Do you think 1680x1050 is too dense on 17" MBP?

[Artful Dodger]

As said in this thread, that 1680x1050 is what I get on my 20" Intel iMac and I think that it would be great on a 17". There are options for sizing the dock, text and just about anything you need to do so my answer is "No" and what a nice sight 1680x1050 is

 

[miniConvert]

I'm with the not-enough camp.

High resolutions on my Windows XP machine do seem to make everything look pretty tiny, but for some reason OS X seems to adapt to them much better. Hell, the more pixels they can fit on a panel the better in my book.

 

[Peyton]

What is the problem if you can scale it down?

 

[sam10685]

I want 1680x1050 on my 15"

i want 3000x2000 on my 12" powerbook.

 

[decksnap]

What is the problem if you can scale it down?

The problem is that on any LCD, using any resolution other than native looks just plain horrible. Beyond horrible. It's not like a CRT.

Sometimes I think things on my 20" ACD at this res are too small. I guess I just have bad eyes. Took some getting used to.

 

[supergod]

The reason that resolution is so perfect at this point is because all of the Apple pro apps at this point are designed for the 20" cinema display and the 17" powerbook. For instance, for Logic you definitely need that resolution, and the window layouts have been designed for it (although there is the option to use a layout designed for the 15" powerbook).

I think it really is the min. resolution for a lot of uses and should become the standard within a few years.

 

[generik]

i want 3000x2000 on my 12" powerbook.

Wow HD pr0n looks so minute on that display