My "drawing board" is Adobe Photoshop CS3 Extended, and all layers for the scale drawing were placed at regular size and scaled to their proper value in inches with the built-in tools for doing so. There may be some confusion for you simply because pixels are rectangles, not squares, so you might have some slight variance in any scale render - especially one that involves layered objects. The MacBook Touch has an 11" screen horizontally, not diagonally.
What the f??k are you talking about. Look at YOUR picture there is no way in hell that if the MBA has a 13.3" (DIAGONAL) display, the display of your "device" has a 13" DIAGONAL: It looks much too small vs the MBA, so it gives an appearence of size that is not in accordance to your specs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleeinstein
the vertical component of the base touchscreen portion's weight (3) needs to be no more than 10% of the total weight of the back portion - about 10 grams total for a 1 kg device.
1kg = 1000g NOT 100g
10% of 1kg = 100g
If you can't count, no wonder how a 13" display can look like a 11" one in PhotoShop or wherever.
There are lots of things that need to be revised for this to work.
What the f??k are you talking about. Look at YOUR picture there is no way in hell that if the MBA has a 13.3" (DIAGONAL) display, the display of your "device" has a 13" DIAGONAL: It looks much too small vs the MBA, so it gives an appearence of size that is not in accordance to your specs.
As I pointed out, the fact that pixels are rectangular, not square, means that a scale drawing may have the incorrect appearance. The images are scaled vertically, so the horizontal (and derivatively the diagonal) may look a little different.
Sheesh!
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjteix
1kg = 1000g NOT 100g
10% of 1kg = 100g
If you can't count, no wonder how a 13" display can look like a 11" one in PhotoShop or wherever.
My apologies - a slight typo. Ten percent of a kilogram is quite obviously 100g. Tyyyyypo.
As I pointed out, the fact that pixels are rectangular, not square, means that a scale drawing may have the incorrect appearance. The images are scaled vertically, so the horizontal (and derivatively the diagonal) may look a little different.
No. I can only assume you took a class in editing or designing for broadcast and took the oddness of NTSC/PAL pixels as gospel. In fact, quite the opposite is true in most of the 'real' world, as computer monitors display square pixels. Period.
As far as mjteix's concern, he is correct:
As you can see, your Touch screen is far smaller than the MBA screen. I would've guessed it was an 11" screen as well....and honestly I think it would be better that way anyways.
Regardless, these are very nice renderings. Well done.
No. I can only assume you took a class in editing or designing for broadcast and took the oddness of NTSC/PAL pixels as gospel. In fact, quite the opposite is true in most of the 'real' world, as computer monitors display square pixels. Period.
As far as mjteix's concern, he is correct:
As you can see, your Touch screen is far smaller than the MBA screen. I would've guessed it was an 11" screen as well....and honestly I think it would be better that way anyways.
Regardless, these are very nice renderings. Well done.
Thanks for the compliment, 709! No, I haven't taken classes in editing or designing for broadcast - it's just one of the quirks of Photoshop that rectangles don't always preserve their ratio when rotated. I think I figured out the problem. The overall dimensions are true vertically, just not horizontally. Which screws up the inner screen dimensions quite nicely.
I made it 13" so that the horizontal distance of the screen would be 11", which is precisely the size of a standard 101 key keyboard from "~" to "<- Backspace". Of course there's variance, but you can only make it so small before it becomes impossible to actually type on. You can't really type well at all on anything smaller than an 11" horizontal keyboard.
The laptop form factor has continued to thrive simply because people need dedicated high speed text entry. And presently you can't get that without a dedicated keyboard.
As I pointed out, the fact that pixels are rectangular, not square, means that a scale drawing may have the incorrect appearance. The images are scaled vertically, so the horizontal (and derivatively the diagonal) may look a little different.
Sheesh!
My apologies - a slight typo. Ten percent of a kilogram is quite obviously 100g. Tyyyyypo.
It's not a typo. Technically speaking one knows the difference in engineering SI units when one uses them throughout their career. To make your case strong you wanted to show that it was a large percentage of the weight and be a major impact.
In fact, 10g is 1% of that weight and subsequently your argument loses weight to say the least.
It's not a typo. Technically speaking one knows the difference in engineering SI units when one uses them throughout their career. To make your case strong you wanted to show that it was a large percentage of the weight and be a major impact.
In fact, 10g is 1% of that weight and subsequently your argument loses weight to say the least.
Actually, it is a typo. Typographical error, to be precise. It's when you are typing and you type "taht" instead of "that" or "htis" instead of "this" or "leep" instead of "sleep". I typed "10" instead of "100" - so sorry for your confusion.
Obviously 10g is 1% of 1kg. Obviously I meant to say 100g instead of 10g. 10 grams doesn't exactly constitute "reasonably heavy speakers" - 10 grams is quite diminutive, in fact.
I'm a physics major; I understand basic SI units. Le Système International d'Unités. Kilogram, meter, second, etc.
I hope they don't do something stupid like that. While I would definitely use a fliptop convertible if Apple made one (just for the sake of having a tablet Mac), it's a form factor that is worse than a conventional laptop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
And here's the new edible computer from Apple...
{image snipped}
Now THAT's something we can really get our teeth into!
So sorry for the really, really, REALLY, inexcusably bad joke.
Comments
-----
{after this post displays on the second page}
Weird....
