Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Originally posted by rideahyperLite
no.
current tibook - 1280/854 (pixels) = 3/2 (almost)
anticipated new alubook - 1280/800 (pixels) = 16/10

Aspect Ratio has nothing to do with the number of pixels, but the format of the screen. 3/2 is normal 15" or an tv style. 16:10 is like 16:9 widescreen format..
 
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Hey Shaddow, the 15.1 is a 16:10 ratio, not 3:2

What ya thinking there man ;)

honest mistake on your part, buddy ;)
i have a Tibook in my lap. it's not 15.1 inches, either, it's 15.2.

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Aspect Ratio has nothing to do with the number of pixels, but the format of the screen. 3/2 is normal 15" or an tv style. 16:10 is like 16:9 widescreen format..

sorry, once again, you're a little off. that's 4:3 on a normal TV.

also, the pixel count has to correspond to the ratio, otherwise you get pixels shaped like rectangles, which is NOT cool, and circles on the screen start to look like ovals, and so on. for instance, run a standard CRT monitor at 1280*1024. you'll notice that everything looks elongated, as compared to 1152*864, or, better yet, 1280*960, the proper 4:3 ratio.

16:10 is not like 16:9. to watch a 16:9 widescreen movie, you would still have letterboxing on it with a 16:10 ratio screen like apple's 17 inch 1440*900 screen.
 
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Aspect Ratio has nothing to do with the number of pixels, but the format of the screen. 3/2 is normal 15" or an tv style. 16:10 is like 16:9 widescreen format..

pretty sure the current powerbook is 16:10, the 3:2 ratio is so freakin' close to 16:10 that it's basically splitting hairs, i mean we are really talking 16:10 (8:5, 4:2.5) and 15:10 (7.5: 5, 3:2) ratios, so even if yr argument were true 15:10 is basically 16:10.

as for resolutions, 1280*1024 is the normal resolution for 17" CRT's around the world, as well as 17" flat panel, not 1280*960..
 
The new 15" will be just like the 17" but the form factor of the ever popular Ti. I think this product will be the real seller, nobody needs 17" really, but 12" just is to small for the geeks/macaddicts. The 15" would be juuuuussst right.
The same beloved form factor, wrapped in better armor, and more functionality.
 
also, the main problem with the airport signal on the Ti was not just the placement. Titanium just happens to block the required radio spectrum allotted to Airport, go figure, so they needed to cut out the metal where the antenna's would go, leaving less effective area for it to pick up signal. Aluminum does not have this problem, so even if they put the antenna's in the same spot (they won't), you would see a drastic improvement.
 
Originally posted by redAPPLE
opinions please.

does anyone agree with me, that the next pb revision would be a "major" revision?

it is basically the powerbook that we all want.

- it runs cooler (with the AL case)

- still around an inch thick

- ae

- better placing of the airport antenna

- superdrive

- hopefully same price or lower

- fw800

the only thing that is missing is that proc they keep calling the g5.

;)

Also, add the 167MHz bus that most people seem to forget! It should give an extra boost over the Ti!!

:D
 
Re: Re: Radeon 9000 please!!!

Originally posted by Shadowfax
The Geforce 4Go 460 is currently the fastest processor on the mobile video market.
Wrong!
The Quadro4 700 Go is the fastest.
Actually, it may not be. But its the most powerful.
 
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Aspect Ratio has nothing to do with the number of pixels, but the format of the screen. 3/2 is normal 15" or an tv style. 16:10 is like 16:9 widescreen format..

i may be an idiot but..

the ratio of the pixels makes the size of the screen. so a screen with 1280 (pixels going across) x 854 (pixels going down) means that the ratio of horizontal pixels to vertical pixels is 1.4988 (more or less 3/2 which is 1.5)
so a screen with 1280 (pixels going across) x 800 (pixels going down) would produce a ratio of 1.6 (which is 16/10)
 
But where??

So...for a potential PC convert, where would be the best place to buy a new 15.4" PB when it comes out? Apple's website or somewhere else? I can take advantage of the educational discount through Apple.com - are there stores that can do the same for less? :confused:
 
Re: But where??

