There isn't much to do to option out any PB. The I/O comes complete and standard, and the range of CPU speeds is limited by current supply. That leaves RAM and drives, and perhaps video options.
But how meaningful are those video options?
Some will say that the DVI port does them no good because they need that resolution on the road. Apple says, buy the 17", and I agree with them. What good are 1600+ resolutions when you end up squinting. Working on the road is already comprimised, you hardly sit in the best position, you take the work surfaces you can get, a coffee table, an airplane seat tray, etc etc. Those resolutions will have you hunched over like gollum in a fish pond. But the 15 and 17" PB's at the current res are both spacious and comfortable, few laptops ca really say that. My twelve is just at the border of comfortable, and it certainly isn't spacious, but adding any more pixels would make it very uncomfortable very quickly. So when I type on the go, at the local starbucks, etc etc, or surf the web from my bed in the morning, it's fine, I'm single tasking, and if I want a few things going at the same time I either plug into my trusty 17" CRT or when I'm at work I unplug the 19" LCD and use it for my PB, wonderful. Some of these eagle eyes might laugh at *ONLY* 1280x1024 on a 19" screen, but you shouldn't untill you try it. I can sit way back, way way back, and everything still looks good. Great posture, very comfortable, plenty of space, lovely.
The books could tolerate a ***slight*** resolution bump, but panels with those slight bumps aren't available as far as I've seen.
When I think about it, given that Apple is unlikely to get a 1366x854 15.4" panel, I'd rather see them stick with the 3:2 panel and just keep those extra 54 pixels which are very useful for menu bars, and the vertical scrolling paradigm that rules 99.999% of all document formats, including web pages. It's a laptop screen anyway, neither the video card nor the display will ever have to contend with a standardized res that other devices need to plug into. Just hinge it like the 12 and 17" models in a nice Al case with the same keyboard and I/O as the 17 and lets have it.
Now back to the discord between comfortable viewing resolutions and screen real-estate. Firstly, Apple says, buy bigger. I agree -- as I've said already, I mean shit, the thing weighs in at 6.8 lbs! UNDER 7 lbs -- plenty of 15" wintel notebooks still weight more, nearly all of them aren't as thin. Man, three years ago, Apple's own 14" Powerbooks weighed as much, think of it as a resolution and screen increase. There are some 17" wintel models now -- they weigh 10.5-12 lbs!!! Hello Jenny Craig?
Then they give you a great spanning option via DVI-out so that you can have lots of extra real-estate when you get to a desk where you can actually make use of it.
And, finally, soon they're going to make those nice rational pixels more efficient than they've ever been via "EXPOSE"! So rather than solve your screen realestate problem with a comprimised solution that lets you look at more but makes it harder to see, they're thinking outside the box for a way to let you see what you need to see on the screen you have. Expose really is brilliant. Suddenly those pesky menus and platelettes are both out of the way and yet immediately available at the touch of a button. A few tweaks to take better advantage of dual screens and to supply a "full screen" mode (that would expand a window to full screen and remove all UI elements ata touch) and Expose is the perfect mobile screen management utility. I can't wait to try it.
TSome will say that the DVI port does them no good because they need that resolution on the road. Apple says, buy the 17", and I agree with them.
It may be just me - but have you seen the 17" on reality? This is no longer a laptop, this is one huge piece of Al, does not fit into any laptop bag or on my knees in a train.
I even find the 15" of my Ti a bit on the large side, a 14" widescreen would be perfect (with 1440 res of course).
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?.
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 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
Because it is (except, sometimes, for the less options part). Lots of PC users (not necessarily you) made the wrong choice and don't know it. They also have the wrong (IMH own O) opinions about stuff. And as for buying glasses, you're desperate! I'd much rather use 1280x854 on 15" then 1500*1150 and buy glasses!
As has been pointed out in this thread and elsewhere, that resolution isn't high enough for resolution independence. You want more than 200ppi, preferably 300, before that becomes worthwhile. That demands another generation or two in graphics acceleration technology, because a screen that huge (in pixels) will crush any current notebook GPU.
Oh, and Apple couldn't just flip a switch and make OS X resolution independent, either. That's going to take some doing.
Basically, the resolutions between 100ppi and 200ppi are a no-man's land. Too fine for the current scheme, and too coarse for resolution independence. Apple currently has their notebook display resolutions straddling the compromise between desktop size and legibility.
