Turn off the ambient sensor auto adjustment. I thought I had a problem too until I unchecked it.
Thanks Solip, we'll give that a try.
Is it just me, or are Apple's light sensors way too touchy? I'm typing right now with a window behind me, and the sun is going in and out of the clouds, so my screen is yo-yo-ing in brightness quite a lot, much more than I need it to.
Ditto whenever I move around much at all... guess I'm blocking/unblocking some of the light with my head.
What would be awesome would be, instead of just an on/off checkbox for ambient light-sensing, there was a sensitivity slider or somesuch.
the difference between 13" and 15" isn't that large.
What I said:
the difference is HUGE
Right. The difference isn't that large whether you go 13" to 15" or 15" to 17".
Quote:
The debate isn't over whether 15" > 13"... we obviously are both aware of that. The debate is over how significant the difference is.
Btw, didn't "Hello?" die out in the '90s?
If you're old enough to remember then it still works.
Quote:
Don't know how we went from 13" vs 15" to 15" vs 17", but the whole "it's just 2 inches" thing doesn't hold up so well upon closer inspection. Because a 2" screen isn't just 13-15% bigger (i.e. a straight 13 vs 15 or 15 vs 17 comparison)... it's the diagonal measurement squared bigger. You really notice it. Even I was shocked at how much a diff it's made.
The screen size itself isn't the issue. It's the resolution you're complaining about. 1280 x 800 is smaller than 1440 x 900 which is smaller than 1680 x 1050.
I find 1440x900 about as tight as 1280x800. The difference is 160x100 pixels. Yes, it's about the area of the dock. You can hide the dock. I leave it up but I honestly don't use it much for status info that moving the cursor would be a bother.
Quote:
Something like 60% of Mac purchases are notebooks. Do they all buy 24"+ external monitors? I doubt it. Pros and the rich do, many others don't.
Even a 22" display is typically 1680x1050 or 1920x1080. The Dell S2209W is 1920x1080 for $239. The 23" is $299. Hell, the 24"+ line starts at $349.
Quote:
Seems like excuses to me. Apple shouldn't be going backwards on battery life simply for the sake of a small aesthetic difference.
Again, it all depends on the amount of battery life you gain from a slightly different design.
Quote:
Thing is, the battery isn't particularly thick either. Perhaps a half-inch. So even a small increase in thickness should result in significant volume/capacity gains. Remember the previous gen MB Pro? 1.0" thick, yet it had a full-size, 20%-better-than-current-capacity battery.
Could they have added a bigger battery to the MBP? Sure. Would the MBP be bigger and heavier? Yes. Would people then bitch about that? Yes.
Quote:
See above. Seems like Apple already proved you wrong back in early '08.
With a different design that doesn't make HDD access all that easy. Which is a shame since it would be nice to have a bigger HDD on my MBP.
Quote:
A barely noticeable aesthetic diff vs significantly better functionality? LOL, I think if you took a poll, it wouldn't even be that close.
Prove that it will be significantly better battery life and I will agree. Not just handwaving but real significant advantage based on increasing the MBP battery by 0.05" in thickness as you suggested.
Quote:
I mean, ok, some ppl just want something to look at, not use. But I don't think that's the majority of us Mac users. We're do-ers, not poseurs.
Nice try at an insult. Want a counter example? How about Nokia?
"A related question flying around is why the heck we didn't just design the N96 with the 1200 mAh battery in the first place. Well, from what I'm told, that would have affected the real and apparent thickness of the product and maybe dropped the kick-stand. Based on market feedback, making the product thicker would have impacted seriously on sales. That's why it was important to make sure the talk-time and standby time were on par with other devices, but that the video and music playback time be superior within this size and power constraint.* "
Tell you what...Android is out there. I can put you in touch with some Chinese companies. Why don't you make an iPhone killer? It's just a matter of not being blinded by form over function right?
Because it sure seems like the Nokia engineers and designers are afflicted with that same "form over function" bug as the Apple engineers and designers.
Quote:
Talk to Solip. His latest post seems to be pretty emphatic on the point that you're wrong, and he feels he has proof.
