Widescreen iBook?

[lorenzo]

im pretty new to all of this high definition stuff, and macs for that matter.. but how unreasonable is it for me to hope that within the next month they will release a g5 ibook or powerbook? i was presuming this would happen at the end of the 2nd quarter, not thinking about the difference between callander quarter and financial quarter.

also, what makes high definition so great? what makes it, high definition? if monitors are normaly 72dip, can you get a 300 dpi monitor? is that not possible?

 

[neutrino23]

Apple's display resolution is falling way behind the industry.

My 14" Dell laptop has 13% more pixels than a 17" PowerBook....

- Dell D600 - 1400x1050 - 1.470 MPixels
- PB 17" - 1440x900 - 1.296 MPixels

Remember the movie Brazil? They had small video screens and used large fresnel magnifiers to read them.

 

[AidenShaw]

Buttle ?

Remember the movie Brazil? They had small video screens and used large fresnel magnifiers to read them.

I was more impressed with the magnificent ducts....

 

[iDave]

im pretty new to all of this high definition stuff, and macs for that matter.. but how unreasonable is it for me to hope that within the next month they will release a g5 ibook or powerbook? i was presuming this would happen at the end of the 2nd quarter, not thinking about the difference between callander quarter and financial quarter.

also, what makes high definition so great? what makes it, high definition? if monitors are normaly 72dip, can you get a 300 dpi monitor? is that not possible?

1) Nobody who knows is telling. Don't count on it.

2) Higher resolution displays look sharper. Most displays these days are in the range of roughly 80-140 pixels per inch. Anything higher (currently) gets really expensive. The drawback to high resolution with current operating systems is that it's not easy to scale the elements on screen so that everything (text, icons, etc.) is the same size as it would be on lower-resolution screens. This is why you'll see lengthy arguments regarding the benefits of high resolution. Personally, I think 110-120 ppi would be about right with current technology. Any lengthy text I need to read can be enlarged to suit me without much hassle. Other elements, while they may be small, can be seen well enough.

 

[gekko513]

1) Nobody who knows is telling. Don't count on it.

2) Higher resolution displays look sharper. Most displays these days are in the range of roughly 80-140 pixels per inch. Anything higher (currently) gets really expensive. The drawback to high resolution with current operating systems is that it's not easy to scale the elements on screen so that everything (text, icons, etc.) is the same size as it would be on lower-resolution screens. This is why you'll see lengthy arguments regarding the benefits of high resolution. Personally, I think 110-120 ppi would be about right with current technology. Any lengthy text I need to read can be enlarged to suit me without much hassle. Other elements, while they may be small, can be seen well enough.

I agree for the most part, the PowerBooks are around 100dpi, right? Extrapolating from that I think I could be happy with 110dpi, but I think I would find 120dpi to be too small. When Tiger arrives my opinion may change as they say it's going to be resolution independent, or whatever it is they call it.

Edit: I see AidenShaw is here talking about his Dell with the amazing resolution again, so I guess I have to repeat my take on that, too, to balance the opinions. I have a 15" Dell with 1600x1200 resolution. That's quite amazing, but it's a pain to use with Windows XP because all the text and ui elements are tiny. It is possible to change the size of some of the GUI elements in the control panel and it is also possible to change the default font sizes, but it is a hassle and the result looks weird and isn't consistent across apps. When I used the Dell regularly I ended up turning the resolution down to 1280x1024 even if that made the screen a bit blurry. Now I just avoid using it whenever possible.

 

[visor]

good idea

i mean - the 12" ibook makes sese because its really small and all - cheap small rugged, not very performant but - one has a G5 for performance....

anyway - i cant realy imagine who would buy the 14" ibook - they are to big to have the advantage of the smallness - to underpowered to be a real computer - same resolution as the 12" actually - so no infogain on screen - more expensive....
Now a wide screen might make it more appealing to get. higher resolution would be a great gain, even if its not much different from the 12" anyway.

i've been experimenting with xgrid a bit recently - and it turns out that one can really get results fast on an ibook if a remote set of g5's do the calculations.

