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

Apple Event for September 9th?

SBik2 said:
sounds like the quote from when steve introduced the first iMac.. and that MBP mockup looks like its from a different planet.. (with good designers too.. that is):p
Click to expand...

Does not the MacBook Pro mock-up remind you of an aluminium iPhone too?
 
Aranince said:
I think 16:9 would be horrible for computers...If you want 16:9 in movies, keep the black bars at the top and bottom of the screen or use your TV. That's what it is made for.
Click to expand...

In addition to the desire to better match HD playback on computers, another big reason manufacturers are moving to 16:9 is because it costs less. I can't remember what you call the master plate they cut the panels from, but you can get more with a 16:9 ratio then a 16:10. Also, by making all panels in 16:9 format, it allows streamlining of production, which also reduces production costs.
 
CWallace said:
In addition to the desire to better match HD playback on computers, another big reason manufacturers are moving to 16:9 is because it costs less. I can't remember what you call the master plate they cut the panels from, but you can get more with a 16:9 ratio then a 16:10. Also, by making all panels in 16:9 format, it allows streamlining of production, which also reduces production costs.
Click to expand...

I wish somebody would make a mock-up of an 16:9 ratio MacBook.
 
kabunaru said:
I am all for 16:9 ratio Macs. I would like that wider screen a lot.
Click to expand...
I'm all for it only if the vertical resolution stays the same or increases. Therefore, for the MacBook, NO 1280*720 downgrade (10% less pixels). I'm not particularly favoring 1366*768 either, but I suppose I'd take it since it has 2.45% more pixels than 1280*800.

For the MacBook Pros, I would expect at least 15" 1600*900 and 17" 1920*1080 (unfortunately, although an upgrade from the default 1680*1050, that's a downgrade from the 1920*1200 option).
 
iMacmatician said:
I'm all for it only if the vertical resolution stays the same or increases. Therefore, for the MacBook, NO 1280*720 downgrade (10% less pixels). I'm not particularly favoring 1366*768 either, but I suppose I'd take it since it has 2.45% more pixels than 1280*800.

For the MacBook Pros, I would expect at least 15" 1600*900 and 17" 1920*1080 (unfortunately, although an upgrade from the default 1680*1050, that's a downgrade from the 1920*1200 option).
Click to expand...

if the MBP go 16:9 they will be at 16" and 18"
 
kabunaru said:
So the standards will be 14" (MacBook), 16" and 18" (MacBook Pros).

Will people actually notice the size difference in real life?
Click to expand...
Not a lot, I think, and only in width. And if Apple decreases the display bezel, that would reduce the difference even more.
 
Well I';ve seen a few 16" notebooks out there and the only difference is its more streamline wider but by not much... If they get the resolution right then it will be a sale..

Out of acers and sony's 16" models. I'd chose sony just for the "apple fell" to it was its much cleaner. Sure 512MB nvidia would be sweet the looks of the acer suck,...

wouldnt it cut back on price if they did go 16:9
 
iMacmatician said:
I'm all for it only if the vertical resolution stays the same or increases. Therefore, for the MacBook, NO 1280*720 downgrade (10% less pixels). I'm not particularly favoring 1366*768 either, but I suppose I'd take it since it has 2.45% more pixels than 1280*800.

For the MacBook Pros, I would expect at least 15" 1600*900 and 17" 1920*1080 (unfortunately, although an upgrade from the default 1680*1050, that's a downgrade from the 1920*1200 option).
Click to expand...

So, I see:
14" 16:9 Aluminium MacBook with 1366x768 resolution for $999.
16" 16:9 Aluminium MacBook Pro with 1600x900 resolution for $1799.
18" 16:9 Aluminium MacBook Pro with 1920x1080 resolution for $2599.

I expect some price cuts as well.
 
Would 16:9, at an inch bigger come out to be about the same size as the current ones?

kabunaru said:
So, I see:
14" 16:9 Aluminium MacBook with 1366x768 resolution for $999.
16" 16:9 Aluminium MacBook Pro with 1600x900 resolution for $1799.
18 16:9 Aluminium MacBook Pro with 1920x1080 resolution for $2599.

I expect some price cuts as well.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what I'm hoping for(Can't decide about 16:9, but high res FTW).
 
Aranince said:
Would 16:9, at an inch bigger come out to be about the same size as the current ones?
Click to expand...
A 16:10 13.3" display would be 11.3" x 7.05" (79.5" squared), and a 16:9 14." display would be 12" x 6.9" (84" squared). So it's 5.3% larger, which is smaller than the 11% if it was 14" 16:10.

kabunaru said:
So, I see:
14" 16:9 Aluminium MacBook with 1366x768 resolution for $999.
16" 16:9 Aluminium MacBook Pro with 1600x900 resolution for $1799.
18" 16:9 Aluminium MacBook Pro with 1920x1080 resolution for $2599.

I expect some price cuts as well.
Click to expand...
Bingo. And it would also quell the complaints coming from increased dpi (like 15" 1440*900 -> 15" 1680*1050).
 
Not sure if this has been posted already:
http://lowendmac.com/musings/08mm/golden-ratio.html

i'd agree with folks saying it's better to have a decent height to a screen, rather than have a screen that fits a widescreen format ratio.
The Golden Rule is a pretty good starting point.

Anyone know if the LED screens coming out are predominately 16:9 or just other sizes predominately?
 
t0mat0 said:
Not sure if this has been posted already:
http://lowendmac.com/musings/08mm/golden-ratio.html

i'd agree with folks saying it's better to have a decent height to a screen, rather than have a screen that fits a widescreen format ratio.
The Golden Rule is a pretty good starting point.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link--a good read. My instincts are with you and the author.

I'm one of those "kids" (even tho I'm 50, a label my wife won't dispute) who want some height in text windows. If I wanna watch a vid, got a TV for that. Don't wanna be cramped in my work.

Suppose it would be too much to expect a range of models with different resolutions?
 
Tensakun said:
Suppose it would be too much to expect a range of models with different resolutions?
Click to expand...
Apparently so, given the current state of Mac display resolutions. Only the 17" MacBook Pro has more than one resolution option, and current resolutions aren't exactly that high.

I'd like to see these options (bold is default):

13" MacBook: 1280·720 1366·768 1600·900
15" MacBook Pro: 1366·768 1600·900 1920·1080
17" MacBook Pro: 1600·900 1920·1080
 
So many request for MBP upgrades, but what about just plain old MP tower? What's the latest rumours with MP chips? Any leads on possible MP releases this year?
 
.Chris said:
EXACTLY. I';m with you bro. people are to darn scared to move to new technology.... its sad in a way....
Click to expand...

16:9 isn't a new technology, so much as a new ratio :p

It's not being scared either, it's about preferences, legitimate or not!
Usage is a biggie. Also portability, back - compatability with cases, Usefulness with your work flow etc.

Anyway - 4 days folks, till it's Tuesday 2nd Sept, and we might have an idea about invites or not.
 
t0mat0 said:
16:9 isn't a new technology, so much as a new ratio :p

It's not being scared either, it's about preferences, legitimate or not!
Usage is a biggie. Also portability, back - compatability with cases, Usefulness with your work flow etc.

Anyway - 4 days folks, till it's Tuesday 2nd Sept, and we might have an idea about invites or not.
Click to expand...

I know. Strangely, I'm starting to feel like a child a Christmas!:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back