Nobody worried about eye-strain?

[C64]

I sent back my High Res MBP 15" because after using it for 30 minutes I'd get headaches and serious eye-strain. Never expected it, and ordered the HR without second thought. But the HR was a real problem for me.

The MacBook Pro 15" HR is 1680x1050 opposed to 1440x900, which is a 16.67% difference.

The resolution on the new 13" MacBook Air goes from 1280x800 to 1440x900, that's a 12.5% increase.

So there's less of a difference, but it's still going to be smaller text on the screen. Fortunately we can all try it out in the store, where many stores don't have the HR 15" MBPs.

 

[netdog]

I'm more concerned about the 11" in that regard. One of the reasons I ordered the 13".

 

[Scottsdale]

I'm more concerned about the 11" in that regard. One of the reasons I ordered the 13".

Do you both not realize that you can turn "down" the resolution? You can set any Mac's display to lower than the native resolution easily in the system preferences.

Apple icon | System Preferences | Displays | select the res you want.

 

[C64]

Do you both not realize that you can turn "down" the resolution? You can set any Mac's display to lower than the native resolution easily in the system preferences.

Apple icon | System Preferences | Displays | select the res you want.

I suggest you try this for yourself first, and find out how everything besides the native resolution looks extremely bad and fuzzy and is therefore not usable

 

[SubaruNation555]

I suggest you try this for yourself first, and find out how everything besides the native resolution looks extremely bad and fuzzy and is therefore not usable

Yep, that's where resolution independence would be nice.

 

[cherry su]

Yep, that's where resolution independence would be nice.

And wasn't that coming out in Snow Leopard...

 

[mklnz]

Resolution independence would be nice - hoping for it to be included Lion.

 

[potatis]

Well, higher resolution is the future, so grab old models while you can if you think the new one's res is too small. Remembre the Powerbook G4, last model had 'high-res', which became standard res on the Macbooks. The 17" Macbook Pro quietly got a 'high-res' option, which is now standard. The same is for the 15" Macbook Pro now, they'll probably remove the 1440x900 variants of that one. Next up will probably be the 13.3" Macbooks & Pros. Instead of resolution independence they'll just increase the resolution every other year, to make users get used to it in slow pace. Kind of like having a frog in a pot and increasing the heat a little by little instead of boiling it directly!

 

[mac jones]

When I bought my Macbook pro 17", I thought that it might be an issue.

Some of the menus are small, but everything else is fine.

I perhaps like it better this way, as there's more room for the main pages (albiet, the menus are small).

Also, glassses and eyesight are a big factor.

I might just want the higher res on the smaller 11" screen as there would be more real estate to balance the shrinkage. I don't know

I sure like my 17 though

 

[firestarter]

I sent back my High Res MBP 15" because after using it for 30 minutes I'd get headaches and serious eye-strain. Never expected it, and ordered the HR without second thought. But the HR was a real problem for me.

Do you wear glasses, and have an up to date prescription? I'm not being flippant - maybe this is a problem that could be solved easily with the correct reading glasses.

 

[Scottsdale]

But non-native resolution will not look different when it's still fairly high such as that. Sure, it doesn't look great lowering a 13" MBA's display down from 1280 x 800 to lower but of course not, but with a 13" going from 1440 x 900 to 1280 x 800 will not be bad at all and should look just like the previous MBA's 13" display.

Resolution independence will mean that the higher resolution MBA display won't allow us to "turn up" the text and icons to be the same size as the current 13" MBA has at 1280 x 800 size while the rest remains smaller taking advantage of the higher resolution. So our icons and text will be smaller on the higher resolution displays.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong here... however, I thought this was the scenario with OS X and resolution independence?

 

[firestarter]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong here... however, I thought this was the scenario with OS X and resolution independence?

That's the theory - but resolution independence hasn't been released in OSX so far and hasn't been announced for inclusion with Lion - so there really is no 'scenario with OSX and resolution independence'.

 

[aberrero]

And wasn't that coming out in Snow Leopard...

It was supposed to come out in Panther. Seriously.

Actually, WIndows 7 handles high pixel density pretty well. There is some artifacting here and there, but overall it works well, and at least having the option is nice. That said, I never get headaches from this sort of thing, and the high res display is the killer feature of the new MBA.

