So you haven't used a Mac since Apple released MacOS X then? If you had, then you would know that you comment is not necessarily true.
I guess that depends on your standards. You haven't elaborated on what you mean, but a 30" screen with a 150ppi resolution without adjusting the user interface is really pushing the usability for a lot of people. And 12 point text would probably be the equivalent to about 6 points on the actual screen, given that OS X still apparently equates 1 typography point to being the size of one pixel.
Where there's smoke there's usually fire and I'm curious what everyone thinks will be the time line for this transition? Fall?
With rumors of redesigned MacBooks and iMacs soon...could it be 16:9 ratio displays are about to be integrated into these newly redesigned product lines?
With rumors of redesigned MacBooks and iMacs soon...could it be 16:9 ratio displays are about to be integrated into these newly redesigned product lines?
With rumors of redesigned MacBooks and iMacs soon...could it be 16:9 ratio displays are about to be integrated into these newly redesigned product lines?
Having used a 16:9 screen on a notebook, I'm not liking the aspect ratio for computer use, 16:10 is short enough as it is. What 16:9 really does is make the screen shorter, not necessarily wider. Less information on the screen and more scrolling, and for what? To make movies fit the screen better without letterbox bars? I have a machine to watch movies on, and that's a home theater with an image measured in feet, not inches. My parents watch movies on their computer less than 5% of the time, the rest of the time, they have to deal with a shorter screen because the world apparently has to normalize on one aspect ratio for every kind of device. I do watch videos on my MBP from time to time, but it's not the main use of the machine. Besides, I watch a lot 4:3 TV shows too, and shortening the screen makes that image smaller.
16:9 is fine for movies, and I prefer it for gaming (peripheral vision!), but for every day computer use I prefer 16:10. I don't particularly care if the iMac is transitioned to 16:9 displays, but please, keep the MBP 16:10. 16:9 simply isn't as pleasant to use on a laptop screen.
Apple is a full blown consumer company now. With every new product and software release they're proving time and time again that they are a consumer and not a professional products company.
This is truly sad for someone like myself who use their hardware daily to make a living, but time's up for the pros. Hopefully they'll stay on top of their towers and not let them slip too far behind...
Quicktime amateur X is enough to show that 16x9 will be the future of apple displays...which will all be glossy so you can see if anyone is sneaking up behind you.
So far they've only adopted 16:9 on the iMac, which is not a "Pro" machine anyway. Many people like to watch TV and movies on their iMac screens so I think it's a good move for them.
I can't see what's inherently un-pro about 16:9 anyway. It seems unlikely the laptops will go 16:9. They've just re-released the iBook and that didn't go 16:9. I think it would make the laptops too narrow and not give them enough palm rest. Plus there is a whole ecosystem of accessories (bags etc) suited to the current sizes that have been around for years. The 15" MBP's dimensions basically haven't changed since the 15" PowerBook debut.
It'll be interesting to see what happens to the top-of-the-line 30" Cinema Display...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Fix
Apple is a full blown consumer company now. With every new product and software release they're proving time and time again that they are a consumer and not a professional products company.
This is truly sad for someone like myself who use their hardware daily to make a living, but time's up for the pros. Hopefully they'll stay on top of their towers and not let them slip too far behind...
Quicktime amateur X is enough to show that 16x9 will be the future of apple displays...which will all be glossy so you can see if anyone is sneaking up behind you.
As one can see once a screen exceeds a certain size and pixel count arguing about ratios becomes a bit silly. The iMac can now display 1080P HD in a window if you are in editing mode or it can blow the image up to full screen size. Not a bad deal if you ask me.
Screen ratios are only an issue if you don't have enough pixels to display common formats and the associated tools. Once you move beyound that, that is have the ability to display common formats pixel for pixel in a window the screen ratio doesn't mean much. Sure it is easier on the electronics when blowing an image up to have nice multiples in pixel counts but do you really want to edit on a system that is doing so.
Frankly I'm happy to see Apple becoming agressive with screens and iMac design in general.
You can cross another off of the "Apple will never" list.
That's true, but going through the discussion, only one person said "Apple will never", and said person claimed some special, unprovable connection to someone in Cupertino, for all we know, it was just a bit of hot air (maybe the contact was imaginary), simply someone that wasn't actually in the loop or the contact was lying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
So I read through it. What a bunch of laughs.