My "drawing board" is Adobe Photoshop CS3 Extended, and all layers for the scale drawing were placed at regular size and scaled to their proper value in inches with the built-in tools for doing so. There may be some confusion for you simply because pixels are rectangles, not squares, so you might have some slight variance in any scale render - especially one that involves layered objects. The MacBook Touch has an 11" screen horizontally, not diagonally.
What the f??k are you talking about. Look at YOUR picture there is no way in hell that if the MBA has a 13.3" (DIAGONAL) display, the display of your "device" has a 13" DIAGONAL: It looks much too small vs the MBA, so it gives an appearence of size that is not in accordance to your specs.
the vertical component of the base touchscreen portion's weight (3) needs to be no more than 10% of the total weight of the back portion - about 10 grams total for a 1 kg device.
1kg = 1000g NOT 100g
10% of 1kg = 100g
If you can't count, no wonder how a 13" display can look like a 11" one in PhotoShop or wherever.
There are lots of things that need to be revised for this to work.
What the f??k are you talking about. Look at YOUR picture there is no way in hell that if the MBA has a 13.3" (DIAGONAL) display, the display of your "device" has a 13" DIAGONAL: It looks much too small vs the MBA, so it gives an appearence of size that is not in accordance to your specs.
As I pointed out, the fact that pixels are rectangular, not square, means that a scale drawing may have the incorrect appearance. The images are scaled vertically, so the horizontal (and derivatively the diagonal) may look a little different.
Sheesh!
1kg = 1000g NOT 100g
10% of 1kg = 100g
If you can't count, no wonder how a 13" display can look like a 11" one in PhotoShop or wherever.
My apologies - a slight typo. Ten percent of a kilogram is quite obviously 100g. Tyyyyypo.
As I pointed out, the fact that pixels are rectangular, not square, means that a scale drawing may have the incorrect appearance. The images are scaled vertically, so the horizontal (and derivatively the diagonal) may look a little different.
No. I can only assume you took a class in editing or designing for broadcast and took the oddness of NTSC/PAL pixels as gospel. In fact, quite the opposite is true in most of the 'real' world, as computer monitors display square pixels. Period.
As far as mjteix's concern, he is correct:
As you can see, your Touch screen is far smaller than the MBA screen. I would've guessed it was an 11" screen as well....and honestly I think it would be better that way anyways.
Regardless, these are very nice renderings. Well done.
No. I can only assume you took a class in editing or designing for broadcast and took the oddness of NTSC/PAL pixels as gospel. In fact, quite the opposite is true in most of the 'real' world, as computer monitors display square pixels. Period.
As far as mjteix's concern, he is correct:
As you can see, your Touch screen is far smaller than the MBA screen. I would've guessed it was an 11" screen as well....and honestly I think it would be better that way anyways.
Regardless, these are very nice renderings. Well done.
Thanks for the compliment, 709! No, I haven't taken classes in editing or designing for broadcast - it's just one of the quirks of Photoshop that rectangles don't always preserve their ratio when rotated. I think I figured out the problem. The overall dimensions are true vertically, just not horizontally. Which screws up the inner screen dimensions quite nicely.
I made it 13" so that the horizontal distance of the screen would be 11", which is precisely the size of a standard 101 key keyboard from "~" to "<- Backspace". Of course there's variance, but you can only make it so small before it becomes impossible to actually type on. You can't really type well at all on anything smaller than an 11" horizontal keyboard.
The laptop form factor has continued to thrive simply because people need dedicated high speed text entry. And presently you can't get that without a dedicated keyboard.
As I pointed out, the fact that pixels are rectangular, not square, means that a scale drawing may have the incorrect appearance. The images are scaled vertically, so the horizontal (and derivatively the diagonal) may look a little different.
Sheesh!
My apologies - a slight typo. Ten percent of a kilogram is quite obviously 100g. Tyyyyypo.
It's not a typo. Technically speaking one knows the difference in engineering SI units when one uses them throughout their career. To make your case strong you wanted to show that it was a large percentage of the weight and be a major impact.
In fact, 10g is 1% of that weight and subsequently your argument loses weight to say the least.
Little benefit?!?
The ability to have customized touch interfaces for various apps seems like a HUGE benefit?
And here's the new edible computer from Apple...
It's not a typo. Technically speaking one knows the difference in engineering SI units when one uses them throughout their career. To make your case strong you wanted to show that it was a large percentage of the weight and be a major impact.
In fact, 10g is 1% of that weight and subsequently your argument loses weight to say the least.
Actually, it is a typo. Typographical error, to be precise. It's when you are typing and you type "taht" instead of "that" or "htis" instead of "this" or "leep" instead of "sleep". I typed "10" instead of "100" - so sorry for your confusion.
Obviously 10g is 1% of 1kg. Obviously I meant to say 100g instead of 10g. 10 grams doesn't exactly constitute "reasonably heavy speakers" - 10 grams is quite diminutive, in fact.
I'm a physics major; I understand basic SI units. Le Système International d'Unités. Kilogram, meter, second, etc.
Maybe the next MacBook will be like the HP tx2000z http://hpshopping.speedera.net/www.s...000z_01-08.jpg
I hope they don't do something stupid like that. While I would definitely use a fliptop convertible if Apple made one (just for the sake of having a tablet Mac), it's a form factor that is worse than a conventional laptop.
And here's the new edible computer from Apple...
{image snipped}
Now THAT's something we can really get our teeth into!
So sorry for the really, really, REALLY, inexcusably bad joke.