DigiTimes: Compal to make 15.4" notebook for Apple

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
http://www.digitimes.com/NewsShow/Ar...ages=04&seq=17



Sorry if this has been posted before...



Marcus
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 47
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    I was wondering something about all this, thinking of a new 15" PowerBook. It's going from 15.2" to 15.4", right? I wonder if, like the 17" PowerBook, it'll adopt a 16:10 widescreen? The current PowerBook, at 1280x854 is 16:11.



    The 17" at 1440x900 (just like the 17" iMac) is a cool-ass, stunning display!



    Maybe the two high-end PowerBooks (15" and 17") are going to both be 16:10? THAT would be awesome!



    Do you think the .2 increase is just a straight-up screen size increase?



    I went to Dell and HP's sites to try and get info on the types of resolutions these 15.4 screens are used at, but couldn't find the info there, oddly enough.



    Second thing: the 12" PowerBook, along with the 15", got a nice price decrease last week. We all why the 15" got one. The 12"? Is this temporary, to move stock, OR are these simply new, permanent PowerBook pricepoints?



    And since price-drops like this might indicate a new model coming, what would you imagine for a Rev. B 12" PowerBook? Think it'll be something as pedestrian as a speed bump to 1GHz and nothing else? Or do you think they'll go balls out and make it truly match the 15" and 17" with FireWire 800, DVI, L3 cache and - gasp - a light-up keyboard?







    Just curious. What are your honest thoughts?
  • Reply 2 of 47
    thegeldingthegelding Posts: 3,230member
    and with the 12" powerbook price coming down, do we see a decreased price on the iBook, or will we see the iBook go G4 and keep the same price??



    g
  • Reply 3 of 47
    yevgenyyevgeny Posts: 1,148member
    I'm sorry guys, but as much as I want to believe that Apple could intro a new 15 inch powerbook with a 970, I just can't see it happening in the 15 without it happening in the 17 as well (it would kill slaes of the 17). Either the 17 inch powerbook mobo was a half year flash in the pan before the introduction of a 970 17 inch powerbook, or there isn't going to be a 970 inch powerbook any time soon. Being a pessimist, I vote that the new 15 inch powerbook will have a G4. I hope to be proven wrong.
  • Reply 4 of 47
    rhumgodrhumgod Posts: 1,289member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pscates

    Do you think the .2 increase is just a straight-up screen size increase?



    I went to Dell and HP's sites to try and get info on the types of resolutions these 15.4 screens are used at, but couldn't find the info there, oddly enough.




    Looks like Dell's resolution is 1920x1200 - 16:10 ratio.



    Apple's should be the same, I would think.



    I do think we will see 970 PBs sooner rather than later, and the reason for the price drop on the 12 and 15" models is to accomodate a 970 intro in all models. The 17" still has top-of-the-line newness that they can still get away with selling them at the higher (non-reduced) price.



    Lord only knows what the iBook has in store for it, but it ain't gonna last at G3 if the PBs are at 970. Spend a few hundred bucks more and get a PB then, ya know?



    iBooks must go G4 or Gobi or something around the same time the PB goes 970, which seems like "summer" as the closest radar guess.
  • Reply 5 of 47
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    I just want to say that 16:10 screens are the perfect proportion.
  • Reply 6 of 47
    709709 Posts: 2,016member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Rhumgod

    Looks like Dell's resolution is 1920x1200 - 16:10 ratio.



    Wow. If the 17" PB had that resolution I'd pick one up in a minute. Too small for the 15" though (imo), although having options would be nice. We like options.
  • Reply 7 of 47
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    Well if the new 15? model went to 16:10 (and seeing that Dell spec, I guess it will), how cool would it be to see the 12? model someday to to a 16:10 display as well?







    All three PowerBooks widescreen!



    I did the calcuations, so say 1230x768 (keep the same height).



    THAT would be an awesome little laptop.



    And yes, I agree 100%...16:10 IS a great look for a screen. Laptop or otherwise!
  • Reply 8 of 47
    yevgenyyevgeny Posts: 1,148member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pscates

    And yes, I agree 100%...16:10 IS a great look for a screen. Laptop or otherwise!



    I would never buy a laptop with a 16:10 aspect ratio. Now, I would definitely purchase a laptop with an 8:5 aspect ratio.







    I mean it sounds like the marketing people got ahold of the specs and said "8:5 sounds too small. Let's market it as 16:10!".
  • Reply 9 of 47
    vinney57vinney57 Posts: 1,162member
    The 15inch Powerbook is actually a 3:2 ration screen, the same as a 35mm slide. I hope to God it doesn't go to 1900 pixels wide because those things are just ridiculous. Apple wants your computer to be usable; to Dell its just a numbers game.
  • Reply 10 of 47
    satchmosatchmo Posts: 2,699member
    I understand the lure and sexyness of a widescreen television, but have often wondered how it really translates to productive use on a laptop (or LCD iMac).



    Sure it looks really cool (makes me want to get rid of my lowly 15"LCD iMac), and great for watching movies, but isn't a more vertical orientation more useful than a horizontal one? Just thinking of everyday letter size usage.

  • Reply 11 of 47
    wow, a 1920 resolution? that's sick. i'd go blind looking at something like that on a 15". then again, gotta have the latest.



    can't wait to upgrade my first generation ti-book.
  • Reply 12 of 47
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    I think the reason it's 16:10 instead of 8:5 is because there's also 16:9 (the ratio of many big widescreen TVs) so it's an easier means of comparison.
  • Reply 13 of 47
    Quote:

    Originally posted by satchmo

    I understand the lure and sexyness of a widescreen television, but have often wondered how it really translates to productive use on a laptop (or LCD iMac).



