screen space 15" vs 17" macbook pro

[icedsushi]

Needing more screen real estate without the external monitor, so I'm thinking of upsizing from a 13" macbook to either the 15" or 17" in high resolution. I think I will be OK with the smaller items on the screen to get more on the screen, eyesight is pretty good so far.

I'd like to find out how much of my live template fits on the screen before choosing, especially horizontally. It would be best if all tracks would fit horizontally without any scrolling left/right.

I work with 12 tracks, 4 returns & the file menu open on the left. I very rarely add more tracks & if I do, they're a few midi tracks that I usually minimize horizontally. Can anyone with a 15" or 17" HD screen tell me how this would fit? None of the apple stores have HD models on display for me to load ableton on. I'd like to get the 15" for portability but will go for the 17" if it's more productive to use with this size set in Ableton.

[Cowlash]

Have you tried the zoom command yet?

[icedsushi]

No I haven't & not familiar with that, is that with Live 8 or Mac OS command?

[Tarekith]

Both Live 8 and OSX have zoom options. In Live it's in the preferences, in OSX hold down CTRL while using the mouse wheel (or two finger trackpad) scroll.

[cycloptic]

I have a 15" mac with Live Suite installed. Based on what you said, I created 12 audio tracks and 4 returns (session view).

With the library open to Lessons/Sets and the file area open enough to show the full name of the longest file, only 9 of the audio channels are visible.

If I shrink the width of the file area to allow all 12 channels to show, only the folder icons and the left half of the file icons are visible in the file area.

If I shrink the width of the returns just to where the Return rotaries turn into Return "sliders", but leave the other tracks to show their send rotaries, I can show 11 tracks and have the file area wide enough to see most of the file name, though the longest ones are still cut off.

At that point, making about 5 of the tracks narrow enough to for the send rotaries to become sliders is enough to make the 12 tracks visible.

From this experiment, it seems 15 might be just small enough to require you to do some scrolling or to have some of your tracks made narrower. I would probably try to find a way to live with that, but you may feel it's enough to bump you to the 17" one.

I don't know if you have an external monitor available to you but if you do, that might be a good way to visualize what you are able to fit on the screen. To see what would fit on a 15" change the resolution to 1400x900. It may be a little blurry on an LCD monitor, but it will tell you what you can expect to fit.

Good luck with whatever you choose to do.

cycloptic

[icedsushi]

Thanks cycloptic for all the info, it really helps a lot.

Just to make sure, your 15 is a high definition display right? HD should give somewhere about 1/3rd more on the screen from what I've read. So if in your case you're at standard resolution more should fit on if you had HD...just confirm which it is please if you don't mind.

I'm still on Live 7 but I'll have to mess around with Mac OS zoom a little bit Tarekith. I'd prefer standard zoom with high resolution though for regular use. Updating to Live 8 in a few months so maybe the Live prefs zoom with an hi-def 15" is the way to go. Anyone else with HD display let me know what you think, thanks. I'd like put an order in next week.

I'm even considering selling my 23" external display & going minimalist without any external for awhile (I do a lot of traveling).

[slirak]

Just to make sure, your 15 is a high definition display right? HD should give somewhere about 1/3rd more on the screen from what I've read.

1/3d more compared to what exactly? There are plenty of non-HD resolutions.

Unfortunately, there are also many HD resolutions - or at least "HD"... Confusion about this term is in abundance, no doubt thanks to the evil marketing departments of this world, who wants to label just about every product as being "HD".

AFAIK, all 15" MBP's, at least all unibody models including the new ones, are all at 1440 x 900, which isn't full HD. (Still HD according to common definitions.) The current 17" MBP's are at 1920 x 1200, while the current 13" models are at 1280 x 800 (and that could actually qualify as HD too).

1440 x 900 gives you about 26.5% more pixels than 1280 x 800, so maybe that's what the figure you quote comes from. ((1280 x 800)/(1440 x 900) = ~ 1.265)
Counting this way can be a bit counter-intuitive though, you won't be able to fit 26.5% more Live tracks with a 1440 x 900 screen, rather 12.5 % more. (1280/1440 = 1.125) Because it's the width that matters most here.

To answer in yet another way:
If I use Live's default template's track width, I can fit just a little less than 9 tracks, 4 returns and the file browser at 1440 x 900. I can easily display the full 9 tracks if I narrow the browser just a tiny bit.

I can't test with a 1920 x 1200 monitor, but I do have a 1680 x 1050 one and with that, I can fit exactly 12 tracks and 4 returns with the file browser open, using Live's default template. There's not a single pixel left to display the "drop zone" though.

To sum it up: an MBP 15" can't do what you want, a 17" can.

EDIT
Sorry, I missed that there's now a 1680 x 1050 option for the 15" models! OK, well, there you have it, that model will make it, but only just.

[icedsushi]

1/3d more compared to what exactly?

Yes, comparing the 15" model 1440X900 to the 1680X1050 option (you can see 2 choices via the apple store online). Sorry maybe I should have been more specific.

I do have a 1680 x 1050 one and with that, I can fit exactly 12 tracks and 4 returns with the file browser open, using Live's default template. There's not a single pixel left to display the "drop zone" though.

To sum it up: an MBP 15" can't do what you want, a 17" can.

EDIT
Sorry, I missed that there's now a 1680 x 1050 option for the 15" models! OK, well, there you have it, that model will make it, but only just.

Great, so it all fits on 15" MBP 1680 x 1050 without the drop zone. That's exactly what I wanted to know!