 

[dimension6]

Eye strain? Pshaw! My primary PC is a VAIO Z 13.3" 1920x1080. I guess it's all relative.

 

[Scottsdale]

That's the theory - but resolution independence hasn't been released in OSX so far and hasn't been announced for inclusion with Lion - so there really is no 'scenario with OSX and resolution independence'.

So can you tell me if I am correct in my logic about it. On a new 13.3" MBA, when turned down to 1280 x 800, it will look the same as it does on the prior 1280 x 800 MBAs? However, when 1440 x 900 is used, the icons and text will look smaller.

This means that going backwards to what one is used to will not ruin the experience, but simply that font and icons will look smaller on the higher res display but not affect them going backwards to 1280 x 800?

That is my theory based on what I have read. I don't know if it's correct, but can someone who buys a new 13" MBA tomorrow, please post a photo and your experience when turning the 13" new MBA down to 1280 x 800 from 1440 x 900? With my theory, it will look the same on both MBAs when used with 1280 x 800 resolution on both. However, with 1440 x 900, the icons and text will look smaller than they do on the 1280 x 800.

 

[aberrero]

If you turn the resolution down to 1280 x 800, it will be the same size as the MPB.

BUT it will look terrible. everything will have jagged edges and stuff since the pixels wont line up properly.

 

[bouncer1]

Yep, that's where resolution independence would be nice.

Yes, that's probably the biggest missing feature is os x, and real shame it wasn't made possible in os sl.

This is a very interesting topic, as someone prone to eye strain I would really like to know what everyone thinks.

Won't a higher resolution be better in say safari, or pages, where you can get the best of both worlds, in that you can increase font sizes and will and still get the crisper fonts that go along with a higher pixel count? I am really confused about this issue, so if anyone can shed some light here...

 

[rhinosrcool]

Always, I look for the highest resolution. Everything is just so much crisper, especially when reading text.

Yes, that's how it works in safari (command +).

 

[firestarter]

So can you tell me if I am correct in my logic about it. On a new 13.3" MBA, when turned down to 1280 x 800, it will look the same as it does on the prior 1280 x 800 MBAs? However, when 1440 x 900 is used, the icons and text will look smaller.

Yes, but as Aberrero points out, it will look terrible.

Back with the old Cathode Ray screens you could drop resolution down and the display would be fine. On an LCD there are actually 1440x900 physical 'dots' on the screen, so if you tell the computer to run at a different resolution it has to map (say) 1 dot over 1.2 dots and the result will be jagged and fuzzy - not a workable solution.

Your best options are:
- get that optician's prescription fixed so that reading doesn't cause eye strain
- buy a computer with low screen resolution (the iPad is actually quite low)
- use OSX's built in accessibility hot keys, which allow you to zoom in and magnify the screen on demand to see things more clearly

 

[AAPLaday]

Resolution independence would be nice - hoping for it to be included Lion.

Agreed. Im hoping this is the killer feature of Lion

 

[netdog]

Do you both not realize that you can turn "down" the resolution? You can set any Mac's display to lower than the native resolution easily in the system preferences.

Apple icon | System Preferences | Displays | select the res you want.

Um...duh. Of course I realize that.

But do that, and on the 11", you're starting to get too little actual workspace, at least for me.

 

[bouncer1]

No, that's not the point, you can't really run os x, in non native modes, that's the point.

Having said that this thread has confused more than clairified.

Is it or is not better in terms of eye strain a higher res on a small screen?

Will it amount to eye strain as in larger screens such as that of th pro at 15" or 17"?

And I am curious about someone who said they were more concerned about the 11". Why? That has lower resolution than the 13"?

 

[firestarter]

Is it or is not better in terms of eye strain a higher res on a small screen?

The text is smaller. So if that's a problem, yes you may get worse eye strain.

Will it amount to eye strain as in larger screens such as that of th pro at 15" or 17"?

And I am curious about someone who said they were more concerned about the 11". Why? That has lower resolution than the 13"?

It depends on the resolution per inch - that's what decides the relative size of text. So the same resolution on a smaller screen = smaller text.

You can work out whether the 11 is 'worse' than the 13 for yourself. Divide the horizontal resolution into the horizontal screen size to get the 'dot pitch'. I'll leave this an exercise for you.

 

[idonotliketostu]

the 13" has a higher ppi than the 11 in, i mathed it out yesterday