Except for the 14" iBook. I've got one, and will I like it, it would be nice if the screen were 1152x864
These Apple apologists on here never cease to amaze me. Heck, why dont we make them 800x600 instead? Thats good enough isnt it? Dont need more than 64 MB of RAM now do we? Heck, why dont we just put a G3 in them, I mean you dont really need to power of a G4 do you? Nor does anyone need the grotesque power of the G5! 15.4" screen on a laptop? You only need 12.1". Lets all call up the guys at IBM and tell them to have the day off! I mean, we dont really need any advances in technology do we? We've got the light bulb! Lets not advance any further!
Why should you folks be the end all of Apple's decisions? Its no wonder Apple is such a backward-thinking company when all of its fanatics stem from the same notion that whatever it offers should be taken as a God-send. The technology exists, and the point of a company is to market favorable options to the consumer. For one thing, I will take all the desktop I need. You can continue to have a browser window fill your whole screen if you want, that just isnt me. Heck, if my monitor had 85 Hz refresh rate at something higher than 1600x1200 I would be using that. If you really think that you need a magnifying glass to use those resolutions on that display, JUST RESET THE THING TO WHATEVER YOU WANT IT TO BE AT. Is that so hard? You can have your choice, and I will take mine. Options my friends, we all love to have them dont we? I guess Dell is just so cheap they are using much more advanced tech in their displays than Apple are.
You can't do that well. LCD's at lower res than native look stinky. And don't say Apple didn't advance:
LCD's adopted early, and 22" and 23" ones adopted early.
It may be just me - but have you seen the 17" on reality? This is no longer a laptop, this is one huge piece of Al, does not fit into any laptop bag or on my knees in a train.
I even find the 15" of my Ti a bit on the large side, a 14" widescreen would be perfect (with 1440 res of course).
What the hey? I probably wouldn't tolerate a 14" much higher than 1152x864!
It may be just me - but have you seen the 17" on reality? This is no longer a laptop, this is one huge piece of Al, does not fit into any laptop bag or on my knees in a train.
I even find the 15" of my Ti a bit on the large side, a 14" widescreen would be perfect (with 1440 res of course).
Physics is a little more accurate than your knees. The 17" Al is lighter and thinner than most 15" laptops. The footprint is bigger, yes, but there are laptop bags that will take it. However, that's all besides the point. Apple argues that for more pixels to actually be useable, they need to be on a bigger screen. I agree. And that if that screen size/pixel count is the top priority, then portability will of neccessity be comprimised to a degree. I also agree. If you want really high resolutions on a smaller screen, you will have to give up good comfortable ergos.
Apple has made the best choices here, live with it. Now if you want to argue prices...
One thing I do not get in this discussion, there seem to be two almost distinct parties fighting each other:
a) the "Apple does it right and highres screens are a sin" party
b) the "Apple should offer choice, and have higher res for those that want it"
As the oiginal starter of the thread I may have to be precise:
What do you think about having the choice to go up to 1680x1050 pixels on the 15.4" PowerBook?
I do not think it would be a wise decision to up he resolution without choice (BTO or 2 models). It would make to POWAHBOOKS unusable for some people. But I will definitively not buy a new PowerBook if it does not have higher resolution as an option, because I just need the resolution (even with expose [works really cool in 7B49 even on my humble iBook]). BTW the iBook exists 12" and 14" with the same res ... for those that want choice!
But one thing I really hate, is those orthodox Apple fanatics that think their "choice" is just right for everyone and Apple should prevent us idiots from buying stuff that's "not right".
Those kinds of shortsighted brainless creatures are those that - when given something else than a Mac - start such a mess as just now in Bagdad.
And just look at where that choice lies and how it's priced. A higher resolution is not a choice. In fact, the option for which you pay MORE is the lower ppi, but larger screen, choice. It's there to extort money from people who find the 12" too squinty already!
Will Apple charge more for the lower ppi versions of the PB? HA!
You're using an iBook!!! You somehow NEED 1680x1050 or you can't use the PB. Please, give it a rest, if you actually tried it, or trid to use it for an extended perior of time, you'd end up first lowering the resolution, then noticing that an LCD doesn't scale well at all out of its native res, and finally, in a month or two, you'd be crying for a lower (more comfortable) resolution. You wouldn't admit it here, because wee all know MORE is ALWAYS better, but you'd want the lower resolution.
