What is the default or "correct" resolution for a white macbook?
Mine is at 1280 x 800. I don't recall ever adjusting that setting. Yet my website images seem larger than on my new 27" imac (which is at 2560 x 1440)

They likely don't have the same amount of pixels per inch which would make things appear smaller or larger. It looks like the latest MacBook's have a 1280 x 800 native resolution, so you're likely fine there.

I don’t have that spec at hand either, but you can find it in your model‘s description at Apple Support-Tech Specs, or in Mactracker.

thanks A, nice links. not sure those sites will say what the default resolution would be.

According to MacTracker, all MacBooks have a native resolution of 1280 x 800. I assume that "native" means the same as "default".

Correct. See this Wikipedia article on ‘Native resolution’.

Mactracker --
so bizarre. it should just be info on a webpage, but is a software. I download a zip, opens up another zip called:
Mactracker_5.2.1.zip.cpgz

that does nothing.

Whenever I download the newest version of MacTracker, I get the MT icon (labeled MacTracker.app), which I then drag to /Applications. It opens as a normal application by double-clicking. If you're having trouble unzipping the file, try Stuffit Expander.

it unstuffs just in the bizarre manner I described.
An application to see past mac hardware history?

MacTracker gives the specs and history of every Mac ever made. I don't know why you're having trouble unzipping it. Perhaps someone else will be able to troubleshoot.

Perhaps a corrupt download. Try downloading the Mactracker zip again and then try unstuffing or try The Unarchiver.

I just d'l/ed as a test, and I got a zip that opens up to the app. From where did you d/l?

There's nothing bizarre about Mactracker being software; when you get the app launched you'll see that the mass of info it includes doesn't lend itself to presentation on a web page.

I have to agree with Kevin Dean: the problem download is either corrupted (my d/l test from the site I linked to worked fine, including running the app), or the unzipping utility used is malfunctioning.

As to Mactracker's database not being suited for a web site, I beg to disagree. The point is that it isn't available on a web site, not that it couldn't be. FWIW, there is a lightweight version for iPhone/iPod.

thanks guys, the unarchiver worked. Does it replace stuffit?

Mactracker: I see a "my models"
but then, you cannot drag your models into that -- puzzled.

And the information contained in the database is available on a web site—EveryMac.com.

Here, for example, are the MacBooks.

NICE D.

Great website... Thanks! After I give it a better look-see I may wind up preferring it to Mactracker.

My guess that such a website would be unworkably complex was obviously a bad one.

Edit: Although it is faaar from the easiest website to navigate that I've ever seen.

Good point bringing up EveryMac.com, Dave. While I was referring to Mactracker's database not being accessible on the web, my reply to Artie was made in part with EveryMac.com's version in mind.

I have been getting Brock Kyle's email Updates for ages; he's just as eager as Mactracker's Ian Page in soliciting user input, but seems to go about it a tad more effectively. It's also good to see that the registration required for years to view certain EveryMac.com pages doesn't seem to be mandatory any more. Both MT and EM are definitely great resources.

Actually, this is not true. Browsers completely ignore the pixels per inch setting on graphics; they remove the information and discard it when the image is displayed.

The only thing that is important to a browser is the total number of pixels. Browsers display images at one image pixel = one screen pixel. A 400x600 image at 72 pixels per inch displays in a browser identically to a 400x600 image at 300 pixels per inch, which displays identically to a 400x600 image at 1,000,000 pixels per inch: all three display at 400 pixels across the screen and 600 pixels down.

I think Kevin may have been referring to the pixel density of the displays. If one was at 72 ppi, for instance, and the other at 100 ppi, the same image woud appear to be almost 40% larger on the less densely-pixeled display.

However, since the 13.3-inch MacBook and the 27-inch iMac have pixel densities of about 113 ppi and 109 ppi, respectively, it seems unlikely that this is the explanation for kevs' experience of apparent image size differences.

DK, great post, it went over my head a bit, but I held my macbook up next to my new 27" imac and indeed the webpages I was looking at were identical.
But in another room, looking at the macbook, it just seemed huge because I was just seeing the large images without all that black border I'm used to on the 27"