...and this is why Leopard will ship with entirely new high-res scalable icons for the entire operating system.
I think that most of us here can agree that you are totally wrong on your points. The "internet" is most assuredly NOT designed around 800 x 600 screens. That may have, to a great extent, been true five years ago, but not now. Few sites have that built-in limitation. My main monitor is a 24" 1920 x1200 model, and most sites are very happy with more than half the horizontal, and all of the vertical resolution they can get. If there is any minimum design size today on some sites (and, yes, there are some backwards sites like that), it's 1024 x 768.
While it's true that higher rez's are more difficult to read on a small screen, I know many people who have no objection whatsoever. The rest of us wear our glasses.
I usually keep Mail open on the right side of my screen, and Safari open on the left. That way, I can see my mails come in without having to play around. Can't do that on a low rez screen.
While you certainly have the right to state your own prefs here. don't attempt to make them standards. some things are, and some are not. These are not.
So which cards do you want it to read? Did the HP machine read the different memory sticks, SD, miniSD, MMC, compact flash an XD (I've probably missed a few)? A reader to satisfy all those media types would take up more real estate than it's worth and who would actually use more than the one or two that they need? Why screw up a machine with a dozen slots when most of the time they would go unused? Cameras and other devices come with cables expressly for this purpose. You can stuff a small card reader in your bag and use it as necessary. So now when a particular card goes out of style I'm stuck with a useless hole in the machine?
The most important port to have is the Compact Flash II slot. That is the most popular size for digital cameras. But, that is also the largest size slot. As a result, there are adaptors to fit most of the smaller cards. That is a good compromise.
Most people do not plug their cameras into the USB for a good reason. Doing so drains the camera battery. If you are not sitting at home when doing it, you might lose a significant portion of your power.
The other reason is that while not all cameras are recognized by the computer (PC or MAC), all cards are.
I don't understand this, if the rumors are in fact true.
It makes sense in the Intel transition if the iBooks and alternative screen sizes of the MacBook Pros are the next products to be released.
But going almost AN ENTIRE FISCAL QUARTER before announcing new Macs, especially consumer grade Intel laptops, seems almost insane.
Especially as everyone expected the iBook to be the first to be Intel'ized.
If they don't have a 4" touchscreen video iPod up their sleeve, next quarter's figures are not going to be good. They're usually good after *I* make a purchase (pure coincidence of course!) but without a 13" MacBook Pro, I'm not going to be buying anything.
(Apart from that 4" TS video iPod!)
We had this happen when the first G5 iMacs were to come out. Apple stopped the old G4 table lamp models, and then IBM failed to come through with the chips until the next quarter. That was the going back to school quarter as well, the July to September quarter. That's one of the reasons why Apple went to Intel. It cost them big bucks. This could be an Intel chip startup problem. Round and round we go.
At least Apple was the first company to get Yonahs in quantity.
No one has addressed the fact that the Commercial Times did not cite sources and the article goes on to say the reliability of the report is unknown. I think that Apple will release the new MacBook soon. If you think about it, they would be shooting themselves in the foot by waiting until June. They would loose alot of sales in the education market. Most school systems will buy computers at the end of the school year and do all of the setup and installs over the summer when the students are not there. At least thats how they do it in my home town. I agree with a post that Anders made in one of these MacBook threads: MacBooks in April.
GTW jumped the gun with it's lightweight notebook using the Core Solo, low voltage, I believe. That chip is supposed to be out at the end of April. If what is being said is true, that is the chip Apple will be using for the iBook.
GTW jumped the gun with it's lightweight notebook using the Core Solo, low voltage, I believe. That chip is supposed to be out at the end of April. If what is being said is true, that is the chip Apple will be using for the iBook.
Man, I hope NOT. Lets hope for 1.5 low voltage core duo.
Well, my dad is using my old 17 inch RevA Powerbook at 1440x900 and I have dislikes explaining to him why the internet shouldn't really be displayed full screen like it would be on a 12 or 14 inch moniter.
But people think bigger LCD = bigger picture when the EXACT OPPOSITE is true.
The internet looks bigger on a 12 inch than it does on a 17 inch which is utterly backwards and disgusting when you realize that that is why most people buy their computers in the first place.
Admittedly, a 17 inch notebook was new at that time and is a bit overkill for web surfing, but I still think display resolutions and screen size are misleading. But most 17 inch notebooks that ship today are not any better in this regard.
