Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iMac, eMac and iBook Updates
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
depends if widescreen is a "wider rectangle" or a "shorter rectangle"
My thoughts are almost always that bigger is better, and more pixels is better. Cutting the bottom off a 19" "square" to make a 17" "widescreen" is definitely a loss - yet that's what some of the "widescreen" offerings seem to be.
The first change I'd make to the iMac is to go to 4:3 aspect ratio screens (same case sizes, same horizontal widths as the 17" and 20", just taller LCDs) to get some more pixels. (It would also improve the appearance - that big white area at the bottom is rather unsightly.)
There's also the fact that most DVD movies are 1.85 to 2.35 aspect ratio or so - this means that your "widescreen" monitor doesn't display with no black bars on the top and bottom, just slightly narrower black bars.
A 1600x1200 display is better IMO than a 1600x1000 display - even though the latter is "widescreen". A 1920x1200 display is even better - not because of the aspect ratio change per se, but because it has more pixels. (I have mostly 21" 1600x1200 LCD displays at work, but have a 24" 1920x1200 at home. I like the extra 320 pixel width on the 24", but it's hard to justify that it's really worth twice the price of the 21" (Samsung 213T vs. 243T).)
1000 pixels or so high is a minimum for me - any fewer and a full screen portrait mode document is a bit hard to read. 1200 pixels high is really nice for detailed full screen documents. Wider screens can make it easier to fit two pages side-by-side - although if you have enough pixels you can do this on a 4:3 monitor. (Use 1600x1000 of a 1600:1200 monitor, or full screen on a 1600:1000.)
Another big advantage for me of 1200 or more vertical pixels is that remote displays (remote desktops, virtual machines, or VNC-like windows) can be displayed at 1280x1024 - the traditional full resolution 4:3 window.
________________________
For a notebook computer, IMO there are definite limits to "bigger is better", although "more pixels is better" still applies.
I'd never want a 17" notebook from any vendor. Too big and heavy. Won't fit in most bags. Really a problem on airplane tray tables.... Give me a 14" 4:3 or a 15" widescreen instead.
Right now I'd buy a 14" laptop with 2048x1536 pixel resolution in an instant. If you've ever done photo editing (or even photo viewing) with a high resolution laptop you'll never want to go back to the 1024x768 "macro-pixel" displays.
Why buy a 5 MPixel camera to look at the photos as 1/2 MPixel windows on a 1024x768 system? I'd much rather see them as 2 to 3 MPixel windows on a high resolution display - even if the actual size (in cm) is the same as the low resolution display. Scaling the fonts for better readability on the high resolution display is no issue. (My main laptop has a 1400x1050 14" screen - wonderful, but I'd still like more pixels at the same size!)
________________
These are my preferences - not what's "right" or "wrong", but simply what I look for in display size.
psxndc said:
My thoughts are almost always that bigger is better, and more pixels is better. Cutting the bottom off a 19" "square" to make a 17" "widescreen" is definitely a loss - yet that's what some of the "widescreen" offerings seem to be.
The first change I'd make to the iMac is to go to 4:3 aspect ratio screens (same case sizes, same horizontal widths as the 17" and 20", just taller LCDs) to get some more pixels. (It would also improve the appearance - that big white area at the bottom is rather unsightly.)
There's also the fact that most DVD movies are 1.85 to 2.35 aspect ratio or so - this means that your "widescreen" monitor doesn't display with no black bars on the top and bottom, just slightly narrower black bars.
A 1600x1200 display is better IMO than a 1600x1000 display - even though the latter is "widescreen". A 1920x1200 display is even better - not because of the aspect ratio change per se, but because it has more pixels. (I have mostly 21" 1600x1200 LCD displays at work, but have a 24" 1920x1200 at home. I like the extra 320 pixel width on the 24", but it's hard to justify that it's really worth twice the price of the 21" (Samsung 213T vs. 243T).)
1000 pixels or so high is a minimum for me - any fewer and a full screen portrait mode document is a bit hard to read. 1200 pixels high is really nice for detailed full screen documents. Wider screens can make it easier to fit two pages side-by-side - although if you have enough pixels you can do this on a 4:3 monitor. (Use 1600x1000 of a 1600:1200 monitor, or full screen on a 1600:1000.)
Another big advantage for me of 1200 or more vertical pixels is that remote displays (remote desktops, virtual machines, or VNC-like windows) can be displayed at 1280x1024 - the traditional full resolution 4:3 window.
________________________
For a notebook computer, IMO there are definite limits to "bigger is better", although "more pixels is better" still applies.
