Remember SJ's statement about laptops?

pikachu invasionpikachu invasion
Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
Room in the market for executive, work-a-day, and subnotebook.



Do you think that apple considders the current lineup Ti, 14" iBook, and 12" iBook to be the fulfillment of that comment?



I would like to believe this is not the case, but this is because I really want the apple equivalent of a Sony C1 PictureBook.



Barring that, Steve could always give me a new Newton

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 15
    clonenodeclonenode Posts: 392member
    If Apple moves all levels of the iBook to the 14" LCD, then there WILL be room at the bottom for a smaller laptop like device. Maybe it will be a hybrid PDA/laptop. Is that a category? Leave it to Apple to invent it.



    Of course, the 12" iBook is a very sweet machine. I really would hate to see Apple discard its form/factor. Upping the screen size within the same dimensions would be great!
  • Reply 2 of 15
    jasonppjasonpp Posts: 308member
    Agreed. Apple should not drop their best laptop(for the price). That sweet 12.1" iBook. The screen size is ok I think, just up the rez accross all books:



    12.1" iBook : 1280x1024



    14.1" iBook : 1400x1080



    15.1" Ti Pb : 1920x1080 (not sure about the ratio there, but you get the drift)



    Then people can use OS X and not feel like they're knitting with flag poles!



    I think the Ti PB IS the executive sub notebook.. There is no other laptop @ 1" with a CD-RW/DVD (prove me wrong kids, prove me wrong.)
  • Reply 3 of 15
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    [quote]Originally posted by JasonPP:

    <strong>Agreed. Apple should not drop their best laptop(for the price). That sweet 12.1" iBook. The screen size is ok I think, just up the rez accross all books:



    12.1" iBook : 1280x1024



    14.1" iBook : 1400x1080



    15.1" Ti Pb : 1920x1080 (not sure about the ratio there, but you get the drift)



    Then people can use OS X and not feel like they're knitting with flag poles!



    I think the Ti PB IS the executive sub notebook.. There is no other laptop @ 1" with a CD-RW/DVD (prove me wrong kids, prove me wrong.)</strong><hr></blockquote>



    <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> that would just be great. 1280 x 960 on a 12 inch screen. that would be so great considering half the people would not be able to read anything on it.
  • Reply 4 of 15
    spartspart Posts: 2,060member
    [quote]Originally posted by applenut:

    <strong>



    <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> that would just be great. 1280 x 960 on a 12 inch screen. that would be so great considering half the people would not be able to read anything on it.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    have a single one of your 2014 messages been positive? they can make os x scale...hopefully
  • Reply 5 of 15
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    [quote]Originally posted by Spart:

    <strong>



    have a single one of your 2014 messages been positive? they can make os x scale...hopefully</strong><hr></blockquote>



    yea, you just selectively read what you want apparantly <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />



    OS X can't scale as of now. nor can apps themselves. I'd like to use a few adobe apps on that 1280 x 960 12 inch display. it would be a joy.



    god that resolution would be great for schools too. nothing like reading 12pt fonts on a 1280 x 960 12 inch screen <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />



    [ 03-18-2002: Message edited by: applenut ]



    [ 03-18-2002: Message edited by: applenut ]</p>
  • Reply 6 of 15
    jutusjutus Posts: 272member
    The obvious solution to reading off a 12" screen at 1280x1024 resolution is a massive 21" flexible fresnel lens you can unfold and clip onto the iBook.



    Booyah, 21" monitor in a 12" package.



    [quote]12.1" iBook : 1280x1024<hr></blockquote>



    They can call it the microficheBook. microfiche to go.
  • Reply 7 of 15
    emaneman Posts: 7,204member
    [quote]Originally posted by Spart:

    <strong>



    have a single one of your 2014 messages been positive? they can make os x scale...hopefully</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Who cares about what he said? You'd have to be an idiot to say a resolution like that should go on a 12" screen.
  • Reply 8 of 15
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    [quote]Originally posted by EmAn:

    <strong>



    Who cares about what he said? You'd have to be an idiot to say a resolution like that should go on a 12" screen.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    thank you
  • Reply 9 of 15
    zozo Posts: 3,117member
    what WOULD be nice is to have the capability to at least MIRROR at higher resolutions. It sucks that I can attach on a bigger screen but can inly stay at 1024x768
  • Reply 10 of 15
    dviantdviant Posts: 483member
    Omg those resolutions are so silly i had to finally re-register....



