17" inch Widescreen is smaller than 17" 4:3??

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
Do you think Apple would make all of their display options widescreen? i would certainly hope so. But a 17" widescreen display would be smaller (screen area?) than a 4:3 model?? is that right?



As a user of Final Cut pro and Audio apps I would very much like a widescreen display, even if it meant less over all space. I have done the dual monitors, but would much rather have a single well made monitor.



Do you think they would replace the current 17" with a 17" widescreen? or would they replace the current 17" with a 19" widescreen which would probably keep the screen space the same, but add widescreen?



I saw over at macmall that there are companies that sell the 17" widescreen display for around $550 - $699. could apple make these and keep the costs down? $599 for an apple 17" widescreen seems acceptable, but would that kill 20" sales? Then again 20" widescreen for $899 would be downright awesome!



Ok, so do you think they will go to an all widescreen display system?

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 14
    rhumgodrhumgod Posts: 1,289member
    I would think so. They already have then in the iMac and PowerBook, so why not? Also, from my experience, I like the widescreen better anyway. 4:3 displays have more room north and south, but how often is it used? I rarely move a window up and down, but rather side to side. Up and down gives me more neck strain too. And I setup our Macs at work with the 17" LCDs and have a 17" LCD at my desk (Sony). While they are nice, it still doesn't compare to my 17" PowerBook screen, usage-wise.
  • Reply 2 of 14
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    I dig the widescreen as well. Wish the 17" would go that way (1440x900). If you do the math (multiply the resolution to get the full pixel area), the current 17" (at 1280x1024) seems to have 14,720 more pixels than the iMac/PowerBook 17" at 1440x900.



    BUT, as someone pointed out a while back, that translates into less area than your typical, big-ass 128x128 OS X icon takes up. Hardly worth missing, IMO.



    The benefit gained by that extra width (for palettes and so forth) is worth it for me and a fair trade off. I'd welcome at standalone 17" widescreen Cinema Display, as would about 93% of you out there, I'd imagine. Especially if was redesigned a bit and given a sleeker, "less dead space around the display" look.



    Skin those things in a G5/PowerBook-inspired aluminum, make it thin and tight, design some cool tilt/rotate/raise device that makes it as cool and fun to use as a G4 iMac's display and call it done. And watch them fly off the shelves.



  • Reply 3 of 14
    dmband0026dmband0026 Posts: 2,345member
    Widescreen seems to be the way of the future. It cuts down on the need to do a dual display config and ups the max resolution. I think we'll see all Apple's displays go widescreen someday, probably sooner rather than later. Although some people still do use a dual config, it isn't as needed with the extra real estate. However, I don't see it happening on all notebooks. Obviously portability is a major factor for anyone buying a laptop, even a 17" adding an extra inch or two to the width of that thing would be a mistake.
  • Reply 4 of 14
    Someone at work got a 17" widescreen sceptre display for her powerbook, I tested it on my g5 but it turns out you cant select the 1280x768 resolution on a mac. It only goes up to 1024x768, so it was square. I tried calling them and apple but no luck, she returned it. So just watch out for widescreen displays from companies that dont make drivers for mac. I think even if I had it running at 1280x768 it would be too cramped, I think if I was gonna get a 17 I would want it square, or a higher rez might change my mind.
  • Reply 5 of 14
    tak1108tak1108 Posts: 222member
    I was looking at the samsung. I saw the spectre, but have never heard of the brand and thus don't trust it. Could be good, but apparantly not for mac.



    I really can't see using the 17" powerbook. It just seems too big for me. Maybe if they split that huge mouse button in two...



    I agree that there will probably always be squar laptops, but I think the desktop line will have to go all widescreen.
  • Reply 6 of 14
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    The problem with some of the other widescreens is that they come in oddball aspect ratios between 16:9 (HDTV) and 16:10 (Wide XGA, whatever they call it)



    1280x768 is one such oddball rez. So is the 15" PB's 3:2 1280x854, but since that is a notebook display and the drivers and card are tailor supplied from Apple it makes no difference. 3:2 is actually ideal at the res and size where Apple uses it.



    Currently, there are a number of standard aspect ratios:



    5:4 (1280x1024) pretty much seen ONLY on 17-19" LCDs



    4:3 (1024x768, 1152x870, 1280x960, 1440x1080, 1400x1050, 1600x1200, 2048x1536 and a few others in between)



    16:9 (HDTV) 1280x720, 1920x1080 and weirdo 1366x768.



    Then a bastard resolution at 16:9.6 1280x768.



    Then computer monitor wide XGA tyoe displays at 16:10.



    1600x1024 (actually 16x10.24, but close enough since it has been in use for a long time)



    1440x900

    1680x1050

    1920x1200



    and a future 2048x1280



    there's enough bandwidth in current DVI for 2240x1400 in a 16x10 given that it will push a narrower but taller 2048x1536 in a 4x3 at 60hz. While 60hz isn't especialy high, it's more than high enough for an LCD type display that doesn't suffer from flicker. Pixel response an still be fast enough as makes no difference.