As one can see once a screen exceeds a certain size and pixel count arguing about ratios becomes a bit silly. The iMac can now display 1080P HD in a window if you are in editing mode or it can blow the image up to full screen size. Not a bad deal if you ask me.
Screen ratios are only an issue if you don't have enough pixels to display common formats and the associated tools. Once you move beyound that, that is have the ability to display common formats pixel for pixel in a window the screen ratio doesn't mean much. Sure it is easier on the electronics when blowing an image up to have nice multiples in pixel counts but do you really want to edit on a system that is doing so.
Frankly I'm happy to see Apple becoming agressive with screens and iMac design in general.
My concern was about notebooks, and the thread starter specifically mentions notebooks, and if you didn't notice, the MacBook still sticks with 16:10.
But even looking at my 30" display, the width is fine, I don't see why I would want it to be a shorter display in order to make it fit a shorter aspect ratio designed for video. I wouldn't even mind if it was a bit taller, say 1.5:1.
I will say that it is nice Apple went beyond 1920x1200 on a consumer display. But if I were in the market for a 1920 display, I would go for the 1200 pixel tall one over the 1080 one, as both are roughly the same price anyways. I might watch video on a given computer screen as much as 25% of the time, no reason to make it shorter just to fit an arbitrary media format without black bars.
There's no question that MacBook Pros are next on the 16:9 hit parade. At least starting with the 15" and 17" models. To be precise, 15.4 will become 15.6" and 17.1 will be 17.3". If we are lucky, a new high-end model at 18.4" will be added.
Dell and HP are going this route, expect Apple to follow in hot pursuit. Dell's new corporate thin and light "Latitude Z series" uses a 16:9 display at 15.6".
As far as the 13" Pro goes, I think this may get a wee bit smaller with the 13.1" display. Probably of the same ilk used in the new 13" HP Envy.
It's also possible that Apple will change their design a little bit since they are being so heavy copied by the likes of HP. They'll need something to differentiate their portfolio.
So far they've only adopted 16:9 on the iMac, which is not a "Pro" machine anyway. Many people like to watch TV and movies on their iMac screens so I think it's a good move for them.
$2000 is expensive, it is not necessarily "pro". These are two different concepts.
And for some of our favorite other-industry examples:
A Leica M9 is expensive, but not "pro". A Nikon D3 or Canon 1D is "pro"
A ferrari is expensive, but not "pro". An 18-wheeler is pro.
Getting back to computers, all iMacs are targeted for the (relatively affluent) homes or schools. Of course some businesses might find them useful and buy lots of them, but equating expensive with pro is wrong.
Why? Because Apple didn't apply that branding to them?
Because offices, especially ones with cubicles prefer smaller screens, many even keep using 4:3 or 5:4 screens - saving desk space is important.
Because graphic designers, video editors and even pro photoshoppers prefer dual screens, each screen being not quite so big. Yes, you can connect a secondary screen to an iMac, but it looks weird.
The whole all-in-one package is for home use. Businesses require continuity above all else, so a faulty monitor can be swapped out quickly, as could a hard drive in a faulty computer. Only a faulty hard drive would cause any kind of discontinuity. With an iMac, any malfunction means the whole package is out of service, and replacing the hard disk? Well, I'd say that it's like pulling teeth, but a mouth opens more easily than the back of an iMac.
Because offices, especially ones with cubicles prefer smaller screens, many even keep using 4:3 or 5:4 screens - saving desk space is important.
And yet, somehow I have two 20" widescreen monitors on my desk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by synp
Because graphic designers, video editors and even pro photoshoppers prefer dual screens, each screen being not quite so big. Yes, you can connect a secondary screen to an iMac, but it looks weird.
Is "looks weird" actually a criterion here? Has no designer really figured that hey, they could swap two one-page monitors for one two-page monitor? I doubt that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by synp
The whole all-in-one package is for home use. Businesses require continuity above all else, so a faulty monitor can be swapped out quickly, as could a hard drive in a faulty computer. Only a faulty hard drive would cause any kind of discontinuity. With an iMac, any malfunction means the whole package is out of service, and replacing the hard disk? Well, I'd say that it's like pulling teeth, but a mouth opens more easily than the back of an iMac.
