this is what the 11 inch model should've been like...

[animatedude]

remember that comparison page we saw back in the summer? take a look at it again

http://blog.timecenter.com/macbook-air-116-vs-133---side-by-side-comparison/

see how the 11 inch model looks OK compared to the newly released 11 inch model which is too wide argh...

http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/macbook_air?mco=MTM3NjY1OTU

 

[bouncer1]

Agreed. To me it's stupid that they went with a 16:9 screen (but I am sure they did this because that's the standard and it's cheaper) choice which cuts off vertical real estate to what is already the smallest mac. WTF? Does it really matter to watch 16:9 movies on such a small screen instead of 16:10?

In such small sized machines the ideal size is 4:3 period, ok the industry moved away from this... but 16:9? You would have thought the mbp 17" should have been the first to get this instead which it the biggest anyway, not the 11.6 one....

 

[Moodikar]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

I'm actually happy about the 16:9 ratio. Making it smaller is part of the reasoning.

Yes they could have tapered more of the bezel as in the mock-up (which I think is well done) but having more vertical means having more footprint.

Widescreen should be 16:9 to match tv. Why have more variations when we can standardize it. Those that need more space probably will get a monitor or the 13inch.

 

[Moodikar]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

Mind you, I bet all macs will be 16:9 soon. The iMacs have it. It is better on the eyes. More natural.

 

[alust2013]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

Mind you, I bet all macs will be 16:9 soon. The iMacs have it. It is better on the eyes. More natural.

I have to disagree there. It was a good idea to use the 16:9 on the 11", so they didn't have to mess with the keyboard, plus those who want to whine can look at the fact that it has a pretty high resolution for a screen so small. Most windows 16:9 laptops have that res at 15". That is reason to complain.

As far as 16:9 being better, yes for TV, no for computers. It isn't a problem on a display that is 1920x1080 or 2560x1440, as those are huge resolutions anyhow and still have plenty of vertical space. However, it is far less useful on smaller screens and resolutions, especially for the majority of web content which is vertically oriented. I think the fact that the 13" remained 16:10 shows that apple will stick with that for a bit longer at least.

 

[bouncer1]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

Mind you, I bet all macs will be 16:9 soon. The iMacs have it. It is better on the eyes. More natural.

Sorry but that's completely baseless that it's more natural, where do you get that from?

 

[Mr. Savage]

Sorry but that's completely baseless that it's more natural, where do you get that from?

No, he's right actually. 16:9 was chosen as the HDTV standard because it is the ratio of the human eye's field of vision. 4:3 would be perfect if we were all cyclops's.

 

[cluthz]

No, he's right actually. 16:9 was chosen as the HDTV standard because it is the ratio of the human eye's field of vision. 4:3 would be perfect if we were all cyclops's.

Field of vision isn't an issue unless you'll have a screen 25 inches++, but scrolling is.

 

[Mr. Savage]

Yep. I skipped right to the last post and zeroed in on the assertion that 16:9 wasn't natural without reading the rest of the thread for context before posting.
(Not recommended

 

[animatedude]

Agreed. To me it's stupid that they went with a 16:9 screen (but I am sure they did this because that's the standard and it's cheaper) choice which cuts off vertical real estate to what is already the smallest mac. WTF? Does it really matter to watch 16:9 movies on such a small screen instead of 16:10?

In such small sized machines the ideal size is 4:3 period, ok the industry moved away from this... but 16:9? You would have thought the mbp 17" should have been the first to get this instead which it the biggest anyway, not the 11.6 one....

thank you.