I have a related question about it - if I get the 1900 x 1200 17" MBP Screen, will it limit gaming potential as the GPU will have a harder time managing that resolution for 3d gaming?
Am I better off sticking to the standard native res option?
thanks, coogee
4-6 weeks is for the 7200 rpm drive
When I added the 1920x1200 17" MBP to my cart at the Apple Store, it says it ships in 1-3 business days. I tried to see what would make the Apple Store say 4-6 weeks, and it was only the 160GB 7200rpm HDD option. With all other options, including the 1920x1200 display, it ships in 1-3 business days.
So, we should be seeing reviews shortly. I'm thinking, even if the graphics are too small under Tiger, Leopard will have resolution-independent graphics, so any potential Lilliputian land will only have to be endured for a few months.
When I added the 1920x1200 17" MBP to my cart at the Apple Store, it says it ships in 1-3 business days. I tried to see what would make the Apple Store say 4-6 weeks, and it was only the 160GB 7200rpm HDD option. With all other options, including the 1920x1200 display, it ships in 1-3 business days.
So, we should be seeing reviews shortly. I'm thinking, even if the graphics are too small under Tiger, Leopard will have resolution-independent graphics, so any potential Lilliputian land will only have to be endured for a few months.
+1 to interest in this screen. i'm over the moon at the option but hope it isn't just a 17" screen with tiny little writing on it
I have a related question about it - if I get the 1900 x 1200 17" MBP Screen, will it limit gaming potential as the GPU will have a harder time managing that resolution for 3d gaming?
Am I better off sticking to the standard native res option?
thanks, coogee
You will have to compromise the graphics slightly if you are after constant FPS - but saying that depends upon the game, because the graphics card the new MBP's are shipping with is killer.
I was at the Apple Store Regent Street last night. They already had the new 15" models in stock but no 17" at all yet and they were unable to even tell me if the HD screen was a built-to-order option or not or whether they'd be available in-store. I'd prefer to buy in-store as there's a 14-day no quibbles 100% full refund policy in case I change my mind.
+1 to interest in this screen. i'm over the moon at the option but hope it isn't just a 17" screen with tiny little writing on it
I have a related question about it - if I get the 1900 x 1200 17" MBP Screen, will it limit gaming potential as the GPU will have a harder time managing that resolution for 3d gaming?
Am I better off sticking to the standard native res option?
thanks, coogee
1900x1200 definitely requires a bit of a beast of graphics card to push all those pixels. I'm waiting to see a few benchmarks first - especially to see if the GPU is underclocked by Apple.
However, the 24" iMac seems to cope with quite a fair bit of 1900x1200 gaming with a Geforce 7600GT, which I don't think is as powerful as what is now in the MBP.
It all depends on what type of game you want to play. Personally, I don't care too much about FPS, which seem to be the most demanding. I'm more a strategy/RTS person myself.
The HD screen isn't the new LED screen though is it. I think it is the standard LCD type.
that's what prevented me from going with one. bought a 15" instead. cathode lighting is out; LED lighting is in.
Just play on a lower resolution even thought it's not native, I doubt it will annoy you that much and you still have plenty of space on the desktop/browser and can play old games in 1920x1200.+1 to interest in this screen. i'm over the moon at the option but hope it isn't just a 17" screen with tiny little writing on it
I have a related question about it - if I get the 1900 x 1200 17" MBP Screen, will it limit gaming potential as the GPU will have a harder time managing that resolution for 3d gaming?
Am I better off sticking to the standard native res option?
thanks, coogee
I would think that performance might be similair considering the mobility version got 10-20% lower clock than normal version even if it's not underclocked, and the 8600GT doesn't have that many stream processors, althought much higher clocked than the core of the 7600GT. But I don't know, in any case it supports DX10 which is nice, and maybe TurboCache which might be nice to.
As long as Supreme Commander, Crysis and Starcraft 2 works I'm all set ;D
You can definitly forget about Supreme Commander in 1920x1200 on it, Crysis maybe, Starcraft 2 even bigger chance.
thanks for the replies guys, i realised after posting doh i don't need to play at native res, it was a long day yesterday.
bumping this in the hope that one lucky SOB can answer technogeek's original post - (1920x1200 17" MBP - Anyone seen it?)
i just thought WTH and ordered the big puppy, can't wait to see what i did!