I've seen plenty of machines with the higher res ordered up 1600x1200 15.1" and nearly all of them get scaled down to 1024x768. Yes the screen could go higher than XGA, but because they're scaling 1600x1200, the 1440x1050, 1280x1024 or 1280x960 options look like crap. Regular XGA scales a bit better becasue it gets closer to 2:1 (linearly). Now if panel makers had just provided rational 1280x960 screens from the get go, then users wouold really have more resolution to work with because they'd have a reasonable high ppi that's still comfortable and doesn't have any of the horrible scaling artifacts of dropping the res on one of the insano spec whore screens.
Yes, 1024 is a little weak on a 15" portable screen, but 1280-1400 is right in the sweet spot for a 15-15.5" screen, and guess where Apple is right now?
IF they go to 16:10, they could punch up the res a touch. 1366x854, just to keep the same vertical height. Perhaps even 1400x875, but that really is the useable limit for a 15.4" screen. Otherwise they should just stick with the 3:2 ratio 15.2.
That's right, 1280 wide, no reason for complaint whatsoever. If you really say you need 1680 on a 15" screen, then you either haven't thought about what you're asking for, or you're lying (to yourself and us for the sake of argument) Period, all other rationalizations are wrong.
Cool, getting lessons from "THE Apple Macintosh Auhtority besides Steve". I'm working day-in and day-out on a Dell Latitude C640 laptop with a 1440x1050 on a 14-inch-something screen. And this is quite comfy ... no resolution scaled ... no big fonts nothing. When I'm on the road I'm using a 12" iBook ... and that comfortable too.
Given the fact that Mac OS X is "rather large" compared to default installs for RH9 or W2K there's nothing I can complain about.
As soon as there is a 15.x" Powerbook the Dell goes into the trash and I'll be Mac only ... which I would be for a long time if not at the time the Ti was at measly 1152 pixels and I hav to get a Dell ... (ok Mac OS X was 10.0.4 and not really useful).
Your mileage may vary and I do not want to "steal your Powerbook" but I need a differnt one (and not a 17" aircraft carrier ...)
But I guess, you just envy other people high res displays because you have a measly old Powerbook :rofl:
I'll laugh my a** off if Apple boosts the res with the new model ...
BTW you should run for US president ... your would be "hardcore" enough to follow the footsteps of GWB
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.
Just my opinion...I like pixels. So I like my screens to have the pixels visible and distinct, for work. I like the grid, the slight seperation of pixels. I use photoshop extensively professionally. To me, it's not about maximizing the virtual desktop's usable workspace. I do see the value in cramming more palettes on screen, and having larger windows to minimize scrolling. But I prefer to sacrifice that for a physically larger representation of the image at 1:1. This is why I do all of my work on a 14 inch iBook. You laugh perhaps, but I've done almost 200k for my company in work in under a year through that Mac. Yes, I go insane in Flash (the worst offender for illogical palettes) but it's worth it seeing things a bit bigger.
I know, I know..get a small monitor for previewing on small screens and work on a huge screen. I will, but not until next year.
Anyway, I like the range of sizes, although the powerbooks have nothing that I prefer (that's not to say I wouldn't love them anyway). Just stay away from non native resolutions, please. Interpolating is such an unfortunate thing.
Cool, getting lessons from "THE Apple Macintosh Auhtority besides Steve". I'm working day-in and day-out on a Dell Latitude C640 laptop with a 1440x1050 on a 14-inch-something screen. And this is quite comfy ... no resolution scaled ... no big fonts nothing. When I'm on the road I'm using a 12" iBook ... and that comfortable too.
Given the fact that Mac OS X is "rather large" compared to default installs for RH9 or W2K there's nothing I can complain about.
As soon as there is a 15.x" Powerbook the Dell goes into the trash and I'll be Mac only ... which I would be for a long time if not at the time the Ti was at measly 1152 pixels and I hav to get a Dell ... (ok Mac OS X was 10.0.4 and not really useful).
Your mileage may vary and I do not want to "steal your Powerbook" but I need a differnt one (and not a 17" aircraft carrier ...)
But I guess, you just envy other people high res displays because you have a measly old Powerbook :rofl:
I'll laugh my a** off if Apple boosts the res with the new model ...
