Could there be a 12" Widescreen Powerbook?????
Hi,
Not too sure if anyone has any info on this, but the only thing keeping me from buying my precious mac is that Dell makes a 12.1" widescreen model with a gorgeous screen that I just can't let up. Love the widescreen, would rather have it in the mac. Any thoughts from anyone on this particalur model????
Les Novak
Not too sure if anyone has any info on this, but the only thing keeping me from buying my precious mac is that Dell makes a 12.1" widescreen model with a gorgeous screen that I just can't let up. Love the widescreen, would rather have it in the mac. Any thoughts from anyone on this particalur model????
Les Novak
Comments
_thedustin
Originally posted by couragefilms
ya, i hear what you're saying, but i can do pretty much everything i need to on windows, i just really love the mac enviroment and design, and would not be able to justify spending more money for less screen real estate.
UHHH..... you never took trigonometry, did you?
Widescreen (16:9) has LESS area (with diagonal measurement) than normal (4:3) screens.
So Apple's 4:3 12" PB has MORE real estate than Dell's 16:9 12".
Silly monkey.
Edit: I noticed you said the dell has 12.1 inches at 16:9, so I calculated it out:
4:3 at 12 inches is 9.6" x 7.2", with an area of 69.12 Square Inches
16:9 at 12.1 inches is 10.55" x 5.93", win an area of 62.56 Square Inches
As you can see, the 12" PB 4:3 has 10.5% more screen area than the 12.1" Dell 16:9
The 12" 16:10 in use in the dell is a 1280x800 display. Kinda squinty, but as much of a problem as it was 2-3 years ago.
One thing to note, as screens get smaller, a taller display is actually better -- less scrolling of documents!
It could happen, it would be interesting to see what sort of powerbook they could cook up.
A more interesting display that's finally being used in some affordable notebooks, and one of which Apple should take some notice, is the 14" 16:10 used in some Compaq Centrino books.
This display is no taller than a 12" 4:3 display, and only 2" wider. Using it in an iBook coul allow Apple to eliminate the 2 seperate iBook screen sizes in favor of a machine which has essentially the portability of the 12" and the screen real estate of the 14"
12.1" at 16:10 = 65.80 Square inches,
12" at 4:3 (16:12) = 69.12 Square Inches
This also answers the original question (Will there be a 12" widescreen PB?).
The answer is maybe, due to the obvious problem as seen above: less area to put stuff in... though they could just have more space at the bottom of the screen, which they certainly didn't mind screwing up the imac G5 with :X
Originally posted by Matsu
Close, the screen is actually 16:10 not 16:9. HDTV is 16:9, most widescreen computer displays are 16:10, with some exceptions (like Apple's 15.2" 3:2) display.
The 12" 16:10 in use in the dell is a 1280x800 display. Kinda squinty, but as much of a problem as it was 2-3 years ago.
One thing to note, as screens get smaller, a taller display is actually better -- less scrolling of documents!
It could happen, it would be interesting to see what sort of powerbook they could cook up.
A more interesting display that's finally being used in some affordable notebooks, and one of which Apple should take some notice, is the 14" 16:10 used in some Compaq Centrino books.
This display is no taller than a 12" 4:3 display, and only 2" wider. Using it in an iBook coul allow Apple to eliminate the 2 seperate iBook screen sizes in favor of a machine which has essentially the portability of the 12" and the screen real estate of the 14"
That's madness. Somewhere down the line I'd like to be seeing screens of 300dpi or more, when the technology allows.
Of course, OS X would need to become resolution independent.
On everything else, you have less screen real estate with the same diagonal measurement.
Originally posted by tonton
3) Steve hates small dot pitch in screens, and would never release a laptop with smaller pixels than the current 12.1" PowerBook/iBook.
Nobody at apple prefers low resolution.
Instead, they prefer legible fonts and useable widgets.
When resolution independent APIs make higher pixel density possible without sacrificing legibility and usability, I'm sure we'll see higher pixel density on Apple displays.
Listen, I thank those who have replied to this thread in actually answering what I asked. But first and foremost, I asked about it because I like, and have used, and still do, many widescreen displays. I use them for photoshop, illustrator, final draft screenwriting, and final cut pro, to which the extra real estate on the sides DOES make a difference that 4:3 does not.
Second, I really like the design of the Dell primarily because it being a widescreen notebook, DOES make it more compact in dimension. FYI, I have used the Dell and it is smaller and more comfortable than the Powerbook 15". Which is why I originally asked, does anyone think Apple will make a 12" Widescreen notebook. All I wanted to know was whether anyone had heard anything. I didn't need to know someone's opinion of why 4:3 is better, I have used a 4:3 screen, and I prefer the widescreen, hense the thread.
so again, thanks to those who actually gave an answer toward my thread, and to those who feel that they must let everyone they possibly can know whatever it is that they may know about whatever, use your time and ours for something useful.
Originally posted by CharlesS
Why would you want a wide-screen monitor on a Windows machine? Windows kind of expects you to use your windows in full-screen mode, which causes most of that horizontal space to get wasted anyway.
This is quite another story 8)
i liked how light in weight it was.
absolutely hated the small amount of screen in the vertical dimension.
great for dvd movies. very bad for web pages and excel and word.
never want another wide screen 12 inch.
i love shaving grams off my notebook and successively trade up to reduce weight. but will never buy another 12 inch widescreen.
apple 12 inch powerbook: acceptable screen real estate, but steve can you take another 300 grams out of it, p-l-e-a-s-e!
thnx
Originally posted by niji
i owned the sony TR notebook with a wide screen that is 12 inches.
i liked how light in weight it was.
absolutely hated the small amount of screen in the vertical dimension.
great for dvd movies. very bad for web pages and excel and word.
never want another wide screen 12 inch.
i love shaving grams off my notebook and successively trade up to reduce weight. but will never buy another 12 inch widescreen.
apple 12 inch powerbook: acceptable screen real estate, but steve can you take another 300 grams out of it, p-l-e-a-s-e!
thnx
Exactly what I was saying: the vertical dimension on 16:10 @ 12.1" is ~8 (EIGHT) inches.
You may get more horizontal, but you'll be giving up a lot of vertical space and an exponential amount of total area.
Good luck running final cut on ANY 12" monitor :X
BTW I run final cut and I find that widescreen doesn't do much for you. I'd much rather have more video and audio layers displayed than more preview room... not to mention, final cut packs the whole screen with stuff on ANY aspect ratio, so wouldn't it be better to have more total real estate?