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.
Leaked Aluminum MacBook Case?
- Thread starter sammy2066
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The 16:10 display has a higher resolution than the 16:9.
16:9 is cheaper.
So hopefully we can see upped resolution (1680·1050 » 1920·1080) for a similar price.
So third party add-ons are good?
We have already explained this to you. Why not stop responding with a question like that? You were asked why you'd want less vertical resolution?
No in comparison to a 16:10 or a 4:3 with the same horisontal resolution you will get LESS real estate – LESS contents.
I'm sorry, but you're utterly wrong.
First off, the "black bars" we're talking about is the ones on the 4:3 and the 16:10, not the 16:9, as you LOSE the real estate otherwise filled with black.
Secondly, unless you want to squeeze (litteraly) more vertical pixels in there (resulting in your pictures and text will look squashed), there is no way that for a given ppi/dpi you will be able to have more real estate on a 16:9 as opposed to a 16:10 or even better (or worse, depending on your standpoint), a 4:3.
What's wrong with that statement?
Really? What webpages (with useful content) might that be?
You also plan to have "wide format" books and newspaper columns, right? You realise there's a reason the columns in a newspaper are that narrow, right?
I don't fall for fads just because it's "new". I weigh pros and cons on everything but the cheapest purchase. You don't see me buy a clip-on sony mic with a minijack, just because it's smaller than what I use for work. You won't catch me with an iPhone either, as it can't do half of what I need (content creation, FTP and so forth). I'm willing to try new things, though, I'm just not thinking that new is always better.
No, I just care about real estate. And funnily enough because I don't game, and I use more apps than basic consumer apps.
Go here to read about resolution, and why you cannot do what you think you can do:
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/6000045/
Because we're able to do the math?
And yet none of them get rid of the gloss or stop boosting the colours. And you don't get to turn your macbook 90 degrees.
You can't.
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/5999359/
.Chris
macrumors 6502a
Why don't you learn to treat people with a little respect and stop being rude.
Really, I'm talking about left to right. Not top to bottom. and no, I'm not talking about movies.
and? You want more correct? or are you talking about 16:10 here?
with useful content 🙄
We are not talking about newspapers here. We are talking about websites.
practically any website with a header/menu that is across the top. Lower resolutions (AKA 800x600 etc) arnt good for those or even the standard 4:3 because they dont have the width.
Me either. Games are a huge waste of time. So is the Olympics. (Shouldnt we be worried about more important things then people doing stuff just to get a peace of medal that will just be thrown in the closest in a few years.
Go here to read about resolution, and why you cannot do what you think you can do:
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/6000045/
🙄 You know your just being immature by posting a link to the post I'm quoiting.
True, but so far I haven't heard a Vlad reason from someone who isnt looking to cause trouble why glossy isnt good. I would think there are programs out there that can pick out the right colors and you dont need to relay on your mind (how would you know your 100% correct? )and some matte LCD
You can't.
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/5999359/[/QUOTE]
I already read and quoted that post.
For the same dpi:
1:1 - Baseline
4:3 - 1.13x the width, .849x the height, .960x the total area
16:10 - 1.20x the width, .750x the height, .899x the total area
16:9 - 1.23x the width, .693x the height, .855x the total area
The wider the aspect ratio, the lower the total resolution given the same display size.
You aren't gaining any horizontal resolution by going from 16:10 to 16:9, and you're losing 10% vertical resolution by doing so. So what is the benefit exactly? (Besides the loss of black bars and 5% bigger pixels?) And 1366·768 and 1600·900 displays are actually bigger than 1280·800 and 1440·900 displays (and smaller than 1440·900 and 1680·1050 displays).
🙄
'Nuff said.
I think somebody needs to take a little of their own advice here.
This doesn't make any sense. By losing screen real estate you are somehow gaining more?
Again, maybe someone needs to heed their own advice. Not everyone uses their browser at full screen resolution. 4:3 screens are perfectly fine for viewing websites. I don't see why that aspect ratio would be a problem. You would simply see more vertical space on the page.
Once again, what was that about treating people with respect and to stop being rude?
clu10
macrumors regular
Oh, I didn't realize the MacBook wasn't going to have a screen. My bad. 🙄
I agree with everything else you said though.
And my earlier post in this thread had the measurements appearing to support a 16:10 screen.
So I guess we shouldn't be discussing anything about the new macbooks then since none of us, that I know of, have any control over any aspect of the design. For future reference, could you use a larger font size, I am having trouble reading what you post. Maybe your statements could have more of an impact if you increased the size.
I am being every bit as rude as you. And you STILL did not answer the question.
Sigh! It doesn't matter. With a given dpi you will get LESS real estate with a 16:9, than you will with a 16:10 or better yet, a 4:3.
I was correcting the notion of yours that we dislike some black bars on 16:9, when we saying that the bars would only appear on the 16:10 and 4:3.