Don't speak for Solip. We disagree on emphasis. I feel that Apple left out including FW for both market segment issues and size. He feels it was mostly size with FW not being important to the market segment.
He's right, with the current design, FW doesn't fit well. But like the N96, you CAN redesign the MB to be bigger. Or no optical, or whatever. The difference in our opinions was that he thinks it's because FW was unimportant. I think that they didn't want FW. The difference it more a nuance than anything else.
Quote:
Except that graphically, the MB Pro still whomps it, plus it has Firewire, a bigger screen, a higher-quality screen, expansion, better speakers, etc. So maybe we're talking 'MR2 with a custom exhaust' vs a Ferrari.
Of course is still whomps it. The difference is that the MB graphics is now good enough. As opposed to seriously weak. The other differences are of far lesser importance given that there was always a strong desire for a smaller MBP. Those users are now satisfied.
But whatever. If you can't even acknowledge that the MB is so much better than it was before from a graphics perspective you're simply being argumentative.
Quote:
So, ppl are supposed to buy a 3G iPhone, and then use it mostly/only in 2.5G mode? Kinda defeats the whole point of the product, but, uhhhh... ok, sure.
No, you said the time was cut in half and due to form over function. I said it's because of 3G not "form over function".
Quote:
Sigh. You're too limited in your experience here, it seems. The iPhone is wider than the Pearl, sure. But compare it to something like the Blackberry Curve, which is VERY popular. The Curve is just as wide as the iPhone, and... *gasp*... 0.6" thick, about 20% thicker than the iPhone. Yet the thing still sells like hotcakes, and with little or no whining about what a 'beast' it is to hold.
"The size isn't as large as I'd expected. Admittedly I'm coming to the N96 from the E90, but I was still pleasantly surprised. The N96 is shorter and easier to hold than the Apple iPhone, which I also have."
Size is reviewed and commented on in phones so size matters.
Quote:
Pretty sure you're off here. Do you realize how small cellphone batteries are? The one in my midrange flip is only about a quarter of an inch thick. The one in the iPhone isn't much thicker, because the iPhone itself is under a half-inch thick. So yes, even a few more millimeters would make a significant diff in capacity.
Talk to Nokia as well I guess. And every other company that has released a new product with a smaller battery than the last product.
Quote:
What about the W810?
iPhone 4.5" x 2.4" x 0.48" - Total volume: 5.18 cubic inches
W810 3.94" x 1.81" x 0.77" - Total volume: 5.49 cubic inches
So actually, in this instance, the Walkman phone is bigger.
Yah...released in 2006 and not listed as a current phone for Sony.
The smaller W960i has 3 hours talk time, 300 hours standby and 2 hours video vs 5 hours talk time, 300 hourse standby and 7 hours video playback. Or in other words, less or same as the iPhone 3G.
You should tell Sony to stop being form over function as well.
The Xperia X1 has better times and is 4.33 x 2.09 x 0.66 so is larger. But Sony has multiple models and Apple 1. So Apple designs differently and more successfully given the iPhone sells more than RIMs entire lineup. Perhaps the Storm will fix that. Probably not.
Quote:
14mm isn't thick, heck the Blackberry Storm is that thick, and ppl are lined up around the block to buy it. The BB Curve is *thicker* than that, has sold very well, and no one complains about it being a chunk.
"However, this device isn?t without flaws. The Storm is larger and heavier than the iPhone 3G and it lacks Wi-Fi."
"You?ll definitely notice the BlackBerry Storm in your pocket. Measuring 4.4 x 2.5 x 0.6 inches and weighing 5.5 ounces (versus 4.5 x 2.4 x 0.5 inches and 4.7 ounces for the iPhone 3G), the Storm is bulkier and heavier than we would like, especially since it has a smaller display (3.3 vs. 3.5 inches) than the iPhone 3G."
Oh...hey look: 5.5 hours talk time, 360 hours standby. Damn those Blackberry engineers going form over function. Why couldn't they make the battery bigger and get 10 hours talk time?
Quote:
Methinks you've just bought into Steve's RDF a little too strongly.
Comments
Turn off the ambient sensor auto adjustment. I thought I had a problem too until I unchecked it.
Thanks Solip, we'll give that a try.
