iMac, eMac and iBook Updates

[dicklacara]

peripheral vision as a justification for a widescreen computerscreen is plain nonsense. You have data on your screen. When you start editing/ using a certain part of it you're focus will move towards it. You are really confusing a television screen with a computer screen. On a television screen peripheral vision counts, but on a computerscreen it's about how you arrange your data on the screen and for by far the most applications it's the 4:5 ration that let's you use the screen in the most efficient fashion. I'm not only talking about text-based content.

I disagree! Here's 2 examples:

1) For 6 1/2 hours every Mon-Fri I run a stock portfolio streaming app that updates several times a second. A 30x30 (approx) grid displays the stock info and color changes indicate items that require attention (or are approaching predefined triggers). It looks like a video game. This app occupies one side of a 20" iMac display. Variously, I am concentrating on stacked browser, text, mail, etc windows on the other half of the display. While I am working (browsing, etc.) I can monitor the video game out of the corner of my eye. When the stocks need attention, I change my focus to the video game and do what's necessary.

2) I don't run OS X Server in production, but if I did, it would be very useful to fill the display with multiple monitor windows that graphically display the status of the various components-- analogous to the displays on the dashboard of a car or airplane. You don't focus on anything, just glance around and lock in when something grabs your attention.

The ability to run the Stock Portfolio app this way more than paid for all my Mac hardware.

 

[dicklacara]

What size iMac, 17 or 20"? When we got a 20" at workthe first thing we did was have a look inside. It looked to me that there is room at the top centre to have an iPod dock slot. So you could pop your iPod directly into the top of the iMac. I wonder if there is such a space in the 17".

iMac G5 20" Maxed (2).

Wasn't looking for a place to attach an iPod, so I didn't notice the room at the top.

Besides, an iMac G5 and a docked iPod photo, look so cool as the only things on your desktop (L'l brother!)

 

[Little Endian]

when is the last time you saw a japanese website that printed text vertically (other than for asthetic reasons)? I have never seen one.

You do have a point. Japanese text support on computers reads from left to right.

 

[burntoutjoy]

Gah. I completely disagree. When I work, I don't want distractions in the periphery of my vision. I want to see one document and I want to have the text big enough so it doesn't hurt my eyes and enough vertical space so I can view an entire page on the screen (when writing, I mean really writing, you need to have context. You can't get that scrolling up every few sentences to see how you referred to something or how you characterized it 2 paragraphs ago).

At work I have a 19" Dell that I leave rotated at 90 degrees vertically. It has the height of 4, and the width of 3. A 16:10 rotated would be great height-wise, but probably too skinny.

Hey, it's all a matter of preference. 4:3 is mine.

Well, I'm not talking about having your window squished up a couple of hundred pixels high: if you had a decently big modern widescreen LCD you could have the window just as tall as you would, say, on a 17" CRT. My point was having more space at the side for things you use, being that the sides are a better place to store things you use often that you want to be able to get to.

But yes, it's all about preference in the end. If you like 4:3, great. I was arguing against folks who thought widescreen was a bad idea in general, which it obviously isn't.

 

[gadget-uk]

I ordered my 12" iBook yesterday to take advantage of a £70 discount which expired on 31st March - the Apple store said that there is a 3 day build time for it so I thought I'd be fine, if the iBook gets a bump today I can just cancel before it ships and re-order a new one. I'm only in a rush because it's a b/day present for my fiancee and I need it before the 16th!

Read into this what you like.... but it shipped the same day! I guess they're clearing the decks for some reason.... Isn't it also a strange coincidence that they've been farming out these money-off vouchers in the UK that all expire on 31st March...?

Anyhoo, if i get the iBook and they give it a big bump and/or won't discount Tiger for me I can send it back within 10 days but i'll have to swallow a £40 shipping fee.... compared to (approx) £100 for Tiger + potential RAM + potential CPU + potential GPU improvements... it'll be worth it. The big question is, can my fragile heart cope with the risk of it shipping too late for her birthday? I can just imagine the beating I'll get - best have some chocolate on standby.

 

[G.Kirby]

I ordered my 12" iBook yesterday to take advantage of a £70 discount which expired on 31st March - the Apple store said that there is a 3 day build time for it so I thought I'd be fine, if the iBook gets a bump today I can just cancel before it ships and re-order a new one. I'm only in a rush because it's a b/day present for my fiancee and I need it before the 16th!

Read into this what you like.... but it shipped the same day! I guess they're clearing the decks for some reason.... Isn't it also a strange coincidence that they've been farming out these money-off vouchers in the UK that all expire on 31st March...?