BTW you should run for US president ... your would be "hardcore" enough to follow the footsteps of GWB
oomph... a pissing contest.
i really hated matsu about the fact he was always whining about what wasn't good about apple,(price... price... price...) but his arguments where well formulated and apple eventually listened to him and lowered their prices.
well something like that.
using a mac is not about screen resolutions. it's the way it runs its apps, its gui, the feel, the look etc. etc.
but probally you don't understand that, because you bought your self a dell when you could have had a 15"pb and you're jealous about matsu because you hate yourself for the stuppidest choice you made after your 33rd birthday and he is still so happy with his precious 12"pb.
why are you actually whinning about politics in this thread? it's a faint way to argue. go to AO.
is it necessary to have larger screen resolution on the 15" pb than what apple offered us up till now? it's not necessary. it would be nice though. but not like the thread title suggests, that's plain stupid.
but probally you don't understand that, because you bought your self a dell when you could have had a 15"pb and you're jealous about matsu because you hate yourself for the stuppidest choice you made after your 33rd birthday and he is still so happy with his precious 12"pb.
'course I'm stupid ... for not paying (at the time) double the price for a notebook that would run an UNIX OS at half the speed I need. Why do you think I'm ready to trash the Dell for a Powerbook, because Jaguar (after some problems at the beginning) runs just fine now and Penther is tremendously speedy ... and now I can achieve my work on a Mac. It just took Apple a while to get things right. Been working on Unix for over 15 year ... still remember the crappy OS9 (a reboot a day keeps the doctor away)? It was no option ... 10.0.4 was an early beta compared to the stability Linux had at the time.
BTW all the documentation I always wrote on a Mac, because I "do not understand that it's about the way the apps work"
You guys are just funny ... it's not about the way applications work or the way the stuff looks like: it's about what you get done in what time and what you get paid for it ... ;-)
It's just cool that Mac OS X is and the whole stuff is basically NeXTStep/FreeBSD ... who needs OS9 ...
using a mac is not about screen resolutions. it's the way it runs its apps, its gui, the feel, the look etc. etc.
This has to be the single most asinine comment I have read in quite a while. Similar to "using a mac is not about processor speed, I am totally content with my 400Mhz even if the rest of the industry is at 2Ghz already".
MacOS X is eating screen real estate as if it was growing on trees, the 12px default font, the jelly-bean UI, the 18px menu bar, the huge icons... At least *I* need to compensate for this somehow.
Oh, and by the way: why does Apple offer different screen resolutions for the buyers of the cheap iBooks, but not for the buyers of the Powerbooks?
This has to be the single most asinine comment I have read in quite a while. Similar to "using a mac is not about processor speed, I am totally content with my 400Mhz even if the rest of the industry is at 2Ghz already".
MacOS X is eating screen real estate as if it was growing on trees, the 12px default font, the jelly-bean UI, the 18px menu bar, the huge icons... At least *I* need to compensate for this somehow.
Oh, and by the way: why does Apple offer different screen resolutions for the buyers of the cheap iBooks, but not for the buyers of the Powerbooks?
Hey thanks for the help 8)
Mac is not about crashing waiting and spinning beach balls ... it's all about "think different" ...
Keep your personal balance, wait in front of a Mac and ever since they announced the G5 this means:
Keep your financial balance, wait for a dual G5 Mac
Mac OS X rules! But largely because they've throuwn out the old shite ... and it's because now you can get things done. And if you do not just surd porn sites that say "optimized for 1024x768" you need a large screen ...
I can't believe it, people are complaining about the one thing Apple gets right consistently -- screen res.
Damn.
I wonder about the following.
1280x800
1680x1050
1920x1200
ALL at 15.4"
Doesn't it seem a little odd that in the terms of ppi, the displays make such a radical jump from 1280 to the higher resolutions, especially when there's a whole range of resolutions between 1280 and 1440 wide that make a heck of a lot more sense for displays in the 15-17" range?
I'm not opposed to higher resolutions, but they need to make sense people 1680+ on a 15" screen doesn't. 1440, wellll, some web pages will still suck ass on it, not pr0n, but lots of annoying flash pages, like Jaguar.co.uk for instance, but on the whole something up to 1400 could be alright with a strong video card behind it. I for one, wouldn't cry at a 1280 limit, though.
I'd rather see more effort put into longer battery life (and driving all those extra pixels wille at into battery life when the GPU gets moving) and faster-cooler CPU's, better shock protection and enviromental sealing, AND working prices down or bringing in a G4 based iBook!
If Apple kept the same aspect ratio to the 15" PB they could bump the screen resolution a little without much changing the pixel pitch.
The current 15" PB resolution is 1280 x 854. I estimate this has a pixel density of 98 dpi. They could raise this to 1350 x 900 and only raise the pixel density to about 103 dpi. It would be nice to have a little more vertical space.
