4540S LCD Screen (1080p replacement)

[custom-mac]

Yes, I can confirm that this cable 50.4RY03.001 will in fact work on the 4440S HP Probook Laptop. Although I only went with a 1600X900 screen, I'm amazed with the color, clarity, brightness, contrast and every other aspect of this screen. The upgrade is well worth it.

Is it TN or IPS? I am not thrilled with stock LCD on ProBooks. I am thinking about updating my 4440s with better LCD, but I am still concerned with visual qualities of the TN panels though. If going through such involved upgrade, why not to use the best quality panel?
It is true: some TN panels are better then other, but none can beat IPS or PLS type.

How this panel visual quality compares to stock one w/o resolution jump?

I assumed you got this one: https://www.laptopscreen.com/English/model/HP-Compaq/PROBOOK 6470b (B5P14UT)/
Looks like prices on cable are more than reasonable now on ebay: 50.4RY03.001 $4.59

 

[bcw1000]

If I install a 1080p display panel, and enable HiDPI, will the desktop be extended past the physical limits of the screen?

Another way to describe it - if I just zoom the display, objects near the edges are 'pushed off' the screen edges as the display expands.

In a similar way, will enabling HiDPI have the same effect, or will the OS take into account the number of actual pixels available (1920x1080) and 'rearrange' the desktop so that while the individual items are expanded (by using more pixels for each) nevertheless the same objects all are fitted into the desktop?

From the TinkerToy feature list:

• Get access to Mac OS X's experimental features for resolution-independent screen display. Enlarge screen output without reducing picture quality (Snow Leopard only).
• Enable the screen resolutions for HiDPI mode in OS X (Lion or higher).

I'm using Mavericks now, and Snow Leopard is of no use as the current Xcode won't run on it (according to the App Store). I am tempted by the better claimed appearance of the 1080p panel, but I can't work with teeny-tiny text - my eyeglasses can't do that accurate a job of correcting my vision.

The font sizes at 1366x768 are acceptable - making the same size with more pixels is an attractive thought.

So can anyone say about the effect of HiDPI in this regard? If it's the same as permanently using the zoom so that I would need to scroll around to see all the items OS X 'thinks' are within the confines of the desktop, it isn't a possible solution for my needs.

Thanks.

 

[RehabMan]

If I install a 1080p display panel, and enable HiDPI, will the desktop be extended past the physical limits of the screen?

Another way to describe it - if I just zoom the display, objects near the edges are 'pushed off' the screen edges as the display expands.

In a similar way, will enabling HiDPI have the same effect, or will the OS take into account the number of actual pixels available (1920x1080) and 'rearrange' the desktop so that while the individual items are expanded (by using more pixels for each) nevertheless the same objects all are fitted into the desktop?

From the TinkerToy feature list:


I'm using Mavericks now, and Snow Leopard is of no use as the current Xcode won't run on it (according to the App Store). I am tempted by the better claimed appearance of the 1080p panel, but I can't work with teeny-tiny text - my eyeglasses can't do that accurate a job of correcting my vision.

The font sizes at 1366x768 are acceptable - making the same size with more pixels is an attractive thought.

So can anyone say about the effect of HiDPI in this regard? If it's the same as permanently using the zoom so that I would need to scroll around to see all the items OS X 'thinks' are within the confines of the desktop, it isn't a possible solution for my needs.

Thanks.

1080p panel has nothing to do with HiDPI. If you enable HiDPI modes on a 1080p panel, you get an effective resolution of a quarter that (eg. 960x540). It is a limitation of Apple's HiDPI technology... it only makes sense on displays with "retina" resolution.

If you just want a better 1366x768 panel, that's what you should look for.

 

[bcw1000]

1080p panel has nothing to do with HiDPI. If you enable HiDPI modes on a 1080p panel, you get an effective resolution of a quarter that (eg. 960x540). It is a limitation of Apple's HiDPI technology... it only makes sense on displays with "retina" resolution.

