Leaked Aluminum MacBook Case?

[benjs]

and FYI i'm 18.

So am I. You shouldn't be using your age as an excuse to be involved with petty online arguments, or as a reason to deny facts when presented to you (and then call the fact providers rude), and finally - you obviously should not be calling other people kids. If you go over tosser's information, you will understand what he's saying. If you go over tosser's information with the mindset that he is trying to 'be rude', you will end up finding something - and likely, it'll be as ridiculous as your last few posts. Sorry for the essay

 

[BullMooseFilms]

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).

Nobody is mandating WHAT resolution would be native to the 16:9 panel.

If going to 16:9 is a cost factor, then they'd most likely be doing 1920x1080, to keep in line with the TV panels that are already this size/resolution.

Would you rather have 1680x1050 16:10 or 1920x1080 16:9

I know I'd want 16:9 in that scenario. Plus I just like wider screens. I'd get a 2.35:1 screen if they made it... (but that's more of a film thing)

they're (glossy) better for the enviornment, than matte is

Where is this coming from??

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.

No, you can't compare overall size unless you have dimensions.

16:9 is bigger than 16:10 if they have the same HEIGHT.

16:10 is bigger than 16:9 if they have the same WIDTH.

You can't compare unless you know these things - and that's the simple fact.

 

[k2spitfire88]

No, you can't compare overall size unless you have dimensions.

16:9 is bigger than 16:10 if they have the same HEIGHT.

16:10 is bigger than 16:9 if they have the same WIDTH.

You can't compare unless you know these things - and that's the simple fact.

Could you explain that a little simpler, because it seems to have lost me...
I dont understand how 16:9 could be bigger at all, although I just woke up, and am on my way out the door on 5 hours sleep...

 

[BullMooseFilms]

Could you explain that a little simpler, because it seems to have lost me...
I dont understand how 16:9 could be bigger at all, although I just woke up, and am on my way out the door on 5 hours sleep...

lets say two screens are both 10 inches tall:

the 16:10 screen would be 16 inches wide.
the 16:9 screen would be 17.6 inches wide - hence, larger.

in contrast let's say that two screens are both 16 inches wide:

the 16:9 screen would be 9 inches tall
the 16:10 screen would be 10 inches tall - and in this case, larger.

I picked those sizes so I could do the math in my head, but you see that you can't say that 16:10 is always bigger, it may be, but it may not be. It all depends on the width and height, and the resolution offered by the panel if you'll actually see more or less information.

 

[kabunaru]

I actually think that Apple should move to 16:9 displays.

Also cut down on the extra size:
From 13.3" MacBook to 13" MacBook
From 15.4" MacBook Pro to 15" MacBook Pro
From 13.3" MacBook Air to 13" MacBook Air

I want things to be more exact.

 

[Shackler]

I actually think that Apple should move to 16:9 displays.

Also cut down on the extra size:
From 13.3" MacBook to 13" MacBook
From 15.4" MacBook Pro to 15" MacBook Pro
From 13.3" MacBook Air to 13" MacBook Air

I want things to be more exact.

a whole number is that important to you?

 

[kabunaru]

a whole number is that important to you?

Yes, why do these Mac laptops have an extra .3 inch or .4 inch?

 

[BullMooseFilms]

Yes, why do these Mac laptops have an extra .3 inch or .4 inch?

Your name wouldnt be Monk would it...

 

[urbanskywalker]

Still going on about screen size....May the powers that be release these soon so we can all move on.

 

[Mal]

Yes, why do these Mac laptops have an extra .3 inch or .4 inch?

Just a head's up, all 13" laptops that I've ever heard of are 13.3". All 15" laptops are 15.4". It's a function of the pixel sizes and what makes it look good, from what I know. Regardless, you're an idiot if you think that dropped .3" or .4" will improve the laptop in any way. No offense.

jW

 

[kabunaru]

Regardless, you're an idiot if you think that dropped .3" or .4" will improve the laptop in any way. No offence.

Offence taken. I dislike you some Americans with name-calling attitudes. You always have to let somebody down in order to make yourself feel better. Also, stop americanising the world.

Back to the topic, I don't care anymore then about the size. Whatever we have then, we have.

 

[Shackler]

Offence taken. I dislike you some Americans with name-calling attitudes. You always have to let somebody down in order to make yourself feel better. Also, stop americanising the world.

Back to the topic, I don't care anymore then about the size. Whatever we have then, we have.

