On Sep 11, 2005, at 1:51 PM, eleventhvolume wrote: > I'm wondering if anybody can help me with this one. I've been a Mac > user for > more than a decade. My job currently provides me with a 15" > Powerbook with > which I'm very happy. For my sins I've also just been issued with a > fairly > high-end Dell portable behemoth with a screen resolution of > something like > 1920 x 1200 (I can't remember the exact dimensions, but it's a Dell > Precision with the high spec). > > On booting the Dell up for the first time, I commented > disparagingly to my > boss about the way the screen makes everything - particularly web > pages - > look tiny, to which he took great exception. I think he's blessed with > better eyesight than me, but he also owns the 17" Powerbook which > has a > somewhat lower resolution than the Dell. I commented that I > believed that > the lower Apple resolution was an active design decision rather > than being > anything to do with money-saving. He argued in return that he was > sure that > Apple would install a 1920x1200 screen if one was available. > > Is my boss right or can anybody point me to any evidence that Apple > deliberately maintain a lower screen resolution than is possible for > usability purposes? Thanks in advance for any help anybody can give. Your boss's logic seems flawed. He says that apple would install a 1900x1200 screen if one was available. Obviously, one is available because Dell is using one. I think Apple rightly used a somewhat lower resolution screen on thier 17" PowerBook to maintain usability for the widest gamut of users. I have seen those 1900x1200 resolution on 17" screens also, and they can be dificult to view. Same goes for their 15" screens that use 1680x1050. Generally Apple uses a 106 PPI resolution on their panels. It seems a good balance between usability and resolution Just because one 'can' do something doesn't make that a good reason 'to' do it. Good luck, -- Nick Scalise nickscalise at cox.net