Why is powerbook screen resolution so bad?

[Tim Murray]

I've read through just about every post in this thread, and felt I had to
respond. My background is Win/Mac 50-50 from early 1980s to mid 1990s; then
to 90% Win to 2000, and since 2000 I've been back at the Mac keyboard more
and more ... and in the last six months I've had a the 800 MHz PowerBook with
OS 9.2.2 and last week I bought the 17-inch beast with X.2.6. My clients are
100% Windows.

Okay, that said, I have to say that I'm mildly disappointed in the OS X
interface and with the low resolution of this PowerBook. But the reason takes
some time to describe.

Cosider the average Windows system you see in front of probably 95 percent of
corporate America: Only the remaining 5 percent know it's possible to remove
tool bars. For instance, my Word app has one tool bar with something like
five items; everything else I do through keyboard commands. My Windows
Internet Explorer has no only the main text menu and an address bar ...
that's it, no other tool is present ... and I have the address bar shoved to
the right of end of the main menu.

Most of the monitors at the secretarys' desks are set to 800 x 600. When you
change one of those to 1280 x 8-whatever and then remove tool bars, a browser
window can show MORE than twice the data.

So what the heck does that have to do with a Mac laptop? Well, for me, I like
to work with several, what some may call "small" windows, nudged arranged
around the screen

[Tim Murray]

I've read through just about every post in this thread, and felt I had to
respond. My background is Win/Mac 50-50 from early 1980s to mid 1990s; then
to 90% Win to 2000, and since 2000 I've been back at the Mac keyboard more
and more ... and in the last six months I've had a the 800 MHz PowerBook with
OS 9.2.2 and last week I bought the 17-inch beast with X.2.6. My clients are
100% Windows.

Okay, that said, I have to say that I'm mildly disappointed in the OS X
interface and with the low resolution of this PowerBook. But the reason takes
some time to describe.

Cosider the average Windows system you see in front of probably 95 percent of
corporate America: Only the remaining 5 percent know it's possible to remove
tool bars. For instance, my Word app has one tool bar with something like
five items; everything else I do through keyboard commands. My Windows
Internet Explorer has no only the main text menu and an address bar ...
that's it, no other tool is present ... and I have the address bar shoved to
the right of end of the main menu.

Most of the monitors at the secretarys' desks are set to 800 x 600. When you
change one of those to 1280 x 8-whatever and then remove tool bars, a browser
window can show MORE than twice the data.

So what the heck does that have to do with a Mac laptop? Well, for me, I like
to work with several, what some may call "small" windows, nudged arranged
around the screen

[flip]

In article <0001HW.BB3E475C00010064F0488600@newsgroups.bellso uth.net>,
Tim Murray <NoSpam@please.com> wrote:

> I've read through just about every post in this thread, and felt I had to
> respond. My background is Win/Mac 50-50 from early 1980s to mid 1990s; then
> to 90% Win to 2000, and since 2000 I've been back at the Mac keyboard more
> and more ... and in the last six months I've had a the 800 MHz PowerBook with
> OS 9.2.2 and last week I bought the 17-inch beast with X.2.6. My clients are
> 100% Windows.
>
> Okay, that said, I have to say that I'm mildly disappointed in the OS X
> interface and with the low resolution of this PowerBook. But the reason takes
> some time to describe.
>
> Cosider the average Windows system you see in front of probably 95 percent of
> corporate America: Only the remaining 5 percent know it's possible to remove
> tool bars. For instance, my Word app has one tool bar with something like
> five items; everything else I do through keyboard commands. My Windows
> Internet Explorer has no only the main text menu and an address bar ...
> that's it, no other tool is present ... and I have the address bar shoved to
> the right of end of the main menu.
>
> Most of the monitors at the secretarys' desks are set to 800 x 600. When you
> change one of those to 1280 x 8-whatever and then remove tool bars, a browser
> window can show MORE than twice the data.
>
> So what the heck does that have to do with a Mac laptop? Well, for me, I like
> to work with several, what some may call "small" windows, nudged arranged
> around the screen
>
>

I don't think anyone has ever argued that higher scren resolutions are
useless.

But you've admitted yourself that the majority of people are using
800x600 (personally, I would have thought 1024x768, but the difference
doesn't matter in this context). So for the majority of people, higher
resolution doesn't matter.

But cost, clarity, viewing angle, color, and so on do matter. So why
should Apple sacrifice things that do matter to get a higher resolution
which doesn't matter to a significant number of people - particularly
since their current resolution is already 1280 x 8xx - which is what you
prefer?

