Apple to add high-density screen option to PowerBooks?

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
According to MacOSXrumors, the manual for the new 17" PowerBooks contains the sentence: "Depending on how your Powerbook was configured, it may have a wide-screen display that has a â??nativeâ?? resolution of 1920x1200 or 1440x900."



Rather convincing, if you ask me. It is the "year of HD video" after all. Personally, I am hoping for a 13.3" Powerbook sporting a 1200x800 resolution...
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 55
    relicrelic Posts: 4,735member
    It's about f-cking time!
  • Reply 2 of 55
    nice find. if that's not a typo or if they haven't abandoned the new model, a 1900x1200 PB (i guess that allows compliance to 1080i HDTV spec) coming out means Apple will be pushing the PowerBook G4s till the end of the year



    PowerBook G5 in MacWorld 2006
  • Reply 3 of 55
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    There's some good in this, although I'm not a fan of insano resolutions, recent improvements in browsers and OS, will make them more tolerable. You can deal with just about everything in OS and Apps these days, provided your devs are smart enough to realize more people have less than perfect vision than not. Web sites remain the number one offender, with the highest proportion of idiotic design/miniscule text/bad navigation/UI than any other category of electronica.



    Still 1920x1200 might work at 17", 1680x1050 might be OK at 15.4" (though Apple would have to change the screen up). Though really I think that 1680x1050 and 1440x900 would be more appropriate bumps for 17 and 15 respectively, I can see why 17" buyers would want 1920, either you bump it to be HD capable, or don't bother making me squint!



    As for the 12", I have the 12, you really don't want it getting any denser than where it's at. For more than XGA, look at 16:10 14" panels. I think this may be the ideal laptop screen. I used one (a compaq) side by side wiith my PB. It's a great screen size. No taller, just a tad wider. Apple could make a book that's the same weight, a little thinner, and just less than two inches wider. That could take a 1280x800 screen with reasonable comfort.
  • Reply 4 of 55
    Since it's very doubtful that Apple will throw in a 1920x1200 panel option for the same hardware, my guess is that they'd been considering such a resolution for the 17" PowerBook G4 but backed out at the last minute.



    I'd actually say that this gives people hope for a PowerBook G5 this year (or at least, a greatly advanced G4). After all, full-res HD editing takes a lot of CPU power to truly do it justice. A 17" PowerBook G5 with both the display and the performance to handle the editing properly would be a tremendous asset.



    Also, remember that, unlike last year, Apple simply said that it would be the "mother of all challenges" to get a G5 in a PowerBook - in 2004 they emphasized that there would be no PowerBook G5 that year. Odds are that there will, in fact, be a PowerBook G5 this year. It's just several months off (WWDC or Apple Expo).
  • Reply 5 of 55
    mr. memr. me Posts: 3,221member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Smircle

    According to MacOSXrumors, the manual for the new 17" PowerBooks contains the sentence: "Depending on how your Powerbook was configured, it may have a wide-screen display that has a â??nativeâ?? resolution of 1920x1200 or 1440x900."



    Rather convincing, if you ask me. It is the "year of HD video" after all. Personally, I am hoping for a 13.3" Powerbook sporting a 1200x800 resolution...




    Apple's currently shipping 15" and 17" PowerBooks have greater pixel counts than all but the most expensive HDTV flat panel monitors. Even the 12" PowerBook exceeds the pixel count of many HDTV flat panel monitors. If you want to view HDTV content on your PowerBook display, there is no reason to wait to buy.
  • Reply 6 of 55
    smirclesmircle Posts: 1,035member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Mr. Me

    If you want to view HDTV content on your PowerBook display, there is no reason to wait to buy.



    Computers are for creating and editing, TVs are for watching. To create, you need a display capable of displaying every pixel of the movie.
  • Reply 7 of 55
    johnqjohnq Posts: 2,763member
    "insano resolutions"... hey that's my phrase.
  • Reply 8 of 55
    thttht Posts: 5,421member
    Woohoo! If true.



    Sure hope a Powerbook 15 inch with 1680x1050 or 1680x1120 resolution would be available. I may be in the market next year.
  • Reply 9 of 55
    shetlineshetline Posts: 4,695member
    1440x900 on a 17" display... that's about 100 pixels per inch, about as small as Apple usually likes to go.

    1920x1200 on a 17" display... that's about 133 pixels per inch.



    That's pushing Squintronic™ (to borrow a term from Amorph) levels, but who knows, maybe Apple would consider it. It seems lately, with things like the Mac mini coming out, that Apple might be getting bolder about the variety of things they're willing to try and willing to offer.
  • Reply 10 of 55
    Quote:

    Originally posted by shetline

    1440x900 on a 17" display... that's about 100 pixels per inch, about as small as Apple usually likes to go.