But remember, LCD's display best at their native resolution. When you go lower, the image seems out of focus and lacks sharpness.
Saw the new screen
I was at the Mac store in the Northridge Mall and the 17" had the Hi-Res screen in it. I wasen't sure at first but they had a "I'm the iPhone" type introduction to the (duh) iPhone and the image of the iPhone on the 17" was smaller then the one on the 15" MBP. I was very excited to check it out. It looked great but the type was a little small because of the non-scalable OSX (right?). Though it was small it did not seem that much different and Leopard is supposed to address that ... I have read. I am thinking I am going Hi-Res after seeing it. Of course it is not as bright as the LED model and does have mercury but.... I am excited. I am not a gamer but will be doing alot of graphics work and this seems right up my alley.
I was at the Mac store in the Northridge Mall and the 17" had the Hi-Res screen in it. I wasen't sure at first but they had a "I'm the iPhone" type introduction to the (duh) iPhone and the image of the iPhone on the 17" was smaller then the one on the 15" MBP. I was very excited to check it out. It looked great but the type was a little small because of the non-scalable OSX (right?). Though it was small it did not seem that much different and Leopard is supposed to address that ... I have read. I am thinking I am going Hi-Res after seeing it. Of course it is not as bright as the LED model and does have mercury but.... I am excited. I am not a gamer but will be doing alot of graphics work and this seems right up my alley.
Thank you; that is helpful information.
I tend to always reduce icon size to 36x36 (default is 48x48) and font size to 10pt (default 12pt) on the standard 17" display. Would you say the difference was more pronounced than that? Or less so, or about the same?
Thanks for the input.
[Edit: My local Apple store has a hi-res 17" being held for me, and I'll probably pick it up in a few hours. If I'm able to get down there and get it, I'll provide my impressions on it too.]
I have seen one in my local Apple Store (Marlton, NJ). The screen is beautiful. It was evenly lit, and not grainy at all. If I didn't need the 250GB HDD, I would have bought one there.
Hickman
I've got mine now. 17" high-resolution display, 2GB RAM, 160GB 7200rpm hard drive.
So far, so good. Very nice screen. No dead pixels that I can find (and I definitely looked for them). Very evenly backlit, no light or dark patches I can discern.
High resolution makes for smaller type on screen, but to my eyes still very usable without even having to increase the default type size.
So far, so good. Very nice screen. No dead pixels that I can find (and I definitely looked for them). Very evenly backlit, no light or dark patches I can discern.
High resolution makes for smaller type on screen, but to my eyes still very usable without even having to increase the default type size.
I saw one today at the Apple store.
Impressions:
1. The extra real estate is incredible. I did some side by side comparisons, and it really is 23" inches of real estate.
2. It's nice. One thing I read is that this new display has the highest PPI of any display Apple makes...even a lot more than the 30". You can tell when you look at the screen.
3. Until Leopard, things are a bit tight on the UI. I was worried things would be too small. For my eyes, I thought it was small but doable. I would only worry about eye strain over time.
4. To that point, if things are too small, you can set it to the old resolution is you really want. to..
NET/NET: Even though I own the last generation MPB 17" which is less than 8 months old, I bought the new model today. Not a major update, but that screen was compelling enough to warrant the money. (Or so I hope.)
Impressions:
1. The extra real estate is incredible. I did some side by side comparisons, and it really is 23" inches of real estate.
2. It's nice. One thing I read is that this new display has the highest PPI of any display Apple makes...even a lot more than the 30". You can tell when you look at the screen.
3. Until Leopard, things are a bit tight on the UI. I was worried things would be too small. For my eyes, I thought it was small but doable. I would only worry about eye strain over time.
4. To that point, if things are too small, you can set it to the old resolution is you really want. to..
NET/NET: Even though I own the last generation MPB 17" which is less than 8 months old, I bought the new model today. Not a major update, but that screen was compelling enough to warrant the money. (Or so I hope.)
What about the quality of the display compared to, say, the 23" ACD? The most attractive thing about the high res 17" for me would be that it could replace my 24" monitor...