Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Can you confirm that the new MacBook Pro 16” is 16.x inches and not 16.0 inches?

Otherwise, they just added a notch and you lost that screen real estate.

Pixels don’t count, because the DPI varies (a 21” and a 23” monitor can both be 1080p).
I think the increased pixel density also counters your logic. There’s (likely) more vertical pixels on this thing. So, the intrusion of the notch is either nullified by it being in the menu bar (where an app would not have used them anyway), or it will be in a “virtual bezel” (dead zone), where an older model would’ve had no pixels.
 
I have an even better question. Did they make the notch this big on purpose, so that they can shrink it in two years and call it innovation or because they originally wanted to put more sensors behind it and do they still plan to introduce FaceID on the Mac in the future? 🤔

Right now we have a big ugly notch with no real purpose! 🙅
 
I have no issues with the notch.

I absolutely don't understand all the notch haters who outdo each other at finding ever more extreme ways to express their disdain for the notch. I mean, seriously, how much can you hate such a relatively insignificant detail :rolleyes:

It still seems ludicrous to me that people are complaining about getting more screen real estate.

If you have the choice between no notch with less screen real estate and a notch that can either allow for more screen real estate or look the same as if it weren't there, then the latter has only advantages and no disadvantages. The notch is all upside, no downside.
 
I think the increased pixel density also counters your logic. There’s (likely) more vertical pixels on this thing. So, the intrusion of the notch is either nullified by it being in the menu bar (where an app would not have used them anyway), or it will be in a “virtual bezel” (dead zone), where an older model would’ve had no pixels.

That’s the question! :)

Is it 16.0” of notch-less real estate with more pixels?

Or 15.9” of notch-less real estate with more pixels?
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: noraa
Yes - any thing else sounds like an excuse "a convenient hiding spot for the mouse"... lame.

When watch movies, the mouse cursor should disappear.

( I don't particular care about the notch, but the excuses for how it could be useful are lame + sad )
Maybe it’s just me but I’ve noticed macOS has a problem with hiding mouse during full screen video.
I agree, sounds totally like an excuse after the fact. But one shortcoming may actually make up for another, in this case.
 
This actually makes me like the notch. (Before I didn't care). When I'm writing full screen I hate seeing the mouse. If this means I can just toss it up and have it hide from view that's a great feature.
Am I the only one that just sends it all the way to the right of the screen? Not hidden entirely but close enough.
I wouldn’t go so far as to call this a feature. More like an unintended consequence of an idea that was not fully thought out.
 
That’s the question! :)

Is it 16.0” of notch-less real estate with more pixels?

Or 15.9” of notch-less real estate with more pixels?
Well, I’m being lazy/don’t care. But, I suppose the answer is in the vertical pixel count of old MBP 16.0”, new 16.2”, and how many pixels “high” the notch is. If the new vertical minus notch is greater, then this screen has more real estate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noraa
I hope that they give us an option to use a dark mode menu palette while using light mode for the main screen. I don’t like dark mode in general but it would do a lot to hide the notch and keep the menu bar functional
I use at least one app with menus all the way across the bar on my 13 inch. I shudder to think how the 14 inch would handle this. Though, lots of items in the menu bar just seems to be an inherent limitation of the macOS UI. Seems to me the notch is just going to take what’s already a weakness of macOS and make it worse.
 
Well, I’m being lazy/don’t care. But, I suppose the answer is in the vertical pixel count of old MBP 16.0”, new 16.2”, and how many pixels “high” the notch is. If the new vertical minus notch is greater, then this screen has more real estate.

That math sounds right. :)

But the MR pixel count doesn’t subtract evenly from the new resolution.

So you can’t use the existing Menu Bar for reference.
 
Am I the only one that just sends it all the way to the right of the screen? Not hidden entirely but close enough.
I wouldn’t go so far as to call this a feature. More like an unintended consequence of an idea that was not fully thought out.
And still not, because if you were projecting or mirroring the display, the mouse wouldn't be very hidden.
 
I would like to know what happens when there are many menus / menubar items, such that stretch upto or beyond the notch.
The horizonal resolution is 384 pixels greater than the previous model. If the notch is 384 'pixels' wide, then the menu bar still has the same amount of space available and therefore everything that fits now should continue to fit.
 
I have no issues with the notch.

I absolutely don't understand all the notch haters who outdo each other at finding ever more extreme ways to express their disdain for the notch. I mean, seriously, how much can you hate such a relatively insignificant detail :rolleyes:

It still seems ludicrous to me that people are complaining about getting more screen real estate.

If you have the choice between no notch with less screen real estate and a notch that can either allow for more screen real estate or look the same as if it weren't there, then the latter has only advantages and no disadvantages. The notch is all upside, no downside.
I might be in the minority, not sure, but I'd prefer to have less screen real estate and a larger bezel than to have the notch. Both MacBook and iPhone.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.