[flip]

In article <0001HW.BB3E475C00010064F0488600@newsgroups.bellso uth.net>,
Tim Murray <NoSpam@please.com> wrote:

> I've read through just about every post in this thread, and felt I had to
> respond. My background is Win/Mac 50-50 from early 1980s to mid 1990s; then
> to 90% Win to 2000, and since 2000 I've been back at the Mac keyboard more
> and more ... and in the last six months I've had a the 800 MHz PowerBook with
> OS 9.2.2 and last week I bought the 17-inch beast with X.2.6. My clients are
> 100% Windows.
>
> Okay, that said, I have to say that I'm mildly disappointed in the OS X
> interface and with the low resolution of this PowerBook. But the reason takes
> some time to describe.
>
> Cosider the average Windows system you see in front of probably 95 percent of
> corporate America: Only the remaining 5 percent know it's possible to remove
> tool bars. For instance, my Word app has one tool bar with something like
> five items; everything else I do through keyboard commands. My Windows
> Internet Explorer has no only the main text menu and an address bar ...
> that's it, no other tool is present ... and I have the address bar shoved to
> the right of end of the main menu.
>
> Most of the monitors at the secretarys' desks are set to 800 x 600. When you
> change one of those to 1280 x 8-whatever and then remove tool bars, a browser
> window can show MORE than twice the data.
>
> So what the heck does that have to do with a Mac laptop? Well, for me, I like
> to work with several, what some may call "small" windows, nudged arranged
> around the screen
>
>

I don't think anyone has ever argued that higher scren resolutions are
useless.

But you've admitted yourself that the majority of people are using
800x600 (personally, I would have thought 1024x768, but the difference
doesn't matter in this context). So for the majority of people, higher
resolution doesn't matter.

But cost, clarity, viewing angle, color, and so on do matter. So why
should Apple sacrifice things that do matter to get a higher resolution
which doesn't matter to a significant number of people - particularly
since their current resolution is already 1280 x 8xx - which is what you
prefer?

[flip]

In article <5jfbfb.di2.ln@vlad.seahaze>,
Peter Hayes <peter@NOSPAM.seahaze.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Tim Murray wrote:
>

> > I've read through just about every post in this thread, and felt I had to
> > respond. My background is Win/Mac 50-50 from early 1980s to mid 1990s; then
> > to 90% Win to 2000, and since 2000 I've been back at the Mac keyboard more
> > and more ... and in the last six months I've had a the 800 MHz PowerBook
> > with
> > OS 9.2.2 and last week I bought the 17-inch beast with X.2.6. My clients
> > are 100% Windows.
> >
> > Okay, that said, I have to say that I'm mildly disappointed in the OS X
> > interface and with the low resolution of this PowerBook. But the reason
> > takes some time to describe.
> >
> > Consider the average Windows system you see in front of probably 95 percent
> > of corporate America: Only the remaining 5 percent know it's possible to
> > remove tool bars. For instance, my Word app has one tool bar with something
> > like five items; everything else I do through keyboard commands. My Windows
> > Internet Explorer has no only the main text menu and an address bar ...
> > that's it, no other tool is present ... and I have the address bar shoved to
> > the right of end of the main menu.
> >
> > Most of the monitors at the secretarys' desks are set to 800 x 600. When you
> > change one of those to 1280 x 8-whatever and then remove tool bars, a
> > browser window can show MORE than twice the data.
> >
> > So what the heck does that have to do with a Mac laptop? Well, for me, I
> > like to work with several, what some may call "small" windows, nudged
> > arranged around the screen

>
> Thats got very little to do with powerbook screen resolution.
>
> My quarrel with powerbook resolution is that it's just too low for what is
> effectively the same as a 19" CRT screen.
>
> I can see the individual pixels, stripes, whatever you want to call them, on
> my 14.1" 1024x768 laptop. They must be more evident on a 17" 1400x960 screen.
> I cannot see them on my 1600x1200 15.1" laptop.

I can't see them on my PowerBook, either.

Screen resolution isn't the only thing that matters. I'd take a high
quality 1280 x 8xx screen over a crappy 1600x1200 any day.

Apple has apparently decided that the tradeoffs aren't worth it.