Because we only can get Macs from Apple we have this situation. If there were five or ten licensed companies producing Macs someone would provide high rez screens as a way to get an edge in the market. Because Apple is sole supplier it is in their interest to minimize the number of models produced.
Oh, and by the way: why does Apple offer different screen resolutions for the buyers of the cheap iBooks, but not for the buyers of the Powerbooks?
Smircle. As much as I agree with the sum of your comments I have to inform you that this last thing you state is wrong. Both the 12-inch and 14-inch iBooks run at 1024x768.
Comments
But how meaningful are those video options?
Some will say that the DVI port does them no good because they need that resolution on the road. Apple says, buy the 17", and I agree with them. What good are 1600+ resolutions when you end up squinting. Working on the road is already comprimised, you hardly sit in the best position, you take the work surfaces you can get, a coffee table, an airplane seat tray, etc etc. Those resolutions will have you hunched over like gollum in a fish pond. But the 15 and 17" PB's at the current res are both spacious and comfortable, few laptops ca really say that. My twelve is just at the border of comfortable, and it certainly isn't spacious, but adding any more pixels would make it very uncomfortable very quickly. So when I type on the go, at the local starbucks, etc etc, or surf the web from my bed in the morning, it's fine, I'm single tasking, and if I want a few things going at the same time I either plug into my trusty 17" CRT or when I'm at work I unplug the 19" LCD and use it for my PB, wonderful. Some of these eagle eyes might laugh at *ONLY* 1280x1024 on a 19" screen, but you shouldn't untill you try it. I can sit way back, way way back, and everything still looks good. Great posture, very comfortable, plenty of space, lovely.
The books could tolerate a ***slight*** resolution bump, but panels with those slight bumps aren't available as far as I've seen.
When I think about it, given that Apple is unlikely to get a 1366x854 15.4" panel, I'd rather see them stick with the 3:2 panel and just keep those extra 54 pixels which are very useful for menu bars, and the vertical scrolling paradigm that rules 99.999% of all document formats, including web pages. It's a laptop screen anyway, neither the video card nor the display will ever have to contend with a standardized res that other devices need to plug into. Just hinge it like the 12 and 17" models in a nice Al case with the same keyboard and I/O as the 17 and lets have it.
Now back to the discord between comfortable viewing resolutions and screen real-estate. Firstly, Apple says, buy bigger. I agree -- as I've said already, I mean shit, the thing weighs in at 6.8 lbs! UNDER 7 lbs -- plenty of 15" wintel notebooks still weight more, nearly all of them aren't as thin. Man, three years ago, Apple's own 14" Powerbooks weighed as much, think of it as a resolution and screen increase. There are some 17" wintel models now -- they weigh 10.5-12 lbs!!! Hello Jenny Craig?
Then they give you a great spanning option via DVI-out so that you can have lots of extra real-estate when you get to a desk where you can actually make use of it.
And, finally, soon they're going to make those nice rational pixels more efficient than they've ever been via "EXPOSE"! So rather than solve your screen realestate problem with a comprimised solution that lets you look at more but makes it harder to see, they're thinking outside the box for a way to let you see what you need to see on the screen you have. Expose really is brilliant. Suddenly those pesky menus and platelettes are both out of the way and yet immediately available at the touch of a button. A few tweaks to take better advantage of dual screens and to supply a "full screen" mode (that would expand a window to full screen and remove all UI elements ata touch) and Expose is the perfect mobile screen management utility. I can't wait to try it.
Originally posted by Matsu
TSome will say that the DVI port does them no good because they need that resolution on the road. Apple says, buy the 17", and I agree with them.
It may be just me - but have you seen the 17" on reality? This is no longer a laptop, this is one huge piece of Al, does not fit into any laptop bag or on my knees in a train.
I even find the 15" of my Ti a bit on the large side, a 14" widescreen would be perfect (with 1440 res of course).
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?.
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 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
Because it is (except, sometimes, for the less options part). Lots of PC users (not necessarily you) made the wrong choice and don't know it. They also have the wrong (IMH own O) opinions about stuff. And as for buying glasses, you're desperate! I'd much rather use 1280x854 on 15" then 1500*1150 and buy glasses!
Originally posted by Amorph
As has been pointed out in this thread and elsewhere, that resolution isn't high enough for resolution independence. You want more than 200ppi, preferably 300, before that becomes worthwhile. That demands another generation or two in graphics acceleration technology, because a screen that huge (in pixels) will crush any current notebook GPU.
Oh, and Apple couldn't just flip a switch and make OS X resolution independent, either. That's going to take some doing.
