simulated 1900x1200 on 15"MBP

[Scottyfrombi]

I see threads all the time asking to compare the HD 17" to the 15" or non HD 17" where people say the 1900x1200 aspect ratio is too small on the 17" screen.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but can you somewhat simulate the appearance of the 1900x1200 ratio on a 17" MBP screen by opening a page in Safari and hitting the command and minus keys together to make the fonts smaller.

I don't know if this is exactly what a web page would look like on a 17" screen in 1900x1200 but it could give you a pretty good indication of what you would see and if it makes the image and fonts too small for you. Can someone verify if this is a good way to demonstrate this.

 

[oYx]

maybe download any of these (with text and windows, of course) and apply it as a wallpaper?

this one seems like it might be useful.

 

[jnc]

I'm... not sure if you're joking or not.

 

[EvryDayImShufln]

I would think it is but then again you won't be getting the same quality as if the display was actually 1920x1200 because obviously you have less pixels with your standard 15' display.

The nice thing though is that leopard apparently supports resolution independence (supports, but is not implemented yet) which could mean that we could have everything look just as big as on lower resolution screens but with more pixels filling the image, making the image clearer instead of just having simply more stuff on the screen).

 

[gabedamien]

First of all, it's 1920 x 1200, not 1900 x 1200 (minor I know).

Second, the previous posters are exactly right - it wouldn't be the same, because you'd have fewer pixels defining your "small" text than you would have on a high-res screen. So they might be somewhat similar in physical size, but they'd be a lot less clear.

Besides which, font sizing in safari works in significantly discrete increments and wouldn't necessarily exactly hit the same physical dimensions as a higher-res screen.

It personally annoys me that screen density (pixels per inch) isn't usually listed on screen specs, although you can do some arithmetic to figure it out yourself (provided you have the physical diagonal and the screen resolution, and assuming the pixels are perfectly square). It annoys me a LOT more that it's taken so long for a push towards resolution independence - creating a sizing system that scales to physical size instead of pixels, and then uses higher-resolution to render those elements more clearly. Of course, to do that you either need very high-res raster source images to begin with, or lots of vector graphics, but that's precisely the sort of thing Leopard is moving towards - aren't its icons supposed to include 512x512 versions??

 

[Geographigoria]

I've seen 1920x1200 on 15.4"

My old Dell laptop (now with a dead motherboard) has a 15.4" WXGA LCD which natively supports 1920x1200. I used winXP on it for years and really enjoyed being able to cramp that much information on my screen. Sometimes I had to get kind of close up to the machine, but my eyes really got used to it and most of the time I was fine. Then I hated using other people's machines because they could almost never support the resolution I was used to.

In fact, that's why I chose the 24" imac over the 20" last year: the 20" couldn't support 1920x1200 even though my 3-year old 15" dell could!

If the price difference weren't so steep, I would have bought an MBP instead of the MB I have now because of the higher resolution. But yet-higher resolutions would be a real selling point for me.

 

[Geographigoria]

My old Dell laptop (now with a dead motherboard) has a 15.4" WXGA LCD which natively supports 1920x1200. I used winXP on it for years and really enjoyed being able to cramp that much information on my screen. Sometimes I had to get kind of close up to the machine, but my eyes really got used to it and most of the time I was fine. Then I hated using other people's machines because they could almost never support the resolution I was used to.

In fact, that's why I chose the 24" imac over the 20" last year: the 20" couldn't support 1920x1200 even though my 3-year old 15" dell could!

If the price difference weren't so steep, I would have bought an MBP instead of the MB I have now because of the higher resolution. But yet-higher resolutions would be a real selling point for me.

In fact, since my old Dell's motherboard died I've been thinking that it's a bit of a shame to let that display go to waste. I've taken the laptop apart before and I know I could remove the LCD. Does anybody have any ideas about how I could get (or even just identify) some kind of connector which I could use to turn it into an external VGA (or VDI!?) display? Though I guess it would need a power source too, wouldn't it? Maybe there's some cable out there for that too...

 

[Anonymous Freak]

Leopard does support resolution independence, it is just not accessible for the main OS. Individual applications can use it already. You have to use developer debugging tools to enable it system-wide for now.

If you really want to know what it looks like, go find one of the Dells that has a 15.4" 1920x1200 display.

 

[basqarl]

My aging eyes...

With my aging eyes, I'm finding that on my Dell (which is high-res) the print seems awfully tiny and I usually have to enlarge it (control +). However, I do a lot of photography editing and multi-task with several windows open at a time.

The MBP will serve as my desktop and though I need/want the portability from time to time, it is not that frequent that I will require it.

The 15" is appealing but does not have high res. The 17" offers a larger screen (can have more windows open at once). That said, is the high res. something I want or should I go with the 15" LED screen?