    BUt getting back to the wide versus tall screen. Wide is not always better. Most documents scroll up-down, not side to side. A page is tall, not wide, typically. Art projects may come in any variety of aspect ratios that favor a taller aspect aswell. It is more natural to look at a wide screen in larger sizes, since this more closely mimics the human field of view, but for a smaller screen, a taller aspect might actually reduce the amount of scrolling one has to put up with, which is better for Office and internet use.



    In the larger screen laptops it also makes sense since it makes for a shallower footprint and lower height (good in close quarters). It should also make it possible to have a less vulnerable screen. Larger surfaces flex more, a widescreen very slightly reduces the surcae area and crucially makes at least two of the sides shorter and stronger than they would be if they were square. Can you imagine how ungainly a 17" (5:4) display would look in a laptop, and how thick the lid would have to be just to guard against flexing and cracking from the simple act of opening the notebook?



    If Apple makes a 17" wide display to replace the 17" currently on offer, then the display should be substantially cheaper than the current 17, since glass is paid by the square inch (and a rectangle has less square inches) and the cost of the panel would then be spread over 3 lines (iMac, PB17 and a new display)



    It sounds like a good idea to me. Get a cheap 17" display in there and a headless G5 cube to go with it!
  • Reply 7 of 14
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    Yep, I've been saying that for about 9 months now: the iMac and PowerBook are using a 17" wide display at 1440x900. Add a third product using that spec in the form of a standalone Cinema Display. Although I don't know if they all TRULY use the same screen (do they?). I know it's the same dimensions/resolution, but actually the same exact screen?







    If so, then YES! Buy in bulk.







    An everyone mentions the scrolling aspect. I don't look at it like that as much. Since the Mac is such a heavily-used platform in the graphic/creative fields, I'm betting more Mac users (with all their palettes and so forth) would appreciate a little wider space to put this stuff.



    Really, the only "square-ish" screens are those remaining on the iStuff (and eMac) at 1024x768 (iBooks and low-end iMac). The two upper-end PowerBooks and LCDs are wide aspect (the current 17" isn't, of course, but I'll bet anyone here $1 that it will be by March 2004).







    As a matter of fact, I'll bet you that's one of thing things on tap for MWSF: a new, redesigned display line: all widescreen (17", 20" and 23"), new G5-matching enclosures, thinner bezel, some sort of mobility(!) and USB 2.0 hubs built in (since they're made to go with the G5 and the PowerBooks, makes sense).



    As for the talk of a 30"...I'll believe it when I see it.



  • Reply 8 of 14
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Wides screens are smaller than 4:3 ones. It's a question of surface. The biggest 17 inch screen avalaible will be a square one.

    The worse one would be a 1000/1 ratio : 2000 per 1 pixel



    This is just a question of basical geometria.

    However, the 16/10 and in general widescreen are mored adapted to human visioni, than 4/3.

    4/3 have been push essentially for technical reasons.
  • Reply 9 of 14
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Powerdoc

    Wides screens are smaller than 4:3 ones. It's a question of surface. The biggest 17 inch screen avalaible will be a square one.

    The worse one would be a 1000/1 ratio : 2000 per 1 pixel



    This is just a question of basical geometria.

    However, the 16/10 and in general widescreen are mored adapted to human visioni, than 4/3.

    4/3 have been push essentially for technical reasons.






    Yes, the largest screen (area-wise) for any given diagonal measurement is square. The farther you get from square, the less area the screen will have.



    I don't believe the 4:3 was for tech reasons, I believe it was because that is the aspect ratio of a "standard" TV, and back in the dark ages, computers used to connect to TVs.
  • Reply 10 of 14
    smalmsmalm Posts: 675member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Matsu

    If Apple makes a 17" wide display to replace the 17" currently on offer, then the display should be substantially cheaper than the current 17, since glass is paid by the square inch.



    I hope this is ment as a joke and not a serious argument!
  • Reply 11 of 14
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Derrick 61



    I don't believe the 4:3 was for tech reasons, I believe it was because that is the aspect ratio of a "standard" TV, and back in the dark ages, computers used to connect to TVs.




    You know i am rather an old thing, and i was referring to the TV standart ...
  • Reply 12 of 14
    gongon Posts: 2,437member
    I hope they don't go all widescreen.



    It's been my experience that anyone that works with text (programming, office applications like word processing, ...) needs screen height more than width. This comprises a significant part of "normal" computer use, frankly speaking graphics creation is a niche, and average people are more likely to watch movies on something else than a computer.



    Typically all programs I run (web browsers, text consoles, text editors) use about 800-900px horizontally but I'd like to have as much vertical space as possible. I regard 1000px as an absolute minimum for a desktop display height. Widescreen can have the benefit of running two programs side by side, when you reach something like 1400-1600px horizontal width, but it's no substitute for having decent height available for your primary program.



    Apple realizes this, and that is why they have the low end at 4:3 both in desktops and portables.
  • Reply 13 of 14
    So what you are saying is that Apple should keep the 17" 4:3 and ADD at 17" Widescreen. I like the way you think.
  • Reply 14 of 14
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gon

    It's been my experience that anyone that works with text (programming, office applications like word processing, ...)



    As a programmer I can say that until something like this becomes more widespread, I much prefer width to heigh. Scroll-wheel mouses (mice?) make it effortless to scroll up and down, but it's still a pain to have to scroll right to see text that runs off the side of the screen.
Sign In or Register to comment.