If you just want a better 1366x768 panel, that's what you should look for.

Ah.

In fact what I want is the facility Windows & Linux provide on my systems - I can inform the system what the PPI of the display panel is and it will use more or fewer pixels to form each item.

"10 point" text is a physical measurement in the world, not a pixel count, and so regardless of the PPI of a panel, the height of text shown would be the same on any panel - only the quality of the image would be different for less or more pixel density.

It appears that part of Apple's approach is based on locking into just a few display resolutions (Pixels-per-inch, not total pixel count across the entire display - although they also lock that choice) and only supporting those.

A shame, as everyone else can handle it - both the Evil Empire and the rag-tag Free Software types. I'm beginning to get an idea now of just how restrictive Apple's approach is. A separate question is whether I find this to be a good or bad thing - I don't need to do things I don't want to do.

But it would be nice to be able to use more pixels to form higher quality characters for reading.

 

[RehabMan]

Ah.

In fact what I want is the facility Windows & Linux provide on my systems - I can inform the system what the PPI of the display panel is and it will use more or fewer pixels to form each item.

"10 point" text is a physical measurement in the world, not a pixel count, and so regardless of the PPI of a panel, the height of text shown would be the same on any panel - only the quality of the image would be different for less or more pixel density.

It appears that part of Apple's approach is based on locking into just a few display resolutions (Pixels-per-inch, not total pixel count across the entire display - although they also lock that choice) and only supporting those.

A shame, as everyone else can handle it - both the Evil Empire and the rag-tag Free Software types. I'm beginning to get an idea now of just how restrictive Apple's approach is. A separate question is whether I find this to be a good or bad thing - I don't need to do things I don't want to do.

But it would be nice to be able to use more pixels to form higher quality characters for reading.

I think Apple may have greater flexibility in their system but choose not to expose it as it might confuse their users. Or, they have it there, but it is buggy, so they only expose what they need for their product.

 

[bcw1000]

I think Apple may have greater flexibility in their system but choose not to expose it as it might confuse their users. Or, they have it there, but it is buggy, so they only expose what they need for their product.

I encountered another instance like this several years ago when I put Leopard on a Fujitsu slate tablet. It was possible to get the digitiser to work so I could use the system without a keyboard.

But it wasn't possible to rotate the display to switch into Portrait mode (wide screen is called 'Landscape mode' - the usual orientation for 4:3 or 16:9 or 16:10 clamshell laptops). In researching this, I encountered the explanation that Apple was concerned users might activate it unwittingly on their MacBooks, and have problems reversing the change due to not being able to navigate the screen while in that mode, while the physical machine remained oriented in the physical world. So they disabled that capability.

It's possible changes to pixel density settings as a continuous range are not built into Apple's display manager, although the range of physical Pixel densities in their panels shows it can be changed. However, they may not have realised it as a smoothly set-able parameter as the others do. Again, they may not have seen a need due to their approach to providing customer experience.

More and more, Macs look to me like "appliances", as opposed to "toolkits". This is a philosophical decision of what to provide, and Apple's success argues favorably for their understanding of their markets. Indeed, much of the rationale for me taking up Macs is because of my hope of tapping into that market.

As a long-term Free Software geek, it's jarring to me, though. At the same time, I can agree with it - from my background in Quality Assurance, I celebrate a manager who said "why should I let my coders write in a language that allows them to introduce memory leaks?"

(Aside: 'Testing' is 'Quality Control' - it happens after you make something because you're not in control enough to be sure, so you better check. 'Quality Assurance' is before - it's about making sure you can't go down avenues there is no reason to go down. Most people in the business don't know of or pay attention to the distinction. 'Quality Control' is an admission of the possibility of failure, 'Quality Assurance' is the pre-knowledge of how to avoid failure so as not to waste time and effort.)

So, Apple's approach is... interesting.

I took this Hackintosh with me to a local computer store when I bought an external USB 3 drive to use with Time Machine earlier this week, so I could also plug in an external monitor to verify it worked. I tried with a monitor that could rotate to Portrait mode as that's attractive for coding.

