Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

No HD MacBook Pro until 2008?

K

kingofkolt

macrumors 6502
Original poster
May 2, 2007
375
0
Boston, MA
ThinkSecret says the 17-inch MBP will not be upgraded to HD resolution (1920x1200) in the next refresh. AI suggested Mac users will have to wait until 2008 to see a MBP with a larger screen or with a 17-inch HD screen.

I personally don't mind that much... I'll be getting a 15-inch MBP (which to me is already pushing it... 15 inches is a little bit on the large side) but I know some of you were hoping for an HD MBP... Thoughts?
 
FleurDuMal said:
The idea that a 17" screen could have the same resolution as what is standard on a 24" monitor is quite mind-blowing.
Click to expand...

I know... I just bought a 19" widescreen monitor in November with a native(/maximum) resolution of 1440x900. I was shocked to find out later on, when I started looking at Macs, that the 15" MBP has the same resolution. My current 15" Dell is 1280x800! As someone who will major in graphic design, I have to wonder if a pixel pitch that small hinders being able to clearly see individual pixels when using Photoshop/Dreamweaver/etc...
 
It is what it is. I'm sure there are several prosumers who will be disappointed with this rumor (if true) but for me, I simply don't need a 17" screen with a laptop, let alone one which can display HD - it's a portable after all, if I wanted those features I'd stick with a desktop! But, that's just me, I know there are many users out there who have a practical need for such mobile functionality.

For me, I will be buying a new 15" MBP when they are updated and that will be more than adequate for my needs.
 
yah HD would be sweet but I think that it's starting to get over-rated. I really don't think its nessassary on a laptop but thats just my thoughts
 
The current MBP are HD. They just dont support the maximum 1920x1080 but they are HD none the less.
 
I've seen non-Apple laptops that have 15" screens and 1920x1200 resolutions, and things are TINY, especially with Windows XP. Vista is a little better in that the default system font and icons are a little larger, so things are a bit easier to see, but in general I think the resolution is way too high for a 15" LCD.

Of course, this will all be irrelevant when "true" resolution independence comes around. We're just not there yet.
 
My def of HD is when you can no longer see the pixels :) After using a 1920x1200 15" at work, anything less appears blocky to me, including the 13" MB and 15" MBP displays.

It's important that your OS GUI can scale well, so everything becomes sharper rather than smaller.
 
ohbrilliance said:
My def of HD is when you can no longer see the pixels :) After using a 1920x1200 15" at work, anything less appears blocky to me, including the 13" MB and 15" MBP displays.

It's important that your OS GUI can scale well, so everything becomes sharper rather than smaller.
Click to expand...

Are your eyes like 5" from the monitor? At 2 feet 99.9% of people could not tell the difference in a movie.
 
flopticalcube said:
Are your eyes like 5" from the monitor? At 2 feet 99.9% of people could not tell the difference in a movie.
Click to expand...

Not that close :D But I would sit closer to a laptop screen than to an LCD panel. I'm probably about 2 feet from my 15" 1400x1050 laptop now and I can see the graininess of the pixels. Maybe it's one of those things which you'll only notice once used to the higher resolution.
 
~Shard~ said:
I simply don't need a 17" screen with a laptop, let alone one which can display HD - it's a portable after all...
Click to expand...

I take my baby to work with me every day. It would be a hassle without my Incase sling pack though!

I keep a power supply at home and one at my office. That helps a LOT! ;)
 
majordude said:
I take my baby to work with me every day. It would be a hassle without my Incase sling pack though!

I keep a power supply at home and one at my office. That helps a LOT! ;)
Click to expand...

I'll probably do the same when I do get my new MBP - it's just that, as I said, I don't require a 17" screen nor true HD resolution on it. ;)
 
Rumor makes sense. We need Leopard for resolution independence before we get ultra tiny dot pitch displays on laptops. Probably expect dramatically new Macbook Pro at WWDC, then a "revision 2" early next year with higher res screens.
 
RichP said:
Rumor makes sense. We need Leopard for resolution independence before we get ultra tiny dot pitch displays on laptops. Probably expect dramatically new Macbook Pro at WWDC, then a "revision 2" early next year with higher res screens.
Click to expand...

That's what I'm hoping for - I've been holding off buying a new MBP until they get updated, which I am hoping will be in a couple weeks at WWDC.
 
i consider anything with a picture sharper than a TV screen, high definition...

u dont need no stinking 19" HD TV if ur hooking it up to a computer, just buy a 22 or 24 inch monitor. same if not better quality.
 
SWC said:
The fact that it has a resolution of 1440 by 900 and HD specs start at 1280x720
Click to expand...

Yup! All MacBooks already have true HD pixel dimensions, at 1280x800.

We've had HD MacBook Pros since they were first introduced. So far they haven't had 1080i/p native displays, but anyone who knows the difference between pixel dimensions and resolution would also know that screen size is a non-issue for consumer high-definition video. Professionals would not rely on a laptop screen for color reference. 1680x1050 or 1440x900 is plenty big enough for doing rough cuts. Finishing work would be done at a desk with an external monitor and most likely a Mac Pro.
 
FleurDuMal said:
The idea that a 17" screen could have the same resolution as what is standard on a 24" monitor is quite mind-blowing.
Click to expand...

Then your mind is out of date.

There have been 1920x1200 15.4" screens for years.
And no, it's not a ludicrous resolution for people with good eyes. It suits mine fine.
 
kingofkolt said:
As someone who will major in graphic design, I have to wonder if a pixel pitch that small hinders being able to clearly see individual pixels when using Photoshop/Dreamweaver/etc...
Click to expand...

Zoom.

You never use Photoshop looking at pixels at the default 100% view of an image.

And Dreamweaver... you don't look at pixels at all.


You'll find that high resolution will aid greatly in graphic design.
 
whateverandever said:
Zoom.

You never use Photoshop looking at pixels at the default 100% view of an image.

And Dreamweaver... you don't look at pixels at all.


You'll find that high resolution will aid greatly in graphic design.
Click to expand...

That's true... actually, a PSD at 200% on a MBP will probably look the same as the same PSD at 100% on my current monitor :D (which I think has a pixel pitch of somewheres around 0.28?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back