Anyhoo, if i get the iBook and they give it a big bump and/or won't discount Tiger for me I can send it back within 10 days but i'll have to swallow a £40 shipping fee.... compared to (approx) £100 for Tiger + potential RAM + potential CPU + potential GPU improvements... it'll be worth it. The big question is, can my fragile heart cope with the risk of it shipping too late for her birthday? I can just imagine the beating I'll get - best have some chocolate on standby.

You had best get some flowers in too.

I don't think you will get the new iBook by the 16th.

 

[gadget-uk]

You had best get some flowers in too.

I don't think you will get the new iBook by the 16th.

Not a bad idea. The thing is - she probably won't care at all if it gets a spec bump, as long as she has her pretty iBook . It's only because I'll feel sick that it could have been a little bit better. To be honest - I don't mind coughing up for Tiger in a few months (maybe after the first few patches) and for a 512M so-dimm too. It's the stuff I can't change (CPU/GPU) that will bother me.

So, I hate to be unpopular, but I'm hoping that the iBook doesn't get bumped today - that removes my dilemma. I keep the iBook that's already shipped and I don't get battered to death by a present-less woman. (hell hath no fury....)

 

[G.Kirby]

Not a bad idea. The thing is - she probably won't care at all if it gets a spec bump, as long as she has her pretty iBook . It's only because I'll feel sick that it could have been a little bit better. To be honest - I don't mind coughing up for Tiger in a few months (maybe after the first few patches) and for a 512M so-dimm too. It's the stuff I can't change (CPU/GPU) that will bother me.

So, I hate to be unpopular, but I'm hoping that the iBook doesn't get bumped today - that removes my dilemma. I keep the iBook that's already shipped and I don't get battered to death by a present-less woman. (hell hath no fury....)

I take it she won't be to happy with the 'we have got your order' email from apple wrapped up in a posh box.

 

[AidenShaw]

or "design mistake", depending on your viewpoint

Actually, the "big white area below the LCD on the iMac G5" is due to a design constraint.

I just replaced a power Supply and it is located at the bottom (center) and uses the entire thickness. and bottom vents the speakers also use the entire thickness of the case.

Too bad they didn't put the power supply in a brick like the MiniMac.... The system could have been much more elegant (and cooler and quieter).

By the way, a 4x3 screen would go down to the top of the Apple logo on the 17" (that is, to the top of the apple itself, not to the tip of the stem). That would leave plenty of room for speakers (perhaps even better-sounding front-facing speakers). Here's a Q&D image with the screen stretched to 4x3.

 

[computerfan]

1080p capable panels

At the moment there are only two native 1080p TV monitors on the market and both are 45" Sharp Aquos models. If you have a link to a 60"+ 1080p native screen I'd be interested in learning something new. As far as I know everything else in LCD and plasma TV land is in the 1280x768 neighborhood.

1080p panels might be rare now, but they should be available everywhere in North America by the Fall. Some models are available now but I wouldn't consider buying a 1080p display unitl the fall when prices should drop.

Here are a few links:
80" samsung that does 1080p http://www.tvauthority.com/Coming-Soon/Samsung-HP-R8082.asp

A whole list of others including a sony 46-inch "QUALIA 005" 1080p, and an LG 71-inch MW-71PY10 that is $75k (a bit expensive now) http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1749523,00.asp
(This last article makes mention of 1080p becoming increasingly popular)

This is a review of a samsung LT-P468W 46" LCD panel http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1734510,00.asp

Hope that helps.

 

[AidenShaw]

peripheral vision as a justification for a widescreen computerscreen is plain nonsense.

It's especially nonsense because peripheral vision is vertical as well as horizontal.

I put toolbars and status/monitor windows above and below my work window - as well as to the sides.

I'm not against widescreen - as long as I get more pixels. Just don't cut the bottom off a 4x3 and claim that the resulting widescreen is better than the 4x3 at *anything*.

Would you rather have the 4x3 iMac with the larger screen, or the original with the smaller screen? I'd take the extra pixels of the 4x3 (and I also think that it looks better than the original).

 

[minimax]

It's especially nonsense because peripheral vision is vertical as well as horizontal.

I put toolbars and status/monitor windows above and below my work window - as well as to the sides.

I'm not against widescreen - as long as I get more pixels. Just don't cut the bottom off a 4x3 and claim that the resulting widescreen is better than the 4x3 at *anything*.

Would you rather have the 4x3 iMac with the larger screen, or the original with the smaller screen? I'd take the extra pixels of the 4x3 (and I also think that it looks better than the original).

the Imac looks much more sleek this way and you'll get a 19" and 22" instead of 17" and 20". I'd be glad to pay a hundred or two extra for that.
come on Apple, get past the WS hype!!

