PC Laptops worse than I thought
A while back I posted a question on how PC makers seem to get 1600x1200 on their laptops yet still maintaining sharpness at different resolutions.
Well, I had a closer look this weekend at my local store. Turns out the display is still on 1024x768 but all it does is give you a higher "virtual" screen res allowing you to pan further once your cursor reaches the edge.
Not sure if this is the case with all PC laptops, but it seems like a logical answer as I doubt any LCD screen could drive various resolutions and do it with clarity.
So perhaps our Powerbook is not as bad as some have made it to be. But still it would be nice to see the next revision to have a native resolution in the 1400x? range.
Well, I had a closer look this weekend at my local store. Turns out the display is still on 1024x768 but all it does is give you a higher "virtual" screen res allowing you to pan further once your cursor reaches the edge.
Not sure if this is the case with all PC laptops, but it seems like a logical answer as I doubt any LCD screen could drive various resolutions and do it with clarity.
So perhaps our Powerbook is not as bad as some have made it to be. But still it would be nice to see the next revision to have a native resolution in the 1400x? range.
Comments
My wifes dell runs 1400x1080 and it's amazing! Almost paper quality. To bad it's a Wintel.
The new Sony that came out today (http://www.vaio.sony.co.jp/)has a 16.1" 1600x1200 screen, and no, it is not a virtual desktop. It's also got a Mobility 7500 chipset and a 40 GB hd.
PC laptops have been offering native 1600x1200 screens for almost a year.
Also, to add to the locked (?)"Can Apple sell SD-RAM towers when DDR laptops are available everywhere?" thread - regarding how future Apple laptops will compete with today's PC notebooks -
Apple's laptops are in dire need of significant upgrades and or price reductions if they are to stay competative.
I'd like to see the next PB have a 1920x1080 screen, and a 320x320 16bit colour screen (off clie)trackpad. Also get rid of that slot loading drive!!! No shaped cd's, and we'll all wait longer for a superdrive because of it. They also have to reduce the price to around $1999 US. Sorry, I can't help venting about this, I want a PB, but not the current one.
[ 03-11-2002: Message edited by: JasonPP ]</p>
So, if Apple goes super-high-res, I'd expect them to start at something like 2048x1536. Scaling to 10x7 is thus integral and therefore not blurry.
It would also allow Apple to come up with a limited form of resolution independence, where text (and other vector data) was rendered using every available pixel, but sized as if at 10x7.
<strong>What laptop did you see?.....I'd like to see the next PB have a 1920x1080 screen, and a 320x320 16bit colour screen (off clie)trackpad.
]</strong><hr></blockquote>
It was on both a Compaq and Toshiba brands.
Honestly, can you see Apple selling their high end laptop for under $2K?
I know it's competitive out there but Apple isn't going after the low end market with their Powerbooks.
What they should do is bump up the specs of the iBook and make them more competitive while still keeping it's price. Higher features with a naturally higher price tag for Powerbooks I'm afraid will remain.
If every car suddenly costs you half as much except one manufacturer who does not lower his price, how long until they go out of business(this assumes a reasonably equal level of performace among all cars)?
Performance/price = value. Wintel laptops are FAR exceeding Apple's Powerbook line in value.
I think the iBooks are still the best computer for the price in their category. I just think Apple has to do the same with the Powerbook.
<strong>I think he means the low end *of* the high end market.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Precisely.
But with respect to your car analogy, I don't think it applies here.
The Powerbook is hardly double the price of wintel laptops and not as bad in value as you make it.
Bear in mind, you don't see any PC laptops with a wide LCD screen. Not many can boast about how thin they are (except for Sony).
Sure, it does need some updating and i'm think we'll see that shortly. But traditionally, Apple's Powerbook command a high price tag (i assume a great margin for Apple).
Furthermore, this strategy right or wrong, don't seem to be putting them in any danger of going out of business soon.
I aslo agree an update will happen within the next few months, but there's still the issue of price ...
Then again if they offered a 800Mhz G4 iBook with a 14.1" 1400x1080 screen and superdrive I'd shut my mouth and vote with my dollar.
But, alas, I doubt it, very, very much. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Unfortunately, as stated above, you're shopping from a very proprietary company, and you can't please all the people all the time. That's why a lot of people wanted clones to stay alive... it's about the variety and being able to choose between more than two laptops if you want to use a Mac.
<strong>A while back I posted a question on how PC makers seem to get 1600x1200 on their laptops yet still maintaining sharpness at different resolutions.
Well, I had a closer look this weekend at my local store. Turns out the display is still on 1024x768 but all it does is give you a higher "virtual" screen res allowing you to pan further once your cursor reaches the edge.
Not sure if this is the case with all PC laptops, but it seems like a logical answer as I doubt any LCD screen could drive various resolutions and do it with clarity.
