Why 13.3" screen?

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 35
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by fezzasus

    But in my opinion it is less useable, I don't think I have ever watched a DVD on my iBook yet every day I use email and word, I also use photoshop often and all are more usable on a standard display than on a widescreen display.



    Well the resolution is higher, not lower, so I don't see how the larger screen could be less useable than the smaller one. But I definitely think they need a smaller laptop than 13". Perhaps they'll keep the MacBook in the mid-range size, and focus their small laptop in the MacBook Pro. It always was a bit strange to have both a 12" iBook and PowerBook.
  • Reply 22 of 35
    hasapihasapi Posts: 290member
    What about a 15" that's not quite the quality/resolution of the high end MBP, its certainly what the PC manufacturers do, which is why you have to argue that those el cheapo 15" laptops cant compare to a MBP or a high end toshiba .



    If apple were serious about regaining market share - or at the very least having the right product mix - i think a 15" laptop would have to be the replacement for the 14" - it will probably have a slower core duo and integrated graphics to ensure no adverse effects on MBP sales.
  • Reply 23 of 35
    noah93noah93 Posts: 168member
    Yes, a 15" can replace the 14", but what about all of us that WANT the small screen? As long as Apple has a laptop the around the size of a notebook, most students are going to be happy. I cannot imagine walking into class with a 15" machine, and managing to pay attention without getting lost in the [size of the] display.





    - Noah
  • Reply 24 of 35
    s.metcalfs.metcalf Posts: 978member
    I've owned a 12" PB but only because I couldn't afford the 15"! An increase to 13.3" widescreen is definitely a good idea!!



    Quote:

    Originally posted by noah93

    Yes, a 15" can replace the 14", but what about all of us that WANT the small screen? As long as Apple has a laptop the around the size of a notebook, most students are going to be happy. I cannot imagine walking into class with a 15" machine, and managing to pay attention without getting lost in the [size of the] display.





    - Noah




  • Reply 25 of 35
    hasapihasapi Posts: 290member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by noah93

    Yes, a 15" can replace the 14", but what about all of us that WANT the small screen? - Noah



    Apologies, i wasnt very specific, assuming the 13.3" is replacing the 12" (a little less vertical and a little more horizontal). You really have an ideal students notebook (IMO).



    If your looking for a product from apple that's less than the 13.3" say similar to sony's 10" vaio - then i think youll be dissapointed. The mac market is not huge and the requirement for a 14/15" in th low end is far greater than the demand for a subnotebook.



    But hey, why cant apple produce such a machine - wether or not it will add incremental sales to the portable line is open to conjecture.
  • Reply 26 of 35
    i see what apple is about to do as making clear distinctions between the powerbook and ibook lines. this is a streamlining of products, and it will draw clearer lines between the portables. if you look at the ipod more closely, they've already done the blueprint.



    you'll have a 13in widescreen macbook. it will prolly have the same guts as the mini- a core solo and a core duo version. integrated graphics. its budget conscious. it makes sense.



    you'll have 15in and 17in widescreen macbook pros. core duo only. dedicated graphics. will not be budget conscious, intended for the high end.



    no more crossover ibooks and powerbooks. widescreen from here on out. 4:3 is just as dead as CRT. how is the permanent, all-products move to widescreen a bad thing? apple is supposed to be strong in media, all present and future media will be widescreen.



    you will never, ever see apple produce another 4:3 12in or 14in portable of any kind. within a year or so, all the ipods will be widescreen as well.
  • Reply 27 of 35
    Personally I'd prefer the 1280x800 13.3 display over the 1280x720 13.3 one. But as anal retentive as Apple is about UI standards I expect the 720, for the simple reason it has the same 110dpi pixel density as the MacBook Pro 15 inch screen (the 800 panel is 113 dpi).



    What I'd really like is a 1280x800 14.0 inch -- as has appeared in a few Sony models among others. But I don't expect to see it.
  • Reply 28 of 35
    skatmanskatman Posts: 609member
    Quote:

    i can't help but feel that a 13.3" screen would be

    less useful



    The fact that you may feel that 13.3'' screen would be less useful doesn't mean that it actually will be!
  • Reply 29 of 35
    I know it says 12", but..
  • Reply 30 of 35
    jasenj1jasenj1 Posts: 923member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by photoeditor

    But as anal retentive as Apple is about UI standards I expect the 720, for the simple reason it has the same 110dpi pixel density as the MacBook Pro 15 inch screen (the 800 panel is 113 dpi).



    I'm getting old, and the lower the dpi the better - until they go resolution independent.



    - Jasen.
  • Reply 31 of 35
    xoolxool Posts: 2,460member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by photoeditor

    Personally I'd prefer the 1280x800 13.3 display over the 1280x720 13.3 one. But as anal retentive as Apple is about UI standards I expect the 720, for the simple reason it has the same 110dpi pixel density as the MacBook Pro 15 inch screen (the 800 panel is 113 dpi).



    What I'd really like is a 1280x800 14.0 inch -- as has appeared in a few Sony models among others. But I don't expect to see it.




    I tend to agree. If there's not enough pixels in the MacBook I'll have to get the larger 15" MacBook Pro. Then again, if two 13" models are introduced, this could differentiate between the 13" MacBook and 13" MacBook Pro.



    Then again, maybe after using one I'll change my mind.



    Either way, for the MacBook, I think Apple will try to keep costs down best they can which is another reason they may go with the lower res yet still HD-capable screen.
  • Reply 32 of 35
    slugheadslughead Posts: 1,169member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by T'hain Esh Kelch

    I know it says 12", but..



    Aw man I wish those were cheap, I'd love to get one for my car.
  • Reply 33 of 35
    eckingecking Posts: 1,588member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by photoeditor

    Personally I'd prefer the 1280x800 13.3 display over the 1280x720 13.3 one. But as anal retentive as Apple is about UI standards I expect the 720, for the simple reason it has the same 110dpi pixel density as the MacBook Pro 15 inch screen (the 800 panel is 113 dpi).



    What I'd really like is a 1280x800 14.0 inch -- as has appeared in a few Sony models among others. But I don't expect to see it.




    You and pbr both confuse me



    Your talking about .7 inches difference! It's that noticeable and big of a difference to you?



    1280x800 13.3" vs 1280x800 14"



    Why would anyone care? 12" people I can understand they gain 1.3" but your loosing .7" that's not much.
  • Reply 34 of 35
    relicrelic Posts: 4,735member
    I just really hope they can keep the MacBook under 3.5 lbs. The one thing I really dislike about my 12? inch Powerbook is it's almost 5 lbs, in this day in age that's just ridiculous.
  • Reply 35 of 35
    dr. jdr. j Posts: 39member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by T'hain Esh Kelch

    I know it says 12", but..







    Those have got to be $500 or $600 a piece, though......
Sign In or Register to comment.