    Sure it looks really cool (makes me want to get rid of my lowly 15"LCD iMac), and great for watching movies, but isn't a more vertical orientation more useful than a horizontal one? Just thinking of everyday letter size usage.





    It's mostly for all of the application pallettes. especially if you work in photoshop all of the time (or any other app that uses lots of pallettes). makes a huge difference. and i'm someone who has a 23" cinema display AND also a 17" flat screen just for all of my pallettes.
  • Reply 14 of 47
    shetlineshetline Posts: 4,695member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pscates

    And since price-drops like this might indicate a new model coming, what would you imagine for a Rev. B 12" PowerBook? Think it'll be something as pedestrian as a speed bump to 1GHz and nothing else? Or do you think they'll go balls out and make it truly match the 15" and 17" with FireWire 800, DVI, L3 cache and - gasp - a light-up keyboard?



    I currently have an 800 MHz TiBook, and while it's good enough for my portable needs, I really do like the 12" for it's better portability and more rugged feel. The current model, however, isn't quite compelling enough to get me to upgrade from my TiBook that's not even a year and a half old.



    Here's what I'd like to see in the next 12":



    (1) The stuff you mentioned that separates the 12" from the rest of the PowerBook line, especially DVI and L3 cache. I'd love to see FireWire 800 and the light-up keyboard too, but those aren't as important to me.



    (2) Cooler running, longer battery life. I'd rather have a lower power G4, like the 7457, than a 970 if the 970 burned more power. Give me a full 6 hours or more at 1 GHz, under real-world usage conditions, and I'll be a happy man.



    (3) Goose the pixel count a bit, because the current display is a little too cramped for me, especially since I like my Dock showing all of the time (as opposed to using auto-hide, which I find very annoying). The current 1024x768 on a 12.1" display makes for a resoluton of 105 dpi. I wouldn't want pixels much smaller than that (like some PC notebooks have), but something like 1080x810, which comes to about 112 dpi, would be really nice.
  • Reply 15 of 47
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Rhumgod

    Looks like Dell's resolution is 1920x1200 - 16:10 ratio.



    Apple's should be the same, I would think.





    Ecch, no. Dell can keep their Squintronic(TM) technology all to themselves. The current pixel density is already pushing it.
  • Reply 16 of 47
    sc_marktsc_markt Posts: 1,393member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorph

    Ecch, no. Dell can keep their Squintronic(TM) technology all to themselves. The current pixel density is already pushing it.



    I may be sounding stupid here but if Apple were to release a new powerbook with Squintronic(TM) technology, couldn't you decrease the resolution if it got to hard to read? And isn't more pixels per inch better?
  • Reply 17 of 47
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sc_markt

    I may be sounding stupid here but if Apple were to release a new powerbook with Squintronic(TM) technology, couldn't you decrease the resolution if it got to hard to read? And isn't more pixels per inch better?



    You can't decrease the resolution on an LCD, at least not the way you can on a CRT. What you end up doing is using anti-aliasing to approximate a lower resolution - but unless the lower resolution is an even multiple of the native resolution (say, 800x600 on a 1600x1200 screen) you're going to get fuzziness because one "pixel" is actually going to be two or more real pixels fuzzed together into an approximate value. Most of the people here run their 1600x1200 Dells at 1024x768, and they're just trading one kind of eyestrain for another. I don't know anyone who's happy with this arrangement.



    If we had resolution independent GUIs, more pixels per inch would be better (this is the case with printers, for example). As it is, it just makes everything smaller, and the smaller everything gets, the smaller the percentage of the population that can read it becomes. Most people have pretty iffy eyesight.
  • Reply 18 of 47
    sc_marktsc_markt Posts: 1,393member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorph

    You can't decrease the resolution on an LCD, at least not the way you can on a CRT. What you end up doing is using anti-aliasing to approximate a lower resolution - but unless the lower resolution is an even multiple of the native resolution (say, 800x600 on a 1600x1200 screen) you're going to get fuzziness because one "pixel" is actually going to be two or more real pixels fuzzed together into an approximate value. Most of the people here run their 1600x1200 Dells at 1024x768, and they're just trading one kind of eyestrain for another. I don't know anyone who's happy with this arrangement.



    If we had resolution independent GUIs, more pixels per inch would be better (this is the case with printers, for example). As it is, it just makes everything smaller, and the smaller everything gets, the smaller the percentage of the population that can read it becomes. Most people have pretty iffy eyesight.




    Amorph,



    I never knew this. I always thought you could simply change the resolution like you do on a CRT.



    Thanks for the LCD pixel education.



    This makes me wonder what happens if your using a powerbook with an external CRT monitor (with the laptop LCD monitor turned off)? Can you change the resolutions as if your were using a desktop computer and CRT monitor or are you forced to use the default LCD resolutions that come with the laptop?
  • Reply 19 of 47
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Squintronic! I love it, keep 'em comming Amorph. The external display can be run at any resolution if it's a CRT, even if it's an LCD, but the LCD will look best at it's native res.



    Pscates, a widescreen 12" might give up just a bit too much real-estate. The minimum height of a display has to be 768, if you make a 12" diagnal wider, then it must get shorter, Either you get something like 1228x768 or 1024x600 -- either a little squinty, or a little short. go from Squintronic, to Scrolltronic ??? For small displays 4:3 makes more sense, unless you're trying to make the smallest subnote possible.
  • Reply 20 of 47
    sc_marktsc_markt Posts: 1,393member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Matsu

    Squintronic! I love it, keep 'em comming Amorph. The external display can be run at any resolution if it's a CRT, even if it's an LCD, but the LCD will look best at it's native res.







    Thanks Matsu. One more question: When you run the external CRT at a different resolution (one where it doesn't look good on the LCD), does it look okay on the CRT?
Sign In or Register to comment.