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
So Apple has to make the screens more "appropriate" for Blu-ray films and format.
No doubt we will see 16:9 ratio displays.
Why? Blu-ray films play just fine on 16:10 displays. If a bit of black space above and below the movie is the price we pay to keep our screen real estate, it works for me.
It's not like the primary use of the laptop is to play movies.
Cheers,
Attachments
It looks like if Apple goes to 16:9 displays, they'll be 1" larger than the 16:10 displays they replace (13" -> 14", 15" -> 16", 17" -> 18"), so similar vertical space (physically) but more horizontal space (physically). The resolutions would likely go:
- 13": From 1280*800 to 1280*720 (drop) or 1366*768 (give-and-take)
- 15": From 1440*900 to 1600*900 (rise)
- 17": From 1680*1050 to 1920*1080 (rise)
- 17" BTO: From 1920*1200 to 1920*1080 (drop)
So moving to 16:9 ratio displays would be mostly an "upgrade" for most people but there will be some give-and-takes as well. I do not think that 1920x1200 to 1920x1080 drop is so significant. Remember the 15" MacBook Pros lost some resolution as well from the 15" PowerBook G4 (PowerBook G4 1440x960 ----> MacBook Pro 1440x900).
Though, if they soldered say 4GB of RAM in dual channel and still provided 2 additional slots, that would be pimp. I don't see how 4 slots would work on a laptop.
Let's say Apple does that for whatever reason, and they put the 17" out as that. Why is the BTO a 1920x1200 to 1920x1080 change? Shouldn't it be the other way around? And how would Apple charge for the extra line of pixels? Also how would they design a panel that was both 16:10 and 16:9?
This article says we will end up with crazy screen sizes like 13.1, 14.5, 15.8, 16.4 & 18.4 ... or at least the Windows laptops already are moving in that direction. Wither 16:10 on Macs as well?
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2331000,00.asp
Cheers,
MacBook can have 13.1" display,
15" MacBook Pro can have 15.8" display
17" MacBook Pro can have 18.4" display
That was mitigated in part by the 17", which stayed at 1680*1050.
I should probably clarify. The 17" 16:9 display only has one resolution (1920*1080), so there's no BTO. So both the standard 1680*1050 and the BTO 1920*1200 will transition to 1920*1080.
So, pretty much a neutral situation unless Apple adds 2560x1440 display to the 17"-18" MacBook Pro.
Is that even possible on a laptop that size?
Give me portrait displays!
Has anybody besides my friend, who is a programmer, and (because of him mentioning it) myself, also a programmer, thought of portrait displays? Just how much more text (in my friend’s case, a program’s source code) can fit into one compared to when landscape orientation is used! If I ever need a new external monitor for something, I will definitely go for one that allows for easy rotation.
Hehe, seeing how easily Macs are photoshopped around here, may I request a picture of a 17 ″ MacBook Pro with a 16:10 (out of the available resolutions, it offers the highest, i. e. 1920×1200) portrait display?
That will surely be fun.
The problem is that on laptops, it would be quite hard to make the screen rotatable without rotating at least the keyboard (although, you know, it should not be that hard to instead learn the portrait keyboard layout), without which it would probably be tough to work in landscape-oriented programs (films could be watched with the entire laptop rotated; after all, the keyboard is rarely needed when watching a film; if it was needed, though, the film would be watched with huge black bars above and below it).
In the most probable case, however, that is, in the case the screen remains landscape, I vote for 16:10. A screen can fit as much text (and other stuff, too) as its height is in pixels; not in inches. As long as the vertical resolution does not fall under 1200 and the horizontal under 1920 (all pixels are appreciated ), do whatever you want, be it widening the screen to 3.2:1 or to some other aspect ratio. But I bet that if you can make a 16:9 2560×1440 display, you can also make a 16:10 2560×1600 one.
Has anybody besides my friend, who is a programmer, and (because of him mentioning it) myself, also a programmer, thought of portrait displays? Just how much more text (in my friend’s case, a program’s source code) can fit into one compared to when landscape orientation is used! If I ever need a new external monitor for something, I will definitely go for one that allows for easy rotation.
Hehe, seeing how easily Macs are photoshopped around here, may I request a picture of a 17 ″ MacBook Pro with a 16:10 (out of the available resolutions, it offers the highest, i. e. 1920×1200) portrait display?
That will surely be fun.The problem is that on laptops, it would be quite hard to make the screen rotatable without rotating at least the keyboard (although, you know, it should not be that hard to instead learn the portrait keyboard layout
), without which it would probably be tough to work in landscape-oriented programs (films could be watched with the entire laptop rotated; after all, the keyboard is rarely needed when watching a film; if it was needed, though, the film would be watched with huge black bars above and below it).In the most probable case, however, that is, in the case the screen remains landscape, I vote for 16:10. A screen can fit as much text (and other stuff, too
) as its height is in pixels; not in inches. As long as the vertical resolution does not fall under 1200 and the horizontal under 1920 (all pixels are appreciated ), do whatever you want, be it widening the screen to 3.2:1 or to some other aspect ratio. But I bet that if you can make a 16:9 2560×1440 display, you can also make a 16:10 2560×1600 one. But I bet that if you can make a 16:9 2560×1440 display, you can also make a 16:10 2560×1600 one.*
I will still take 16:9 ratio.