So to be clear I am saying that neither extreme (13 inch widescreen nor 17 inch widescreen notebooks) are a great idea unless you need them, although, Apple's latest displays have changed this again somewhat so you kinda have to look at them and see for yourself.
...But if the salesperson is showing you Leopard with the "scaling factor" enlargement turned on, don't expect third party apps to catch up to that one overnight, if ever.
When talking about resolution remember it is not the resolution that makes a screen appear "small" but the denisty of that resolution, or ppi (pixels per inch). 17" and 19" monitors typically have the same resolution, however the 19" monitor will have larger pixels. Likewise, if a 15" monitor has the same resolution the pixels will be smaller.
Expect a mini-DVI port that needs a dongle though.
Hopefully not. You won't be able to use the port without the adaptor, which makes it pretty useless.
Quote:
There should be a higher end ibook that has someting other than the GMA950 too, because the video in current ibooks are already more powerful than the GMA950, and I dont see Apple downgrading performance in the newer model.
What do you consider a downgrade?
Video Card/Chipset: Intel GMA 950
VRAM: 80 MB (shared)
Max Resolution: 24 bit, 1920x1200 (DVI) 1920 x 1080 (VGA)
Video Out: DVI
Video Card/Chipset: ATI Mobility Radeon 9550 (4x AGP)
The internet looks bigger on a 12 inch than it does on a 17 inch which is utterly backwards and disgusting when you realize that that is why most people buy their computers in the first place.
No one should use the internet full screen. It isn't productive and makes no sense.
I used to when I was windows but now I've got so many windows open and am doing much more.
People like my sister will never learn that. Not only does she use the internet full screen on her crummy win machine, she LITERALLY uses it full screen by pressing which ever one of the F keys does it.
The internet should be at the same size on a 12" as 17", the 17" should just have space around it where you can see your other windows behind it.
That's way better and make you more productive. Almost no windows ESPECIALLY the internet should be run full screen. Why would anyone need that much space?
You think it would be that high? Isn't Intel going to be dropping prices on core duos?
A low-voltage CPU is simply not going to happen. They're too expensive. In a new product line, perhaps, like a MacBook nano or something. But in the iBook successor? No.
If all sites had liquid layouts like they're supposed to, it would be great fullscreen. Unfortunately, incompetent designers stick with having a little website in the middle of a whole bunch of dead space.
GTW jumped the gun with it's lightweight notebook using the Core Solo, low voltage, I believe. That chip is supposed to be out at the end of April. If what is being said is true, that is the chip Apple will be using for the iBook.
But there is still the possibility that they will use a Dual Core chip. What happened to the 1.6GHz chip that started out in the MBP?
You think it would be that high? Isn't Intel going to be dropping prices on core duos?
The price of the chip won't be that much different.
You have to remember that the cpu isn't the only thing in the machine. A single core, low voltage chip, means a smaller battery for the same run-time. a smaller heat-sinking arrangement. less heat, a smaller recharging unit, and a smaller, thinner case.
These changes are more important that any small increase gained from not using a low power chip.
The iBooks only need 20 to 25% greater performance than the older G4 models. These are not intended for hi power application. Schools, home use, etc., are their intended audience.
If we endow them with fairly high speed dual core chips, as some are suggesting, the will essentially be MBP's without a few features. Nobody should want that.
What is needed is to continue the long (about 5 hour) run time, bring the weight down further (4 pounds these days is much too heavy), and make them rugged enough for school use.
There's always the possibility that anything will happen. That doesn't make it likely.
Apple just came out with software to boot Windows (abet only on a FAT 32 32GB partition). Who thought that would happen (besides me!).
But it wouldn't make sense.
This is true. I just REALLY want the MacBook to come out this month. I am ready to buy a Mac portable and the MacBook is going to be the only one in my price range. So I guess it was just wishfull thinking...
Comments
Originally posted by rebel_without_a_pc
...and this is why Leopard will ship with entirely new high-res scalable icons for the entire operating system.
I think that most of us here can agree that you are totally wrong on your points. The "internet" is most assuredly NOT designed around 800 x 600 screens. That may have, to a great extent, been true five years ago, but not now. Few sites have that built-in limitation. My main monitor is a 24" 1920 x1200 model, and most sites are very happy with more than half the horizontal, and all of the vertical resolution they can get. If there is any minimum design size today on some sites (and, yes, there are some backwards sites like that), it's 1024 x 768.
While it's true that higher rez's are more difficult to read on a small screen, I know many people who have no objection whatsoever. The rest of us wear our glasses.