 

[visor]

also, what makes high definition so great? what makes it, high definition? if monitors are normaly 72dip, can you get a 300 dpi monitor? is that not possible?

I think the highest you can currently buy for small screens are about 150dpi. It's only available for cellpones and the like, but it's really great.
now 300dpi would be great for the print guys - could they actually see what the graphics look like on paper...

 

[AidenShaw]

I have a 15" Dell with 1600x1200 resolution. That's quite amazing, but it's a pain to use with Windows XP because all the text and ui elements are tiny.

Perhaps the way that we use our computers is different.

First of all, I like the small UI elements. Small buttons and toolbars leave more room for the work windows.

I typically don't read them (not like I read a book), so small text isn't often an issue. Most of the time you're hitting the same menu items (or even using keyboard shortcuts), so it's easy to recognize the right item without literally reading it.

For things that you do *read*, there isn't any issue with font size. Every browser has a font size button, as do text editors and word processors. The terminal window has a font size property, the PDF viewer scales everything - actually reading text isn't a problem.

If you blow the Adobe Reader to full screen, and "fit to page" for the document - your letters will be the same size regardless of whether the screen resolution is 1024x768 or 1600x1200. They'll just be much crisper and easier to read at 1600x1200.
______________

I do look forward to Avalon and resolution-independence, however.

I'd love to have a 14" laptop with a 2048x1536 screen and an OS that would smoothly handle whatever scaling I felt like....

 

[AidenShaw]

IBM T221 - 22" at 204 dpi

I think the highest you can currently buy for small screens are about 150dpi. It's only available for cellpones and the like, but it's really great.
now 300dpi would be great for the print guys - could they actually see what the graphics look like on paper...

The notable exception to that generally true statement is the IBM T221 22" LCD, a 22" with 9.2 million pixels (3840x1200).

Pretty specialized for high quality imaging, and more than $7000....

 

[gekko513]

Perhaps the way that we use our computers is different.

Probably.

For things that you do *read*, there isn't any issue with font size. Every browser has a font size button, as do text editors and word processors. The terminal window has a font size property, the PDF viewer scales everything - actually reading text isn't a problem.

If you blow the Adobe Reader to full screen, and "fit to page" for the document - your letters will be the same size regardless of whether the screen resolution is 1024x768 or 1600x1200. They'll just be much crisper and easier to read at 1600x1200.

Yes, that's where we have different experiences. I did not find it easy enough to change text size in all the applications that I use.

I agree about the full screen PDF viewing. Did I mention that I love full screen PDFs? No? I do.

I'd love to have a 14" laptop with a 2048x1536 screen and an OS that would smoothly handle whatever scaling I felt like....

Me too.

 

[Yvan256]

Would it have a keyboard? 7" screen wouldn't make much sense with a keyboard that you could type on.

Yes, I even said so in the part you quoted...

"Perhaps even touch screen (but still has a small keyboard)."

 

[Yvan256]

I'm still hoping for an iBook mini on next tuesday. Those who say the 12" iBook is "small enough" or "no optical but keep it 12" need to consider that a laptop's size is not determined by it's thickness. A 12" iBook that's 3 inches thick would still take the same area as a 1-inch thick 12" iBook.

There is lower-sized LCDs that still have 1024x768 resolution, such as this one from Sharp:
http://www.impactcomputers.com/lq089b1ls01.html

So, again, here's my wish list for an iBook mini (which is a wish in itself):
- G4/1.25GHz (unless IBM or Freescale has something similar with less power requirements, what happened to that "G3 with altivec" from IBM?)
- 512MB on-board (perhaps no memory slot to keep it small, and to separate it from the other iBooks)
- 1.8" or 2.5" 40GB 4200RPM (we want battery life, not speed)
- Radeon 9200 Mobility/32MB (again, battery life, not speed/power)
- 8.9", 1024x768 Sharp LCD display
- Keyboard
- IBM TrackPoint (trackpads takes too much room) and/or touchscreen (with a stylus that stores into the iBook mini like a PalmPilot)
- S-Video output built-in (I wonder why Apple isn't putting this on all its laptop, and especially without needing a stupid adapter)
- 1/8" stereo headphones output
- One USB 2.0 port (or two if there's room)
- One FireWire 400 port (if only to connect an iPod)
- One ethernet port
- 56kbps modem built-in
- Airport Extreme built-in (hey, it's a laptop, right?)
- Optionnal bluetooth
- NO optical drive
- NO VGA output (not even mini-DVI)

As for the size, imagine a 12" iBook cut in two, I guess.