 

[wrldwzrd89]

Too bad they didn't put the power supply in a brick like the MiniMac.... The system could have been much more elegant (and cooler and quieter).

By the way, a 4x3 screen would go down to the top of the Apple logo on the 17" (that is, to the top of the apple itself, not to the tip of the stem). That would leave plenty of room for speakers (perhaps even better-sounding front-facing speakers). Here's a Q&D image with the screen stretched to 4x3.

Unfortunately, the thickness of the iMac G5 makes the front-facing speaker idea impossible even with the power supply in a separate brick. I just don't see how a set of front-facing speakers could be designed to fit the unusual shape of the iMac G5.

 

[AidenShaw]

just a teensy bit of innovation needed

Unfortunately, the thickness of the iMac G5 makes the front-facing speaker idea impossible even with the power supply in a separate brick. I just don't see how a set of front-facing speakers could be designed to fit the unusual shape of the iMac G5.

Huh? There are lots of models of LCD screens with speakers that face the front. Lots of laptops too.

My first pass would be to put a couple of the neodymium drivers that Altec Lansing uses in the InMotion and XT-1 in the front, and add a small down-facing subwoofer system for the deeper sounds.

 

[burntoutjoy]

It's especially nonsense because peripheral vision is vertical as well as horizontal.

Yes it is, but you are failing to notice our eyes are positioned side by side. This means we can see back a larger angle than we can see up or down.

Also, 16:9 is the so-called 'golden ratio' which has dominated architecture, measuring of ferns, and is even responsible for a lot of the ratios between measurements in the human body. It will always seem more pleasing to the eye than any other ratio.

 

[MarkCollette]

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).

Yup! I'm glad to see not everyone has bought into the "HD is 1920x1080 only" marketing hype.

Technically 640x480 is an HD resolution too

 

[AidenShaw]

Yes it is, but you are failing to notice our eyes are positioned side by side. This means we can see back a larger angle than we can see up or down.

LOL. That would only explain 3 inches wider in the horizontal field!

Are you sure that the difference between horizontal and vertical peripheral vision isn't due to the fact that the eyebrows and cheekbones restrict the vertical field of view?

Having said that, while looking at the bottom of my screen I can easily see the tall filing cabinet that's above it, and the different colors of books on the two book shelves on top of the cabinet. I can also see my hands on the keyboard, the desk around it, and even my legs. There's something with a red LED on the left side of the keyboard - oh, that's the mouse.

This whole "gotta have widescreen because of peripheral vision" argument is nonsensical, IMO.

As for the "golden ratio", the mockup of the 4x3 iMac is a lot more pleasing to my eye than the actual iMac....

 

[MarkCollette]

i don't have a wide screen tv and at the same time i don't want to see a microscopic wide screen version of the movie. so i buy the full screen version. they zoom to the interesting part of the picture anyway. when i buy in 5 years a hd widescreen tv i always can buy the dvd's again as widescreen versions (the few that are worth the money).

buying a widescreen tv today is to expensive and they all are a compromise in one way or another. in 5 years there will be affordable tv's with all the features available. till then i'm happy with full screen.

the switch to widescreen will be slow because i believe many people think like i do in that matter.

I agree that all large televisions have technical drawbacks, particularly with brightness, refresh, and longevity.

But, I recently went from a 27" TV down to a 24" TV (old one died, got new one for free) and I still would never consider getting fullscreen movies. True, the most interesting part is what they focus on, but you are still missing out. You never hear people who have tunnel vision saying that it's alright, because the most interesting things are right in front of them

 

[burntoutjoy]

LOL. That would only explain 3 inches wider in the horizontal field!

Are you sure that the difference between horizontal and vertical peripheral vision isn't due to the fact that the eyebrows and cheekbones restrict the vertical field of view?

Yes, that is also a factor.

The point remains that widescreen is more logical because of these reasons. Yes, you do have vertical peripheral vision, I'm not disputing that. Show me a significant number of people though, who, when given a dual monitor setup and freedom to position displays wherever they want, chooses to align them vertically. Humans are better at side-to-side than up-and-down.

I'm not trying to argue opinion either. Preference is a personal thing. I'm just trying to explain why on earth all of Apple's free-standing displays are widescreen - it can't all be because of watching movies.

There will always be special circumstances where having a display that is either more 4:3 or even having a ratio <1, but generally, widescreen is a better choice.

 

[MarkCollette]

Counter example:

Why is newspaper and magazine text in columns, not "widescreen"?