I usually keep Mail open on the right side of my screen, and Safari open on the left. That way, I can see my mails come in without having to play around. Can't do that on a low rez screen.
While you certainly have the right to state your own prefs here. don't attempt to make them standards. some things are, and some are not. These are not.
Originally posted by Bancho
So which cards do you want it to read? Did the HP machine read the different memory sticks, SD, miniSD, MMC, compact flash an XD (I've probably missed a few)? A reader to satisfy all those media types would take up more real estate than it's worth and who would actually use more than the one or two that they need? Why screw up a machine with a dozen slots when most of the time they would go unused? Cameras and other devices come with cables expressly for this purpose. You can stuff a small card reader in your bag and use it as necessary. So now when a particular card goes out of style I'm stuck with a useless hole in the machine?
The most important port to have is the Compact Flash II slot. That is the most popular size for digital cameras. But, that is also the largest size slot. As a result, there are adaptors to fit most of the smaller cards. That is a good compromise.
Most people do not plug their cameras into the USB for a good reason. Doing so drains the camera battery. If you are not sitting at home when doing it, you might lose a significant portion of your power.
The other reason is that while not all cameras are recognized by the computer (PC or MAC), all cards are.
Originally posted by michaelb
I don't understand this, if the rumors are in fact true.
It makes sense in the Intel transition if the iBooks and alternative screen sizes of the MacBook Pros are the next products to be released.
But going almost AN ENTIRE FISCAL QUARTER before announcing new Macs, especially consumer grade Intel laptops, seems almost insane.
Especially as everyone expected the iBook to be the first to be Intel'ized.
If they don't have a 4" touchscreen video iPod up their sleeve, next quarter's figures are not going to be good. They're usually good after *I* make a purchase (pure coincidence of course!) but without a 13" MacBook Pro, I'm not going to be buying anything.
(Apart from that 4" TS video iPod!)
We had this happen when the first G5 iMacs were to come out. Apple stopped the old G4 table lamp models, and then IBM failed to come through with the chips until the next quarter. That was the going back to school quarter as well, the July to September quarter. That's one of the reasons why Apple went to Intel. It cost them big bucks. This could be an Intel chip startup problem. Round and round we go.
At least Apple was the first company to get Yonahs in quantity.
Originally posted by opnsource
No one has addressed the fact that the Commercial Times did not cite sources and the article goes on to say the reliability of the report is unknown. I think that Apple will release the new MacBook soon. If you think about it, they would be shooting themselves in the foot by waiting until June. They would loose alot of sales in the education market. Most school systems will buy computers at the end of the school year and do all of the setup and installs over the summer when the students are not there. At least thats how they do it in my home town. I agree with a post that Anders made in one of these MacBook threads: MacBooks in April.
GTW jumped the gun with it's lightweight notebook using the Core Solo, low voltage, I believe. That chip is supposed to be out at the end of April. If what is being said is true, that is the chip Apple will be using for the iBook.
Originally posted by melgross
GTW jumped the gun with it's lightweight notebook using the Core Solo, low voltage, I believe. That chip is supposed to be out at the end of April. If what is being said is true, that is the chip Apple will be using for the iBook.
Man, I hope NOT. Lets hope for 1.5 low voltage core duo.
Originally posted by backtomac
Man, I hope NOT. Lets hope for 1.5 low voltage core duo.
Yeah, because it's not like people want it to cost below $1800 or something.
Originally posted by rebel_without_a_pc
Well, my dad is using my old 17 inch RevA Powerbook at 1440x900 and I have dislikes explaining to him why the internet shouldn't really be displayed full screen like it would be on a 12 or 14 inch moniter.
But people think bigger LCD = bigger picture when the EXACT OPPOSITE is true.
The internet looks bigger on a 12 inch than it does on a 17 inch which is utterly backwards and disgusting when you realize that that is why most people buy their computers in the first place.
Admittedly, a 17 inch notebook was new at that time and is a bit overkill for web surfing, but I still think display resolutions and screen size are misleading. But most 17 inch notebooks that ship today are not any better in this regard.
So to be clear I am saying that neither extreme (13 inch widescreen nor 17 inch widescreen notebooks) are a great idea unless you need them, although, Apple's latest displays have changed this again somewhat so you kinda have to look at them and see for yourself.
...But if the salesperson is showing you Leopard with the "scaling factor" enlargement turned on, don't expect third party apps to catch up to that one overnight, if ever.
