4:3 Screens on the New MacBook Pros?

coverto · August 10, 2008 3:02PM

Hi, I'm pretty new to this forum and know this is all pretty speculative but I'm wondering - is it just me, or do the recently leaked photos of the supposed new MacBook Pros look like the casing for a 4:3 screen? I've seen a couple of threads on these photos where a few folks raise the same question, but most seem obsessed with about the backlit logo issue.

Anyway, I'd be thrilled to see the return of the 4:3 screen - the 16:9 and 16:10 formats never made much sense to me for the purposes of a computer, as they force a lot of scrolling up and down on standard web pages - an annoyance that far outweighs any benefit of 16:9 that I'm aware of (I'm a movie freak, don't get me wrong, but prefer to watch movies on a big screen.)

Thanks in advance for your thoughts, and here's that image pasted below for reference's sake...

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles..._revealed.html

ireland · August 10, 2008 3:58PM

They won't be 4:3, I know that much.

They are currently 16:10, if they change they'll be 16:9, not 4:3. This isn't the 90's you know.

coverto · August 10, 2008 4:50PM

Thanks for the reply, Ireland. You're quite right, this isn't the 90s, and honestly I think you're also probably right about what's ahead for the MBP. Still, I've always wondered why the 16:9 trend took over so decisively with Apple. Seems that, at some point, 16:9 or 16:10 became "cool," perhaps given its admittedly sleeker look and relative ease of portability. But when it comes to using a computer day to day, 4:3 to me seems far more practical for most applications, and part of me wonders whether (hopes?) Apple isn't poised to "go retro" and tell us that the tide has finally turned again on what's "cool"... Just my $0.02.

And, to the point of my original post, that shell casing looks more like 4:3 to me, although my assessment is admittedly thoroughly unscientific...

Marvin · August 10, 2008 5:00PM

The display in the image has a 16:9 or 16:10 size. Hold up a ruler to the screen and measure the rough width and height. There is some error because there is an uneven bezel round the display but this means it's even more widescreen than the outer shell.

I used to dislike the widescreen displays but you waste a lot of pixels watching 16:9 movies. You aren't really losing any pixels either - the old 4:3 ibook/powerbook 12" only went up to 1024 x 768 and the Macbook has 1280 x 800 pixels so it's still an improvement.

I would still like to see Apple offer higher resolutions on their laptops. 1680 x 1050 on the MBP and maybe 1440 x 900 on the MB. The 17" would get 1920 x 1080 or something by default.

Perhaps text would be hard to read for some people though and lowering the resolution to a non-native size might not look so nice. I think having more pixels is better than not enough though.

coverto · August 10, 2008 5:12PM

Marvin, I guess I'll take your word for it on the picture - it just seems that the angle of the shell casing relative to the camera makes it difficult to judge. Also, I'm with you on the need for better resolution. I've just always felt that the 4:3 configuration was a more effective way to maximize the use of the pixels you've got. I mean, since when did watching movies on a laptop become more important than, say, surfing the internet? I'm a cave-dweller, I know...

akac · August 10, 2008 8:14PM

Considering that I have a dock at the side, and other "palettes" I keep on the side I do not understand how a 4:3 is better than 16:9/10. You get the same vertical res - but more horizontal res. Its a win/win.

futurepastnow · August 10, 2008 8:39PM

I think we can safely say that Apple's 4:3 screen days are behind it. No Mac with a built-in screen will ever have a non-widescreen display again.

walter slocombe · August 11, 2008 8:25AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ireland

They won't be 4:3, I know that much.

They are currently 16:10, if they change they'll be 16:9, not 4:3. This isn't the 90's you know.

90s!

80s more like

4:3 is dead and gone.

if nothing else look at vistas gadget sidebar waste of space, and consider all the manufacturers that will be producing for "PCs"

and as someone pointed out on another thread 16:10 allows for a 16:9 movie plus controls.

you get more pixels in the vertical now anyway, than you used to, so of course its a win win

mcarling · August 11, 2008 6:01PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvin

I would still like to see Apple offer higher resolutions on their laptops. 1680 x 1050 on the MBP and maybe 1440 x 900 on the MB. The 17" would get 1920 x 1080 or something by default.

Apple currently offer a BTO option for the 17" MBP of 1920x1200. I'd like to see 1920x1200 become standard on the 17" and a BTO option for the 15".

mr. h · August 11, 2008 6:27PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcarling

I'd like to see 1920x1200 become ? a BTO option for the 15".

Whoa! Squinty or what? The problem with 1920 x 1200 on a 15" screen is that it's not really high-enough to implement a resolution-independent GUI on, but with a standard GUI everything would be tiny. A more realistic hope is that 1680 x 1050 will become an option at 15" - don't count on it though as Apple have always been behind the curve when it comes to laptop display resolutions.

mcarling · August 11, 2008 6:52PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. H

The problem with 1920 x 1200 on a 15" screen is that it's not really high-enough to implement a resolution-independent GUI on....

Huh? Resolution Independence does not require high resolution displays. I use it with 100dpi displays.

mr. h · August 11, 2008 7:43PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcarling

Huh? Resolution Independence does not require high resolution displays. I use it with 100dpi displays.

Really? Which OS? Once we hit displays that have at least 300 dpi, resolution independence becomes an exciting prospect.

4:3 Screens on the New MacBook Pros?

Comments