(snip)As I talked about in a thread weeks ago, I'm REALLY hoping this 15.4" represents a new widescreen 16:10 ratio. If so, then the vertical resolution - assuming it stays put from the TiBook - would be 854 and the horizontal is something like 1366, give or take. Nice and wide, with room for much palletes and iChat and collapsed iTunes.
Here is an example of how a 16:10 screen with the vertical resolution of 854 would be.
I could handle that!
Dell's 15.4" UltraSharp displays come in 3 resolutions: 1280 x 800 WXGA, 1680 x 1050 WSXGA+, and 1920 x 1200 WUXGA. The Ti is 1280 x 854. I hope we get get something easy on the eyes. What's up with the weird pixel ratio on the Dell?
Dell's 15.4" UltraSharp displays come in 3 resolutions: 1280 x 800 WXGA, 1680 x 1050 WSXGA+, and 1920 x 1200 WUXGA. The Ti is 1280 x 854. I hope we get get something easy on the eyes. What's up with the weird pixel ratio on the Dell?
Weird pixel ratio? They're all exactly 16:10.
I would positively kill for a 1920x1200. 1680x1050 would be quite nice too. Of course, Apple will use the 1280x800.
Hurry up with the "being able to scale the entire interface arbitrarily" thing, Apple. Then you can make us both happy, and have some of the sharpest displays in existence.
Yeah, just running the calculation, 1280x800 is indeed a 16:10 ratio, so I'd be totally thrilled with that. The vertical (800) is a tad lower res than the current TiBook, BUT the display itself is going to be a tad shorter in height, so it all probably works out just great.
800 sits nicely between 768 (what I'm currently used to) and the TiBook's 854, so I can dig that.
Of course, now I need to re-do my mockup screen to get a feel for what that's like (1280x800).
I would positively kill for a 1920x1200. 1680x1050 would be quite nice too. Of course, Apple will use the 1280x800.
Hurry up with the "being able to scale the entire interface arbitrarily" thing, Apple. Then you can make us both happy, and have some of the sharpest displays in existence.
Why in the world would ANYONE want those two higher resolutions on a 15" screen? Are you nuts?
It would be damn near impossible to see anything! 1280x800 is probably really good at 15.4" @ 16:10. I'll dig it to no end...
Why in the world would ANYONE want those two higher resolutions on a 15" screen? Are you nuts?
It would be damn near impossible to see anything! 1280x800 is probably really good at 15.4" @ 16:10. I'll dig it to no end...
Three words; enlarge your fonts. 1680x1050 sounds great to me. I have a hard time running GoLive on my TiBook (1280x854) with a page window, site window and palettes all open. A few more pixels in each direction would be a big help! (Please don't tell me to buy an external display. I work with the computer on my lap.)
My other point is this: if they aren't putting in a G5 in a powerbook and planning instead to introduce it in January, then how the heck are they going to fit an even hotter G4 in these laptops??? I mean realistically, I think that 1ghz, in my opinion, probably is the hottest they can get these things into a powerbook.
With the die-shrink the 7457 should run cooler than the 7455.
I was going to let this go since this has been debated elsewhere many times. However, I couldn't.
Lots of folks argue that with higher resolution displays they would have trouble seeing stuff. What can't they see? If the type is too small, enlarge it. It's true that some type, such as that in menus and dialog boxes can't be enlarged (yet) but I would argue that OS X system fonts are large enough that they could be easily read even if resolution were to reach, say, 140 pixels per inch. 140 ppi is approximately what the resolution would be if a 15.4 inch display was 1680x1050 pixels.
I've thought about buying a 17" Big Al PowerBook to gain some screen real estate but its screen is only 1440x900, only a slight advantage over the 1280x854 of the 15.2" TiBook I have now.
So as not to get too far off topic, I would really like to see a new 15.4" aluminum PowerBook with a higher resolution than the rumored 1280x800, and at the same time, a 17" model that's higher than the current 1440x900. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I really believe higher resolution displays would be much better than what Apple currently offers.
Lots of folks argue that with higher resolution displays they would have trouble seeing stuff. What can't they see? If the type is too small, enlarge it. It's true that some type, such as that in menus and dialog boxes can't be enlarged (yet) but I would argue that OS X system fonts are large enough that they could be easily read even if resolution were to reach, say, 140 pixels per inch. 140 ppi is approximately what the resolution would be if a 15.4 inch display was 1680x1050 pixels.
Yeah, try any palette on any pro app and see how useful your eye-straining resolutions are.
The 970 wont appear in the Pbook until the wattage comes down (ie, after a die shrink). People are throwing around wattage numbers for both the 7455 and 970 that are not correct.
Apple is once again (and hopefully for the last time) waiting for Moto to get in gear with the 7457. It is late, but if the Register is to be trusted (which, of course, it isn't) Moto have accelerated the schedule by a quarter. The 7457 should be great for the Powerbook, especially at 1.3GHz or so.
