New MacBook Pro Offers a Dazzling Display

What a difference 540,000 pixels make. I'm talking in this case about the latest MacBook Pro to grace my desk, the top-of-the-line 17-in. model with a glossy 1,920-by-1,200-pixel high-resolution screen tricked out with a 7,200-rpm 160GB hard drive and 4GB of RAM added post-purchase. Oh, and it uses Intel's new 2.4-GHz Core 2 Duo with a "Santa Rosa" chip set for a bit more zip and even slightly longer battery life. But it's the screen that's the most appealing feature. This is without a doubt the best-looking LCD screen Apple has produced in what also happens to be the fastest laptop from the company yet.

View: The full review
News source: PCWorld

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Symantec outgrows underground nuclear bunker

Next Story

PC World cleared over bargain laptop offer

49 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

if it cost less, i mean i really like those macbook pro, but too expensive for that price i rather get a new thinkpad...

we need something cheaper like those macbook but with discrete vcard and better quality

I am beginning to think that maybe that should rename Neowin to Neo-apple or Neo-Mac. Enough with the Mac stories already. I have no problem with general Apple coverage, but come on. Every little feature that they release is getting coverage (even bug bulletins). Maybe next we will have a story on how the top ten features of OSX (you know the ideas Apple borrows, like Microsoft but never pays anyone). Better yet, why not just allow select Mac users to post screen captures of their desktops and setups (and than all of the Linux, BSD, and Windows community) can worship at their feet.

This nonsense has got to stop. It is a freaking computer.

mrmckeb said,
This isn't even news........ it's title "New Macbook Pro Offers a Dazzling Display" is ridiculous - it sounds like a sales pitch.

+1

The specific car isn't overpriced. You can just get the same thing cheaper everywhere else. I find it pathetic that this is head line worthy news. Apple is not doing anything special. They never have. All they do is take established technology and repackage it. ZOMG! WUXGA! Every company offers it. The only news should be is that Apple is 5 years behind. And it's pathetic because this is something designers need.

ew2x4 said,
The specific car isn't overpriced. You can just get the same thing cheaper everywhere else. I find it pathetic that this is head line worthy news. Apple is not doing anything special. They never have. All they do is take established technology and repackage it. ZOMG! WUXGA! Every company offers it. The only news should be is that Apple is 5 years behind. And it's pathetic because this is something designers need.

+1

Damn, that sounds like a NICE computer *drools* makes my HP dv8000 look like a piece of crap (even though I have a 17" glossy widescreen display on it that runs 1440x900, which works for me...)

Right, and over $3000 before taxes and shipping.

As with any Mac, overpriced.

Agreed... as with everything else Apple, it will probably be dramatically overpriced... you could probably get a PC equivalent for about half that price...

very true, I dont see why Apple has to keep getting these news posts theyre just doing what many have done before them but making it cost more.

That's the first display at 133 PPI (pixels per inch) afaik.

And damn it, no one is forcing you to buy Macs! Why don't you go complain to Mercedes that their cars are overpriced?

wctaiwan

wctaiwan said,
That's the first display at 133 PPI (pixels per inch) afaik.

And damn it, no one is forcing you to buy Macs! Why don't you go complain to Mercedes that their cars are overpriced?

wctaiwan


Mercedes makes good cars.
Apple makes good computers?????????????????????

wctaiwan said,
That's the first display at 133 PPI (pixels per inch) afaik.

And damn it, no one is forcing you to buy Macs! Why don't you go complain to Mercedes that their cars are overpriced?

wctaiwan

Mercedez has considerably different parts used compared to a Ford or Chrystler where as Macs have exactly the same parts as PCs but just costs more for the hell of it. And I wasnt complaining about them being overpriced I was complaining about the fact that in the past few days Apple has had like 5 posts on Neowin for pretty much nothing.

wow what an innovation!!!

P.S. other pc laptop manufacturers like dell, sony, hp had this 17" 1920*1200 glossy lcd screen option for AGES.

Richteralan said,
wow what an innovation!!!

P.S. other pc laptop manufacturers like dell, sony, hp had this 17" 1920*1200 glossy lcd screen option for AGES.

Yeah, this is nothing new. I'm reading the post over on my 17" WUXGA 1920x1200 from a Sager 5720 purchased in November 2005. The resolution is great though, and Vista made it much easier to view with the adjustable DPI slider in the operating system which I have set to 120 DPI.

Agreed. Buy the next rev of the Acer 20". If it follows previous trends, it will offer twice as much of everything, AND the much larger/better screen, for the same price as the overpriced MacBook Pro.

Bosaka said,
BWAHAHAHAHAHA you can get 1900x1200 and higher.

I meant resolution to screen size ratio. I have an 20" which is 1680x1050. If it were a laptop, an 20" monitor would be about 2560x1536.

