[kayoone]

OSX still isnt resolution independent like Windows 7 is for example. The interface would be tiny on a 13" running 1680x1050. I think thats one of the main reasons they dont go for higher resolutions.

Even on my 15" with 1680x1050 its pretty small.

[seclorum]

I've got 1920x1200 on my 2007 MBP, which is the older 'higher resolution screen' option for the MBP, and OSX' resolution dependence is a serious pain in the butt. I've been holding off on upgrading my MBP until some progress is made in this department, but it looks like it won't be for another year.

[b3b0p]

This is 17" inches though, correct?

The Vaio Z has an option to get 1920x1200 (or is it 1920x1080?) last time I looked and it is only 13" I believe. It does come at cost though and does not run Mac OS X. However, the option is there. I think the default is even 1600x900 which is still better than 1280x800. Which is what I'm stuck with since I currently have the 13" Macbook Pro.

I wish Apple would increase the resolution also, I've been holding off upgrading as well. I'm tempted to even go as far as getting the 17" with the higher resolution next time. Then again, I would have to buy all new laptop bags since none of mine would fit and I'm kind of a bag fiend, I go for those nice Waterfield Designs bag and currently love my Muzetto. Buying another, larger version would not be cheap.

[kayoone]

Like i said, the interface would be unusable small with 1920x1080 on a 13" device.

[b3b0p]

Perhaps for some people. I would love it though. I can fit so much more on my screen making me feel greatly more productive. For example, having 4 vim split windows open and viewable all at once.