Basically, the resolutions between 100ppi and 200ppi are a no-man's land. Too fine for the current scheme, and too coarse for resolution independence. Apple currently has their notebook display resolutions straddling the compromise between desktop size and legibility.
Except for the 14" iBook. I've got one, and will I like it, it would be nice if the screen were 1152x864
Originally posted by TigerWoods99
These Apple apologists on here never cease to amaze me. Heck, why dont we make them 800x600 instead? Thats good enough isnt it? Dont need more than 64 MB of RAM now do we? Heck, why dont we just put a G3 in them, I mean you dont really need to power of a G4 do you? Nor does anyone need the grotesque power of the G5! 15.4" screen on a laptop? You only need 12.1". Lets all call up the guys at IBM and tell them to have the day off! I mean, we dont really need any advances in technology do we? We've got the light bulb! Lets not advance any further!
Why should you folks be the end all of Apple's decisions? Its no wonder Apple is such a backward-thinking company when all of its fanatics stem from the same notion that whatever it offers should be taken as a God-send. The technology exists, and the point of a company is to market favorable options to the consumer. For one thing, I will take all the desktop I need. You can continue to have a browser window fill your whole screen if you want, that just isnt me. Heck, if my monitor had 85 Hz refresh rate at something higher than 1600x1200 I would be using that. If you really think that you need a magnifying glass to use those resolutions on that display, JUST RESET THE THING TO WHATEVER YOU WANT IT TO BE AT. Is that so hard? You can have your choice, and I will take mine. Options my friends, we all love to have them dont we? I guess Dell is just so cheap they are using much more advanced tech in their displays than Apple are.
You can't do that well. LCD's at lower res than native look stinky. And don't say Apple didn't advance:
LCD's adopted early, and 22" and 23" ones adopted early.
Originally posted by Smircle
It may be just me - but have you seen the 17" on reality? This is no longer a laptop, this is one huge piece of Al, does not fit into any laptop bag or on my knees in a train.
I even find the 15" of my Ti a bit on the large side, a 14" widescreen would be perfect (with 1440 res of course).
What the hey? I probably wouldn't tolerate a 14" much higher than 1152x864!
how about wide aspect 15"screen
how about 13inch pb wide screen
will both be wide screen?
Originally posted by Smircle
It may be just me - but have you seen the 17" on reality? This is no longer a laptop, this is one huge piece of Al, does not fit into any laptop bag or on my knees in a train.
I even find the 15" of my Ti a bit on the large side, a 14" widescreen would be perfect (with 1440 res of course).
Physics is a little more accurate than your knees. The 17" Al is lighter and thinner than most 15" laptops. The footprint is bigger, yes, but there are laptop bags that will take it. However, that's all besides the point. Apple argues that for more pixels to actually be useable, they need to be on a bigger screen. I agree. And that if that screen size/pixel count is the top priority, then portability will of neccessity be comprimised to a degree. I also agree. If you want really high resolutions on a smaller screen, you will have to give up good comfortable ergos.
Apple has made the best choices here, live with it. Now if you want to argue prices...
a) the "Apple does it right and highres screens are a sin" party
b) the "Apple should offer choice, and have higher res for those that want it"
As the oiginal starter of the thread I may have to be precise:
What do you think about having the choice to go up to 1680x1050 pixels on the 15.4" PowerBook?
I do not think it would be a wise decision to up he resolution without choice (BTO or 2 models). It would make to POWAHBOOKS unusable for some people. But I will definitively not buy a new PowerBook if it does not have higher resolution as an option, because I just need the resolution (even with expose [works really cool in 7B49 even on my humble iBook]). BTW the iBook exists 12" and 14" with the same res ... for those that want choice!
But one thing I really hate, is those orthodox Apple fanatics that think their "choice" is just right for everyone and Apple should prevent us idiots from buying stuff that's "not right".
Those kinds of shortsighted brainless creatures are those that - when given something else than a Mac - start such a mess as just now in Bagdad.
--- nuff said, at least for me!
Will Apple charge more for the lower ppi versions of the PB? HA!
You're using an iBook!!! You somehow NEED 1680x1050 or you can't use the PB. Please, give it a rest, if you actually tried it, or trid to use it for an extended perior of time, you'd end up first lowering the resolution, then noticing that an LCD doesn't scale well at all out of its native res, and finally, in a month or two, you'd be crying for a lower (more comfortable) resolution. You wouldn't admit it here, because wee all know MORE is ALWAYS better, but you'd want the lower resolution.
