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.
Macbook Pro with 16:9 and blu-ray
- Thread starter .Chris
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'd rather have a smaller display with a higher resolution than a larger display with a lower resolution any day.
And 3.2:1 is so much better!!!! 😛
Sure.
You guys are all over the resolution being the same. It wont. The resoluation will change to match the 16:9 formatt.
16:9 is sleaker and looks beter. people are scared of change.
MBP is a advanced multimedia machine. Its ment to handle just about anything.
Loge
macrumors 68030
Eventually maybe, but if Apple move the MBP to 16:9 then the top model is likely to go to 1920 by 1080. That is a step back however you look at it.
That's just an opinion. 16:10 looks better to me.
I want one of those 3.2:1 screens! 😀
how about a screen with a resolution of
1920x1200...that way you have 16:10 aspect ratio for work and when you watch movies it will cut to 1080. HD video and extra room to work in when you need it...that's so crazy it just might work! Wait a minute...I think we just might already have a screen with that resolution....yes, we do! 🙄
problem solved. 120 pixels cut for HD content, won't change screen size drastically, heck, if you're that worried, buy a display that's slightly larger and and you'll have 1080 at larger than most other screens...
that being said, these are crazy ass huge resolutions when you compare it to 1080p plasma displays that are 42" and most computer screens are <30" 😱
how about a screen with a resolution of
1920x1200...that way you have 16:10 aspect ratio for work and when you watch movies it will cut to 1080. HD video and extra room to work in when you need it...that's so crazy it just might work! Wait a minute...I think we just might already have a screen with that resolution....yes, we do! 🙄
problem solved. 120 pixels cut for HD content, won't change screen size drastically, heck, if you're that worried, buy a display that's slightly larger and and you'll have 1080 at larger than most other screens...
that being said, these are crazy ass huge resolutions when you compare it to 1080p plasma displays that are 42" and most computer screens are <30" 😱
Ideally, at some point I really hope that 16:9 ultra-high resolution displays are manufactured. A 16:9 MacBook Pro with a 16" display sporting a resolution of 1920x1080 would be awesome.
alphaod
macrumors Core
Minimoose 360
macrumors 65816
masse
macrumors 6502a
I don't even want a DVD drive....
Seriously, if they included an external DVD drive and removed the internal one I would hardly care. Its a lot of wasted space if you ask me.
Also, I prefer the aspect ratio of my 15" powerbook to the macbook pro. Smaller footprint is important to me.
So in conclusion, I disagree completely.
Seriously, if they included an external DVD drive and removed the internal one I would hardly care. Its a lot of wasted space if you ask me.
Also, I prefer the aspect ratio of my 15" powerbook to the macbook pro. Smaller footprint is important to me.
So in conclusion, I disagree completely.
But 16:10 is taller though, while 16:9 is a bit shorter but wider.
Given its a pro machine they need to keep the drive. not everyone wants to carry around an external drive taking up space. and not everyone is on a wi-fi network or wants to go accosss the house just to put a damn dvd in
benzslrpee
macrumors 6502
a screen too wide will make reading articles (ex. this forum), writing a paper, and photo editing kind of a pain in the ass. i feel that even the current iteration of MBP screens are a little too squat. i'm used to it now, but whenever i bust out Word to take notes in class i can't help but wish for some extra length. it's a lot easier to read something with a shorter width and longer length.
i'm not even sure why all of a sudden 16:9 is the new media darling of screen ratios. some one can correct me on this but it benefits only movies, no? are some TV shows done in 16:9 as well?
i'm not even sure why all of a sudden 16:9 is the new media darling of screen ratios. some one can correct me on this but it benefits only movies, no? are some TV shows done in 16:9 as well?
It's 17".
Not everyone wants to carry around an external hard drive taking up space. And not everyone needs to use DVDs all the time. And not everyone wants the extra weight of an optical drive.
One reason is cheaper panels.
Widescreen TV's (most) have always been 16:9. All TV shows are 16:9 now. Nearly all broadcasts in the UK are 16:9. Sports, TV Shows, Movies, News etc.
eXan
macrumors 601
I was referring to movies shown on the TV. And I didn't say all movies were 16:9 did I? A lot are letterboxed, but not all.
In fact, most of the movies I own at 16:9.
MowingDevil
macrumors 68000
Maybe because we'd have to scroll web pages more?
Seriously, from a computer usability perspective, 16:9 is not a good thing. Computers (especially ones aimed at the "pro" market) are not primarily movie watching devices, 16:10 makes a lot more sense for day to day use. If you want to watch a movie, live with the black bars, or get a small portable DVD player.
sammich
macrumors 601
You know the Golden Ratio is very close to 16:10.
Plus 16:10 accommodates our field of vision/peripheral perfectly.
Plus 16:10 accommodates our field of vision/peripheral perfectly.
jacg
macrumors 6502a
Minimoose 360
macrumors 65816
Because we are going to use out MBPs for work, where the leisurely Macbook can be 16:9 due to it's consumer status. I want whatever gives me the best resolution...and I never watch videos fullscreen on a computer anyway so I can keep track of other things.