I'd never want a 17" notebook from any vendor. Too big and heavy. Won't fit in most bags. Really a problem on airplane tray tables.... Give me a 14" 4:3 or a 15" widescreen instead.
Right now I'd buy a 14" laptop with 2048x1536 pixel resolution in an instant. If you've ever done photo editing (or even photo viewing) with a high resolution laptop you'll never want to go back to the 1024x768 "macro-pixel" displays.
Why buy a 5 MPixel camera to look at the photos as 1/2 MPixel windows on a 1024x768 system? I'd much rather see them as 2 to 3 MPixel windows on a high resolution display - even if the actual size (in cm) is the same as the low resolution display. Scaling the fonts for better readability on the high resolution display is no issue. (My main laptop has a 1400x1050 14" screen - wonderful, but I'd still like more pixels at the same size!)
________________
These are my preferences - not what's "right" or "wrong", but simply what I look for in display size.
Some one has probably mentioned this but I am too lazy to look through all the posts.
UPGRADE YOUR LAPTOP SCREENS.
The resolutions on them is flat out ridiculous. 1024 X 768 on the 14" iBook. That is the Shitest screen i have seen.
Hmmmm having said that i love my 15" Powerbook screen widescreen is so lovely
UPGRADE YOUR LAPTOP SCREENS.
The resolutions on them is flat out ridiculous. 1024 X 768 on the 14" iBook. That is the Shitest screen i have seen.
Hmmmm having said that i love my 15" Powerbook screen
widescreen is so lovelypsxndc said:
It is a common Misconception that Games do not support Widescreen Resolutions. Most Games support Widescreen resolutions natively with no strecthing. All Quake III based games support Widescreen reolutions as well as many others.
Here is a list of Games I have that I have played at native 1440x900, 1680x1050, and 1920x1200 Widescreen resolutions. These Games Can scale natively to widescreen fine and there is no stretching or distortion.
Unreal Tournament 2003/2004
Return to Castle Wolfenstein & RTCW ET
BattleField 1942
Quake III
Doom III
Call of Duty and Expansion packs
Medal of Honor and Expansion Pakcs
Warcraft III & WOW
America's Army
Jedi Knight II and Jedi Academy
Battlefield 1942 abd Expansion Packs
American McGees Alice
Alien Vs. Predator 2
Homeworld 2
Halo
Star Trek Elite Fore and Elite Force 2
X Plane
and many many others........
Most peple assume that Games do not support widescreen resolutions because they themselves don't have a widscreen LCD so they will not see widescreen options in the Games "settings" options. Also even though widescreen resoltions may not be accesible through the Games option settings they can usually be implemented through the games console or by editing Config files.
As for your other arguments about widescreen displays....... I agree with you that while you may spend most of your time writing Documents Vertical instead of horizontal it should make no diffence though if you have a high enough widescreen resolution. 1680x1050 actually gives you more vertical than the standard 1280x1024 that most 17",18", and 19" LCDs have. 1920x1200 widescreen gives the same vertical as the standard 1600x1200. Your argument only stands valid if we are talking about 1440x900 or smaller. At 1680x1050 and higher widescreen resolutions there is only all around benefit. Nothing is better than having 2 web pages open side by side or having a Webpage open at full length and having a DVD movie playing in windowed mode on the side.
AidenShaw said:
My thoughts exactly. A ratio of 4:5 (17") or 3:4 (19"<) better fits most of the use of a computer. For most applications it is HEIGHT that counts not width. Not only for the internet and word-applications but also for CAD / rendering applications its more pleasant to have a netto screen ratio (without all the buttons and bars) of 2:3 then 1:2. Widescreen just has a lot of wasted space I don't intend to pay for. It might be hip, but if you want to watch movies, just hook up your tv, after all, it is what it is designed for.
I would love to see a 4:3 iMac and would buy one the moment they offer it but untill then it stays mac mini + seperate screen for me. I would love 1:1 screen's even more but alas I think that's just out of the question...or a miracle has to happen
G.Kirby said:
You KNOW that the PowerMac range will NEVER be outdone by the consumer iMacs:
Firstly, the iMac is only partially upgradable, with no path for graphics, processor or Firewire 800 upgrades.
Secondly, even the first generation entry-level G5 PowerMac STILL has more than enough scope to overcome the prospective 2GHz G5 iMac, as it has many upgrade options available to it.
And thirdly, the next updates to the G5 PowerMac range will probably be dual processors right across the board - a big separation from the single processor consumer iMac.