Maybe I can make do with that & live with just toggling the drop zone. What happens when you pull the drop zone down into the screen, how much other stuff do you lose?

I guess 17" would display the drop zone with everything else, so it seems just about whether I want to toggle the drop zone or not.

[slirak]

Sorry maybe I should have been more specific.

Or maybe I should have checked my facts before I posted...

Maybe I can make do with that & live with just toggling the drop zone. What happens when you pull the drop zone down into the screen, how much other stuff do you lose?

I'm not sure if "drop zone" is an official term or if I just invented it.

So just to make sure we're talking about the same thing. First, I'm talking about Session View all the time. If your original question was about Arrangement View, please disregard everything I've said!

Second, I'm talking about the area between the tracks and the return tracks ("Drop Files and Devices Here"), not the area below the tracks ("Drop Audio Effects Here"/"Drop MIDI Effects, Audio Effects, Instruments or Samples Here"). The area below the tracks isn't affected by the number of tracks, but by the number of scenes. And that area can easily be toggled if necessary.

But when it comes to the area between tracks and return tracks, there's no way I know of to directly toggle it. If there is, please let me know!

What you can do however is toggle the return tracks, maybe that's what you're talking about? That works perfectly fine and gives you plenty of room to drop devices.

PS
I can post screen shots, but later. Gotta go now!

[icedsushi]

So just to make sure we're talking about the same thing. First, I'm talking about Session View all the time.

Yep, session view.

Second, I'm talking about the area between the tracks and the return tracks ("Drop Files and Devices Here"), not the area below the tracks ("Drop Audio Effects Here"/"Drop MIDI Effects, Audio Effects, Instruments or Samples Here"). The area below the tracks isn't affected by the number of tracks, but by the number of scenes. And that area can easily be toggled if necessary.

Yes, sorry I wasn't looking at the Live app screen at the time, I was thinking of the area below the tracks, but yes that fits on the screen visible all the time so really makes no difference. I don't care if there is any extra "drop zone" for "drop instruments, effects, etc here".

I know that the 15" will display less scenes than the 17", but I really don't care so much about this as the full horizontal without folding or hiding tracks/sends & having modest width file browser open.

But when it comes to the area between tracks and return tracks, there's no way I know of to directly toggle it. If there is, please let me know!

No there isn't, for some reason I was thinking the waveform, etc area below, please disregard.

What you can do however is toggle the return tracks, maybe that's what you're talking about? That works perfectly fine and gives you plenty of room to drop devices.

Nope, I'd want to leave the return tracks visible (not hidden) & have it all still fit all on the screen.

PS
I can post screen shots, but later. Gotta go now!

That would be great! I'm ordering middle of next week so this would help confirm that I can use the 15" w/1680X1050 display. I'm about 80% sure to go that route unless something until then persuades me to go with the 17" for luxury at the expense of added bulk. It's kind of a big purchase for me because I'm going with SSD as well, so I want to make sure I get it right.

You might be wondering why I pick 12 tracks. It's because I am a Faderfox user, it is midi controller for this many. And by coincidence this number of tracks seems the perfect amount for the type of music I do.

[Ninja-Matic]

17" here without issues - i can even add more if i just narrow the columns a bit.

[slirak]

PS
I can post screen shots, but later. Gotta go now!

That would be great! I'm ordering middle of next week so this would help confirm that I can use the 15" w/1680X1050 display.

I've been away over the weekend. At work right now, will post screen shots tonight (GMT+1).

[Akshara]

I'm about 80% sure to go that route unless something until then persuades me to go with the 17" for luxury at the expense of added bulk. It's kind of a big purchase for me because I'm going with SSD as well, so I want to make sure I get it right.

In my opinion, the absence of an ExpressCard slot in all but the 17" model is enough of a reason to purchase the 17" and moves it from the luxury to the necessity column.

Besides offering access to eSATA ports (300MB/s), low latency audio interfaces and third party DSP processing, if the current MBP models are anything like the previous ones, then the FW800 and FW400 ports will likely share the same bus, meaning that there is a high likelihood that one will not be able to run an external drive and an audio or video interface attached to both FW ports at the same time.

Even if an ExpressCard isn't necessary today, if/when some new connectivity comes out, like USB3 or something altogether different, there will likely be an ExpressCard version which will allow the MBP to participate. The alternative is being locked into FW800/400 and USB2 for all external devices.

Just another issue worth considering in the long run, as it is a big investment.

[Hermanus]

my two cents here.

I bought a laptop several months ago... not a mac but that's not the point.
I felt for the 17" ...
Well at home it's overwhelming
But when I go playing live on stage, I always say to myself: "why did I not take a 15"

I'm ubber happy with it [ok it's also my very first laptop ever ]
But the next purchase will be 15" hundred times_ well I got time for saving

[Pyro Z]

I don't remember if it existed in Live 7, but I'm pretty sure it did. Anyway the zooming in Live is excellent. This is really important to me since I have poor eyesight, particularly for reading. It scales and aligns everything really nicely, keeps text sharp, etc. It doesn't just magnify everything by cramming it into a small space, it does it in a "smart" way....I don't really know how to describe it. I don't have much experience with the OSX magnifier, as I'm a PC user, but I'm willing to bet it's better. Windows 7's magnifier has been completely redesigned and is really nice, but I still use Live's because it's within the application and so it can control each element's size in a smart way instead of just wasting some screen space by equally scaling everything that's there.

Hope that makes sense.