Regarding screen resolution, I think that Apple tries to maintain true WYSIWYG, so if you are typing a 10pt font, it really is 10pt on screen. The newer displays don't follow this, though. However, regarding pallet sizes, menu bars, etc, it seems that this is simple enough for Apple to fix via APIs. Rather than the size of such objects be specified in pixels (which change), it should be specified as a true size instead. That way, no matter the resolution, the size of the object remains the same correct size (in Apple's eyes). As resolution goes up, the objects will just look better, as more pixels are used to create them. I am sure some of the knowledgeable staff will correct me on this, but it seems like it should work.
The 970 wont appear in the Pbook until the wattage comes down (ie, after a die shrink). People are throwing around wattage numbers for both the 7455 and 970 that are not correct.
If you are talking about my wattage numbers, they were pulled directly off the spec sheets for the 7455 and 970. Why do you feel they were incorrect? Take a look at the 7455 spec sheet (you can find it at Motorola's website): running in full power mode, the processor uses 15-22 watts at 1GHz.
The 19 watts for the 1.2GHz 970 is shown as estimated typical wattage, as per the 970 documentation available on IBM's website. While higher than the 7455, 4 watts more for typical isn't that much higher.
The 970 documentation, however, didn't talk about any nap/doze/sleep modes, so I don't know if they are not available or merely not mentioned.
And take a look at the wattage of the oh-so-wonderful 7457: at 1.3GHz, it consumes 18.7-26.0 watts. Probably in nearly the same range as the 1.2GHz 970. Again, this is all from the spec sheets publicly available on Motorola's website.
This being the case, heat dissipation by the 970 should be very similar to that of the 7455/7457, as should battery life be (assuming the 970 has lower-power operational modes, as do the G4s).
What do you base you "wattage numbers are not correct" statement on?
While waiting for the 15" AlBook to ship, it's nice to see there'll be some mighty impressive PBs coming down the pike next year. Macbidouille.com has some believable info regarding that today, saying that the heat problem has been mostly solved but the real problem is the controller on the mobo. Things will be easier once it's onboard the CPU.
The way things look, let's say Apple announces a 15.4" AlBook with 1.2 GHz 7457, along with all the other Al goodies. If the pricing is decent, it'll be a fine PB that should see lots of buyers the rest of this year. Even though I know G5 and G6 PBs are coming next year, that wouldn't stop me from getting an Al now.
Let's say MWSF sees the introduction of the PB G5 at up to 1.4 GHz in January. I'll bet it'll be a bit warm and have marginal battery life, say 2 hrs. (4 within the RDF).
Macbidouille's informant went on to say that PB speeds wouldn't improve until the .09µ process is used. She also says that the G6 would debut at the EOL speed of the G5, about 2.5 to 2.8 GHz. Remember at WWDC Steve said they'd be at 3 GHz in a year? AFAIK, that means the G6 (980) will appear a year from now so maybe the G6 PB will be announced in July, 2004, at 2.8 GHz! Imagine! The speed of the PB could DOUBLE in 6 months!
So, I need a new PB now and I really want a 15" AlBook but I wonder how long I can hold out for a G6 PB.
One thing's for sure, Apple will have an excellent 2nd half of 2003 but it's looking like 2004 will be gangbusters!
I wouldn't believe a thing MickeyB says anymore. They were quite wrong on all the G5 they have posted so far, including the completely bogus benchmarks and "May in-production" status. They have proven themselves as rumor fabricators, not purveyors of inside information.
\
Well, it may not be true but it'd sure be nice if it were.
I posted earlier that while I certainly hoped for a G5 PB at WWDC I didn't think it would happen. After brooding over the information that has been out for the last week I am now of the opinion we won't see a G5 PB till spring of 2004 at the earliest.
This is not altogether bad. I feel a sense of peace with this. I can now buy the next 15" PB without a feeling of angst.
I predict that once we see the next 15" PB (hopefully within the next couple of weeks) it will give us a better sense of where Apple is headed and still some of the fevered speculation.
Please happen soon...it bloody great weather outside but I'm stuck on my iMac inside the home!
I need that 15" yesterday, so I can sit outside on my deck and write that blockbuster screenplay (yeah right)!
Amen. When the 15" Al PB comes out we've already decided to get an extreme base station along with it so we can sit outside under the citrus trees and enjoy the weather while we "work". 8)
Comments
Originally posted by pscates
(snip)As I talked about in a thread weeks ago, I'm REALLY hoping this 15.4" represents a new widescreen 16:10 ratio. If so, then the vertical resolution - assuming it stays put from the TiBook - would be 854 and the horizontal is something like 1366, give or take. Nice and wide, with room for much palletes and iChat and collapsed iTunes.