Wow. Way to generalize and stereotype over 330 million people with that ignorant comment.

I just want this damn machine to come out already so frustrating to wait.

 

[Clayne]

I'd say the world's being americanized whether or not some of those 330 million people disagree.

But I agree. Just release soon!!!! Mid-late August. Paleease.

 

[jetsetter]

I Agree!

I don't think the apple is off-centre; I just think there is something covering the other half.

I noticed this; though I don't know whether there is any significance.
When engadget posted the first picture of a supposed iphone 3g leak it was later exposed as being simply a cover for the old iPhone here..
http://www.winandmac.com/news/3g-iphone-appeared-in-hong-kongnot-really/

Click on that link and then click on "Edit 2: You can buy the case from here."
You'll be taken to a site that is supposedly (or was) selling the 'case.'
This site is http://www.appleowner.com/index.php"
Recognise that? It's the site from the picture.
Now, either I fall short as a detective or there is something fishy going on here.

I agree with you on this When i looked at the photo's first ,i have to admit i thought that it looked odd but then on a closer inspection i thought that maybe there was something like masking tape or something across the lid to confuse you a little as to what you are really looking at. Well i hope that this is a sign of an Aluminum Macbook on it's way , i can't wait to get one, after having to get my cracked White Macbook plastic top replaced twice , {and i'm very careful with it} and as much as i like my Macbook it's just not a robustly built as it should have been,a shame really. It's those magnets in the lid that do the damage,their too fierce!
Well here's hoping for the release of a super new Aluminum Macbook and soon i hope!

 

[brendanspah764]

Mockups?

With these pictures, can someone make some mockups of what the MacBook might look like? This thread is really going no where and it is always nice to see what ideas that people have.

 

[.Chris]

So am I. You shouldn't be using your age as an excuse to be involved with petty online arguments, or as a reason to deny facts when presented to you (and then call the fact providers rude), and finally - you obviously should not be calling other people kids. If you go over tosser's information, you will understand what he's saying. If you go over tosser's information with the mindset that he is trying to 'be rude', you will end up finding something - and likely, it'll be as ridiculous as your last few posts. Sorry for the essay

It's fine I've been noticing I've been kind of a dick recently gonna try to stop it

I actually think that Apple should move to 16:9 displays.

Also cut down on the extra size:
From 13.3" MacBook to 13" MacBook
From 15.4" MacBook Pro to 15" MacBook Pro
From 13.3" MacBook Air to 13" MacBook Air

I want things to be more exact.

Erm 15.4 inch may become 16 inch and 17 inch will become 18 inch if apple does go 16:9

 

[iCries]

It's fine I've been noticing I've been kind of a dick recently gonna try to stop it

Thats really mature of you.

 

[benlangdon]

well people about the screen size
i remember measuring for something else and length and height are who numbers.
just so happen to be a hypotenuse that's not even.
it really is based on the actual laptop width and length.

just my 2 cents.

 

[Clayne]

With these pictures, can someone make some mockups of what the MacBook might look like? This thread is really going no where and it is always nice to see what ideas that people have.

I think this thread has been sucked dry. Gunna have to wait for fresh news/rumors.

 

[kabunaru]

Wow. Way to generalize and stereotype over 330 million people with that ignorant comment.

I did not say all, I said some.

 

[Tosser]

So am I. You shouldn't be using your age as an excuse to be involved with petty online arguments, or as a reason to deny facts when presented to you (and then call the fact providers rude), and finally - you obviously should not be calling other people kids. If you go over tosser's information, you will understand what he's saying. If you go over tosser's information with the mindset that he is trying to 'be rude', you will end up finding something - and likely, it'll be as ridiculous as your last few posts. Sorry for the essay

I can't believe I missed this post. I just wanted to say thanks for your post.
And not just in general. It restores my faith in "18-year-olds" (i.e. "young people")

 

[yorkshire]

Been a while since those pictures came out. I'd like to see pictures from a different source, then I might start to believe them.

A few pages back someone got the translation for the guy who posted these. He said:

"As for the next two pictures,
I'm going to hold out a bit for now,
and everyone can just continue to wait for my reports.

And if Macrumors this time thinks that these are fake,
then all I can say is that you are blind! "

Forgive me for saying this, but doesn't this sound a bit like a joke and the guy could be having us on. I don't like the tone of what he says.

Then again, his tone could be lost in translation.