I found I could rotate the display on the external monitor - but the internal panel 'rotated' as well, in the sense that the geometry resized to match the portrait dimensions of the external monitor (9:16) but remained oriented with 'up' still 'up'. Because of the resizing, the internal panel is all-but-unusable in this configuration...

 

[RehabMan]

As a long-term Free Software geek, it's jarring to me, though. At the same time, I can agree with it - from my background in Quality Assurance, I celebrate a manager who said "why should I let my coders write in a language that allows them to introduce memory leaks?"

This is a bit off-topic, so I'll keep my comments brief...

The reason to use such languages is because they offer the most efficient use of computer resources. I'm referring, of course, C/C++ which allow you to write code very close to the metal, but require great responsibility to avoid weird and hard to trackdown bugs (more than just memory leaks). It is a trade-off, ease of coding vs. faster end product.

Of course, I come from the experience of writing projects which ran in as little as 4k memory and 1Mhz chips, so my perspective is a bit different from someone new to the industry where everything is "giga."

I found I could rotate the display on the external monitor - but the internal panel 'rotated' as well, in the sense that the geometry resized to match the portrait dimensions of the external monitor (9:16) but remained oriented with 'up' still 'up'. Because of the resizing, the internal panel is all-but-unusable in this configuration...

It is called "mirroring" and you can change it in SysPrefs->Displays, such that the two monitors become independent. I don't see much choice in the scenario you describe. The aspect ratio must be preserved and so must the orientation of up/down.

 

[bcw1000]

Of course, I come from the experience of writing projects which ran in as little as 4k memory and 1Mhz chips, so my perspective is a bit different from someone new to the industry where everything is "giga."

Yes. In my case, you are "preaching to the choir", RehabMan - I'm not new either.

It is called "mirroring" and you can change it in SysPrefs->Displays, such that the two monitors become independent. I don't see much choice in the scenario you describe. The aspect ratio must be preserved and so must the orientation of up/down.

Yes. My system is/was set not to mirror, as I already am using a loaned HDMI display at home, but one which doesn't physically rotate. Just as modern systems get display characteristics from reading EDID information, I hoped the machine/driver might read the orientation and be prepared to configure for it. Regrettably, no.

So I may make use of two displays when both are in landscape mode, but only the external one is usable if I switch to portrait mode.

 

[RehabMan]

Yes. My system is/was set not to mirror, as I already am using a loaned HDMI display at home, but one which doesn't physically rotate. Just as modern systems get display characteristics from reading EDID information, I hoped the machine/driver might read the orientation and be prepared to configure for it. Regrettably, no.

So I may make use of two displays when both are in landscape mode, but only the external one is usable if I switch to portrait mode.

I'm not sure what the issue is. On my desktop, I have two monitors connected. Monitor #1 is a Dell U3011 in landscape mode, 2560x1600. Monitor #2 is a Dell 2001FP in portrait mode, 1200x1600 (it is rotatable). I'm able to rotate the image on the second monitor independently of the first, for an effective 3760x1600 workspace.

 

[bcw1000]

I'm not sure what the issue is. On my desktop, I have two monitors connected.

I didn't spend a lot of time in the store (holding my machine in my hands while connected up to see if I could rotate the display). Perhaps I should have investigated more - so I will sometime.

At home, perhaps the external (inexpensive) monitor I am using isn't capable somehow because it's not built to rotate? Or perhaps your scenario with two external monitors is distinct from mine of one external monitor and the native panel of the 4540s?

Given it can be done, I would like to know how...

Wait, your Dell U3011 in landscape mode, 2560x1600. Is that connected via HDMI? I am using the built-in (native 1366x768) panel and a 1080p external display via HDMI. If yours is connected differently, that might also come into play.

And knowing I can connect such a high-resolution display is interesting in it's own right. How are your displays connected, and what is the state of the native panel?