"Apple will never make something like this" you say. Yep, just like they'd never make a headless, low-cost Mac that won't even ship with a keyboard a mouse.

 

[tsunami2k3]

I think essentially the reason they won't go that small is that the 12" PB is as small as you can go while keeping a fullsize keyboard. Yes, a 8.9" laptop would be cool, but I'd get real sick of not having a fullsize keyboard quite quickly. Just my instinct...

 

[sushi]

anyway - i cant realy imagine who would buy the 14" ibook - they are to big to have the advantage of the smallness - to underpowered to be a real computer - same resolution as the 12" actually - so no infogain on screen - more expensive....

Many folks prefer the 14 inch iBook's larger pixel size.

When Apple came out with the 14 inch iBook, I was skeptical as to who would use it. I now know many teachers, lawyers and Engineer types who love it due to the large pixel size. Think of it this way, if it wasn't selling well, why would Apple keep upgrading and marketing it?

Sushi

 

[sushi]

I think essentially the reason they won't go that small is that the 12" PB is as small as you can go while keeping a fullsize keyboard. Yes, a 8.9" laptop would be cool, but I'd get real sick of not having a fullsize keyboard quite quickly. Just my instinct...

I read where the concept for the 12 inch Powerbook is to have everything in the smallest package possible.

Living in Japan, you get to see many cool gaggets that never get to the states. Many of the smaller laptops and palmtops, while very cool, are not as functional if you need to take along an external CD/DVD burner, external keyboard, mouse, etc. to make them functional.

The 12 inch PowerBook has a great keyboard, allows you to burn CDs and DVDs, does not require and external mouse, and has a small footprint.

Sushi

 

[scu]

I just don't see it happening anytime soon. A widescreen iBook will one arrive when everything else has been widescreen for a while.

 

[iDave]

I just don't see it happening anytime soon. A widescreen iBook will one arrive when everything else has been widescreen for a while.

Um, well, everything else Apple makes HAS been wide screen for awhile, with the exception of the iBooks and 12" PowerBook.

 

[DHagan4755]

I just don't see it happening anytime soon. A widescreen iBook will one arrive when everything else has been widescreen for a while.

Dell has a consumer 12.1" widescreen notebook out. HP has a consumer 14" widescreen notebook out. Widescreen iBooks are coming. Rest assured. Apple won't sit on its laurels especially when the thriving part of their business at the moment, second to the iPod, is the consumer notebook segment.

 

[scu]

Um, well, everything else Apple makes HAS been wide screen for awhile, with the exception of the iBooks and 12" PowerBook.

I don't think the eMac is wide screen. Only the new displays are wide screen and they just came out a few months ago.

 

[Yvan256]

I think essentially the reason they won't go that small is that the 12" PB is as small as you can go while keeping a fullsize keyboard. Yes, a 8.9" laptop would be cool, but I'd get real sick of not having a fullsize keyboard quite quickly. Just my instinct...

Keeping the "fullsize keyboard" gets in the way of getting the ultra-portable form factor. For a sub-notebook you need to make the keyboard as big as the sub-notebook size will allow, not the other way around (don't make the laptop as big as it needs to house a full-size keyboard).

Just as you don't NEED an optical drive in a sub-notebook, you don't NEED a full-size keyboard.

Also, keep in mind it'd be an "iBook mini", not a "smaller PowerBook".

 

[AidenShaw]

there's a market for everything

Also, keep in mind it'd be an "iBook mini", not a "smaller PowerBook".