Business has been losing that battle for 30 years. Remember when they required PCI ethernet cards so they could quickly swap them out when they got chatty? Those were the days.
If you require continuity, you keep user data on the network, keep some up-to-date iMacs on standby, and swap them in for any non-functional iMac. Total user downtime: About 1 minute, regardless of what the problem is. Repairing the machine might not be quick or easy, but since production is humming along it doesn't really matter. The real issue here is that Apple doesn't have a service program as robust as Dell's. If they had overnight off-site and same-day on-site service (available for a price, of course) nobody would be talking about this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by synp
It's a consumer machine, though an expensive one.
A consumer machine with an 8-bit screen with incredibly high resolution and the capacity for an i7 and 16GB of RAM is purely a consumer machine? Ah, no. It is certainly not the Ultimate Professional Workstation, but it can do heavy lifting and therefore there will be people using them for heavy lifting.
Heck, I know designers who are stuck at work on 6-bit Dell monitors. The iMac's display might not be the best possible, but it beats the pants off a lot of what's actually out there.
And yet, somehow I have two 20" widescreen monitors on my desk.
In portrait or landscape? A 20" screen seems pretty short to me in landscape, but too tall in landscape. I'm guessing you have a setup that's only a thousand pixels tall, and three times wider than it is tall.
Quote:
If you require continuity, you keep user data on the network, keep some up-to-date iMacs on standby, and swap them in for any non-functional iMac. Total user downtime: About 1 minute, regardless of what the problem is. Repairing the machine might not be quick or easy, but since production is humming along it doesn't really matter. The real issue here is that Apple doesn't have a service program as robust as Dell's. If they had overnight off-site and same-day on-site service (available for a price, of course) nobody would be talking about this.
Having an entire machine that's ready to swap in "within a minute" would require the expense of keeping an entire spare machine, and I'm pretty sure in most cases, active licenses for all the software that's on it. Then that's not counting the time to move the user's account over.
I just noticed that Apple's only professional desktop display is now 16:9. The iMacs are 16:9. The notebooks have to be next. Apple hasn't updated the MacBook Air in forever, and the MacBook Pro is due for a refresh soon. I'm thinking this time around they will get the 16:9 treatment, especially in light of the fact that the LED Cinema Display has been geared towards MacBook Pro users. It's going to become more costly to stay 16:10.
Comments
So you haven't used a Mac since Apple released MacOS X then? If you had, then you would know that you comment is not necessarily true.
I guess that depends on your standards. You haven't elaborated on what you mean, but a 30" screen with a 150ppi resolution without adjusting the user interface is really pushing the usability for a lot of people. And 12 point text would probably be the equivalent to about 6 points on the actual screen, given that OS X still apparently equates 1 typography point to being the size of one pixel.
Where there's smoke there's usually fire and I'm curious what everyone thinks will be the time line for this transition? Fall?
With rumors of redesigned MacBooks and iMacs soon...could it be 16:9 ratio displays are about to be integrated into these newly redesigned product lines?
512 icons would do me fine.
I'm willing to beta test a 4k monitor if any vendors are reading this thread
I'm willing to beta test a Red Scarlet 3K if any vendors are reading this thread
With rumors of redesigned MacBooks and iMacs soon...could it be 16:9 ratio displays are about to be integrated into these newly redesigned product lines?
Heh. Scary but unlikely.
With rumors of redesigned MacBooks and iMacs soon...could it be 16:9 ratio displays are about to be integrated into these newly redesigned product lines?
Having used a 16:9 screen on a notebook, I'm not liking the aspect ratio for computer use, 16:10 is short enough as it is. What 16:9 really does is make the screen shorter, not necessarily wider. Less information on the screen and more scrolling, and for what? To make movies fit the screen better without letterbox bars? I have a machine to watch movies on, and that's a home theater with an image measured in feet, not inches. My parents watch movies on their computer less than 5% of the time, the rest of the time, they have to deal with a shorter screen because the world apparently has to normalize on one aspect ratio for every kind of device. I do watch videos on my MBP from time to time, but it's not the main use of the machine. Besides, I watch a lot 4:3 TV shows too, and shortening the screen makes that image smaller.
