Absolutly nothing. Hopefully, with 16:9 being more economical, the prices of the MB could go down. But do you think they will keep the same height with the new MB's, because that would mean larger notebooks.
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
Absolutly nothing. Hopefully, with 16:9 being more economical, the prices of the MB could go down. But do you think they will keep the same height with the new MB's, because that would mean larger notebooks.
Along with the new cases, here's what i'd like to see.
1) Speed bump, just a small amount should do.
2) Higher resolution isight.
3) Lighter!! Less than 5lb at least. (not too light though, don't want the air sales falling)
4)2gb ram standard across the board-also, to take the MBPs another step above the MBs, give them 4gb ram standard.
5)Drop the combo drive-goes without saying really.
6) Better cooling!
1) Speed bump, just a small amount should do.
2) Higher resolution isight.
3) Lighter!! Less than 5lb at least. (not too light though, don't want the air sales falling)
4)2gb ram standard across the board-also, to take the MBPs another step above the MBs, give them 4gb ram standard.
5)Drop the combo drive-goes without saying really.
6) Better cooling!
Yeah I hope something basic like even a 8400 makes it in.
And here's to a mid-August update for all us college students!
I'm curious to see what the case redesign will bring. I hope they're gonna "air'ize" the case design a little. I hope they'll give the macbook a trackpad like the MBPs. I miss being able to resize images with a gesture on the trackpad.
An 8400 would be so sweet. As much as I'd love that, I think Apple has us "lowly" MacBook users pegged for IGPs for the foreseeable future.
An 8400 would be so sweet. As much as I'd love that, I think Apple has us "lowly" MacBook users pegged for IGPs for the foreseeable future.
It's funny that we get the (arguably better) newer chiclet keyboard, magnetic latch, and user-replaceable hard drive, but still get stuck with a IGP. I think Apple just enjoys the extra profit they earn from people who need the graphics of the MBP.
An 8400 would be so sweet. As much as I'd love that, I think Apple has us "lowly" MacBook users pegged for IGPs for the foreseeable future.
No, I would prefer an ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3400 in a MacBook. No more Nvidia video cards please.
Sorry, but a diagonal measurement is how screens are compared across the world and have been for many, many years. What do you do when asked how big your MBP are? Do you go "It's 25cms tall and 33 cm wide" (no, I didn't calculate the ratio)
If your eye wouldn't be able to tell a difference, why would you want 16:9?
Also, no matter how you try to twist the methods and terms used to measure screen, your 16:9 will have less vertical resolution relatively speaking.
(And your eye _will_ be able to tell the difference, but that's another matter)
This is what everyone else have been doing. We used the STANDARD of measuring screens: The diagonal.
No it's not. But it can sometimes be WIDER for a given HEIGHT.
Sure. let's go by 35x24cms Macbook Pro
Yes, but if you want 16:9 instead of 16:10 on your 15" MBP, you will either loose vertical resolution or gain width. If the latter case you will gain more weight, getting a bigger and heavier computer, and all this, while not gaining more of what is really at a premium: Vertical resolution.
I doubt Apple will give those savings to the consumer. And unless you speak of Apple wanting to cut corners (which they propably will, as recent history has shown), and you think that the consumer doesn't matter as much as the company I can understand your opinion. I, as a consumer, want more resolution, and preferably vertical, as that is where it matters the most.
Indeed, I got a MB rather than a MBP because it has all those features you mention that the MBP didn't, and I wanted a small laptop. But with Apple there simply is no option for a small laptop with decent graphics these days. A low end GPU like the 8400 you mentioned wouldn't be a threat to the MBP, but Apple don't want to run the risk of people getting by on it. All I want to do is play Diablo 3 and WoW decently on my MB, it isn't worth getting a super GPU in your Mac for gaming (unless you're using Bootcamp). For professionals who use it for Photoshop, CAD or whatever I can understand, but I wish there was at least an option for a low end dedicated GPU on the "everyman's" MacBooks.
To generally respond, of course when referring to the screen size in a general way you would use the diagonal, it's just when people make blanket statements about 16:10 always being larger you have to use actual facts sometimes to show them that they're in error.
you have to compare apples to apples.
I also dispute your assertion that Vertical size is more important. It might be for you and what you do in your work, but to some of us, we would prefer the widest screen possible for the work WE do.