I've seen plenty of machines with the higher res ordered up 1600x1200 15.1" and nearly all of them get scaled down to 1024x768. Yes the screen could go higher than XGA, but because they're scaling 1600x1200, the 1440x1050, 1280x1024 or 1280x960 options look like crap. Regular XGA scales a bit better becasue it gets closer to 2:1 (linearly). Now if panel makers had just provided rational 1280x960 screens from the get go, then users wouold really have more resolution to work with because they'd have a reasonable high ppi that's still comfortable and doesn't have any of the horrible scaling artifacts of dropping the res on one of the insano spec whore screens.
Yes, 1024 is a little weak on a 15" portable screen, but 1280-1400 is right in the sweet spot for a 15-15.5" screen, and guess where Apple is right now?
IF they go to 16:10, they could punch up the res a touch. 1366x854, just to keep the same vertical height. Perhaps even 1400x875, but that really is the useable limit for a 15.4" screen. Otherwise they should just stick with the 3:2 ratio 15.2.
That's right, 1280 wide, no reason for complaint whatsoever. If you really say you need 1680 on a 15" screen, then you either haven't thought about what you're asking for, or you're lying (to yourself and us for the sake of argument) Period, all other rationalizations are wrong.
Originally posted by Matsu
Period, all other rationalizations are wrong.
Cool, getting lessons from "THE Apple Macintosh Auhtority besides Steve". I'm working day-in and day-out on a Dell Latitude C640 laptop with a 1440x1050 on a 14-inch-something screen. And this is quite comfy ... no resolution scaled ... no big fonts nothing. When I'm on the road I'm using a 12" iBook ... and that comfortable too.
Given the fact that Mac OS X is "rather large" compared to default installs for RH9 or W2K there's nothing I can complain about.
As soon as there is a 15.x" Powerbook the Dell goes into the trash and I'll be Mac only ... which I would be for a long time if not at the time the Ti was at measly 1152 pixels and I hav to get a Dell ... (ok Mac OS X was 10.0.4 and not really useful).
Your mileage may vary and I do not want to "steal your Powerbook" but I need a differnt one (and not a 17" aircraft carrier ...)
But I guess, you just envy other people high res displays because you have a measly old Powerbook :rofl:
I'll laugh my a** off if Apple boosts the res with the new model ...
BTW you should run for US president ... your would be "hardcore" enough to follow the footsteps of GWB
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.
I know, I know..get a small monitor for previewing on small screens and work on a huge screen. I will, but not until next year.
Anyway, I like the range of sizes, although the powerbooks have nothing that I prefer (that's not to say I wouldn't love them anyway). Just stay away from non native resolutions, please. Interpolating is such an unfortunate thing.
Originally posted by BNOYHTUAWB
Cool, getting lessons from "THE Apple Macintosh Auhtority besides Steve". I'm working day-in and day-out on a Dell Latitude C640 laptop with a 1440x1050 on a 14-inch-something screen. And this is quite comfy ... no resolution scaled ... no big fonts nothing. When I'm on the road I'm using a 12" iBook ... and that comfortable too.
Given the fact that Mac OS X is "rather large" compared to default installs for RH9 or W2K there's nothing I can complain about.
As soon as there is a 15.x" Powerbook the Dell goes into the trash and I'll be Mac only ... which I would be for a long time if not at the time the Ti was at measly 1152 pixels and I hav to get a Dell ... (ok Mac OS X was 10.0.4 and not really useful).
Your mileage may vary and I do not want to "steal your Powerbook" but I need a differnt one (and not a 17" aircraft carrier ...)
But I guess, you just envy other people high res displays because you have a measly old Powerbook :rofl:
I'll laugh my a** off if Apple boosts the res with the new model ...
BTW you should run for US president ... your would be "hardcore" enough to follow the footsteps of GWB
oomph... a pissing contest.
i really hated matsu about the fact he was always whining about what wasn't good about apple,(price... price... price...) but his arguments where well formulated and apple eventually listened to him and lowered their prices.
well something like that.
using a mac is not about screen resolutions. it's the way it runs its apps, its gui, the feel, the look etc. etc.
but probally you don't understand that, because you bought your self a dell when you could have had a 15"pb and you're jealous about matsu because you hate yourself for the stuppidest choice you made after your 33rd birthday and he is still so happy with his precious 12"pb.
why are you actually whinning about politics in this thread? it's a faint way to argue. go to AO.
is it necessary to have larger screen resolution on the 15" pb than what apple offered us up till now? it's not necessary. it would be nice though. but not like the thread title suggests, that's plain stupid.
