Real Estate

Real Estate

Via screen sharing, nested views of my two older Macs from my new Mac.The outermost Mac is my new i5-powered 27-in. iMac with a resolution of 2,560 by 1,440. That’s 60% larger than the Intel Core 2 Duo-powered 24-in. iMac that it’s peering into, which has a resolution of 1,920 by 1,200 — which is itself some 125% larger than the 1,280 by 800 resolution of the MacBook Air at the center of this image. (That nifty desktop picture is by my friend Alex Cornell.)

  1. Khoi, I’m curious about how you find the glossy screen and glass panel to work with? It’s the one thing that’s kept me from going for one of these rather sexy machines…

  2. I think Khoi is making an important point about how screen resolution and pixel density is changing quickly… I just got a new MacBook Pro and was rather thrown by it’s 1680 x 1050 resolution, where everything is now quite tiny, especially icons and text.

    But it’s also a broad canvas to work on — quite a bit larger than the screen on the two-year-old MacBook Pro my new computer replaced.

  3. Yeah, really interesting how far we’ve come. It does bring up a few points, too…

    – Like you say, Gary, what are the implications who have a hard time reading tiny type (most people age 50+)? My dad has trouble reading menus at restaurants. I think he’d freak out to see native type (and everything else) so tiny. As a designer, I love it. But I guess you just have to make it easier for folks who don’t to change the default.

    – Also, it makes me think about how the 960-pixel frame is or maybe should become outdated fairly soon. It just doesn’t make sense on these huge screens anymore. Even if you design a nifty background in the wings of a site, the browser on a computer like that is going to be mostly empty with the content in a standard container. Sites that are able to add columns or shift the layout based on the browser (like Feedly and lots others) will start a trend I think. Have you heard of It’s super cool… The system scales up to 1140 and all the way down to one column on sub-600ish (mobile). Then everyone gets a full screen.

  4. Khoi: Im sorry, if I was flippant. I did not mean to offend and did genuinely think it was a good demonstration of an interesting point. I should have made my comment more of a valued contribution.

    Gary & Ryan: Your right, which begs the question — at what resolution will the average users machine settle at? And what will that machine be? A desktop, a mobile, a tablet device?

    Indeed, my home-page was build over the 960 grid system so I understand the issue of choice when designing for the ‘ideal’ resolution, which I guess is that of your target audience. Responsive design surely must be the way forward.

Thank you! Your remarks have been sent to Khoi.