Originally posted by carletonmusic
So...for a potential PC convert, where would be the best place to buy a new 15.4" PB when it comes out? Apple's website or somewhere else? I can take advantage of the educational discount through Apple.com - are there stores that can do the same for less? :confused:

From what I've seen (same situation) Apple's educational discount ~$150 isn't enough to overcome the sales tax that would be applied to the purchase.

I think I'll be going through Amazon.com. They're currently offering a $200 store credit towards your next purchase if you buy a computer valued at $2000 or more. You could use that for software, base station, mice, etc.
 
Convince Me..

I have not seriously used a Mac since College and would like an alternative to the PC at home since I deal with PC's all day long..

I am considering the new powerbook mostly for video editing, DVD burning, and Music Sampling. My question is what will the new Powerbook 15.4 compare to in terms of a PC counterpart in speed.. Given the L2 Cache, etc.

I want the illuminated keyboard, Superdrive and AL case.. I do however have a P3 1.1 Toshiba PC Laptop I am contemplating adding an external DVD drive to..

I want to get into Mac again but I need to know this will not be completely trumped in 6 months...

Also big question.. Can the Airport card talk to my exisiting Linksys Wireless 802.11b access point...

A little off topic but this new 15.4 PB is the one I am considering..

Thanks,
Jeff
 
Re: Re: Re: Radeon 9000 please!!!

Originally posted by DavPeanut
Wrong!
The Quadro4 700 Go is the fastest.
Actually, it may not be. But its the most powerful.

i think you are probably right. but i am almost positive that the quadro4 go is just a Geforce4Go that is compliant with workstation drivers so that you can use it on truly professional graphics applications, not just 3d rendering.
 
Originally posted by rideahyperLite
i may be an idiot but..

the ratio of the pixels makes the size of the screen. so a screen with 1280 (pixels going across) x 854 (pixels going down) means that the ratio of horizontal pixels to vertical pixels is 1.4988 (more or less 3/2 which is 1.5)
so a screen with 1280 (pixels going across) x 800 (pixels going down) would produce a ratio of 1.6 (which is 16/10)

you're right, for an LCD. but on a CRT, you can get all kinds of distorting ratios. a CRT monitor's output is *always* 4:3 if the screen is constucted to that shape (and almost all are). however, you can get all kinds of crazy resolutions sent out to them with a Geforce or other nice card. my Geforce3 on my PC would have the most outrageous resolutions. one that wasn't so crazy was 1440*900. running this out to a 4:3 monitor makes it look TOTALLY screwed up.

come to think of it, you can screw aspect ratio up on an LCD. take my powerbook. it will do 1024*768. you can have vertical letterboxes and make it look right, or you can stretch it out and make everything look fatter.

ultimately, though, it would be very very improper for apple to actually sell a computer with a screen that had an actual screen ratio different from the aspect ratio of the native resolution. they have not done and will not do this.
 
Re: Convince Me..

Originally posted by jfink
I have not seriously used a Mac since College and would like an alternative to the PC at home since I deal with PC's all day long..

I am considering the new powerbook mostly for video editing, DVD burning, and Music Sampling. My question is what will the new Powerbook 15.4 compare to in terms of a PC counterpart in speed.. Given the L2 Cache, etc.

I want the illuminated keyboard, Superdrive and AL case.. I do however have a P3 1.1 Toshiba PC Laptop I am contemplating adding an external DVD drive to..

the Albook 1GHz will eat your P3 for lunch. it will compare more to the 2.2 GHz P4m mobiles they have out now. you will notice an unbelievable difference in system performance between your toshiba and this thing.


I want to get into Mac again but I need to know this will not be completely trumped in 6 months...


it won't. people have 667 MHz G4 tibooks from over a year ago that are still highly competitive in performance. macintoshes tend to age much better than PCs, from what i have read.

Also big question.. Can the Airport card talk to my exisiting Linksys Wireless 802.11b access point...


absolutely no trouble at all. i use an airport card on a netgear 802.11b wireless router (right as i type actually), and i have accidentally logged onto my neighbor's linksys wireless router.;)

A little off topic but this new 15.4 PB is the one I am considering..

