An Apple director of product development told me some years ago something simple and important in regards to the products Apple releases. I asked why Apple didn't ship a notebook with x specs. The director said to me, "You can't please all of the people all of the time, so we compromise to please most of the people most of the time."
Don't mind TW99 though, he doesn't know any better...
See, this is why I can never leave this place. Where else can you read something so ridiculous, and where the person actually means it?
Tiger, we love you. We don't really like any of your posts, but it's the whole package we love. Don't ever leave, and please come back again real soon.
why is it that mac users seem to be the only people who think that lower res is better? and that less options are better?.
recondite, reconsider this...
what is creativity?
do more with less...
why do you have a windowscomputer?
you want more for less...
Quote:
I am one of the many people who think the powerbooks could use an resolution upgrade. The dell that im using currently has a 1600 by 1200 display, its 15 inch... and its more than 3 years old. If you are the type of person who thinks that too much resolution is not a good thing stop and think what the powerbook is aimed towards. Anything to do with media weather it be photoshop or fcp could definiatly use the extra resolution. Expecialy photoshop.
the powerbook is not aimed for you, my dear.
you don't want quality, you want quantity.
the fact that many people think the same, doesn't automatically mean they are right.
i use photoshop for work. i don't need higher resolution to do my pixels, i maybe need a bigger screen attached to my pb: to see the big picture... euh, well, bigger.
i don't care about ultimate screen resolutions on a small screen.
actually using photoshop on a laptop screen stinks bigtime,
imho
Quote:
The squinting bs is getting kinda old, buy glasses or something.
But regardless of the resolution il still be buying the new 15inch, cause its other features definatly make up for the screen dpi, which in my opinion is one of its only shortcomings
\ Crap, I don't know. I figured with all his 'THE MAN / White people shouldn't go to concerts / Jive Talkin / ISoDownWithIt' craziness he was just some young, rich black kid trying to be 'ghetto' from some Cleveland suburb. Who knows.
Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
Upcoming 17" AlBook 1680x1050 (just like the 20" Cinema Display)
Sounds good to me.
Doubtful. Apple was really happy about the 17" iMac and PowerBook panels coming from the same manufacturer. Meaning they can buy in larger quantities. I don't foresee a resolution change for the 17" PowerBooks. I don't care to speculate on the 15", but I doubt it would gain the 17" iMac's resolution.
There are currently 4 unused SGI 17" displays in the lab because none of the students want them hooked up to their thesis research boxes.
Do you have any extra SGI Multilink adapters? They're a little box that converts the monitor's SGI connector to a normal one. I'd really like to find one...
Anyway, resolution is of course a personal thing. I have to say- I really do love having 1600 x 1024 in a reasonably compact package.
I afraid you are the one who doesn't understand. A fractal based os will not make a bit of difference. The smaller the pixels the smaller the image it is hardware not software . You are thinking about a printed image and dpi that is not the same as screen resolution. People want more real estate to open more windows and pallettes and such. Increased pixel resolution will not yield more detai
A resolution independent Mac OS will allow higher res displays without compromised readability. However, as was explained to me, we need atleast 300 ppi to achieve that. I wrote dpi but meant ppi. I wasn't thinking about printers.
personally, i think the currently screen sizes are pretty good for both the 15 and 17in. They like perfect size. There's not much point in having so much resolution on the road. 1440X900 is enough to do most of the things, if you really need more resolution you should stick to a desk i think.
The perfect setup with be one of the 15in. and a 23" ADC. That would be perfect. At work, I'll have all the resolution i need. and on the road, enough pixels to keep me happy!
PS. I'm not only waiting for the new PBs. I'm not going to get my new PB until Panther is shipped with it...
why is it that mac users seem to be the only people who think that lower res is better?
Uh, we're not, considering that Dell's Latitude laptops have optional screens with lower resolutions. Seems that enough people demand them from PC manufacturers that they're an option on the other side of the fence, too.
That's the way it really should be. Just offer screens at different resolutions, but the same size. Offer the 15" at 1280x864 (or whatever the current res is), and at 1680x1050, as an option. Do something similar for the 12" & 17". Make everybody happy.
personally, i think the currently screen sizes are pretty good for both the 15 and 17in. They like perfect size. There's not much point in having so much resolution on the road. 1440X900 is enough to do most of the things, if you really need more resolution you should stick to a desk i think.
There are roadwarriors like me who work at at least 2 places over the week. Certainly, you do not think that lugging around a 23" Cinema HD is a great idea? Neither is buying one powerbook and two external displays possible (esp. considering the fact that for that price, I could buy myself 3 Dells and 2 external displays).
Why can the Apple-apologists not just concede that different people may have different needs and be done with it? If your eye-sight is impaired and you can only stand the 1280 on a 15", fine. Other people might think different.
Looks like another one of those "something for nothing" posts.
If Apple built a 1680x(unsigned int) display, there would be trade offs.
1) If that is the only option, then either the PowerBook would be several hundred dollars more expensive (at least), or the quality of the display would be less. If the latter case, Apple would alienate their creative pro customer base.
2) If there are several options, welcome back to the bad old days of too many, too expensive models.
3) There are lots of different applications out there. You sound like you don't have the money for a computer for each application. Well guess what, 1680 x whatever display for genomics or script writing would probably be useless for (example) general photoshop work.
As has been explained, it's about trade-offs in search of the best comprimise. Sure, Apple COULD put a Radeon 9800 Pro in an eMac, and they COULD put an XXXGA display on a 15" 'Book. But they won't. Probably.
The only legitemate "Apple REALLY could do this" in this thread is the res-independant GUI concept. Then we can talk about (2^10)*16 x (2^10)*9 Displays.