So perhaps our Powerbook is not as bad as some have made it to be. But still it would be nice to see the next revision to have a native resolution in the 1400x? range.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is not the case on all of them. If a PC laptop has a high resolution display advertised, then that particular display is the default optimized mode for that machine. Virtual Desktop is an option that you can choose within Windows Display properties ? so I am assuming that this particular machine was being tampered with while on display (like most of them). Usually only those with 15" displays have the highest resolutions and only those who want that kind of display go for it (and don't usually change it). Whatever floats your boat i guess.
Btw, why would this PC laptop or any PC laptop be 'worse' than anything? Are PC's always worse? That's silly. There are some amazing PC's out there - and today's PC notebooks are surpassing Apple's desktop 'Super Computers'. I love Apple, but they have got to be kidding me with their idea of cutting edge technology these days.
[ 03-11-2002: Message edited by: Patchouli ]</p>
<strong>How do you equate $2000 as a low end market?
If every car suddenly costs you half as much except one manufacturer who does not lower his price, how long until they go out of business(this assumes a reasonably equal level of performace among all cars)?
Performance/price = value. Wintel laptops are FAR exceeding Apple's Powerbook line in value.
I think the iBooks are still the best computer for the price in their category. I just think Apple has to do the same with the Powerbook.</strong><hr></blockquote>
that's a load of crap, even your example is shit. a wrx will out perform a bmw 525, even an xi but people still buy beamers for thousands more. style man, style- it sells everything, even computers.
I'm also suspecting that the PowerBook's screen will be of the 16.2 inch variety. Remember, Jobs loves Sony, and wants to be like them
I really think Apple has something up their sleeves with the PowerBook line. I think it might be the first with FireWire2 or Perhaps The new version of Airport. I think the minimum we'll see in a PowerBook for speed in the next rev will be beyond 800 Mhz.
[quote]It would also allow Apple to come up with a limited form of resolution independence, where text (and other vector data) was rendered using every available pixel, but sized as if at 10x7.
<hr></blockquote>
My thoughts exactly. I'm still quite surprised that OS X is not resolution independent. It would be nice if the size of the OS interface, text, everything, was user adjustable, with a slider. Then one could jack up the resolution as high as possible (High as possible is always a worthy goal), and OS X would be entirely usable. It seems that as long as Apple is using Quartz, they should be making OS X resolution independent (wouldn't Quartz make it easier?).
<strong>My thoughts exactly. I'm still quite surprised that OS X is not resolution independent. It would be nice if the size of the OS interface, text, everything, was user adjustable, with a slider. Then one could jack up the resolution as high as possible (High as possible is always a worthy goal), and OS X would be entirely usable.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But what's the point of having higher resolution in the first place if you then go on and magnify everything so it's just as big (i.e. takes up just as much screen real estate) as before?
Bye,
RazzFazz
It's about having everything drawn more sharp! Just imagine the MacOSX close window button made out of 128x128 pixels!
Ok, end of sarcasm, I have the scroll bars on my x86 laptop 8 pixel wide.. if one is doing serious work there is never enough space and the UI elements are never small enough.
Unless a company decides it's time to make everything look like candy.
[quote]Originally posted by RazzFazz:
<strong>
But what's the point of having higher resolution in the first place if you then go on and magnify everything so it's just as big (i.e. takes up just as much screen real estate) as before?
Bye,
RazzFazz</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are familiar with the difference between an old school 60dpi dot-matrix printer?
Compare that to a new HP laser printer printing at 1200 dpi...
Printed on the HP, stuff is sooo much more readable and easy on the eyes.
A computer display with 600ppi would appear to be as sharp as most laser prints today: less wear on the eyes, easier to read text, all good stuff.?
Now, suppose you have your menu bar font set to 16 point.
On a 600 point-per-inch display, that 16 point type would appear to be ~1/10th of an inch high (too small to read).
But if you could just adjust all the type on your screen with a slider, and it would be independent of the resolution, you would have extremely readable type--and a much easier to user computer.
Just increasing the resolution of a display to 300 ppi would save a company around $3,000/year in gained productivity due to increased reading speed.
That would cover the expense.
So I say bring em on.
first, the black boarders, so when a screen is 1024x768 and set to 640x480, its' actually the size of a 640x480 screen. (ie, very small)
second, on some older laptops, they just skew the colors a little bit, so there are a lot of jagged edges. looks absolutely terrible. and i mean absolutely terrible.
third method that they do on most laptops now it seems is to do a type of anti aliasing, sorta like how your fonts are smoothed out. it does blur a little bit, but for the most part, i think it just looks "softer". the tibook has this, but i don't see any reason to really use it other than maybe when you play a 3d game (unreal has a very cool look to it, it looks like a very gritty handheld camera look when you play unreal at 640x480 on a tibook) or when you're mirroring a movie on a television (it can't handle the 1156x768 resolution)
Ted