I'm curious what everyone thinks will be the time line for this transition? Fall?
Looks like with the iMac, the transition is now underway...
16:9 is fine for movies, and I prefer it for gaming (peripheral vision!), but for every day computer use I prefer 16:10. I don't particularly care if the iMac is transitioned to 16:9 displays, but please, keep the MBP 16:10. 16:9 simply isn't as pleasant to use on a laptop screen.
This is truly sad for someone like myself who use their hardware daily to make a living, but time's up for the pros. Hopefully they'll stay on top of their towers and not let them slip too far behind...
Quicktime amateur X is enough to show that 16x9 will be the future of apple displays...which will all be glossy so you can see if anyone is sneaking up behind you.
I can't see what's inherently un-pro about 16:9 anyway. It seems unlikely the laptops will go 16:9. They've just re-released the iBook and that didn't go 16:9. I think it would make the laptops too narrow and not give them enough palm rest. Plus there is a whole ecosystem of accessories (bags etc) suited to the current sizes that have been around for years. The 15" MBP's dimensions basically haven't changed since the 15" PowerBook debut.
It'll be interesting to see what happens to the top-of-the-line 30" Cinema Display...
Apple is a full blown consumer company now. With every new product and software release they're proving time and time again that they are a consumer and not a professional products company.
This is truly sad for someone like myself who use their hardware daily to make a living, but time's up for the pros. Hopefully they'll stay on top of their towers and not let them slip too far behind...
Quicktime amateur X is enough to show that 16x9 will be the future of apple displays...which will all be glossy so you can see if anyone is sneaking up behind you.
As one can see once a screen exceeds a certain size and pixel count arguing about ratios becomes a bit silly. The iMac can now display 1080P HD in a window if you are in editing mode or it can blow the image up to full screen size. Not a bad deal if you ask me.
Screen ratios are only an issue if you don't have enough pixels to display common formats and the associated tools. Once you move beyound that, that is have the ability to display common formats pixel for pixel in a window the screen ratio doesn't mean much. Sure it is easier on the electronics when blowing an image up to have nice multiples in pixel counts but do you really want to edit on a system that is doing so.
Frankly I'm happy to see Apple becoming agressive with screens and iMac design in general.
Dave
You can cross another off of the "Apple will never" list.
That's true, but going through the discussion, only one person said "Apple will never", and said person claimed some special, unprovable connection to someone in Cupertino, for all we know, it was just a bit of hot air (maybe the contact was imaginary), simply someone that wasn't actually in the loop or the contact was lying.
So I read through it. What a bunch of laughs.
As one can see once a screen exceeds a certain size and pixel count arguing about ratios becomes a bit silly. The iMac can now display 1080P HD in a window if you are in editing mode or it can blow the image up to full screen size. Not a bad deal if you ask me.
Screen ratios are only an issue if you don't have enough pixels to display common formats and the associated tools. Once you move beyound that, that is have the ability to display common formats pixel for pixel in a window the screen ratio doesn't mean much. Sure it is easier on the electronics when blowing an image up to have nice multiples in pixel counts but do you really want to edit on a system that is doing so.
Frankly I'm happy to see Apple becoming agressive with screens and iMac design in general.
My concern was about notebooks, and the thread starter specifically mentions notebooks, and if you didn't notice, the MacBook still sticks with 16:10.
But even looking at my 30" display, the width is fine, I don't see why I would want it to be a shorter display in order to make it fit a shorter aspect ratio designed for video. I wouldn't even mind if it was a bit taller, say 1.5:1.
I will say that it is nice Apple went beyond 1920x1200 on a consumer display. But if I were in the market for a 1920 display, I would go for the 1200 pixel tall one over the 1080 one, as both are roughly the same price anyways. I might watch video on a given computer screen as much as 25% of the time, no reason to make it shorter just to fit an arbitrary media format without black bars.
Dell and HP are going this route, expect Apple to follow in hot pursuit. Dell's new corporate thin and light "Latitude Z series" uses a 16:9 display at 15.6".
As far as the 13" Pro goes, I think this may get a wee bit smaller with the 13.1" display. Probably of the same ilk used in the new 13" HP Envy.
It's also possible that Apple will change their design a little bit since they are being so heavy copied by the likes of HP. They'll need something to differentiate their portfolio.