It's one of the core misconceptions in your argument. You don't seem to get that no matter the dpi, at a given width of a screen, you will get LESS vertical resolution on a 16:9, because you're cutting off the top/bottom of the screen, and THUS the only benefit you would get from a 16:9 as opposed to a 16:10 would be NO BARS when watching a movie. And you will have that because you have less VERTICAL resolution.
You can roll your eyes all you want, but when your argument is that more and more websites move to horisontal content, inferring that that is somehow better, you ought to be able to link to at least a couple with useful contents.
Hmm, I thought we were talking about CONTENTS, and which format (as in "shape") would work the best for presentation of such. We could also talk about how you would present even a shopping list horisontally. You think that would be a good idea?
Excuse me? Go to, say, BBCworld.com, dr.dk/nyheder or some other sites with header/menu, and you will notice that it's longer than it's wide. Hell, go here:
http://store.apple.com/us
Or, even better:
https://forums.macrumors.com/
You still think it's better to have less vertical resolution?
Again, you managed to completely miss my point: You pretended that the only reason people didn't like 16:9 as opposed to 16:10 and 4:3 was because they merely used iTunes, mail and played games. You were quite assertive in the paragraph you tried to make that strawman argumentation in.
Call it immature all you want. The reason I did it, was because you seem to miss even the basics, all the time, continuously and seemingly on purpose.
Has anyone noticed the slots for the hinges along the base of display in these pics? They are more like the form that Dell uses. To me, they don't seem congruous with the L-shape hinge that Apple has used for years, now. Does anyone agree, or is it just me?
clu10
macrumors regular
what i meant smartie was, why are we arguing about the screen ratios, it's pointless. and please from now on please dont talk down to me like im a idiot.
you do that to people all the time, just because ppl dont agree with you it dosent mean they're stupid.(and that goes for everyone)
now im trying not to be mean, and ask you politely, because, i've only been in these forums for a month i see you ALL the time and you always have something snobby to say , so please just STOP.
clu10
macrumors regular
argueing and patronizing the people in the forum with differnt opinions is NOT discussing.
dicuss all you want, i just cant stand the patronizing
clu10
macrumors regular
Ok, I'm sorry for being overly snarky with you. It was probably uncalled for.
As for the argument over screen aspect ratios go though, it does pertain to the macbook redesign, and stating that 16:10 has more real estate than 16:9 is not an opinion. It is a simple fact. The reason this has gone on the way it has is because some people refuse to acknowledge simple facts like this.
Lols, I can't figure out if you like disagreeing with ppl for the sake of it or if you just have the intelligence of a 10 year old (wait... srsly are you 10?) 😛
You obviously have a preference for glossy, certain screen ratios and whatever else. Just accept that if others don't share the same view, they aren't necessarily wrong... Why keep going on and on and onand on and on about it!?
.Chris
macrumors 6502a
well you guys are being rude and such. Its a 2 way street
Plus look a hell of a lot better. Kids need to get with the times
I agree. YOU (complainers) have NO CONTROL over the decisions apple makes just take it or leave it.
Nice sarcastic remark,
I'm willing to stop to. bit if people want to contune being like idiots and treat other like idiots it will only make matters worse.
I'm not the only one though.... if you open your mind you would see that.
and FYI i'm 18.
PLEASE read at least ONE post in this entire topic. People have proven that part of the other side is covered with packing materials and it is actually in the center. I think the OP needs to be changed to tell everyone this, as seeing this same question every 5 posts is rather annoying.
Yeah, we noticed you thought it rude to counter your arguments with facts. 🙄
I have mentioned this before, but I personally don't think they look better - just like I don't think pressing the "loudness" button on my stereo makes it sound better. On the contrary.
LOL, considering that people who obviously have years and years of work experience countered your arguments fully, I'd hesitate calling people "kids" if I were you.
As have been mentioned numerous times before: Just because it's the newest fad doesn't mean it's better, and certianly not that it's more useful.
LOL, but you think that YOU (the brown-nose fanboys) have any control?
Besides, our argument is not about control over anything (trust me, we won't take it, but steer very clear of stuff like that), it's about not falling for your ill-informed hype.
Ah, yes. It's "idiotic" to point out that your claims that 16:9 has more screen real estate is nonsense and are easy to disprove mathematically - which has been done numerous times in this thread. 😛
That's a plea to popularity. And as such it's a logical fallacy. Just because many people in africa believes that having sex with a virgin will cure HIV/AIDS, doesn't make it true.
Then you ought to have reached an age, kiddo, where you were able to understand facts and reasoning. And yes, in comparison to me, you truly are a kid. Hell, had I been unlucky (and made someone pregnant) back in the '89/'90 I could have been your father.
Besides, even 18 sounds a little old when one compares that age to your posts.