    1920x1200 on a 17" display... that's about 133 pixels per inch.



    That's pushing Squintronic™ (to borrow a term from Amorph) levels, but who knows, maybe Apple would consider it. It seems lately, with things like the Mac mini coming out, that Apple might be getting bolder about the variety of things they're willing to try and willing to offer.




    I guess the MacOS isn't as advanced as Windows XP.
  • Reply 11 of 55
    mr. memr. me Posts: 3,221member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Existence

    I guess the MacOS isn't as advanced as Windows XP.



    You guessed wrong.
  • Reply 12 of 55
    slugheadslughead Posts: 1,169member
    I have a great quality 20" viewable monitor, I can't use anything higher than 1280 without being annoyed.



    1024 is fine for a 17" screen.



    OLED is far more interesting.
  • Reply 13 of 55
    cubistcubist Posts: 954member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Existence

    I guess the MacOS isn't as advanced as Windows XP.



    In some ways, it's not even as advanced as Windows 98. But perhaps Tiger can catch up. Windows still only allows icons to be "small" or "large", and some, such as the ones over by the start button (not to be confused with the systray icons, or the desktop icons :-P) can't be changed in size at all, and at high resolutions are nothing more than tiny smudges. IMHO, it wouldn't take much of an effort to make Aqua user-configurable and resolution-independent - and it's an effort Apple should make sooner rather than later.
  • Reply 14 of 55
    thttht Posts: 5,421member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by cubist

    IMHO, it wouldn't take much of an effort to make Aqua user-configurable and resolution-independent - and it's an effort Apple should make sooner rather than later.



    Apple is already on its way to resolution independence. They are making the technology available in at least the Tiger betas so that [developers] can start making their apps resolution independent. Probably won't officially [be] marketed and released until 10.5, but they definitely are on their way as of the Tiger betas.



    [edit: grammar...]
  • Reply 15 of 55
    thttht Posts: 5,421member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by shetline

    1440x900 on a 17" display... that's about 100 pixels per inch, about as small as Apple usually likes to go.

    1920x1200 on a 17" display... that's about 133 pixels per inch.




    People will buy it. Not a majority, but at least a nontrivial percentage (~5 to 10%) will gladly pay $200 to $300, maybe $400 for extra it.



    Quote:

    It seems lately, with things like the Mac mini coming out, that Apple might be getting bolder about the variety of things they're willing to try and willing to offer.



    I hope so. Options are always good. Like video card options (eg, if Radeon, 9600->9700->9800 of if GeForce, 5200->6200->6600) and screen resolution options being the important ones.
  • Reply 16 of 55
    Two words and three initials: "Resolution Independant GUI"



    More pixels means not smaller text, but higher-quality with the ability to display more detail.
  • Reply 17 of 55
    Yeah I'm not a fan of small text and that's why for a few years my design work didn't look 'designer'-ish enough



    For the past several years I've seen some PeeCee people use their 15" screens at stupidly high resolutions (1440)++







    still confuses me to this day. i think one of the appeals of mac os X is that it is much more "big" and "readable"



    ...although back to as the above poster mentioned, this has to do with a mixture of text sizing and resolution and anti-aliasing
  • Reply 18 of 55
    smirclesmircle Posts: 1,035member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by shetline



    That's pushing Squintronic™ (to borrow a term from Amorph) levels, but who knows, maybe Apple would consider it.




    There are different tastes when it comes to optimal display resolution. I for one positively loathe the 1152x786 on my Ti, because the low pixel density makes everything jagged and hard to read. I therefore run my 21" CRT at 1600x1200. Others would set it to 1200 or 1024.



    I'd gladly pay 200EUR more to push the 15" to 1600px instead of the current 1280p. On a PC laptop, I have even seen 1920px on a 15" though I must say text was really hard to read.
  • Reply 19 of 55
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Smircle

    ....I have even seen 1920px on a 15" though I must say text was really hard to read.



    Jesus Christ that's real punishment on your eyes/ health/ etc...
  • Reply 20 of 55
    rhumgodrhumgod Posts: 1,289member
    Since Amorph clued me in to the real concept of resolution independence a while back (thanks again!) that is where HD and laptops should be headed. If not next rev, soon after. Apple has done it in the past.



    As for OLEDs I am not so sure that Apple wants to put a technology that has limited lifetime (thanks to the stank blue organics) in a laptop. There are tons of alternative technologies being developed, most notably LEPs.
Sign In or Register to comment.