Is it just me, or are Apple's light sensors way too touchy? I'm typing right now with a window behind me, and the sun is going in and out of the clouds, so my screen is yo-yo-ing in brightness quite a lot, much more than I need it to.
Ditto whenever I move around much at all... guess I'm blocking/unblocking some of the light with my head.
What would be awesome would be, instead of just an on/off checkbox for ambient light-sensing, there was a sensitivity slider or somesuch.
...
Ugh. What you said:
the difference between 13" and 15" isn't that large.
What I said:
the difference is HUGE
Right. The difference isn't that large whether you go 13" to 15" or 15" to 17".
The debate isn't over whether 15" > 13"... we obviously are both aware of that. The debate is over how significant the difference is.
Btw, didn't "Hello?" die out in the '90s?
If you're old enough to remember then it still works.
Don't know how we went from 13" vs 15" to 15" vs 17", but the whole "it's just 2 inches" thing doesn't hold up so well upon closer inspection. Because a 2" screen isn't just 13-15% bigger (i.e. a straight 13 vs 15 or 15 vs 17 comparison)... it's the diagonal measurement squared bigger. You really notice it. Even I was shocked at how much a diff it's made.
The screen size itself isn't the issue. It's the resolution you're complaining about. 1280 x 800 is smaller than 1440 x 900 which is smaller than 1680 x 1050.
I find 1440x900 about as tight as 1280x800. The difference is 160x100 pixels. Yes, it's about the area of the dock. You can hide the dock. I leave it up but I honestly don't use it much for status info that moving the cursor would be a bother.
Something like 60% of Mac purchases are notebooks. Do they all buy 24"+ external monitors? I doubt it. Pros and the rich do, many others don't.
Even a 22" display is typically 1680x1050 or 1920x1080. The Dell S2209W is 1920x1080 for $239. The 23" is $299. Hell, the 24"+ line starts at $349.
Seems like excuses to me. Apple shouldn't be going backwards on battery life simply for the sake of a small aesthetic difference.
Again, it all depends on the amount of battery life you gain from a slightly different design.
Thing is, the battery isn't particularly thick either. Perhaps a half-inch. So even a small increase in thickness should result in significant volume/capacity gains. Remember the previous gen MB Pro? 1.0" thick, yet it had a full-size, 20%-better-than-current-capacity battery.
Could they have added a bigger battery to the MBP? Sure. Would the MBP be bigger and heavier? Yes. Would people then bitch about that? Yes.
See above. Seems like Apple already proved you wrong back in early '08.
With a different design that doesn't make HDD access all that easy. Which is a shame since it would be nice to have a bigger HDD on my MBP.
A barely noticeable aesthetic diff vs significantly better functionality? LOL, I think if you took a poll, it wouldn't even be that close.
Prove that it will be significantly better battery life and I will agree. Not just handwaving but real significant advantage based on increasing the MBP battery by 0.05" in thickness as you suggested.
I mean, ok, some ppl just want something to look at, not use. But I don't think that's the majority of us Mac users. We're do-ers, not poseurs.
Nice try at an insult. Want a counter example? How about Nokia?
http://conversations.nokia.com/home/...oesnt-mat.html
"A related question flying around is why the heck we didn't just design the N96 with the 1200 mAh battery in the first place. Well, from what I'm told, that would have affected the real and apparent thickness of the product and maybe dropped the kick-stand. Based on market feedback, making the product thicker would have impacted seriously on sales. That's why it was important to make sure the talk-time and standby time were on par with other devices, but that the video and music playback time be superior within this size and power constraint.* "
Tell you what...Android is out there. I can put you in touch with some Chinese companies. Why don't you make an iPhone killer? It's just a matter of not being blinded by form over function right?
Because it sure seems like the Nokia engineers and designers are afflicted with that same "form over function" bug as the Apple engineers and designers.
Talk to Solip. His latest post seems to be pretty emphatic on the point that you're wrong, and he feels he has proof.
Don't speak for Solip. We disagree on emphasis. I feel that Apple left out including FW for both market segment issues and size. He feels it was mostly size with FW not being important to the market segment.