Bosaka said,
BWAHAHAHAHAHA you can get 1900x1200 and higher.

yeah, to get 1920x1200 you'd have to go to 24"

why are all 17's and 19's (4:3) stuck at 1280x1024? or 19" 16:10's all 1440x900 ? with laptops it seems theres so much variety with resolutions.

it's a link to a pc world review, nobody on neowin is bragging about it..did you read just a little pass the article intro where it says it's a review from pc world?

macrosslover said,
it's a link to a pc world review, nobody on neowin is bragging about it..did you read just a little pass the article intro where it says it's a review from pc world?

I never look at those bottom links, I thought it was actually him saying that. my bad.

My workmate just got one of these on insurance after spilling half a bottle of red on his old Powerbook. Timing cos the day his insurance came through the shop got these in :\

Lucky. Way too lucky.

People calling 17" 'not very portable' and 1920 on a 17" stupid are probably still enjoying 1024 on their 17" CRT. Macbook Pros are one of the slimmest notebooks on the market and the screen is about right. It's all relative really. Once you go 1920, you can never go back.

I also agree, also owning the inspiron 6000 with the 1920x1200 15.4" display, definaly nothing special to see it in a 17", makes me not want to upgrade

1920x1200 17" glossy has been standard on Dell E1705s for awhile now, I believe. And contrary to what people are saying, the resolution is a benefit, not a burden. Higher PPI doesn't mean you can't resize icons/fonts to be larger as well, but the clarity is much greater and it looks fantastic in games as well. When I go back to anything less it feels blocky and irritating to my eyes, but I think it's just a matter of getting adjusted.

But at the same time a 1920x1200 resolution screen is more expensive to manufacture. I'd rather have a less expensive one with maybe like 1680x1050 resolution where I don't need to scale the fonts etc (which usually works kinda crap at least in older operating systems, no idea about Vista or OSX Leopard). I'd love that resolution on my desktop on a 24" screen but for a laptop it seems a bit excessive.

Not to mention the graphics card doesn't have enough memory and processing power to run the newest stuff well at the native resolution.

Thats what I thought! but then I looked at my old 15" non-widescreen relativly small laptop, and its actually only 1 inch wider! depth, and hight are smaller! I think I'd want this for portable 1080p alone!

Actually, my 17" MBPRO really grew on me in terms of portability. I'm forever spoiled - I doubt I could go back to a "mere" 15" display after this. Only wish they had the high res in stock when I picked mine up, but the standard display is still quite stunning, especially compared to my old 15" PowerBook G4.


you havent lived until you have had a 17" laptop screen @ 1920x1200

I wont ever own another laptop with anything less...ive had this one for ~2yrs and love it! That and having it with the glossy screen, makes it beautiful! Plus its awesome for coding

You're right. It would be unusable. You'd need a higher resolution.

1920x1200 is perfect for a 15.4" screen. 17" would need something higher.

I have an XPS 17inch at 1920x1200 and i find sometimes the resolution isnt high enough. I love the workspace its great for video editing and CAD designs, people complaining of the resolutions are either kiddies or have no idea what high end means.

What I don’t get is why you get stupidly high screen resolutions on small screens like 1920x1200 on a 17" screen...

For example my laptop can do 1680 x 1050 but that on a 15" screen that’s way too high, and when you up the DPI settings websites like Neowin seam to mess-up and everything generally don’t look as good as it did before.

I’m sure I must be missing something here, there must be a reason for such high resolutions on such small screens. :confused:

InsaneNutter said,
What I don’t get is why you get stupidly high screen resolutions on small screens like 1920x1200 on a 17" screen...

For example my laptop can do 1680 x 1050 but that on a 15" screen that’s way too high, and when you up the DPI settings websites like Neowin seam to mess-up and everything generally don’t look as good as it did before.

I’m sure I must be missing something here, there must be a reason for such high resolutions on such small screens. :confused:

Take it you didn't read the review then.

Galley said,
Apple's got a little something called "resolution independence" in Leopard.

I have heard of this many times, but I'm still not fully understanding what it is, along with its benefits. Could you please explain this a bit? Thanks.

Galley said,
Apple's got a little something called "resolution independence" in Leopard.

unfortunately, no matter how you twist this, it won't really work on websites because THEY ar eno resolution independent. hence why upping DPI doesn't work overly well on windows.

Keep in mind 1920x1200 looks very different on Mac from Windows. I've used a 17" Sony Vaio notebook and the 1920x1200 resolution wasn't easy to read.

I use 1680x1050 at home on Mac (20" WSXGA+) and 1680x1050 at work on Windows XP (using a Dell widescreen 20" WSXGA+) and the text on Windows is amazingly smaller.

I have heard of this many times, but I'm still not fully understanding what it is, along with its benefits. Could you please explain this a bit? Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_independence explains it.