The "Wow Factor" is off the charts with the intro of the new 17" PowerBook introduced last week. It is 96% of everything I have been slobbering about for the last year on this site.
BUT, dear Steve Jobs and team, how can you spec the world's greatest laptop computer, in both components and design, and give it a mediocre screen? Please don't bash/flame me for pointing out the obvious (go to your local Comp USA and compare the UXGA WinTel laptop screens with that of the 17" iMac). When I was watching Steve's keynote address (live, thanks to MacRumors!), I was jumping out of my chair with all of the amazing things Apple did with the 17"er. It was over the top and I was ready to order that day (I've been holding out for the last year on the Ti for the same reason I'll be waiting on the 17" PowerBook), until I heard him say that the resolution would be a paltry 1440 x 900. There are 15" laptops with 1600 x 1200 resolution that look stunning (too bad they're WinTel machines). Why stretch the screen out to a really cool 17" and than drop the resolution from what is right, expected, capable and gorgeous (and really useful)? I mean, for people like myself that want the real estate of 17" and are willing and happy to carry it around, we don't want overly stretched, washed out resolution. I would have expected that 1600 x 1200 (or whatever the correct ratio would be to fit the screen dimensions) would have been the minimum. If you consider the same pixel density as that used on the 15" and 16" UXGA (1600 x 1200) WinTel machines, then Apple's 17" beauty should have been nothing less than 1600 x 1200 (have I used the "1600 x 1200 figure enough yet?).
Again, don't take it personally Steve, but like the stunningly beautiful girl that is also an amazing athlete and a brainiac to boot (much like your 'out-of-this-world' 17" PowerBook it appear to have it all), but when she smiles and shows her yellow teeth we all go "eeuuuwww." Now granted, for those who don't care about the res issue or don't understand the minions who do, go ahead and purchase the 12"er or wait for the redo of the 15"er. Since there are now multiple PowerBook options, do not begrudge those of us who want and need top-of-the-line resolution (especially since it's been technically available for nearly two years now).
So, dear Steve, as a faithful, rabid, shareholding Apple user, please don't hold back the scepter of authorization; Give the greatest laptop in the world an equally impressive screen (i.e., on the technologically cutting edge as the rest of the components I'm not asking for an OLED screen here) and we, and 100's of 1000's of us particular types, will be standing in line waving our cash.
Sincerely,
Yukon
BUT, dear Steve Jobs and team, how can you spec the world's greatest laptop computer, in both components and design, and give it a mediocre screen? Please don't bash/flame me for pointing out the obvious (go to your local Comp USA and compare the UXGA WinTel laptop screens with that of the 17" iMac). When I was watching Steve's keynote address (live, thanks to MacRumors!), I was jumping out of my chair with all of the amazing things Apple did with the 17"er. It was over the top and I was ready to order that day (I've been holding out for the last year on the Ti for the same reason I'll be waiting on the 17" PowerBook), until I heard him say that the resolution would be a paltry 1440 x 900. There are 15" laptops with 1600 x 1200 resolution that look stunning (too bad they're WinTel machines). Why stretch the screen out to a really cool 17" and than drop the resolution from what is right, expected, capable and gorgeous (and really useful)? I mean, for people like myself that want the real estate of 17" and are willing and happy to carry it around, we don't want overly stretched, washed out resolution. I would have expected that 1600 x 1200 (or whatever the correct ratio would be to fit the screen dimensions) would have been the minimum. If you consider the same pixel density as that used on the 15" and 16" UXGA (1600 x 1200) WinTel machines, then Apple's 17" beauty should have been nothing less than 1600 x 1200 (have I used the "1600 x 1200 figure enough yet?).
Again, don't take it personally Steve, but like the stunningly beautiful girl that is also an amazing athlete and a brainiac to boot (much like your 'out-of-this-world' 17" PowerBook it appear to have it all), but when she smiles and shows her yellow teeth we all go "eeuuuwww." Now granted, for those who don't care about the res issue or don't understand the minions who do, go ahead and purchase the 12"er or wait for the redo of the 15"er. Since there are now multiple PowerBook options, do not begrudge those of us who want and need top-of-the-line resolution (especially since it's been technically available for nearly two years now).
So, dear Steve, as a faithful, rabid, shareholding Apple user, please don't hold back the scepter of authorization; Give the greatest laptop in the world an equally impressive screen (i.e., on the technologically cutting edge as the rest of the components I'm not asking for an OLED screen here) and we, and 100's of 1000's of us particular types, will be standing in line waving our cash.
Sincerely,
Yukon