I don't mind if the laptop is to be made larger to fit a wider screen. I know I'm not in the majority but I am not buying a 17" laptop because it is light. I don't give a crap how much it weighs or if its a bit larger. I'd rather it be cool and have the room to include all the components it would need to be a top shelf piece of equipment.
as much as some people just HAVE to be right around here (and on any forum) sometimes those pesky facts just get in the way. Until you know the actual area involved, you can't say which is bigger in reality.
I give you the fact that you find vertical resolution more important, and that is a totally valid opinion, but it also isn't true for all.
I think that the savings made by switching to 16:9 industrywide might allow Apple to spend that money improving other components, or perhaps padding the dividend, who knows, but there would be a savings if they dropped that silly 16:10 ratio they should have never started in the first place...
Hmm, using the standard method of measuring a screen is not making blanket statements. Further, when talking of, say, keyboard size, one usually talks about width as well, and the same goes for tellys for the most part.
We are. It's you who wants one method of measurement for green apples, another for reddish and a third for biodynamic ones.
This is very close to a strawman. I'm not asking you to have less width. We all want the most we can get (or want to carry around) - I, for one, am asking for a screen just as wide, but not cut at the top of button. Hence us showing you how for a given width you will have LESS vertical resolution.
It's a horrendously stupid argument to begin pretending that I (we) want to limit the width. You have no basis whatsoever for saying that.
I AM saying, though, that the notion that vertical resolution matters little, or that vertical resolution only matters to the few who have "specialised" work demands is an ignorant one at best.
As I said to the other bloke (with examples) there are numerous funcitons where more relative vertical resolution is of more use than more horisontal. especially if the horisontal one is gained by trading off the vertical.
Good. Then you wouldn't mind a laptop your width, but with more vertical resolution.
Pot - kettle?
Sigh
For a given WIDTH, a given RESOLUTION, a given DIAGONAL, you WILL have more resolution if the screen is 16:10 or better 4:3, than you will if your screen is 16:9! It's not bloody guess work. Anyone with a miniscule amount of mathematical skills can check for themselves. Don't tell me it's impossible to say.
First of all, I'm not saying that it's MORE important per se. I'm saying that I find I hit the wall with the vertical resolution more often than I do width-wise and that I sure as hell do not want to trade in vertical real estate for more width, relatively speaking.
It seems you continue to argue the case of padding Apple's bottom line as if that is a good thing. As a consumer I couldn't care less about their bottom line. In fact, I think they pad them too much at the moment, thinking more about that line, than about making quality products for the consumers to buy.
My only point when this all started was that in not all cases is 16:10 bigger than 16:9. you admit this yourself - that this is only true if the width of the screens is identical. I never said the opposite, that 16:9 is always larger, I just said that it's possible that either could be bigger.
I could make the converse statement that I want a screen just as tall but not cut off at the sides. It's a theoretical point. For a given height you would have LESS horizontal resolution. I never said that you folks wanted to limit anything - my point is simply that 16:10 is not larger/better in all cases. period.
I believe I merely said that the work some do is better off with more height and the work of others is better with more width. I didn't imply on purpose that your needs are less important than mine, simply that there ARE different requirements out there in the world.
I'm going to take whatever they give me. If it is a 16:9 panel I'll measure it before complaining that it's smaller, and if it is then I'll bitch along with the rest of you.
If you start by limiting it to the same width, then you are right that 16:10 is always larger. It's impossible to say which RATIO is larger if the width isn't fixed - that is my point.
Fair enough, and again that's a totally valid opinion, that for you this is more important. Some of us would make that trade, is our opinion invalid?
Who can say where the $ would go, but it is a point to make when people ask why the company would make the choice to change. It makes $ sense for them to do so. Aside from computer monitors, everything is 16:9.
Yes, you watered it down so much that even a comparison where most things are equal doesn't mean a thing. Hell, with your argumentation you could go as far as saying it doesn't matter if a screen is just 40 pixels tall: Given the right width it can have a higher resolution than another screen that is only 800 pixels wide. Yes, we all know that, thank you very much, but there are more at play here than theoretical stuff where you even go as far as saying that the diagonal measurement can't be used to compare sizes. Sheesh.
Yes, if we fall for your pocket theories. But NOT if you use the diagonal as most normal people use. And we have the "the resolution (dpi) is the same on the two screens we're comparing" as a basic paramter.