[flip]

In article <5jfbfb.di2.ln@vlad.seahaze>,
Peter Hayes <peter@NOSPAM.seahaze.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Tim Murray wrote:
>

> > I've read through just about every post in this thread, and felt I had to
> > respond. My background is Win/Mac 50-50 from early 1980s to mid 1990s; then
> > to 90% Win to 2000, and since 2000 I've been back at the Mac keyboard more
> > and more ... and in the last six months I've had a the 800 MHz PowerBook
> > with
> > OS 9.2.2 and last week I bought the 17-inch beast with X.2.6. My clients
> > are 100% Windows.
> >
> > Okay, that said, I have to say that I'm mildly disappointed in the OS X
> > interface and with the low resolution of this PowerBook. But the reason
> > takes some time to describe.
> >
> > Consider the average Windows system you see in front of probably 95 percent
> > of corporate America: Only the remaining 5 percent know it's possible to
> > remove tool bars. For instance, my Word app has one tool bar with something
> > like five items; everything else I do through keyboard commands. My Windows
> > Internet Explorer has no only the main text menu and an address bar ...
> > that's it, no other tool is present ... and I have the address bar shoved to
> > the right of end of the main menu.
> >
> > Most of the monitors at the secretarys' desks are set to 800 x 600. When you
> > change one of those to 1280 x 8-whatever and then remove tool bars, a
> > browser window can show MORE than twice the data.
> >
> > So what the heck does that have to do with a Mac laptop? Well, for me, I
> > like to work with several, what some may call "small" windows, nudged
> > arranged around the screen

>
> Thats got very little to do with powerbook screen resolution.
>
> My quarrel with powerbook resolution is that it's just too low for what is
> effectively the same as a 19" CRT screen.
>
> I can see the individual pixels, stripes, whatever you want to call them, on
> my 14.1" 1024x768 laptop. They must be more evident on a 17" 1400x960 screen.
> I cannot see them on my 1600x1200 15.1" laptop.

I can't see them on my PowerBook, either.

Screen resolution isn't the only thing that matters. I'd take a high
quality 1280 x 8xx screen over a crappy 1600x1200 any day.

Apple has apparently decided that the tradeoffs aren't worth it.

[Thom Rosario]

In article <flippo-2AD83E.07200819072003@news.central.cox.net>,
flip <flippo@mac.com> wrote:

>
> Screen resolution isn't the only thing that matters. I'd take a high
> quality 1280 x 8xx screen over a crappy 1600x1200 any day.
>
> Apple has apparently decided that the tradeoffs aren't worth it.

I use both a Dell and my 17" Powerbook at work. The Dell's 15" set to
1600x1200 is sad compared to the 17". Yes -- I love the extra space on
the Dell, but it's *much* harder to read, and I'm considering setting up
an external monitor on my desk just to be able to accomodate the Dell.

Since LCDs have "native" resolutions, setting the dell to a lower
resolution would make the image even *harder* to read.

I think Apple's found a nice middle-of-the-road size on the 17".


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"We really haven't done everything we could to protect our
customers ... Our products just aren't engineered for security."
-- Brian Valentine, Sr VP in charge of MS Windows' Dev Team

[Thom Rosario]

In article <flippo-2AD83E.07200819072003@news.central.cox.net>,
flip <flippo@mac.com> wrote:

>
> Screen resolution isn't the only thing that matters. I'd take a high
> quality 1280 x 8xx screen over a crappy 1600x1200 any day.
>
> Apple has apparently decided that the tradeoffs aren't worth it.

I use both a Dell and my 17" Powerbook at work. The Dell's 15" set to
1600x1200 is sad compared to the 17". Yes -- I love the extra space on
the Dell, but it's *much* harder to read, and I'm considering setting up
an external monitor on my desk just to be able to accomodate the Dell.

Since LCDs have "native" resolutions, setting the dell to a lower
resolution would make the image even *harder* to read.

I think Apple's found a nice middle-of-the-road size on the 17".


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"We really haven't done everything we could to protect our
customers ... Our products just aren't engineered for security."
-- Brian Valentine, Sr VP in charge of MS Windows' Dev Team

[Peter Hayes]

EFD wrote:

> On 7/19/03 2:03 PM, in article [email]5jfbfb.di2.ln@vlad.seah[/email]aze, "Peter Hayes"
> <peter@NOSPAM.seahaze.demon.co.uk> wrote:

<...>

>> My quarrel with powerbook resolution is that it's just too low for what is
>> effectively the same as a 19" CRT screen.
>>
>> I can see the individual pixels, stripes, whatever you want to call them,
>> on my 14.1" 1024x768 laptop. They must be more evident on a 17" 1400x960
>> screen. I cannot see them on my 1600x1200 15.1" laptop.
>>
>> To do justice to the 17" Apple need to supply a screen resolution at least
>> 1600 pixels wide, and preferably 1920 wide.

>
> Must be what you are used to as 1280 wide seems just fine for even tiny text
> on my 19" (18" viewable) CRT and allows me plenty of window space. 1400 on
> about the same width screen would be even better.

Eventually you are going to run out of pixels to display text and other
details cleanly, free of aliasing effects. 1280 may be acceptable depending
on the dot-pitch of your CRT, 1280 on an LCD is quite different.

