Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 24th Apr 2006 14:05 UTC, submitted by CrimsonScythe
Apple The 17" MacBook Pro has just been released. The 17" model has Firewire 800 and 8x dual layer Superdrive, both of which the 15.4" version lacks. The new MacBook Pro was presented during the NAB2006. The machine will cost $2799,- in the US, or round and about EUR 2879,- (differs per country) in the EU, or GBP 1999,- if you live in the UK.
Thread beginning with comment 117922
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: No 1920 x 1200 screen?
by dara on Tue 25th Apr 2006 00:48 UTC in reply to "No 1920 x 1200 screen?"
dara
Member since:
2006-04-25

I couldn't agree more. In fact this decision alone pushes me towards a Dell Latitude D820. I want at least WUXGA on a 15.4" screen. Why wouldn't I want the most pixels my eye can see? I can comfortably read an LCD screen at about 12". At this distance 1 deg is about .21". A rough figure of the eye's resolving capacity is 60 pixels in that 1 deg, so above 285 dpi or so, there probably isn't much point. A 15.4" screen is about 13.1" across and 1920/13.1 is only 147 dpi. I hope WUXGA screens will make it down to photo storage devices with an 8" diagonal screen. If Mac (or any other OS) can't handle scaling every font and icon for systems with > 150 dpi, then it better get its act together soon as denser screens are obviously the future.

Dara

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: No 1920 x 1200 screen?
by suryad on Tue 25th Apr 2006 03:59 in reply to "RE: No 1920 x 1200 screen?"
suryad Member since:
2005-07-09

I am using it on a 15.4 inch widescreen. It is NOT microscopic and it is great when programming in IDEs. Also when editing word docs it is awesome because I have 2 pages open side by side. Same thing with pdfs. It is actually incredibly comfortable.

Reply Parent Score: 1