Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

SansSociety

macrumors newbie
Original poster
May 12, 2006
19
0
London, UK
I a lot has been said about anti-glare vs. glossy and i5 vs. i7, but what do you guys think about Apple's decision to stick with the 16:10 aspect ratio for this generation of Macbook Pros.

I personally liked this choice a lot and it was one of the prime motivators for me to pick up the updated 15". I couldn't imagine computing on a 16:9 screen, especially for a laptop.

I use my computer for work and school and never use it to watch movies, besides the occasional youtube clip or TV show.

I don't want to imagine the day that Apple's forced transition to 16:9 like every other pc manufacturers. It's truly a shame because there wasn't a compelling reason for OEM's to move to 16:9 in the first place, besides the bottom-line.

Anyways, your guys' thoughts on all of this???
 
Next refresh in the 4th quarter of 2010 the MBP will likely go 16:9 like the iMac did. They have to redo the logic board on the 13" anyway, so it would make sense. By the 4th quarter, Sandy Bridge will likely be out as well. I personally don't really care as long as I'm not losing pixels. If they increase the pixel density, I don't see the problem. Maybe they'll finally incorporate IPS into their laptop displays.
 
I actually quite like the 16:10 format for wordprocessing, photoshopping, spreadsheet, surfing and general applications.

I think the 16:9 is more suited for multimedia (i.e. watching movies!) more than anything...

Before buying my current new MBP i checked a few Win7 laptops, mostly in 16:9. I found the screen a little too small, even if they were 15.4''.

The 15.4'' screen of this MBP looks bigger (i.e. taller). Quite pleased with it.
 
16:10 is the best for small screens.
For screens that is 24 inch or larger, i s'pose 16:9 is pretty usable, but i still prefer 16:10
 
The stunt they pulled with the ipad was freaking stupid. 4:3? Come on. All that means is developers of iphone games need to do much more fiddly coding and possibly break their game mechanics trying to port to (or from) ipad, and that movies need big black bars.

The ipad was really stupid for not supporting 16:10. Instead you got this big ass beziel border.

At least with a netbook you can view movies as intended without wasting a quarter of the screen with black bars.

Unless you enjoy stretchy spock ears in 4:3.
 
I hate 16:9 because you get a smaller screen for the same bulkiness. It is okay if for very small 13,1" and smaller if you actually intend to use it on a lap (in the train or on a plane). It is also okay when the whole display is big enough 20"+.
For 13,3-17" Notebooks it just sucks and if you define like me portability by the size of the Notebook you are worse of. If weight is your only concern it doesn't matter that much.
I am also happy with Apple still having 16:10 but I am sure at the next redesign they will also switch to 16:9, which is probably next year with Sandy Bridge.
 
I can't say how nice it will be to use a 16:10 screen again. As many others have stated we need notebooks for WORK not watching movies. I would take 1920x1200 any day over 1080p. I can actually notice a difference when working on documents with 16:10. I love it!!
 
Next refresh in the 4th quarter of 2010 the MBP will likely go 16:9 like the iMac did. They have to redo the logic board on the 13" anyway, so it would make sense. By the 4th quarter, Sandy Bridge will likely be out as well. I personally don't really care as long as I'm not losing pixels. If they increase the pixel density, I don't see the problem. Maybe they'll finally incorporate IPS into their laptop displays.
Sandy Bridge is scheduled for Q1 2011.
 
I'm all for 2.35:1.

Excuse the text please.

4571234537_9de0a43852_o.jpg
 
Web pages - Vertical
Documents - Vertical
List Views - Vertical
Movies - Horizontal

Anybody?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.