this is what the 11 inch model should've been like...

Discussion in 'MacBook Air' started by animatedude, Oct 21, 2010.

  1. animatedude macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2010
    #1
  2. bouncer1 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2010
    #2
    Agreed. To me it's stupid that they went with a 16:9 screen (but I am sure they did this because that's the standard and it's cheaper) choice which cuts off vertical real estate to what is already the smallest mac. WTF? Does it really matter to watch 16:9 movies on such a small screen instead of 16:10?

    In such small sized machines the ideal size is 4:3 period, ok the industry moved away from this... but 16:9? You would have thought the mbp 17" should have been the first to get this instead which it the biggest anyway, not the 11.6 one....
     
  3. Moodikar macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    #3
    Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

    I'm actually happy about the 16:9 ratio. Making it smaller is part of the reasoning.

    Yes they could have tapered more of the bezel as in the mock-up (which I think is well done) but having more vertical means having more footprint.

    Widescreen should be 16:9 to match tv. Why have more variations when we can standardize it. Those that need more space probably will get a monitor or the 13inch.
     
  4. Moodikar macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    #4
    Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

    Mind you, I bet all macs will be 16:9 soon. The iMacs have it. It is better on the eyes. More natural.
     
  5. alust2013 macrumors 601

    alust2013

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Location:
    On the fence
    #5
    I have to disagree there. It was a good idea to use the 16:9 on the 11", so they didn't have to mess with the keyboard, plus those who want to whine can look at the fact that it has a pretty high resolution for a screen so small. Most windows 16:9 laptops have that res at 15". That is reason to complain.

    As far as 16:9 being better, yes for TV, no for computers. It isn't a problem on a display that is 1920x1080 or 2560x1440, as those are huge resolutions anyhow and still have plenty of vertical space. However, it is far less useful on smaller screens and resolutions, especially for the majority of web content which is vertically oriented. I think the fact that the 13" remained 16:10 shows that apple will stick with that for a bit longer at least.
     
  6. bouncer1 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2010
    #6
    Sorry but that's completely baseless that it's more natural, where do you get that from?
     
  7. Mr. Savage macrumors regular

    Mr. Savage

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Location:
    Toronto
    #7
    No, he's right actually. 16:9 was chosen as the HDTV standard because it is the ratio of the human eye's field of vision. 4:3 would be perfect if we were all cyclops's.
     
  8. cluthz macrumors 68040

    cluthz

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Location:
    Norway
    #8
    Field of vision isn't an issue unless you'll have a screen 25 inches++, but scrolling is.
     
  9. Mr. Savage macrumors regular

    Mr. Savage

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Location:
    Toronto
    #9
    Yep. I skipped right to the last post and zeroed in on the assertion that 16:9 wasn't natural without reading the rest of the thread for context before posting.
    (Not recommended ;)
     
  10. animatedude thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2010
    #10
    thank you.
     

Share This Page