When talking about resolution remember it is not the resolution that makes a screen appear "small" but the denisty of that resolution, or ppi (pixels per inch). 17" and 19" monitors typically have the same resolution, however the 19" monitor will have larger pixels. Likewise, if a 15" monitor has the same resolution the pixels will be smaller.
Dual-link DVI is not the same as dual DVI.
Semantics, you knew what I meant.
Expect a mini-DVI port that needs a dongle though.
Hopefully not. You won't be able to use the port without the adaptor, which makes it pretty useless.
There should be a higher end ibook that has someting other than the GMA950 too, because the video in current ibooks are already more powerful than the GMA950, and I dont see Apple downgrading performance in the newer model.
What do you consider a downgrade?
Video Card/Chipset: Intel GMA 950
VRAM: 80 MB (shared)
Max Resolution: 24 bit, 1920x1200 (DVI) 1920 x 1080 (VGA)
Video Out: DVI
Video Card/Chipset: ATI Mobility Radeon 9550 (4x AGP)
VRAM: 32 MB
Max Resolution: 24 bit 1024x768
Video Out: mini-VGA
Originally posted by rebel_without_a_pc
The internet looks bigger on a 12 inch than it does on a 17 inch which is utterly backwards and disgusting when you realize that that is why most people buy their computers in the first place.
No one should use the internet full screen. It isn't productive and makes no sense.
I used to when I was windows but now I've got so many windows open and am doing much more.
People like my sister will never learn that. Not only does she use the internet full screen on her crummy win machine, she LITERALLY uses it full screen by pressing which ever one of the F keys does it.
The internet should be at the same size on a 12" as 17", the 17" should just have space around it where you can see your other windows behind it.
That's way better and make you more productive. Almost no windows ESPECIALLY the internet should be run full screen. Why would anyone need that much space?
Originally posted by Chucker
Yeah, because it's not like people want it to cost below $1800 or something.
You think it would be that high? Isn't Intel going to be dropping prices on core duos?
Originally posted by backtomac
You think it would be that high? Isn't Intel going to be dropping prices on core duos?
A low-voltage CPU is simply not going to happen. They're too expensive. In a new product line, perhaps, like a MacBook nano or something. But in the iBook successor? No.
Originally posted by melgross
GTW jumped the gun with it's lightweight notebook using the Core Solo, low voltage, I believe. That chip is supposed to be out at the end of April. If what is being said is true, that is the chip Apple will be using for the iBook.
But there is still the possibility that they will use a Dual Core chip. What happened to the 1.6GHz chip that started out in the MBP?
Originally posted by opnsource
But there is still the possibility that they will use a Dual Core chip. What happened to the 1.6GHz chip that started out in the MBP?
Just say no to drugs, premarital sex and core solo.
Originally posted by backtomac
Just say no to drugs, premarital sex and core solo.
Someone needs to make a T-shirt with this on it.
Originally posted by backtomac
Just say no to drugs, premarital sex and core solo.
are you still a virgin?
Originally posted by backtomac
You think it would be that high? Isn't Intel going to be dropping prices on core duos?
The price of the chip won't be that much different.
You have to remember that the cpu isn't the only thing in the machine. A single core, low voltage chip, means a smaller battery for the same run-time. a smaller heat-sinking arrangement. less heat, a smaller recharging unit, and a smaller, thinner case.
These changes are more important that any small increase gained from not using a low power chip.
The iBooks only need 20 to 25% greater performance than the older G4 models. These are not intended for hi power application. Schools, home use, etc., are their intended audience.
If we endow them with fairly high speed dual core chips, as some are suggesting, the will essentially be MBP's without a few features. Nobody should want that.
What is needed is to continue the long (about 5 hour) run time, bring the weight down further (4 pounds these days is much too heavy), and make them rugged enough for school use.
Along with a fairly low price, of course.
Originally posted by opnsource
But there is still the possibility that they will use a Dual Core chip. What happened to the 1.6GHz chip that started out in the MBP?
There's always the possibility that anything will happen. That doesn't make it likely.
Apple just came out with software to boot Windows (abet only on a FAT 32 32GB partition). Who thought that would happen (besides me!).
But it wouldn't make sense.
Originally posted by melgross
There's always the possibility that anything will happen. That doesn't make it likely.
Apple just came out with software to boot Windows (abet only on a FAT 32 32GB partition). Who thought that would happen (besides me!).
But it wouldn't make sense.
This is true. I just REALLY want the MacBook to come out this month. I am ready to buy a Mac portable and the MacBook is going to be the only one in my price range. So I guess it was just wishfull thinking...