How do we know that these panels haven't already been requested by Apple ahead of time and are already in production?
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
How do we know that these panels haven't already been requested by Apple ahead of time and are already in production?
Apple did have some early Intel chips with the Mac Pro, so with Apple you might never know what they are up to.
Anything's possible (and I haven't been going on scouting missions in China just to double check what panels are actually being produced)... but higher res 15.6" panels have been requested by MANY vendors, and nobody's gotten them. Maybe Apple offered enough money to get a panel manufacturer to push forward the start date of a line making those panels, but I really doubt they could have gotten those panels by now. If Apple IS shifting to 16:9 panels... and IF they want to offer a higher res screen, THEN it does make sense for them to go up to 16.4". That's an awful lot of ifs to be too concerned about right now though. We'll all know soon enough. Personally, I'd still rather they stuck with 16:9 and offered a WSXGA+ screen option.
Those chips were available to other places besides Apple, I believe. Plus they were 150 W as opposed to the 120 W versions that went to Dell etc. a few months later.
Or maybe Apple will use 15.6" 1366·768 to their advantage, as in push consumers who want a higher resolution to the (more expensive) 18.4" model.
And that would also let Apple downgrade the MacBook resolution from 1280·800 to 1280·720.Can you make a line drawing/representation of the 16:9 and 16:10 ratio display side by side of each other?
Thank you.
No doubt 16:9 ratio is the way to go for me.
I do not even know why Apple is still using 16:10 besides for professionals but still, is 16:9 ratio going to damage everything so much for them?
For me, it's more about the resolution rather than a slight change in aspect ratio.
At least the Cinema Displays should be 16:9 ratio (thus the word: "Cinema").
So, is 1920x1200 ----> 1920x1080 resolution change going to be that much noticeable in real life?
Yes I think it would be, especially in photoshop or if your a designer. I really don't want them to switch. I loose resolution and who wants to watch a movie on a computer anyways. That's why the apple tv was invented.
besides most movies aren't even filmed in that aspect ratio.
I watch films on my computer and many other things. Film watching on a Mac (on my 20" iMac at least) is so much better than on a DVD player.
Also, at least MacBook should switch to 16:9.
So, 16:9 ratio for MacBooks and Cinema Displays
16:10 ratio for the iMacs (Pros can use iMacs too) and MacBook Pros
A done compromise?
or option of 16:9 ratio and 16:10 ratio for all Macs?
I do not think this second choice is very likely.
I watch films on my computer and many other things. Film watching on a Mac (on my 20" iMac at least) is so much better than on a DVD player.
Also, at least MacBook should switch to 16:9.
So, 16:9 ratio for MacBooks and Cinema Displays
16:10 ratio for the iMacs (Pros can use iMacs too) and MacBook Pros
A done compromise?
or option of 16:9 ratio and 16:10 ratio for all Macs?
I do not think this second choice is very likely.
Not Cinema displays those are for the professionals, frankly i'm against all of it. Blu-ray too.
Knowing Apple, it probably going to be the latter. Just a tactic from Apple to get more people to buy the MacBook Pro.
I respect your opinion.
Quoted for truth. On most film sources you would still have black bars. What is with the big obsession with 16:9 over 16:10?
I'm not too crazy about 16:9. I'll only accept it if there is no loss of vertical resolution. 900 vertical pixels is already really tight on a 15" MBP. To go to 16:9 without losing resolution would be 1600x900, but if you're going to do that you might as well go on to 1680x1050.
I'm not too bothered about 16:9 since they'll probably up the res anyway.
I mean, if they had kept the 24" iMac and made it 16:9 (1920 x 1080) then that would suck. But they brought in a 27" and made it 2560 x 1440.
So if we get a 16" MacBook Pro at 1600 x 900 or 1920 x 1080, instead of a 15" at 1440 x 900, then where is the issue? You're not losing any pixels, quite the opposite in fact. Only problem is the laptop being bigger, but hopefully they would just plant a 16" screen onto a similar-sized-to-the-current-model laptop and we would just lose the big ass black borders. It might be a few mm longer but no big deal.
I mean, if they had kept the 24" iMac and made it 16:9 (1920 x 1080) then that would suck. But they brought in a 27" and made it 2560 x 1440.
So if we get a 16" MacBook Pro at 1600 x 900 or 1920 x 1080, instead of a 15" at 1440 x 900, then where is the issue? You're not losing any pixels, quite the opposite in fact. Only problem is the laptop being bigger, but hopefully they would just plant a 16" screen onto a similar-sized-to-the-current-model laptop and we would just lose the big ass black borders. It might be a few mm longer but no big deal.
16:9 does not automatically mean less pixels than 16:10.
They might take the Macbook Pro 15" from 1440x900 (16:10) to 1600x900(16:9) That is only a good thing.
Good Thing = More Pixels. aspect ratio is just the ratio, don't get too obsessed with it unless they change the ratio AND take away pixels.