Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

.Chris

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Aug 22, 2007
771
0
I like to hear what you guys think on this idea. a 16" and 18" macbook pro line. a 16 and 18" screen cuts down on the tallness of the screen since the screen is 16:9 great for watching and editing movies as well as multitasking. I also think that this will really make the macbook pros stand out.

This of course would be great if they don't charge 2000 and up on it, as you could get the same specs on a PC for half the price.

But what do you think? Good idea or bad idea?
 
I don't think that there needs to be an 18", the 17 is hella big.


Aren't those not widescreen though?
 
Your missing the ponint

the 16" and 18" would make the screen 16:9 witch would make the screen less tall, but more wider. The computer may be a inch or two wider but by not that much.

It will replace the 15.4 and 17" and yes they are widescreen, but 16:10, thats why they have tall screens.
 
Problem is that LCDs are going 16:9 rather than the 16:10 so we can't have a 15" and a 17" anymore. EDIT - actually there is a 17.3" 16:9 screen.


The screens are going full 1080p and really odd sizes.
 
Please do not ever put out a 18" computer; seriously it's like the 20" Dell Inspiron XPS. Who the hell would find that portable in any way?
 
I read somewhere that the replacement for 15.4" laptops is going to be 15.6", so not a whole lot of difference in physical size. LCD manufacturers want to bring everything in line with HDTVs, so 16:9 ratio rather than 16:10. Personally I think it'd be better off leaving it at 16:10 because that leaves some extra room to have whatever toolbars if you are doing HD editing or something. Resolutions are gonna look funky besides the usual 1920x1080 and 1280x720.
 
16x9 is good if the rez if high enough 1280x720 isn't enough in my opinion. You don't get a lot of window 'height' in 16x9, but if the rez is too low you can't really put two side by side effectively either.

1680x1050 is an awesome rez that I would love to see on the ~15" size.
 
16x9 is good if the rez if high enough 1280x720 isn't enough in my opinion. You don't get a lot of window 'height' in 16x9, but if the rez is too low you can't really put two side by side effectively either.

1680x1050 is an awesome rez that I would love to see on the ~15" size.

1680x1050 would be 1680x945 in 16:9; you would lose ~100 (105) pixels

which is unfortunate
 
16:9 vs 16:10

If you see a 16:9 screen, it would be widder and less tall, whitch in my opinion would be best for multi tasking. hold more information.

I agree, they should have a smaller verson of the macbook pro or at least offer the macbook in a 15" size,
 
Thouse sizes are ok, I guess i'm more towards having the screen moved to 16:9
 
The advantage of 16:9 panels is they are cheaper to manufacture then 16:10 panels, so that could help reduce prices or make the addition of better quality components and technologies (LED backlighting) for the same price as current 16:10 panels.
 
AUO, CMO, LG, Samsung are prepping for 14" (1280x780), 15.6" (1366x768) and 17.3" (1920x1080) 16:9 panels. As HDMI, DisplayPort, Blu-Ray are emerging in Montevina generation update, the 16:9 panels are becoming mainstream for HD authoring and playback. Though MB and MBP would lack some pixels if going this route.
 
Problem is that LCDs are going 16:9 rather than the 16:10 so we can't have a 15" and a 17" anymore. EDIT - actually there is a 17.3" 16:9 screen.

... and there are 15.6" 16:9 screens too.

For the record, I think it's both a great idea (c'mon, we all watch video on our laptops at some point, and it's all going HD) and inevitable. All video (pre-recorded, live, streaming, etc.) is going 16:9 (and HD).

Both MB and MBP are long overdue for a redesign, so what better time to bring in a dramatic change with an all-widescreen, all-HD lineup?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.