Thanks,
Jeff

you'll have to wait till it comes out to know anything in particular. all my comments are based on the current 15.2", which i own. but, other than the screen size change, and probably a GeForce4G 440, the new 15.3" one is probably going to have the same or better specs than the current 15.2", if it does indeed come out.
 
I have to say, I think it would be strange for Apple to announce the 15" Al before the 17" ships. Especially if it has the backlit keyboard, FW800, etc. If the 15" is ~$500 cheaper than the 17", I'd imagine a ton of orders for the 17" would be cancelled.

That being said, I want a 15" Al ASAP! :D
 
Originally posted by Flowbee
I have to say, I think it would be strange for Apple to announce the 15" Al before the 17" ships. Especially if it has the backlit keyboard, FW800, etc. If the 15" is ~$500 cheaper than the 17", I'd imagine a ton of orders for the 17" would be cancelled.

That being said, I want a 15" Al ASAP! :D

Actually I doubt many orders would be cancelled based on the 15" Albook.
The 17" is in a class of its own, no other laptop is that size. Those who buy for video editing will love the extra real estate.

As for the 15" one that would do me just fine. The extra cash for the 17" would be tough to cough up. Though it is a nice laptop. Would have to get a look at both to compare.

:)
 
Originally posted by Flowbee
I have to say, I think it would be strange for Apple to announce the 15" Al before the 17" ships. Especially if it has the backlit keyboard, FW800, etc. If the 15" is ~$500 cheaper than the 17", I'd imagine a ton of orders for the 17" would be cancelled.

That being said, I want a 15" Al ASAP! :D
It would not be weird if they had them both ship on the same day. Then you see the iBook for cheap, the small PB for some power, 15inch for power, and 17inch for the big screen and faster bus.
Wait, thats not enough difference for $500. Humm...
 
Re: Re: Convince Me..

Originally posted by Shadowfax
the Albook 1GHz will eat your P3 for lunch. it will compare more to the 2.2 GHz P4m mobiles they have out now. you will notice an unbelievable difference in system performance between your toshiba and this thing.

This statement should really be qualified by a big "depends on what you do". There are some things the G4 is really good at and it can make up ground vs. pure mhz, however there are some things it doesn't do so well. The 3D software I use runs quite a lot slower clock for clock on a G4 vs. a PIII tualatin, so in that case, you'd loose ground. Subjectively the user experience feels about the same, but when I click render, the same scene takes about half the time to render on my PIII 1ghz as it does on my G4 800mhz. I find that if it's optimized for Altivec and the windows version is not optimized for SSE you'll see the G4 eat a PIII's lunch but if they are both unoptimized or both optimized, it's a different story.

Saying all that, for the uses you've mentioned (video editing, DVD burning, music sampling), it won't be the fastest thing out there, but you'll probably find it quite acceptable and it certainly gets it all (DVD burning included) in a nice portable package.
 
Compusa has 18 month no-interest financing right now. I've been really trying not to buy the 12" because I need just a bit more screen and I like the widescreen format.

plus, the 12" on Compusa's site doesn't have the DVD burner which I'd like
 
Originally posted by Shadowfax
dude, 1280*1024 is only standard because the distortion is not very perceptible. i like the look it gives, myself, and used it on my trinitron monitor. however, do the math. here, i'll do it for you.
1280/960=1024/768=4/3=1.3333
1280/1024=5/4=1.25=not the standard 4:3 ratio. i don't want to be mean, but it is really basic to understand that there will be a distortion when you use 1280*1024 on a screen that is 4:3 it squashes the pixels so that they are shaped like rectangles instead of squares, thus making images on the screen of squares look like they are horizontally elongated rectangles, and circles look like horizontally elongated ovals.