And keep in mind that it might not be the right 'book for any particular reader, but the Wintel camp is selling millions of these small laptops.

I manage purchasing for my division, and I wouldn't want a 17" laptop (too big for the airplane, carrying bag, and most any place). I wouldn't want a 12" (screen too small, no media bay for additional batteries, disk drives, ...).

However, I order the 17" laptops for the people who want big screens over portability. I order the 10" and 12" laptops for people who want portability over functionality. I even order PowerBooks for the two people in the group who think differently.

Too many of the arguments in this thread are basically "it's not what *I* want, so Apple shouldn't sell it".

If Apple wants to be in the mainstream - it should offer what its customers want - not what the Lord God Jobs thinks that the customers should want.

Dell offers the 14" D600 with either 1024x768 or 1400x1050 displays. It offers the 15.4" D800 widescreen with 1280x800, 1680x1050, or 1920x1200 displays. Why doesn't Apple offer a BTO option for screen resolution?

 

[AidenShaw]

For comparison - Dell's 12" widescreen

For comparison, Dell recently added a newLatitude X1 widescreen 12" laptop.

• 12.1" 1280x768 display
• 2.5 lbs
• less than 1" thick
• standard Gigabit Ethernet, 802.11g, Bluetooth
• standard SD and CF readers
• $1654

Not for everyone, but people looking for a super-light system with full-sized keyboard like it.

 

[gekko513]

I think one of the reasons why Apple doesn't allow BTO of screens is that Dell sells, I don't know exactly, 10 times as many laptops as Apple does. That allows them to use several different panels and still be able to negotiate good prices for buying in large numbers. It also makes the extra logistics and service costs introduced by the BTO option much smaller per unit.

If that 12" Dell doesn't have an optical drive (I can't find any mention of it on the product page), it doesn't look like a good deal at that price to me. Sure there is probably a market for these anyway, but divide it by 10, and it wouldn't make sense from a business point of view.

 

[iDave]

If that 12" Dell doesn't have an optical drive (I can't find any mention of it on the product page), it doesn't look like a good deal at that price to me. Sure there is probably a market for these anyway, but divide it by 10, and it wouldn't make sense from a business point of view.

The Dell X1 comes with an external DVD-RW drive. I'd bet Apple's engineers could shoehorn the optical drive into the computer and still beat Dell's price. They'd have a real winner there, but it would probably have to be a PowerBook, not an iBook because it likely could not sell for $999.

 

[AidenShaw]

The Dell is 20% thinner and half the weight

The Dell X1 comes with an external DVD-RW drive. I'd bet Apple's engineers could shoehorn the optical drive into the computer and still beat Dell's price. They'd have a real winner there, but it would probably have to be a PowerBook, not an iBook because it likely could not sell for $999.

The Dell is about 20% thinner and half the weight compared to the 12" PowerBook.

As I said earlier, I order the laptops for my group.

Many of the people who travel (both by air, and just go to a lot of meetings on-site and off-site) are most concerned with size and weight of the laptop.

They don't need or want an optical drive that adds size and weight. We get the docking stations with the DVD drives, and usually a 20" LCD and keyboard/mouse, for office and home use. (Or any USB 2.0 DVD or CD works fine.)

And it is a "good deal" - if you consider that "small and light" has value. We'll pay more for a small/light system than for a bigger system with more features - because "small and light" itself is a valuable feature.
_________________________

Apple doesn't need to have an optical drive in a super-lightweight system.... Think about a 2 pound super-portable.

But Apple should look at docking stations - that seems to be one major missing feature of the current lines. It saves wear-and-tear on the ports, and makes it less necessary to include all the bells and whistles on the laptop itself. (E.g. the D600 docking station has both DVI and VGA video outputs - the laptop itself has just a standard VGA port. You can connect either kind of monitor at your desk, and have the VGA for connection to conference room projectors without have to carry a dongle.)

It would be amusing if this rumour (order for 12" widescreen ibook) turns out to be true, and Apple is adding a super-lightweight 'book similar to the Dell X1 to the PowerBook lineup.