Problems? See this thread at archive.org.
I was in an Apple store today and noticed that the 15” MBP could display about 60 rows of excel 2008 running in fullscreen mode with 100%. My 14” widescreen thinkpad t61 can only display about 50 rows under the same conditions using excel 2003. They are both wsxga+ 1440 x 900 screens although the MBP is 15” and the t61 is 14”. Btw excel 2008 mac says the 100% row height is 13 and excel 2003 windows says row height is 12.75. So if anything, the MBP should display fewer rows if they are each higher. I even double checked it and tried it on another 15” MBP with a stated resolution of 1440 x 900.
Anyone know what accounts for this 20% difference. I can not figure out if it is an Microsoft office difference between mac and windows or if there is some other difference. Is it possible the MBP screen is more than 900 pixels height, or the t61 less? Weird though…
I know my old powerbook g4 tibook always displayed more height than other 1280 x 800 pc screens, but then I figured out one day that it was actually 854 height, not the 800 I always thought it was.
And please, no fundamental philosophy argument of why blah blah is better. I just can not see why 1440 x 900 doesn’t equal 1440 x 900, or at least isn’t really close, its physics. Also yes I’m guilty, I did post this in both Apple and the Lenovo so go ahead and punish me for crossposting.
Weird Screen question
Discussion in 'Lenovo' started by rob65789, Apr 12, 2008.