Comments
Don't mind TW99 though, he doesn't know any better...
Tiger, we love you. We don't really like any of your posts, but it's the whole package we love. Don't ever leave, and please come back again real soon.
WE LOVE YOU!
Originally posted by recondite
why is it that mac users seem to be the only people who think that lower res is better? and that less options are better?.
recondite, reconsider this...
what is creativity?
do more with less...
why do you have a windowscomputer?
you want more for less...
I am one of the many people who think the powerbooks could use an resolution upgrade. The dell that im using currently has a 1600 by 1200 display, its 15 inch... and its more than 3 years old. If you are the type of person who thinks that too much resolution is not a good thing stop and think what the powerbook is aimed towards. Anything to do with media weather it be photoshop or fcp could definiatly use the extra resolution. Expecialy photoshop.
the powerbook is not aimed for you, my dear.
you don't want quality, you want quantity.
the fact that many people think the same, doesn't automatically mean they are right.
i use photoshop for work. i don't need higher resolution to do my pixels, i maybe need a bigger screen attached to my pb: to see the big picture... euh, well, bigger.
i don't care about ultimate screen resolutions on a small screen.
actually using photoshop on a laptop screen stinks bigtime,
imho
The squinting bs is getting kinda old, buy glasses or something.
But regardless of the resolution il still be buying the new 15inch, cause its other features definatly make up for the screen dpi, which in my opinion is one of its only shortcomings
but anyway: good for you.
Originally posted by 709
Heh. Tiger gets his ass kicked in the AO ghetto and can't catch a break on the clean streets of FH. What's an angry young man to do?
It's the kind of anger only 300 years of captivity can summon...
so we're all at a loss as to why TW99 is so pissed off
Originally posted by LoCash
so we're all at a loss as to why TW99 is so pissed off
Maybe he was born white.
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
Upcoming 15" AlBook 1440x900 (just like the iMac)
Upcoming 17" AlBook 1680x1050 (just like the 20" Cinema Display)
Sounds good to me.
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
Back on topic:
Upcoming 15" AlBook 1440x900 (just like the iMac)
Upcoming 17" AlBook 1680x1050 (just like the 20" Cinema Display)
Sounds good to me.
Doubtful. Apple was really happy about the 17" iMac and PowerBook panels coming from the same manufacturer. Meaning they can buy in larger quantities. I don't foresee a resolution change for the 17" PowerBooks. I don't care to speculate on the 15", but I doubt it would gain the 17" iMac's resolution.
Originally posted by AirSluf
There are currently 4 unused SGI 17" displays in the lab because none of the students want them hooked up to their thesis research boxes.
Do you have any extra SGI Multilink adapters? They're a little box that converts the monitor's SGI connector to a normal one. I'd really like to find one...
Anyway, resolution is of course a personal thing. I have to say- I really do love having 1600 x 1024 in a reasonably compact package.
Originally posted by taliesin
I afraid you are the one who doesn't understand. A fractal based os will not make a bit of difference. The smaller the pixels the smaller the image it is hardware not software . You are thinking about a printed image and dpi that is not the same as screen resolution. People want more real estate to open more windows and pallettes and such. Increased pixel resolution will not yield more detai
A resolution independent Mac OS will allow higher res displays without compromised readability. However, as was explained to me, we need atleast 300 ppi to achieve that. I wrote dpi but meant ppi. I wasn't thinking about printers.
The perfect setup with be one of the 15in. and a 23" ADC. That would be perfect. At work, I'll have all the resolution i need. and on the road, enough pixels to keep me happy!
PS. I'm not only waiting for the new PBs. I'm not going to get my new PB until Panther is shipped with it...
why is it that mac users seem to be the only people who think that lower res is better?
Uh, we're not, considering that Dell's Latitude laptops have optional screens with lower resolutions. Seems that enough people demand them from PC manufacturers that they're an option on the other side of the fence, too.
That's the way it really should be. Just offer screens at different resolutions, but the same size. Offer the 15" at 1280x864 (or whatever the current res is), and at 1680x1050, as an option. Do something similar for the 12" & 17". Make everybody happy.
Barto
Originally posted by moliu
personally, i think the currently screen sizes are pretty good for both the 15 and 17in. They like perfect size. There's not much point in having so much resolution on the road. 1440X900 is enough to do most of the things, if you really need more resolution you should stick to a desk i think.
There are roadwarriors like me who work at at least 2 places over the week. Certainly, you do not think that lugging around a 23" Cinema HD is a great idea? Neither is buying one powerbook and two external displays possible (esp. considering the fact that for that price, I could buy myself 3 Dells and 2 external displays).
Why can the Apple-apologists not just concede that different people may have different needs and be done with it? If your eye-sight is impaired and you can only stand the 1280 on a 15", fine. Other people might think different.
Looks like another one of those "something for nothing" posts.
If Apple built a 1680x(unsigned int) display, there would be trade offs.
1) If that is the only option, then either the PowerBook would be several hundred dollars more expensive (at least), or the quality of the display would be less. If the latter case, Apple would alienate their creative pro customer base.
2) If there are several options, welcome back to the bad old days of too many, too expensive models.
3) There are lots of different applications out there. You sound like you don't have the money for a computer for each application. Well guess what, 1680 x whatever display for genomics or script writing would probably be useless for (example) general photoshop work.
As has been explained, it's about trade-offs in search of the best comprimise. Sure, Apple COULD put a Radeon 9800 Pro in an eMac, and they COULD put an XXXGA display on a 15" 'Book. But they won't. Probably.
The only legitemate "Apple REALLY could do this" in this thread is the res-independant GUI concept. Then we can talk about (2^10)*16 x (2^10)*9 Displays.
Barto