He's right, with the current design, FW doesn't fit well. But like the N96, you CAN redesign the MB to be bigger. Or no optical, or whatever. The difference in our opinions was that he thinks it's because FW was unimportant. I think that they didn't want FW. The difference it more a nuance than anything else.
Except that graphically, the MB Pro still whomps it, plus it has Firewire, a bigger screen, a higher-quality screen, expansion, better speakers, etc. So maybe we're talking 'MR2 with a custom exhaust' vs a Ferrari.
Of course is still whomps it. The difference is that the MB graphics is now good enough. As opposed to seriously weak. The other differences are of far lesser importance given that there was always a strong desire for a smaller MBP. Those users are now satisfied.
But whatever. If you can't even acknowledge that the MB is so much better than it was before from a graphics perspective you're simply being argumentative.
So, ppl are supposed to buy a 3G iPhone, and then use it mostly/only in 2.5G mode? Kinda defeats the whole point of the product, but, uhhhh... ok, sure.
No, you said the time was cut in half and due to form over function. I said it's because of 3G not "form over function".
Sigh. You're too limited in your experience here, it seems. The iPhone is wider than the Pearl, sure. But compare it to something like the Blackberry Curve, which is VERY popular. The Curve is just as wide as the iPhone, and... *gasp*... 0.6" thick, about 20% thicker than the iPhone. Yet the thing still sells like hotcakes, and with little or no whining about what a 'beast' it is to hold.
"The size isn't as large as I'd expected. Admittedly I'm coming to the N96 from the E90, but I was still pleasantly surprised. The N96 is shorter and easier to hold than the Apple iPhone, which I also have."
http://www.allaboutsymbian.com/news/..._the_Nokia.php
Size is reviewed and commented on in phones so size matters.
Pretty sure you're off here. Do you realize how small cellphone batteries are? The one in my midrange flip is only about a quarter of an inch thick. The one in the iPhone isn't much thicker, because the iPhone itself is under a half-inch thick. So yes, even a few more millimeters would make a significant diff in capacity.
Talk to Nokia as well I guess. And every other company that has released a new product with a smaller battery than the last product.
What about the W810?
iPhone 4.5" x 2.4" x 0.48" - Total volume: 5.18 cubic inches
W810 3.94" x 1.81" x 0.77" - Total volume: 5.49 cubic inches
So actually, in this instance, the Walkman phone is bigger.
Yah...released in 2006 and not listed as a current phone for Sony.
The smaller W960i has 3 hours talk time, 300 hours standby and 2 hours video vs 5 hours talk time, 300 hourse standby and 7 hours video playback. Or in other words, less or same as the iPhone 3G.
You should tell Sony to stop being form over function as well.
The Xperia X1 has better times and is 4.33 x 2.09 x 0.66 so is larger. But Sony has multiple models and Apple 1. So Apple designs differently and more successfully given the iPhone sells more than RIMs entire lineup. Perhaps the Storm will fix that. Probably not.
14mm isn't thick, heck the Blackberry Storm is that thick, and ppl are lined up around the block to buy it. The BB Curve is *thicker* than that, has sold very well, and no one complains about it being a chunk.
"However, this device isn?t without flaws. The Storm is larger and heavier than the iPhone 3G and it lacks Wi-Fi."
"You?ll definitely notice the BlackBerry Storm in your pocket. Measuring 4.4 x 2.5 x 0.6 inches and weighing 5.5 ounces (versus 4.5 x 2.4 x 0.5 inches and 4.7 ounces for the iPhone 3G), the Storm is bulkier and heavier than we would like, especially since it has a smaller display (3.3 vs. 3.5 inches) than the iPhone 3G."
http://www.laptopmag.com/review/cell...rry-storm.aspx
Oh...hey look: 5.5 hours talk time, 360 hours standby. Damn those Blackberry engineers going form over function. Why couldn't they make the battery bigger and get 10 hours talk time?
Methinks you've just bought into Steve's RDF a little too strongly.
Laptopmag too I guess.
Turn off the ambient light sensor auto adjustment. I thought I had a problem too until I unchecked it. System Preferences » Display.
Thanks Solip, we'll give that a try.
...
Sigh, no go. Apparently my gf's PlasticBook doesn't have the ambient light sensor. So, that's not it.
...