Why quote me then to "clarify" something else in the thread?
Puhlease. It didn't come out of the blue. You guys are using the same pseudo arguments, the same phrasing and so on. It's like you guys were cousins. Sometimes one needs to have the foresight to also think about what the other people in a discussion might argue. Or are you suggesting I should have made another post, just with that statement.
Ditto.
Yes, and you could argue that they should scrap the 16:10 panels and introduce 16:11 ones instead, but it'll still be the same width and I'd be happy.
Yes. But since this discussion began with people arguing that 16:9 would be better, you're misrepresenting what I'm saying.
Same applies going from 16:10 to 16:9, make the diagonal longer (i.e. 16") and you'll have the similar height, only you are making it wider.
See above.
All the 16:9 ratio is doing is making it wider.
Yes, relatively. You could also say its height would be reduced relatively. I lean to the the latter, if for nothing else, then because the first part of "16:10"/"16:9" refers to the width, and therefore, in relation to the width, the height is reduced.
Before you try and shoot me down with the diagonal size, for the same height as a 16:10, you'll get a wider screen. That is my argument, and that is what I want Apple to adopt.
MY argument, on the other hand, is that you DON't need to change the ratio in order to have a wider screen. See?
Do you understand the word ratio? You are moaning about wanting to keep height in the screen.
I'm not moaning at all. I am saying that if they at least keep the ratio, we can ALL have what we want. Perhaps it's the word "relatively" that doesn't compute?
I said if Apple released a 16:9 panel, to keep the likes of you happy about the height issue, they'd make it 16". So it is the same height, only wider.
See the above two paragraphs.
They are not giving up height!
Sheesh! Words like "relatively", "ratio", "relation" really doesn't mean a thing to you, do they? If they keep the ratio, there is NO need to reduce the relative height.
You can argue that all you want, they are only making it wider!
And by making it wider, the 16:9 ratio falls in place. How are you not getting this?!
I am getting it, don't worry. It's you guys who can't fathom a few simple words.
No, it just saves space. Back on to what I said about how we see the world horizontally - why do you think they even scrapped the 4:3 ratio and introduced 16:9 TV's? Why aren't we all watching 9:16 TV's if you are so keen on your vertical height?
Hmm, you don't think that has anything to do with creating something that gives people a feelling more like going to the cinema when they watch a movie?
Okay, you just contradicted yourself there.
No I didn't. You see, the eyes even see the world upside down. It's the brain which learns to turn it all around so the ground is downwards.
Thus it's not a contradiction, it's just a finer point you missed: The eyes may be placed horisontally and as such they see horisontally, but we (the brain) cannot see across (horisontally) for long. We need to break it up.
I'll give you a point for the newspaper argument that it is easier to read, but it isn't anything to do with the fact that we see the world horizontally. And I'll deduct the point for the stupid blooper about how there's one sentence below another - what's the alternative? A big long sentence stretching for a mile?
Again, that's not a blooper. Your argument is that we see the word horisontally. If it were so, even your paragraph just above would be easier read if it was as wide as possible, meaning everything landscape. Hell, think about such a simple thing as paragraphs: How would you make a paragraphs horisontally? would it be easier to read, than what we have here (paragraph, a little space, paragraph below each other)?
Further, don't try the "going on forever"-strawman. That's just stupid. Take your newspaper (again), and then imagine reading a line going from left to right (i.e. "as long as possible").
Theoretically, yes, but look at what's actually happening.
As an example, the 13" category. A high resolution 16:10 13.3" screen is currently 1440x900. A high resolution 16:9 13.1" screen is currently 1600x900. They have the same number of vertical pixels.
Sigh. As mentioned, the words "relatively", "ratio" and "relation" seems to be foreign terms for you guys.
Obviously you're right that they could match PPI, but they aren't.
Erm, unless we know the exact measurements (in inches/cms) of the two screens in your example, for all we know, they have/can have the same PPI. In other words: PPI means Pixels Per (square) Inch.
Same here. I dont want the screen to be to tall. I actually want it to be a bit shorter, but still have a good resoulation for it to be wider. I've seen acers, I'm seen sonys 16" models and they look fine. Apple can do the same thing. Tosser just doesnt get it.
I get it. It's you guys who doesn't get even the basics. If you look at the poster above, even the notion of "PPI" escapes him. And you have made the same sort of mistake around here.
Look at the new acers and sony models. that right there will tell you what a 16" and 18" model will look like.
I KNOW what it will look like.
and your right, we dont read up and down, we read left to right.
Please read and try to comprehend what I have explained numerous times - the latest in this post. Perhaps this time it will sink in.
Same here. I'm all for making things wider and may be even have a 1080p res. (there are notebooks out there that have them, you just got to look for them)
Wider is fine by me. I just don't want them to make the vertical resolution suffer, RELATIVELY speaking. You on the hand, would like to get rid of the black bars. Black bars, btw, is another thing you failed to comprehend earlier on, like many other other things.
Oh, hahaha! That's rich coming from you:
Someone who had to have _everything_ about ratios explained, who didn't understand that the black bars when watching a movie weren't introduced but removed by going 16:9 as opposed to staying 16:10 (or 4:3) really shouldn't be making statements like that.
It really goes to show who here have no clue whatsoever about ratios.
What happened to those webpages with contents that were horisontal? You were claiming that the web was moving to horisontal webpages, you were claiming that any website with a menu was horisontal and as such it would be better to have less (relative) vertical resolution and more horisontal.
Now, where are those links?
Toser, Like I said before take a look at the new acer and sony models. Both offer 16" and 18" models that have 16:9. That right there will prove our point and we can all stop this bickering.
Erm, if you think that proves your point, or disproves my point, then you really don't understand the very first thing.
As for Tosser, your the only one making a scene about the screen now. Everyone is telling you the facts.
I'm not making a scene. How ignorant can you be? I am making an argument against what you people say. And again: You're the last person here to purport you're dealing with facts.
I highly sugest you go to the store and look at the 16" notebooks and SEE the diference and compare them to other 15 and 17" models. Come back and tell us what you saw,
LOL, and with that you just emphasised how little you are able to grasp, even after pages of this discussion.
May be we can finally get done with this bickering. We went from a leaked case to talking about screensizes, newspapers geeks and other nonsence.
Newspaper geeks? By mentioning why a news paper page is set up like it's set up, that's talking about "newspaper geeks"? And since when is it "nonsense" to talk about screensize, when the talk is about a new MacBook that _might_ introduce a new (to Apple) ratio?
I STILL would like to see those "horisontal" web pages with useable contents.