As I said before, I'd like to see some more pictures from another source.

 

[yorkshire]

lets say two screens are both 10 inches tall:

the 16:10 screen would be 16 inches wide.
the 16:9 screen would be 17.6 inches wide - hence, larger.

in contrast let's say that two screens are both 16 inches wide:

the 16:9 screen would be 9 inches tall
the 16:10 screen would be 10 inches tall - and in this case, larger.

I picked those sizes so I could do the math in my head, but you see that you can't say that 16:10 is always bigger, it may be, but it may not be. It all depends on the width and height, and the resolution offered by the panel if you'll actually see more or less information.

I'm finding it hard to get my head around this. When you say two screens are 10 inches tall, one is 16:9, the other 16:10, sure, the 16:9 screen will be bigger because each "unit" would equal 1.111....inches, whereas each unit for the 16:10 would equal one inch. So obviously the 16:9 screen is wider because its 16x1.11111.... inches wide, and the other screen is 16x1 inches wide. What you are saying is not entirely correct because you are using 2 different scales. Unit for unit, a 16:10 is bigger. What you are saying is, in essence, like saying a 42inch 16:9 tv is bigger than a 32inch 16:10 tv. Sure it is, but only because each unit is bigger on the 42inch (roughly 1 unit=2.5 inches) than on the 32 inch (1 unit~2inchs).

What i'm trying to say, and it's hard to say it clearly, is that when you have a 16:10 screen and a 16:9 screen which are in the same scale, the 16:10 inch screen is always bigger.

Sorry for the rant. I'm even confusing myself!

 

[kolax]

I'd be up for a 16:9 screen as long as it was the same height (thus being slightly wider) as the current 15" and 17" screens.

16" and 18" sounds good.

I just wish the world would come together and unify the whole aspect ratio to 16:9. Although I'll avoid arguing that into the whole black bars at the top/sides of movies.

 

[BullMooseFilms]

I'm finding it hard to get my head around this. When you say two screens are 10 inches tall, one is 16:9, the other 16:10, sure, the 16:9 screen will be bigger because each "unit" would equal 1.111....inches, whereas each unit for the 16:10 would equal one inch. So obviously the 16:9 screen is wider because its 16x1.11111.... inches wide, and the other screen is 16x1 inches wide. What you are saying is not entirely correct because you are using 2 different scales. Unit for unit, a 16:10 is bigger. What you are saying is, in essence, like saying a 42inch 16:9 tv is bigger than a 32inch 16:10 tv. Sure it is, but only because each unit is bigger on the 42inch (roughly 1 unit=2.5 inches) than on the 32 inch (1 unit~2inchs).

What i'm trying to say, and it's hard to say it clearly, is that when you have a 16:10 screen and a 16:9 screen which are in the same scale, the 16:10 inch screen is always bigger.

Sorry for the rant. I'm even confusing myself!

the problem is you're using the diagonal measurement - that's where you're getting tripped up.

"unit for unit" 16:!0 is only bigger (taller) if they have the same WIDTH. you can't compare ANYTHING off the diagonal measurement.

It is possible that 16:9 and 16:10 can be exactly the same area if you used different but similar height and width, making the 16:9 just a bit wider, and the 16:10 just a bit taller but they'd have exactly the same overall area. Your naked eye would probably not be able to tell the difference.

The only way to conveniently compare is if one of the measurements, either height or width is fixed. This is what I have been doing to illustrate my point. If that is case than one or the other will be larger (either taller or wider)

My point is not that 16:9 is bigger, but that it CAN be sometimes.

You can't compare a '17" 16:9' to a '17" 16:10' and say the 16:10 is always larger because you don't know if they're rounding one number or the other. The panel sold as a 17 inch could really be 17.3 inches or something and thus be the same height as the old 16:10 panel and you're getting increased size in width without sacrificing any height.

the only way to tell the actual physical size and know if you're losing or gaining space is to do the math: measure both panels, width x height = area.

whichever has the larger area is larger - and it could be 16:9 or 16:10. you can't know until you have both to compare.

The point of this is that if it is more economical to get 16:9 panels because that is the uniform ratio for HDTV and not a specialized ratio, then I hope that manufacturers move to 16:9, because it will mean a savings all around - but so long as they do this by keeping the 16:9 panel the same HEIGHT as the 16:10 panels, we'll actually be getting bigger screens

now what's wrong with that?