So far they've only adopted 16:9 on the iMac, which is not a "Pro" machine anyway. Many people like to watch TV and movies on their iMac screens so I think it's a good move for them.
$2000 is pretty Pro.
$2000 is pretty Pro.
$2000 is expensive, it is not necessarily "pro". These are two different concepts.
And for some of our favorite other-industry examples:
- A Leica M9 is expensive, but not "pro". A Nikon D3 or Canon 1D is "pro"
- A ferrari is expensive, but not "pro". An 18-wheeler is pro.
Getting back to computers, all iMacs are targeted for the (relatively affluent) homes or schools. Of course some businesses might find them useful and buy lots of them, but equating expensive with pro is wrong.Why? Because Apple didn't apply that branding to them?
Because offices, especially ones with cubicles prefer smaller screens, many even keep using 4:3 or 5:4 screens - saving desk space is important.
Because graphic designers, video editors and even pro photoshoppers prefer dual screens, each screen being not quite so big. Yes, you can connect a secondary screen to an iMac, but it looks weird.
The whole all-in-one package is for home use. Businesses require continuity above all else, so a faulty monitor can be swapped out quickly, as could a hard drive in a faulty computer. Only a faulty hard drive would cause any kind of discontinuity. With an iMac, any malfunction means the whole package is out of service, and replacing the hard disk? Well, I'd say that it's like pulling teeth, but a mouth opens more easily than the back of an iMac.
It's a consumer machine, though an expensive one.
Because offices, especially ones with cubicles prefer smaller screens, many even keep using 4:3 or 5:4 screens - saving desk space is important.
And yet, somehow I have two 20" widescreen monitors on my desk.
Because graphic designers, video editors and even pro photoshoppers prefer dual screens, each screen being not quite so big. Yes, you can connect a secondary screen to an iMac, but it looks weird.
Is "looks weird" actually a criterion here? Has no designer really figured that hey, they could swap two one-page monitors for one two-page monitor? I doubt that.
The whole all-in-one package is for home use. Businesses require continuity above all else, so a faulty monitor can be swapped out quickly, as could a hard drive in a faulty computer. Only a faulty hard drive would cause any kind of discontinuity. With an iMac, any malfunction means the whole package is out of service, and replacing the hard disk? Well, I'd say that it's like pulling teeth, but a mouth opens more easily than the back of an iMac.
Business has been losing that battle for 30 years. Remember when they required PCI ethernet cards so they could quickly swap them out when they got chatty? Those were the days.
If you require continuity, you keep user data on the network, keep some up-to-date iMacs on standby, and swap them in for any non-functional iMac. Total user downtime: About 1 minute, regardless of what the problem is. Repairing the machine might not be quick or easy, but since production is humming along it doesn't really matter. The real issue here is that Apple doesn't have a service program as robust as Dell's. If they had overnight off-site and same-day on-site service (available for a price, of course) nobody would be talking about this.
It's a consumer machine, though an expensive one.
A consumer machine with an 8-bit screen with incredibly high resolution and the capacity for an i7 and 16GB of RAM is purely a consumer machine? Ah, no. It is certainly not the Ultimate Professional Workstation, but it can do heavy lifting and therefore there will be people using them for heavy lifting.
Heck, I know designers who are stuck at work on 6-bit Dell monitors. The iMac's display might not be the best possible, but it beats the pants off a lot of what's actually out there.
And yet, somehow I have two 20" widescreen monitors on my desk.
In portrait or landscape? A 20" screen seems pretty short to me in landscape, but too tall in landscape. I'm guessing you have a setup that's only a thousand pixels tall, and three times wider than it is tall.
If you require continuity, you keep user data on the network, keep some up-to-date iMacs on standby, and swap them in for any non-functional iMac. Total user downtime: About 1 minute, regardless of what the problem is. Repairing the machine might not be quick or easy, but since production is humming along it doesn't really matter. The real issue here is that Apple doesn't have a service program as robust as Dell's. If they had overnight off-site and same-day on-site service (available for a price, of course) nobody would be talking about this.
Having an entire machine that's ready to swap in "within a minute" would require the expense of keeping an entire spare machine, and I'm pretty sure in most cases, active licenses for all the software that's on it. Then that's not counting the time to move the user's account over.