Most people's eyes, without movement, see more to the sides than they do up and down, but our eyes move up and down more confortably. That means that for something that fits entirely in our field of view, widescreen is better. But, for something that won't fit entirely, it's best to either scroll up and down, or have a taller aspect ratio.

I think that the point of widescreen is that once you've maxed out the vertical space that a person can see, without looking up and down, then you should maintain that height, and stretch the screen wider.

So, a 12" computer widescreen does not make much sense, but a 19" probably does.

Most newspapers and magazines max out your field of view's horizontal space, so instead of making you painfully look left and right, they opt for you looking up and down, for more content. And they appear to be more designed for easy holding than anything else.

 

[MarkCollette]

Counter to counter example:
Why do we read left to right instead of vertically?

Several languages read up and down. I think chinese is an example.

 

[MarkCollette]

Actually, the "big white area below the LCD on the iMac G5" is due to a design constraint.

I just replaced a power Supply and it is located at the bottom (center) and uses the entire thickness. and bottom vents the speakers also use the entire thickness of the case.

I think there's another reason for have the thick area below the screen. Most monitors, even on stands, require you to lkk downwards, instead of straight ahead. I noticed that the majority of my coworkers put their screens on boxes, so they can look straight ahead. Persistantly looking at an angle, has been linked to eye problems. Basically, when you look up, down, left, or right, a set of muscles in your eye socket both rotate and distort your eyeball. Conditions like near sightedness and far sightedness are due to your eye not being the right shape, potentially due to distortions like this.

Point is, the thick white area in the iMac G5 raises the screen higher, making viewing more comfortable, and safer.

 

[minimax]

I think there's another reason for have the thick area below the screen. Most monitors, even on stands, require you to lkk downwards, instead of straight ahead. I noticed that the majority of my coworkers put their screens on boxes, so they can look straight ahead. Persistantly looking at an angle, has been linked to eye problems. Basically, when you look up, down, left, or right, a set of muscles in your eye socket both rotate and distort your eyeball. Conditions like near sightedness and far sightedness are due to your eye not being the right shape, potentially due to distortions like this.

Point is, the thick white area in the iMac G5 raises the screen higher, making viewing more comfortable, and safer.

That's certainly not the reason since the 20" cinema display would've had a higher standard in that case to make up for the loss of "chin" from the iMac. The 20" CD has a height of 41 cm versus 47 cm for the 20" iMac. That 6 cm is most of the white space from the iMac.
But I agree with Mark there is a maximum to the height of a screen to watch it comfortably from a short distance let's say about 15" give or take. There is some room for extra width for such a screen but not much applications need that extra space and unless you're a real multitasking nerd you don't need it to run multiple applications next to each other either. For me I love to skip between applications in full screen mode since it gives rest and helps me concentrate on the work I need to do. i don't need msn or some ticker program to distract me from my work all the times and like I said before, for CAD and VIZ applications your netto workable window for a 3:4 screen becomes 2:3 with all the toolbars and menus on the top and bottom of your screen, and with 5:8 monitors you only are left with a 1:2 working window and that's just a lot of annoying wasted space most of the times.

I forgot what started this heated discussion (too lazy to scroll back) but I like the support from my new silicon valley matey

 

[computerfan]

Technically 640x480 is an HD resolution too

Actually 640x480 is known as SD (Standard Definition)

And as for the 16:9 widescreen aspect ratio, it is all about prefrence. I myself prefer to have widescreen because I usually have 2 programs up front at once, and side by side is my favourite configuration. I would assume that most people would also prefer a 16:9 widescreen too.

 

[madmaxmedia]

Most people's eyes, without movement, see more to the sides than they do up and down, but our eyes move up and down more confortably. That means that for something that fits entirely in our field of view, widescreen is better. But, for something that won't fit entirely, it's best to either scroll up and down, or have a taller aspect ratio.

I think that the point of widescreen is that once you've maxed out the vertical space that a person can see, without looking up and down, then you should maintain that height, and stretch the screen wider.

So, a 12" computer widescreen does not make much sense, but a 19" probably does.

Most newspapers and magazines max out your field of view's horizontal space, so instead of making you painfully look left and right, they opt for you looking up and down, for more content. And they appear to be more designed for easy holding than anything else.

As far as newspaper and magazine columns go, it actually has to do with our tendency to lose our place with really wide columns. Imagine if a full-sized magazine had full-sized columns- it would actually be much harder to read.

A widescreen monitor doesn't mean that you have individual Microsoft Word documents that span all the way from left to right. Widescreen allows space for palettes, multiple windows, multiple apps, chat windows, etc...

You could have a tallscreen monitor, but that would seem less natural to use. We naturally place things side by side for comparison, not above and below each other (probably for the reasons you mention.)