Here is an example of how a 16:10 screen with the vertical resolution of 854 would be.
I could handle that!
Dell's 15.4" UltraSharp displays come in 3 resolutions: 1280 x 800 WXGA, 1680 x 1050 WSXGA+, and 1920 x 1200 WUXGA. The Ti is 1280 x 854. I hope we get get something easy on the eyes. What's up with the weird pixel ratio on the Dell?
Originally posted by Rolo
Dell's 15.4" UltraSharp displays come in 3 resolutions: 1280 x 800 WXGA, 1680 x 1050 WSXGA+, and 1920 x 1200 WUXGA. The Ti is 1280 x 854. I hope we get get something easy on the eyes. What's up with the weird pixel ratio on the Dell?
Weird pixel ratio? They're all exactly 16:10.
I would positively kill for a 1920x1200. 1680x1050 would be quite nice too. Of course, Apple will use the 1280x800.
Hurry up with the "being able to scale the entire interface arbitrarily" thing, Apple. Then you can make us both happy, and have some of the sharpest displays in existence.
800 sits nicely between 768 (what I'm currently used to) and the TiBook's 854, so I can dig that.
Of course, now I need to re-do my mockup screen to get a feel for what that's like (1280x800).
Originally posted by Alexander
Weird pixel ratio? They're all exactly 16:10.
I would positively kill for a 1920x1200. 1680x1050 would be quite nice too. Of course, Apple will use the 1280x800.
Hurry up with the "being able to scale the entire interface arbitrarily" thing, Apple. Then you can make us both happy, and have some of the sharpest displays in existence.
Why in the world would ANYONE want those two higher resolutions on a 15" screen? Are you nuts?
It would be damn near impossible to see anything! 1280x800 is probably really good at 15.4" @ 16:10. I'll dig it to no end...
Originally posted by pscates
Why in the world would ANYONE want those two higher resolutions on a 15" screen? Are you nuts?
It would be damn near impossible to see anything! 1280x800 is probably really good at 15.4" @ 16:10. I'll dig it to no end...
Three words; enlarge your fonts. 1680x1050 sounds great to me. I have a hard time running GoLive on my TiBook (1280x854) with a page window, site window and palettes all open. A few more pixels in each direction would be a big help! (Please don't tell me to buy an external display. I work with the computer on my lap.)
And I wouldn't tell you to do anything...I figure you know your work habits and desires more than I do.
Originally posted by ouroboros
My other point is this: if they aren't putting in a G5 in a powerbook and planning instead to introduce it in January, then how the heck are they going to fit an even hotter G4 in these laptops??? I mean realistically, I think that 1ghz, in my opinion, probably is the hottest they can get these things into a powerbook.
With the die-shrink the 7457 should run cooler than the 7455.
Originally posted by pscates
One word: no. My fonts are fine.
I was going to let this go since this has been debated elsewhere many times. However, I couldn't.
Lots of folks argue that with higher resolution displays they would have trouble seeing stuff. What can't they see? If the type is too small, enlarge it. It's true that some type, such as that in menus and dialog boxes can't be enlarged (yet) but I would argue that OS X system fonts are large enough that they could be easily read even if resolution were to reach, say, 140 pixels per inch. 140 ppi is approximately what the resolution would be if a 15.4 inch display was 1680x1050 pixels.
I've thought about buying a 17" Big Al PowerBook to gain some screen real estate but its screen is only 1440x900, only a slight advantage over the 1280x854 of the 15.2" TiBook I have now.
So as not to get too far off topic, I would really like to see a new 15.4" aluminum PowerBook with a higher resolution than the rumored 1280x800, and at the same time, a 17" model that's higher than the current 1440x900. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I really believe higher resolution displays would be much better than what Apple currently offers.
Lots of folks argue that with higher resolution displays they would have trouble seeing stuff. What can't they see? If the type is too small, enlarge it. It's true that some type, such as that in menus and dialog boxes can't be enlarged (yet) but I would argue that OS X system fonts are large enough that they could be easily read even if resolution were to reach, say, 140 pixels per inch. 140 ppi is approximately what the resolution would be if a 15.4 inch display was 1680x1050 pixels.
Yeah, try any palette on any pro app and see how useful your eye-straining resolutions are.
can i get a DOH.
Originally posted by cowerd
Yeah, try any palette on any pro app and see how useful your eye-straining resolutions are.
can i get a DOH.
Good point. Text in palettes is plenty small and as far as I can tell, not adjustable (at least not in Photoshop and GoLive).
DOH, rethinking my position...
Apple is once again (and hopefully for the last time) waiting for Moto to get in gear with the 7457. It is late, but if the Register is to be trusted (which, of course, it isn't) Moto have accelerated the schedule by a quarter. The 7457 should be great for the Powerbook, especially at 1.3GHz or so.