> 1600 would be mildly better but with diminishing returns on a screen that
> size. 1920 is a waste of capability on a screen that size and will cost a
> premium that isn't necessary.

Yes, 1920 x -whatever might well consume resources disproportionate to the
benefits.

--

Peter

Remove NOSPAM. to e-mail

[Peter Hayes]

EFD wrote:

> On 7/19/03 2:03 PM, in article [email]5jfbfb.di2.ln@vlad.seah[/email]aze, "Peter Hayes"
> <peter@NOSPAM.seahaze.demon.co.uk> wrote:

<...>

>> My quarrel with powerbook resolution is that it's just too low for what is
>> effectively the same as a 19" CRT screen.
>>
>> I can see the individual pixels, stripes, whatever you want to call them,
>> on my 14.1" 1024x768 laptop. They must be more evident on a 17" 1400x960
>> screen. I cannot see them on my 1600x1200 15.1" laptop.
>>
>> To do justice to the 17" Apple need to supply a screen resolution at least
>> 1600 pixels wide, and preferably 1920 wide.

>
> Must be what you are used to as 1280 wide seems just fine for even tiny text
> on my 19" (18" viewable) CRT and allows me plenty of window space. 1400 on
> about the same width screen would be even better.

Eventually you are going to run out of pixels to display text and other
details cleanly, free of aliasing effects. 1280 may be acceptable depending
on the dot-pitch of your CRT, 1280 on an LCD is quite different.

> 1600 would be mildly better but with diminishing returns on a screen that
> size. 1920 is a waste of capability on a screen that size and will cost a
> premium that isn't necessary.

Yes, 1920 x -whatever might well consume resources disproportionate to the
benefits.

--

Peter

Remove NOSPAM. to e-mail

[Tim Murray]

> But you've admitted yourself that the majority of people are using

> 800x600 (personally, I would have thought 1024x768, but the difference
> doesn't matter in this context). So for the majority of people, higher
> resolution doesn't matter.

I'm not sure about 'majority' but I can tell you that 'most' of the people I
help discover higher resolutions appreciate the change. Once I a while I
encounter someone with bad eyesight who goes back to a lower resolution, but
it's not often.

[Tim Murray]

> But you've admitted yourself that the majority of people are using

> 800x600 (personally, I would have thought 1024x768, but the difference
> doesn't matter in this context). So for the majority of people, higher
> resolution doesn't matter.

I'm not sure about 'majority' but I can tell you that 'most' of the people I
help discover higher resolutions appreciate the change. Once I a while I
encounter someone with bad eyesight who goes back to a lower resolution, but
it's not often.

[flip]

In article <4c15730dd1nospam@segfault.co.uk>,
pv <nospam@segfault.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <BB404232.5430%no-spam@thankyou.com>,
> Tim Murray <no-spam@thankyou.com> wrote:

> > I'm not sure about 'majority' but I can tell you that 'most' of the
> > people I help discover higher resolutions appreciate the change. Once I a
> > while I encounter someone with bad eyesight who goes back to a lower
> > resolution, but it's not often.

>
> I've often wondered why the 17" Apple LCD screens can't display higher
> resolution. My main computer is a RISC OS based machine and the default
> screen resolution for working is 1920x1440.
> I've also got a 17" iMac, which only goes up to 1280x768 or whatever! :-(

The limitation is the screen's resolution.

My PowerBook G4, for example, will support much higher resolutions with
an external monitor (up to 1600x1200, IIRC) than with its own monitor.

[flip]

In article <4c15730dd1nospam@segfault.co.uk>,
pv <nospam@segfault.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <BB404232.5430%no-spam@thankyou.com>,
> Tim Murray <no-spam@thankyou.com> wrote:

> > I'm not sure about 'majority' but I can tell you that 'most' of the
> > people I help discover higher resolutions appreciate the change. Once I a
> > while I encounter someone with bad eyesight who goes back to a lower
> > resolution, but it's not often.

>
> I've often wondered why the 17" Apple LCD screens can't display higher
> resolution. My main computer is a RISC OS based machine and the default
> screen resolution for working is 1920x1440.
> I've also got a 17" iMac, which only goes up to 1280x768 or whatever! :-(

The limitation is the screen's resolution.

My PowerBook G4, for example, will support much higher resolutions with
an external monitor (up to 1600x1200, IIRC) than with its own monitor.

[L & J Holter]

In OS 9.1 I could double click an alias for NC 4.79 and it would trigger dialing
to the ISP. I now also have a Powerbook with OS 10.2. Can it be configured
similarly or do I have to connect using the little phone and also then manually
launch the browser? Thanks
Judy