    /me gets out his iMagnifyingGlass accessory thats included with all new 'books...



    Really i think the current 1024x768 on a 12" screen is about right. I do think the TiBook could use a slight increase so that it has the same density as the iBook, but taking it too far makes legibility annoying. OS X does seem to be geared for a slightly denser resolution however.. just not as HIGH <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> as that guy suggested.



    We have a dell laptop at work with a native res of 1440x1050 on about a 14" screen. It's pretty nice for the most part, but the way they compensate for legibility is by just increasing windows font sizes. This tends to really screw up website displays, and anything else that assumes some default size fonts. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />



    I wonder if at some point OS X will scale the OS gui relative to the screen resolution? Like games do. Seems like all it would take would be to either A) upping the bitmap resolutions to accomodate high screen res or B) somehow going all vector (unlikely)? Wonder ow much of the OS gui is bitmap-dependent now?



    [ 03-18-2002: Message edited by: dviant ]</p>
  • Reply 11 of 15
    bozo the clownbozo the clown Posts: 165member
    If Apple moves to a scalable GUI (i.e. one that knows the size of your screen, and keeps the menubar, icons, window borders at a fixed size independent of resolution) that would rock. OS X is half way there; the icons and dock are scalable, hopefully that'll be Apple's next big software move...
  • Reply 12 of 15
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    The most scaleable thing in OS X right now is text. Most everything else (pinstripes, screen widgets, icons, the "metal look") is bitmapped - it can be scaled (e.g. icons in the Dock), but at full size it's all going to look chunky. I'm not 100% sure, but I think Quartz could render text at WYSIWIG sizes right now, regardless of actual screen resolution. Most of the rest of the UI (including all of Classic) would have to be scaled as if to 72 pixels/inch.



    The rest of the UI won't be scaleable for a long time. First, Classic has to die. Then, either enough time has to have passed that Apple can ask all their developers to recode their UIs again (check the Aqua HIG - all distances are given in pixels!) and perhaps offer a tool to help, or the hardware would have to become fast enough that OS X could identify transparently scale legacy UIs to display as if at 72 pixel/inch resolution.



    Of course, if Apple did this then JasonPP still wouldn't have what he wanted - a large workspace squeezed into a small area. There would have to be an option to paint the screen at the native resolution. Actually, for this option to be more than a near-term stopgap, it would have to be possible to indicate which apparent resolution to render to (i.e., to bring back some of the freedom of choice offered by CRT monitors).
  • Reply 13 of 15
    dviantdviant Posts: 483member
    Straying off-topic here... but...



    [quote]Originally posted by Amorph:

    <strong>Of course, if Apple did this then JasonPP still wouldn't have what he wanted - a large workspace squeezed into a small area. There would have to be an option to paint the screen at the native resolution. </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Or in true OS X fasion a GUI-size control panel with a slider like you have to the dock. That'd be really darn cool. Seems like it could sort of gain you "real estate" by making standard interface items smaller on screen.



    [ 03-18-2002: Message edited by: dviant ]</p>
  • Reply 14 of 15
    neutrino23neutrino23 Posts: 1,562member
    [quote]Originally posted by jutus:

    <strong>The obvious solution to reading off a 12" screen at 1280x1024 resolution is a massive 21" flexible fresnel lens you can unfold and clip onto the iBook.



    Booyah, 21" monitor in a 12" package.



    They can call it the microficheBook. microfiche to go.</strong><hr></blockquote>





    That was in the movie Brazil. Everyone had weird big lenses in front of small crts.
  • Reply 15 of 15
    guitarblokeguitarbloke Posts: 125member
    [quote]Originally posted by dviant:

    <strong>Straying off-topic here... but...







    Or in true OS X fasion a GUI-size control panel with a slider like you have to the dock. That'd be really darn cool. Seems like it could sort of gain you "real estate" by making standard interface items smaller on screen.



    [ 03-18-2002: Message edited by: dviant ]</strong><hr></blockquote>I was about to shout at that

    <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> scalable suggestion, but then you came up with a really good idea. DAMN YOU!!!
Sign In or Register to comment.