Regarding screen resolution, I think that Apple tries to maintain true WYSIWYG, so if you are typing a 10pt font, it really is 10pt on screen. The newer displays don't follow this, though. However, regarding pallet sizes, menu bars, etc, it seems that this is simple enough for Apple to fix via APIs. Rather than the size of such objects be specified in pixels (which change), it should be specified as a true size instead. That way, no matter the resolution, the size of the object remains the same correct size (in Apple's eyes). As resolution goes up, the objects will just look better, as more pixels are used to create them. I am sure some of the knowledgeable staff will correct me on this, but it seems like it should work.
Originally posted by iDave
Good point. Text in palettes is plenty small and as far as I can tell, not adjustable (at least not in Photoshop and GoLive).
DOH, rethinking my position...
See?
Originally posted by Thai Moof
The 970 wont appear in the Pbook until the wattage comes down (ie, after a die shrink). People are throwing around wattage numbers for both the 7455 and 970 that are not correct.
If you are talking about my wattage numbers, they were pulled directly off the spec sheets for the 7455 and 970. Why do you feel they were incorrect? Take a look at the 7455 spec sheet (you can find it at Motorola's website): running in full power mode, the processor uses 15-22 watts at 1GHz.
The 19 watts for the 1.2GHz 970 is shown as estimated typical wattage, as per the 970 documentation available on IBM's website. While higher than the 7455, 4 watts more for typical isn't that much higher.
The 970 documentation, however, didn't talk about any nap/doze/sleep modes, so I don't know if they are not available or merely not mentioned.
And take a look at the wattage of the oh-so-wonderful 7457: at 1.3GHz, it consumes 18.7-26.0 watts. Probably in nearly the same range as the 1.2GHz 970. Again, this is all from the spec sheets publicly available on Motorola's website.
This being the case, heat dissipation by the 970 should be very similar to that of the 7455/7457, as should battery life be (assuming the 970 has lower-power operational modes, as do the G4s).
What do you base you "wattage numbers are not correct" statement on?
The way things look, let's say Apple announces a 15.4" AlBook with 1.2 GHz 7457, along with all the other Al goodies. If the pricing is decent, it'll be a fine PB that should see lots of buyers the rest of this year. Even though I know G5 and G6 PBs are coming next year, that wouldn't stop me from getting an Al now.
Let's say MWSF sees the introduction of the PB G5 at up to 1.4 GHz in January. I'll bet it'll be a bit warm and have marginal battery life, say 2 hrs. (4 within the RDF).
Macbidouille's informant went on to say that PB speeds wouldn't improve until the .09µ process is used. She also says that the G6 would debut at the EOL speed of the G5, about 2.5 to 2.8 GHz. Remember at WWDC Steve said they'd be at 3 GHz in a year? AFAIK, that means the G6 (980) will appear a year from now so maybe the G6 PB will be announced in July, 2004, at 2.8 GHz! Imagine! The speed of the PB could DOUBLE in 6 months!
So, I need a new PB now and I really want a 15" AlBook but I wonder how long I can hold out for a G6 PB.
One thing's for sure, Apple will have an excellent 2nd half of 2003 but it's looking like 2004 will be gangbusters!
Sept. - Powermac G5 ships ("But Screed, Steve said August..." "Grow up.")
Dec. - POWER5 ships
*July through Dec. - 970 @ 0.13-micron
-----2004-----
Jan. - MWSF - Powerbook G5!!! (with 0.13-micron 970)
Spring/Summer '04 - 980 starts to roll out & 970 goes 0.09-micron
*Implying Powerbooks revved for the 0.09-micron 970s and the Powermacs with 980s @ a normally scheduled WWDC.
*Would the 980 = G6??
Screed ...well, it was clearer on paper....
Originally posted by AirSluf
I wouldn't believe a thing MickeyB says anymore. They were quite wrong on all the G5 they have posted so far, including the completely bogus benchmarks and "May in-production" status. They have proven themselves as rumor fabricators, not purveyors of inside information.
Well, it may not be true but it'd sure be nice if it were.
This is not altogether bad. I feel a sense of peace with this. I can now buy the next 15" PB without a feeling of angst.
I predict that once we see the next 15" PB (hopefully within the next couple of weeks) it will give us a better sense of where Apple is headed and still some of the fevered speculation.
I need that 15" yesterday, so I can sit outside on my deck and write that blockbuster screenplay (yeah right)!
Originally posted by satchmo
Please happen soon...it bloody great weather outside but I'm stuck on my iMac inside the home!
I need that 15" yesterday, so I can sit outside on my deck and write that blockbuster screenplay (yeah right)!
Amen. When the 15" Al PB comes out we've already decided to get an extreme base station along with it so we can sit outside under the citrus trees and enjoy the weather while we "work". 8)