And it is even more interesting to note that Apple have been working on the ability for machines to have multiple processors of 4 or more (re: Quad PowerMacs and the 970MP).
Perhaps something is brewing at Cupertino?
i actually think that widescreen has a functionality beyond that of just movie watching. the argument for the 4:3 ratio is that the most common uses of a computer are document writing and viewing, web browsing, all stuff that is vertically based. while this is true, computers have now also been able to multitask for quite some time, and i as a human being have been gradually catching on. there is usually a couple of iChat windows open to the left of a browser or document editor window, with my iTunes minimized controls down at the bottom. all the windows that i'm using are able to be displayed at once without hiding under something. the wider screen also aids in making drag and drop even more easier and efficient to use. i keep my desktop relatively clean enough so that all the desktop items are displayed in a single column to the right of the screen. anything i drag to the desktop can be manipulated and dragged back to where i'm working with ease.
i think video and audio applications are better suited for widescreens. i have a 15" powerbook, and maybe past 15" the widescreen becomes excessive for some people, a case of just too much space. i dunno. but i like it.
i think video and audio applications are better suited for widescreens. i have a 15" powerbook, and maybe past 15" the widescreen becomes excessive for some people, a case of just too much space. i dunno. but i like it.
Widescreen computer displays are typically 16:10 not 16:9, which is good, because at 16:9 the diagonal angle is getting so low that you lose quite a lot of screen area while still being able to claim that it's a 17" display, for instance.
The screen area of a 17" 16:9 display is 11% less than a 17" 4:3 display.
Personally I don't like to work in full screen, so I prefer 16:10 widescreen, as it allows me to keep windows side by side, but that's on a 1920x1200 display. I'm not sure about what I would prefer on screens that are 15" or less. If the resolution is high enough, I guess I would still prefer widescreen.
I think the 12.7" widescreen PB allowing for a slightly wider keyboard, like the one wrldwzrd described, is a very good idea, and maybe they could add a new 10" PB, as I know there are some here who would really like an ultraportable option from Apple.
The screen area of a 17" 16:9 display is 11% less than a 17" 4:3 display.
Personally I don't like to work in full screen, so I prefer 16:10 widescreen, as it allows me to keep windows side by side, but that's on a 1920x1200 display. I'm not sure about what I would prefer on screens that are 15" or less. If the resolution is high enough, I guess I would still prefer widescreen.
I think the 12.7" widescreen PB allowing for a slightly wider keyboard, like the one wrldwzrd described, is a very good idea, and maybe they could add a new 10" PB, as I know there are some here who would really like an ultraportable option from Apple.
Why bother with big pretty displays if all you are pushing it with is a fx5200? without a video system upgrade iMac will still be crippled.
HD is 1280x720 and 1920x1080. Currently OTA and dish/cable HD content is broadcast/distributed as 1280x720, 60 frames per second progressive, OR 1920x1080, 30 frames interlaced. Many people prefer 720p over 1080i (myself included), but others prefer 1080i despite its inherent interlace artifacts on progressive displays (LCDs and plasmas).savar said:
Yup! I'm glad to see not everyone has bought into the "HD is 1920x1080 only" marketing hype.Platform said:I thought that HD was from 1280x720 and up
That "unsightly" big white area below the LCD on iMac G5s is a design homage to the original 1984 model Macintosh. The Happy Mac icon used to remind everyone of this part of Apple history until it was retired with the release of Jaguar. I suppose the reference would be clearer if the LCD were 4:3 or 5:4 instead of 16:10, so if you get what you want (a squarer iMac) you might still get what you don't want (white space under the screen).AidenShaw said:
Chaszmyr said:This isn't looking good for the probability of PowerMac updates at NAB
they wouldnt upgrade the imac to 2.0 ghz unless the powermacs were faster
I took my wife's 1GHz Powerbook and hooked it up to a 19" LCD and I gotta say... the vid card in that machine is HORRIBLE! Stuff just doesn't draw fast enough. I don't play games at all and it still pains me to use that machine when in just the 2D desktop.
My GeForce 4 4600 on my 3 year old PC is MUCH better than the crap in the powerbooks. I'm honestly amazed that MORE people don't bitch about the crappy vid-cards in the mini, iBook, and Powerbooks. I was *this* close to buying a mini too... good thing I didn't I would have been very disapointed.
My GeForce 4 4600 on my 3 year old PC is MUCH better than the crap in the powerbooks. I'm honestly amazed that MORE people don't bitch about the crappy vid-cards in the mini, iBook, and Powerbooks. I was *this* close to buying a mini too... good thing I didn't I would have been very disapointed.