moving on to the Tibook that i have in my lap right now, 16:10 vs. 15:10 (3:2) is not splitting hairs. you are talking about the difference between 1280*800 (16:10) and 1280*854 (3:2, 15:10, on the current 15.2" Tibook). that is a net difference of 54*1280 (69,120 pixels total) that you are losing. there is nothing hairline about that. that's my workspace! there are 1,093,120 pixels on my 1280*854 screen. there are 1,024,000 on the 1280*800. that's 93.7% of the screen space, and thus 6.3% you are losing. sure, the number is cleaner, but that's not hairline. hairline would be, in my mind, like the difference between 1280*854 and 1280*850.

my monitor which we both assume is 4:3 ratio won't even show 1280x960 at all, but it will show 1280X1024, so does that make my monitor 4:3.5? no ovals instead of circles or rectangles instead of squares...not sure where you getting all this.

i am personally talking about ratio's, not resolutions, not much difference in 15:10 and 16:10, everyone hates to loose any space to a lower resolution, i agree on that. but still not much difference in 1280x854 and 1280x800, if you weren't told the difference you'd never know. who's to say they won't up the resolution a few pixels with the 15.4", it is only a rumor so far.

it's just a disagreement on perception. it's no biggy unless you make it ;)
 
Originally posted by ewinemiller
This statement should really be qualified by a big "depends on what you do". There are some things the G4 is really good at and it can make up ground vs. pure mhz, however there are some things it doesn't do so well. The 3D software I use runs quite a lot slower clock for clock on a G4 vs. a PIII tualatin, so in that case, you'd loose ground. Subjectively the user experience feels about the same, but when I click render, the same scene takes about half the time to render on my PIII 1ghz as it does on my G4 800mhz. I find that if it's optimized for Altivec and the windows version is not optimized for SSE you'll see the G4 eat a PIII's lunch but if they are both unoptimized or both optimized, it's a different story.

Saying all that, for the uses you've mentioned (video editing, DVD burning, music sampling), it won't be the fastest thing out there, but you'll probably find it quite acceptable and it certainly gets it all (DVD burning included) in a nice portable package.

you're right, i was overgeneralizing, but can you cite an example of a laptop that would out match the 17 inch albook (which is what we assume this will be, only 15.4 inches) that's of a comparable price (≈2700 or whatever it is now)? for the things mentioned (DV editing, DVD burning, music sampling), that is.


[edit][post not off topic] oops! [/edit]
 
Originally posted by Shadowfax
get a ruler out. i told you it was not highly perceptible, but that doesn't mean it's not there. i hardly noticed, or i wouldn't have used it. but i mean, come on. think about it. you can do the math. you can see 1024*768 on your, right? and the ratio there is 4:3. and you won't argue that the shape of the display changes when you switch resolutions. clearly, one of them is distorted. but do get that ruler out. i am curious. in fact, i am going to go into the other room on my 17 inch trinitron and make a square in photoshop to check.

results:

17 inch (16.0" viewable) dell trinitron monitor:
≈13" W, ≈9.625" H; 13/9.25≈1.35, very close to the 4:3 (1.3333) ratio.

800px*800px Photoshop image dimensions on screen:
1024*768: ≈6.5" W, ≈6.5" H; 6.5/6.5=1
1280*1024: ≈ 5.25" W; ≈5" H; 5.25/5=1.05, and hence, my point, there exists slight distortion.

1280*1024 is standard because it's not very perceptible, but that dooesn't make it the right ratio.

you're right, though, it's no biggy, but don't say there's no distortion on it when there really is. anyways, that's enough calculator work for tonight.

yr ruler still does not make any circles into ovals nor does it make any squares in rectangles on my screen. my screen looks perfect, no distortion.

as i said in my first post splitting hairs.
 
Originally posted by sonny
yr ruler still does not make any circles into ovals nor does it make any squares in rectangles on my screen. my screen looks perfect, no distortion.

as i said in my first post splitting hairs.
snip

[edit] sorry, sonny, this is really immature. i think we both have a valid point. it is technically true that 1280*1024 is a distorted resolution on a 4:3 monitor, but it's splitting hairs, as you say; this got way out of control; once again, i apologize, and will shortly have my posts gone from this thread. [/edit]
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.