# Switching from a 15.4" to a 13.3" laptop screen.



## Atroz (Aug 7, 2005)

Hello,

I currently have a powerbook with a 15.4" 1280x854 pixel screen. I keep thinking about getting a MBA with its 13.3" 1280x800 pixel screen and wondering if loosing the 2" would really bug me. The screen resolution is very close. Alternatively, I could go for a new MBP and gain a lot of pixels (about 25%), but not loose the weight that MBA has to its advantage.


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

Theoretically, a 13 inch screen with same pixel count as a 15 inch screen should look better. The inverse of getting physically large without increasing the pixels.

Smaller pixels, packed closer together should be nice. I wouldn't do it if the resolution were lower but given the similarity, you should be fine.

Edit:
Bear in mind that items on screen will be physically smaller and that your eyes/glasses had better be up to the task. 10 point text will be easier to read on a bigger screen than a smaller of the same resolution. If spreadsheets are your thing you might want to d some visual checks before deciding.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

In general my view is that you will be fine. Of course, a lot depends on what tasks you need your Mac to perform. I went from a 15" PB to a 12" to gain portability. I have no issues at all, but when I am in portable mode I generally focus on one app / task at a time. Back at the office I attach another monitor and then I have a pile of space - the best of both worlds in my view.

If you don't need more power than the MBA offers, then you will probably come to really appreciate the weight difference. And for those times when you need more space, attach an external.


----------



## Atroz (Aug 7, 2005)

Macified, 

You got me thinking about the dot pitch.

If I look at it as pixels per diagonal inch, I get the following:

Powerbook
1280 * 854 = 1093120 / 15.4 = 70981 pixels/diagonal inch

MBA
1280 * 800 = 1024000 / 13.3 = 76992 pixels/diagonal inch

MBP
1440 * 900 = 1296000 / 15.4 = 84155 pixels/diagonal inch

So, compared to my current Powerbook, the MBA would increase the pixel density by 8%. Buying the current MBP would increase the pixel density by 18%. Between the MPA and MBP the Pro is 9% greater. 

So, as far as eyesight goes, graphic elements on the MBA would be 8% smaller and the MBP would be 18% smaller than what I'm use to now. 

That's an interesting way to look at all of this. The smaller screen on the MBA is closest to what I am used to for font sizes, etc. The MBP would be a fairly considerable (double) size decrease. MBA still has the problem of having less on the screen. 

Hmm. I had to see what the high res 17" would give. That ends up at 135529 pixels/diagonal inch. Or 90% greater than my powerbook!


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

I would say depends on how your use your machine. When I had an iMac desktop and a MacBook, I didn't notice the 13" screen and it's smallness. But now that I've sold the desktop and do EVERYTHING on the MacBook, I find that staring 12 hours a day at the 13" is a bit draining. I got an external screen which really cut that down, but if I had a 15" MBP I think I'd have no problem..... which may be my next move.


----------



## Andrew Pratt (Feb 16, 2007)

I've had 15" screens on all my laptops but tried a 14" model and quickly sold it. It was just too small for me but then i'd love a 17" so I may not be one to judge against :0


----------



## Atroz (Aug 7, 2005)

Andrew Pratt said:


> I've had 15" screens on all my laptops but tried a 14" model and quickly sold it. It was just too small for me but then i'd love a 17" so I may not be one to judge against :0


Was that because of the change in screen size or did it drop resolution too much? 

I've been debating the 17" too, but it adds 1.2 lbs and a couple inches to the laptop, as well as another Grand to the price. I'm hoping that Apple does release some new MBPs soon and perhaps with a 1440x1050 display or higher.


----------



## Andrew Pratt (Feb 16, 2007)

If I recall the screen resolution was slightly smaller on the 14". Part of the problem is I run dual monitors at work so I feel cramped on most other machines running a single monitor and the small 14" was just too small for comfort.


----------



## jonmon (Feb 15, 2002)

I moved from a 20" cinema display with a mac mini to 13.3" on a macbook. 