Originally posted by gar
but probally you don't understand that, because you bought your self a dell when you could have had a 15"pb and you're jealous about matsu because you hate yourself for the stuppidest choice you made after your 33rd birthday and he is still so happy with his precious 12"pb.
'course I'm stupid ... for not paying (at the time) double the price for a notebook that would run an UNIX OS at half the speed I need. Why do you think I'm ready to trash the Dell for a Powerbook, because Jaguar (after some problems at the beginning) runs just fine now and Penther is tremendously speedy ... and now I can achieve my work on a Mac. It just took Apple a while to get things right. Been working on Unix for over 15 year ... still remember the crappy OS9 (a reboot a day keeps the doctor away)? It was no option ... 10.0.4 was an early beta compared to the stability Linux had at the time.
BTW all the documentation I always wrote on a Mac, because I "do not understand that it's about the way the apps work"
You guys are just funny ... it's not about the way applications work or the way the stuff looks like: it's about what you get done in what time and what you get paid for it ... ;-)
It's just cool that Mac OS X is
Originally posted by gar
using a mac is not about screen resolutions. it's the way it runs its apps, its gui, the feel, the look etc. etc.
This has to be the single most asinine comment I have read in quite a while. Similar to "using a mac is not about processor speed, I am totally content with my 400Mhz even if the rest of the industry is at 2Ghz already".
MacOS X is eating screen real estate as if it was growing on trees, the 12px default font, the jelly-bean UI, the 18px menu bar, the huge icons... At least *I* need to compensate for this somehow.
Oh, and by the way: why does Apple offer different screen resolutions for the buyers of the cheap iBooks, but not for the buyers of the Powerbooks?
Originally posted by Smircle
This has to be the single most asinine comment I have read in quite a while. Similar to "using a mac is not about processor speed, I am totally content with my 400Mhz even if the rest of the industry is at 2Ghz already".
MacOS X is eating screen real estate as if it was growing on trees, the 12px default font, the jelly-bean UI, the 18px menu bar, the huge icons... At least *I* need to compensate for this somehow.
Oh, and by the way: why does Apple offer different screen resolutions for the buyers of the cheap iBooks, but not for the buyers of the Powerbooks?
Hey thanks for the help 8)
Mac is not about crashing waiting and spinning beach balls ... it's all about "think different" ...
Keep your personal balance, wait in front of a Mac and ever since they announced the G5 this means:
Keep your financial balance, wait for a dual G5 Mac
Mac OS X rules! But largely because they've throuwn out the old shite ... and it's because now you can get things done. And if you do not just surd porn sites that say "optimized for 1024x768" you need a large screen ...
Smircle rules!
Damn.
I wonder about the following.
1280x800
1680x1050
1920x1200
ALL at 15.4"
Doesn't it seem a little odd that in the terms of ppi, the displays make such a radical jump from 1280 to the higher resolutions, especially when there's a whole range of resolutions between 1280 and 1440 wide that make a heck of a lot more sense for displays in the 15-17" range?
I'm not opposed to higher resolutions, but they need to make sense people 1680+ on a 15" screen doesn't. 1440, wellll, some web pages will still suck ass on it, not pr0n, but lots of annoying flash pages, like Jaguar.co.uk for instance, but on the whole something up to 1400 could be alright with a strong video card behind it. I for one, wouldn't cry at a 1280 limit, though.
I'd rather see more effort put into longer battery life (and driving all those extra pixels wille at into battery life when the GPU gets moving) and faster-cooler CPU's, better shock protection and enviromental sealing, AND working prices down or bringing in a G4 based iBook!
The current 15" PB resolution is 1280 x 854. I estimate this has a pixel density of 98 dpi. They could raise this to 1350 x 900 and only raise the pixel density to about 103 dpi. It would be nice to have a little more vertical space.
Because we only can get Macs from Apple we have this situation. If there were five or ten licensed companies producing Macs someone would provide high rez screens as a way to get an edge in the market. Because Apple is sole supplier it is in their interest to minimize the number of models produced.
Originally posted by Smircle
Oh, and by the way: why does Apple offer different screen resolutions for the buyers of the cheap iBooks, but not for the buyers of the Powerbooks?
Smircle. As much as I agree with the sum of your comments I have to inform you that this last thing you state is wrong. Both the 12-inch and 14-inch iBooks run at 1024x768.