I'm torn. I want to get a new MBP, but only if it has Blu-ray available. At the same time, I really don't want a 16:9 screen.
I know what you're trying to show, but I'm not sure about the assumption that they'll bump screen sizes by 1" across the board.
In 16:9 displays, the options currently manufactured are:
10.1" -- 1366x768
11.1"/11.5" -- 1366x768
12" -- not yet launched
13.1"/13.3" -- 1366x768 and 1600x900
14.0"/14.1" -- 1366x768
15.6"/16.0" -- 1366x768
16.4" -- 1600x900 and 1920x1080
17.3" -- not yet launched
18.4" -- 1920x1080
The reason for the / is because often one manufacturer has sort of established their own size slightly different than others as the market for 16:9 displays is still fairly new.
My problem with 16:9 displays (currently) is that the 15.6" size only offers 1366x768 resolution, far too low for me in that size. You may well be right that they would bump the size up to 16.4" and 18.4" but both those result in a notebook with too large a footprint for my needs. Now if they added a 14" size with the 1366x768 screen that might work, though (especially for Blu-ray and Excel) that's still an awfully low resolution.
Personally, I'd much rather they stayed at 16:10 for now and offered a 1680x1050 15.4" screen option, though I really don't see that happening.
I know what you're trying to show, but I'm not sure about the assumption that they'll bump screen sizes by 1" across the board.
In 16:9 displays, the options currently manufactured are:
10.1" -- 1366x768
11.1"/11.5" -- 1366x768
12" -- not yet launched
13.1"/13.3" -- 1366x768 and 1600x900
14.0"/14.1" -- 1366x768
15.6"/16.0" -- 1366x768
16.4" -- 1600x900 and 1920x1080
17.3" -- not yet launched
18.4" -- 1920x1080
The reason for the / is because often one manufacturer has sort of established their own size slightly different than others as the market for 16:9 displays is still fairly new.
My problem with 16:9 displays (currently) is that the 15.6" size only offers 1366x768 resolution, far too low for me in that size. You may well be right that they would bump the size up to 16.4" and 18.4" but both those result in a notebook with too large a footprint for my needs. Now if they added a 14" size with the 1366x768 screen that might work, though (especially for Blu-ray and Excel) that's still an awfully low resolution.
Personally, I'd much rather they stayed at 16:10 for now and offered a 1680x1050 15.4" screen option, though I really don't see that happening.
I wouldn't want a 16:9 screen due to 2 main reasons:
1) Converting to 16:9 from 16:10 means less pixel space.
2) If your haven't already noticed, the Macbook Pro is already short and wide. Somehow I think it's going to look weird if they make it any more shorter and wider.
1) Converting to 16:9 from 16:10 means less pixel space.
2) If your haven't already noticed, the Macbook Pro is already short and wide. Somehow I think it's going to look weird if they make it any more shorter and wider.
Gotcha. That would make for some LARGE notebooks (even if they are ridiculously thin). The NEW models would be just slightly smaller than the current 17" (16.4") and then even larger (18.4"). Yikes. If they did that, but added a 14" then it makes some more sense.
Dope. Completely correct. Added it. And that resolution is coming to 15.6" panels (which would be perfect for me in a new MBP), but I don't believe anybody will have those panels available until about Q2 2009.
So, then, 16:9 ratio panels would not be that bad. Pretty much a compromise except for 1920x1200---->1920x1080 on the 17" MacBook Pro HD.
Only once those 15.6" screens are actually available. If they release 15.6" 16:9 in the next couple of weeks, you're looking at 1366x768... which at least to me is too low.
Of course, as has been suggested, they might be going up in size to 16.4" and 18.4"... which solves the resolution issue, but means considerably larger notebooks.
I do not think it would be that noticeable in real life.
Seriously, is
13"--->14"
15"--->16"
17"--->18"
really going to be that noticeable in real life to you?
If the display bezel is smaller (as rumors say), then it wouldn't be quite as bad. But unless the bezel ends up microscopic, it'll still be bigger. I wonder if the MacBook Air is the start of a trend in Apple notebooks: Larger displays, thinner cases.
I'd buy a 14" (or 13") MacBook Pro in an instant, especially if the price is appealing (and especially if the resolution is 1600·900!
). Maybe the resolution will go from 1440·900 down to 1366·768, before it goes up to 1600·900 in a probable mid-2009 speed bump refresh.
It sure will.Hehe, seeing how easily Macs are photoshopped around here, may I request a picture of a 17*″ MacBook Pro with a 16:10 (out of the available resolutions, it offers the highest, i.*e. 1920×1200) portrait display?*