Apple to add high-density screen option to PowerBooks?
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...
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...
Comments
PowerBook G5 in MacWorld 2006
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.
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).
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.
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.
Sure hope a Powerbook 15 inch with 1680x1050 or 1680x1120 resolution would be available. I may be in the market next year.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Existence
I guess the MacOS isn't as advanced as Windows XP.
You guessed wrong.
1024 is fine for a 17" screen.
OLED is far more interesting.
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.
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.
[edit: grammar...]
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.
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.
More pixels means not smaller text, but higher-quality with the ability to display more detail.
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
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.
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...
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.