Am I the only one that has been disappointed by the native resolutions of the iMac line? (as well as the MBP and MB's) The 24" iMac in particular. 1920x1200 belongs on a 15" laptop display...not a 24" MONSTER! C'mon Apple!
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.
iMac native resolution disappointment
- Thread starter mavherzog
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
i think their resolutions are just fine personally. especially on the laptops. my 17" iMac G5 has 1440x900, which is what is currently offered on the 15" MBP.
I agree that it would be nice to have a high-res option on the MBP (The MacBook res is already as high as I can stand it, I have pretty good eyes, and coordination, but I just get by at that size).
However, please point out any consumer 23 or 24 inch LCD with a higher res than 1920x1200. I looked and couldn't find one.
However, please point out any consumer 23 or 24 inch LCD with a higher res than 1920x1200. I looked and couldn't find one.
My 17 inch monitor is 1280 on the wide end. To keep the proportions and resolutions the same, a 24 inch monitor would have to have 1807 pixels on the wide end, so 1920 is just fine
(just talking about one side as iMacs are 16:9 and mine's 4:3)
(just talking about one side as iMacs are 16:9 and mine's 4:3)
I stare at two 15" WUXGA (1920x1200) displays all day. I find the pixel density to be perfect. For me, the idea that the 24" iMac (that is 9 inches BIGGER) cannot offer me any more desktop real estate is disappointing.
I am not aware of any consumer LCD display 24" or under that has a higher resolution than 1920x1200. (although the IBM 22" T221 has DOUBLE that res!)
That is no excuse for the MBP line tough. WUXGA displays are common place with other commercial laptops.
I am not aware of any consumer LCD display 24" or under that has a higher resolution than 1920x1200. (although the IBM 22" T221 has DOUBLE that res!)
That is no excuse for the MBP line tough. WUXGA displays are common place with other commercial laptops.
I think the resolutions are fine. A normal 17" Laptop screen res. is 1440x900 and the MBP is 1680x1050. What I can't get past, however, is why the 17" iMac doesn't use these high-res. MBP screens. Guess Apple assumes that consumers don't need THAT much room. And they figure if you do, it's probably for work and you can afford a couple 30"ers...
do you know how much that would cost
your talking rubbish too.
most 15" laptops dont get near 1920 x 1200
I quite disagree. There's no need for it, and it would drive up the cost. Many people don't even use the native resolutions because it's too small for them a is (yay for resolution independence!).
Thou talketh bollocks, sir.
Look at this:
http://accessories.euro.dell.com/sna/category.aspx?c=uk&category_id=4009&cs=ukdhs1&l=en&s=dhs
Look at the price. Look at the res.
C.
So those displays are part of laptop computers for $1999?
I'll take reliability and a tolerable price over high pixel count any day.
Because 100 pixels per inch (the resolution of most current Apples,) is higher than the average consumer wants. I do on-site computer consulting, and every day, I find a customer who has an LCD that isn't running at its native resolution. I always point it out, and show them what the native setting is. About 9 out of 10 prefer having things larger. I've seen people run 19" LCDs at 800x600. And, sadly, as no current OS properly supports resolution independence, using the existing res-booting tricks just makes for ugly or hard-to-use interfaces. (Many many many webpages look horrible when set to Windows XP's 'large' resolution setting.) Hopefully Leopard will have good resolution independence that will drive us toward higher-res displays, but even Tiger sucks at it. (Heck, you have to use third-party hacks to even enable Tiger's built-in resolution-scaling.)
(P.S. for those who don't quite understand me, I'm talking about 'pixels per inch' resolution, not 'pixels of width'.)
Yes, there are some 15" laptop displays that do 1920x1200. But those are the exception, not the rule. Heck, most 'consumer' widescreen 14" laptops are 1280 by something, and most 4:3 ratio are still 1024x768.
The other problem is that the physically larger the display, the more chance of more pixel defects. Increase the pixel density, and that defect rate goes up even faster. I have seen a few of the IBM/Viewsonic 22" quad-HD displays, and none had fewer than 4 broken pixels. (Not to mention the increased data rate needed for higher-than-1920x1200 resolutions.)
as you get older
squinting at the fine print causes eye strain. thats why they would not be to popular.
these days i am getting muscle spasm around eyes caused by tired eyes.
on a similar not: my samsung 19" 1440*900 went faulty and pcworld sent me a ...wait for it......... a 20" 640*480! i did not know they made this resolution anymore.
pcworld said it was an upgrade because 20" is bigger than 19"
squinting at the fine print causes eye strain. thats why they would not be to popular.
these days i am getting muscle spasm around eyes caused by tired eyes.
on a similar not: my samsung 19" 1440*900 went faulty and pcworld sent me a ...wait for it......... a 20" 640*480! i did not know they made this resolution anymore.
pcworld said it was an upgrade because 20" is bigger than 19"
Great logic, buddy. The T221 is not very bright, requires two dual-link DVI connections, and let's not forget that the only two prices you will find on froogle are $5000 and almost $10,000, the latter from the only merchant that has any sort of rating.
So, it looks like I am in the minority on this one. Thanks for the all the insults...I didn't realize that differences of opinion were not tolerated here.
Dell D820s are the standard PCs handed out by my employer. Just about everyone has one, at 1920x1200, or the 12" D620. And just about everyone else except me has reduced either the resolution (making it blurry) or increased the font size (making Windows even uglier than it is normally).
The iMac isn't a laptop so expecting its resolution to be any higher than other LCD screens is expecting a little too much.
OMG, the resolution on Apple's laptop line is already pretty big, I have to sit closer to my MacBook if I want to see anything on the screen. But since its a laptop, a little more pixels on a small screen is actually useful. Apple's desktops have perfect pixel size for desktop computers, where you have bigger display without sacrifying portabilty, cuz u dont take your desktop everywhere with you, do you?
No one insulted you but no one agreed with you, either.
I think everyone questions everyone else all the time, even the fanatics.
1. No one insulted you.
2. You're in the minority because you're a power user, using a $5,000 IBM display with some ungodly high resolution. You're not who Apple is trying to cater to with the iMac. For almost everyone, the resolutions they have now are perfect.
I can see where your coming from. Its a price vs pixels. How expensive should there products be? You also would need a better GPU for those resolutions of displays. So its worth apple leaving the consumer line alone and allowing people to go get a Mac pro if they want those high end resolutions. As those who can afford a $5000-$10000 display can afford a $3000 computer. And no we are not mad at you.
And no we are not mad at you.
No one insulted you. You just got lit up because your first post was very strongly worded and had negative connotations so you received a strong response.