This is getting ridiculous. For a 35 centimeter wide computer, the 16:10 will have less resolution. Yes, you can make it 38 (or something) to keep the vertical resolution, but one has to ask if that is wise, engineer-wise, in a thin computer. I can see it could be useful in sub-notebooks, because there's a limit to how narrow a kb can get and still be useful.
It's not "just" work.
Take a look at this very site, and tell me that vertical resolution doesn't matter when most of the contents is vertical. Most websites are vertical (well, apart from some front pages), we (as humans) aren't really good with sentences going on for too long horisontally, we need to have them short, hence the layout of books, newspapers, webpages, shopping lists (and other lists) and so on. Do you also print your letters in landscape?
Hell, I have some "palletes" ("tools" whatever you call them in english) for basic apps that are just a tad too big for the vertical resolution on my 15" mbp.
No, you implied that my needs were "special", and as you do now: that I don't care about other needs, even though my argument does NOT have anything to do with limiting your needs, but yours, on the other hand, are intent to limit "my" vertical resolution. YOU can have all the width you want.
Hell, make a computer 80 inches wide, for all I care (well, that might be over the top for a laptop), but why do you insist it should be in the format of 16:9, when the same 80 inches would give _everyone_ more real estate and more vertical resolution if it were 16:10, or even better: 4:3.
No need to measure it if you know basic math.
I KNOW that's your point. But one thing is theory, the other is putting it into practice. And in real life, the width of a given laptop DOES matter.
You still don't get it, do you? If you are able to buy a computer the width you want, then you TOO would gain more vertical resolution, more real estate, by using 16:10 or 4:3. You're saying that you are willing to sacrifice vertical resolution for width, when that sacrifice is not in any way necessary. But I gather getting rid of those black bars when watching a movie in 16:9 is more important than real world screen real estate.
As mentioned, I don't care if it makes financiel sense to Apple. I am not willing to trade useability for me with a higher margin to Apple.
To Tosser:
I 'get' your points, I just don't agree with you. But how boring it would be if we all agreed. I've fully made my point and so I'll let it go at what's been said, but I do thank you for the spirited debate.
I 'get' your points, I just don't agree with you. But how boring it would be if we all agreed. I've fully made my point and so I'll let it go at what's been said, but I do thank you for the spirited debate.
Hmm, if you "got" my points, you would see that the above is an oxymoron.
Yes, it'd be stupidly boring. What bugs me with discussion is that some people are all high on the thought of something that will be less useable, all things considered. But anyway, I thank you too. Now I need some sleep (I'm in Denmark).
HOW ABOUT we all just DROP the whole measuring the 16:10 and 16:9 and get back on topic!
Toseser, you basically been saying the same exact thing in every post. Give it a break. We get it., If apple does go 16:9 then so be it. YOU DONT have to buy the machine if you dont want to. no one is forcing you to.
Toseser, you basically been saying the same exact thing in every post. Give it a break. We get it., If apple does go 16:9 then so be it. YOU DONT have to buy the machine if you dont want to. no one is forcing you to.
Says you, and then you continue …
Funny it hasn't seeped in, then.
LOL, highly unlikely coming from you.
No, none of us has to buy anything. That's not the issue, though.
The issue is that some people have a hard time wrapping their heads around basic maths and think that anything new is "Da Bomb", no matter if the useability will suffer.
Besides, my next computer won't be a Mac, unless they pull themselves together and up the quality, the specs and especially the resolution. I can get a 13" Thinkpad with the same resolution my 15" MBP has, not to mention a better build quality and no denting, pitting aluminium.
With regards to the MBs going alu: I really, really don't like the quality of the anodising of the MBPs, so I view this as a bad thing. The cheap way Apple has done this make my other anodized (non-computer) stuff look cheap by association.
On topic enough for you?
For a given width and diagonal, you cannot compare a 16:9 screen to a 16:10 - they can't have the same width and diagonal.
You aren't strictly right in that statement, since it is the PPI (Pixels Per Inch) which will give you "more resolution" not the aspect ratio.
You may lose a bit height in a 16:9 panel, but if the PPI is the same, then everything will look exactly the same on a 16:10 panel, only less height in the screen, so you lose a little work space.
Neither the size of the screen, nor the aspect ratio determines the PPI.