It definitely takes time to get used to. You won't have that extra space on the sides to have little windows open without overlapping.

But now we have expose and spaces, so it's all good


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Where is the 'going from 15" to 13" is going to save me half the weight' (MBA) option?


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

When I got my iBook I moved from a 17" 1280x1024 LCD on my desktop to a puny 12" 1024x768... and it didn't bother me.


----------



## Atroz (Aug 7, 2005)

rgray said:


> Where is the 'going from 15" to 13" is going to save me half the weight' (MBA) option?


It's not there because I'm judging the screen only. I know the weight loss is great, but I don't want to have it muddle the question of the display. 

If I decide that I can live with the 13.3" display, then I'll factor the weight in to the equation of which laptop to buy. If I can't live with it, then that's a veto on the MBA. At the moment, the display is the major component that is making me doubt buying a MBA. Had Apple put a non-glossy 15.4" screen on the MBA, I would be buying one.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

The 15" would've been the MBACC... MacBook AirCraftCarrier


----------



## zlinger (Aug 28, 2007)

I went from a MBP 15" to MBA 13" and the screen size has been fine for me. The benefits of a smaller computer, weight savings, etc. easily outweigh the loss in physical screen size. It is a portable after all. 

I connect it to a 20" Apple Cinema for dual monitor while at the desk, then 13" Portable screen while mobile. Full size keyboard, LCD not too big and not too small. It couldn't get any better.

Also.. if you have any doubts screen area, you might want to do a comparison in the store of viewing an image & pdf document on each screen. Open it up in each using same size, and see if it meets your tolerance (i.e. does it fit in a window without a lot of extra scrolling, etc.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Atroz said:


> I could go for a new MBP and gain a lot of pixels (about 25%), but not loose the weight that MBA has to its advantage.


The MBP is 2.5 lbs heavier but has so many other advantages over the MBA. You can change the hard drive to suit the capacity that you need, and the array of ports that are lacking on the MBA. You will also have a faster machine that is more capable of running more software comfortably. There is also the price difference, as the MBA at $3100 is quite an investment when compared to an MBP.


----------



## Atroz (Aug 7, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> The MBP is 2.5 lbs heavier but has so many other advantages over the MBA. You can change the hard drive to suit the capacity that you need, and the array of ports that are lacking on the MBA. You will also have a faster machine that is more capable of running more software comfortably. There is also the price difference, as the MBA at $3100 is quite an investment when compared to an MBP.


I wouldn't go for the SSD and likely not the CPU bump either. I need a machine for web and email in my livingroom primarily. I have a 2.8Ghz iMac for the heavy lifting work. So, the lowest cost machine ($1899) would be it. 

My Powerbook is currently using <20 gigs of HD space, so I don't need anything but the minimum storage. With 2 gigs of RAM, I'd be hitting the storage very little for virtual memory and program loading, so the slightly faster SSD is not worth it. I rarely boot this machine, mainly only for software updates.

I'd like a brighter screen, especially so that I can bring the laptop outside in the summer. Having Wireless N would be nice for doing backups, etc. Some more CPU speed would be nice, but I expect going from my PPC G4 to even the 1.6Ghz Duo core in the MBA would be sufficient. 2.2 or 2.4Ghz would be nice though.

Beyond the power jack, I really don't use the other ports on this powerbook. 

Price and screen are the 2 negatives on the MBA for me. Given the same price, I can buy a good MBP (refurb) with more capability, but then I gain the weight. So, it's matter of potential need for those capabilities vs the weight difference in having them. Tough call. I'm trying to figure out which to do.


----------



## Atroz (Aug 7, 2005)

*Interesting results*

With 30 people voting, there's some interesting results. 

1/3 have switched to a smaller screen and are happy. 23% would do it given the opportunity. That puts it about 56% that are OK with it. 

40% wouldn't do it. 1 person did and regretted it. So, 44% against. 

Pretty even split.


----------

