I do. That is something I mocked-up a while back for something else. But all the measurements/proportions are correct. And it perfectly illustrates my point about being able to have many things open, and - due to the wideness of the screen - have them all peeking out and showing a bit. You can easily surf while keeping an eye on the iChat comings-and-goings, control iTunes, monitor e-mail, open up Address Book or iSync, etc.
I realize that Exposé is going to help a lot in this area, but you often still want your stuff visable a true, actual size. I'd imagine a widescreen layout COMBINED with Exposé makes for an ideal, "best of both worlds" solution/approach.
Not to mention that watching movies on a wide screen means larger viewing area because, while not true 16:9, it will still letterbox MUCH less than your typical 4:3 display.
I honestly can't think of any downsides to a widescreen (16:10, say) display. Good for work, good for productivity, good for efficiency, good for getting an overall view of all you have going on, good for movie viewing.
I never understood the fetish of widescreen. Squarer -should- be better for computer usage. I wish there were truly square screens.
Your arguments make no sense in the context of computer screens, and not really for cameras either. 4:3 is a square enough comprimise that still lets you crop ro frame wider/taller as you wish.
On a computer screen, wider is better as you get bigger. Get it? It mimics your field of view 160 by 90/100 degrees, give or take. That ratio means less head and eye movement as screen sizes increase, and a nice natural field of view.
On a smaller screen, a taller display makes sense, less scrolling, or squarer, maximized area. But in a laptop, ther is also the penalty of increased height of a square display. You would NOT get a 5:4 17" Powerbook. It would look huge and be nearly impossible to open in a travel compartment. The widescreen format lets Apple add space to the laptop without making in a big square pizzabox. This way you can have a 17" that still drops into a bag, and a 15" that clears an airline seat with room to spare.
I'll put in the complaint about higher screen resolutions for those who haven't already. It could be used as a differentiator within models. They could ship a 15" Powerbook with the old 1152x768 resolution for around $200 cheaper than the current low-end 15", in the $1800 to $2000 range, instead of selling a 14" variant.
And for the 17", I think they really need to ship a resolution of 1600x1066 for their absolute high end machine which is currently $3300. The regular 1440x900 17" can then ship for $3000. There is still a lot of room between $2000 to $3000 for the 15" to play around with, so maybe a 1440x900 screen for the 15" at around $2700. If the 17" doesn't ship with a PPC 970 chip in the next version, here's hoping it'll ship with a dual 1.3 GHz 7457.
The 14" iBook is enough of a pointless tub as it is.
Couldn't have said it better, Ensign Pulver. "Pointless Tub!"
Quote:
Originally posted by pscates
The ONLY thing that should differentiate the 3 PowerBooks is screen size. Perhaps the hard drive size and base RAM might be different in the stock configurations (but they'd all be tweakable via the online store or whatever).
But if you buy a 12" PowerBook, you should have all the coolness the 17" model does, only in a smaller package.
If you don't want/need the DVI and cache and all that, there's the iBook line.
You're taking the words out of my mouth, pscates. The Rev.B 12-incher needs to put the "Power" back in PowerBook by adding DVI-out, more max RAM, and some cache, not to mention a 1Ghz+ processor.
The only thing I seriously wish to come out of Apple soon is a differentiation in screen resolutions. I for once like high-res displays and would love to have 1600x1000 in a 15"-Powerbook. The 1152x768 I have are totally coarse and hard to read because either characters are jaggy or mushy (with MacOS-X anti-aliasing).
The 1440 on the 17" were such a disappointment to me, they really could have whipped the res up to 1920 or something insane like that.
However, it seems Mac-users all have an impaired eyesight :-)
I use a 1280x1024 19" LCD at work. I love it, it's luxurious, I can sit way back and see everything clearly, even with OSX's antialiasing turned on. That pixel density is a little low, but it is VERY comfortable.
1920 on a 15", NO THANK YOU. even 1600 looks horribly squinty on it. I know, I've had to use a Dell with that res on occasion, it sucks when you have to view a web page and for a great many UI elements (even enlarged ones), but it does give nice smooth text when you zoom it all the way in Word.
1920 might be (barely) passable on the 17"
1600 would probably be OK,
1440 actually looks like the sweet spot there.
If apple were to bump resolutions on the PB's, as software commuities catch up, I'd expect 1600x1024 on the 17" and 1440x900 on a new 15.4.
1920 really is too much for either book given current practice among web designers and UI engineers.
I still hope the 12" PB will be replaced by something better. Only slightly larger (wider only) with a 13.5" widescreen display (1152*768, like the first TiBook had, only smaller). And, of course, DVI, two RAM-slots and a PC-Card slot.
I don't see any reason why there should be a 14" 1024*768 PB any time again...
Please no, not larger. The whole point is the small package. I only wish they hadn't handicapped the 12" so much compared to the 17", especially now that Windows machines are really getting lightweight and long battery life, they need to really be more aggressive with the ultra-portables. Take a look at the Panasonic W2 to see where Apple should be aiming.
Actually, a 13" widescreen PowerBook (in a 16:10 kinda thing) would be about the same depth as the current 12" PowerBook...just a little wider. Would be more like holding a legal size (8.5x14) sheet of paper as opposed to a letter-size one (8.5x11).
You'd had all three PowerBooks in widescreen, all only 2" apart in physical screen size (resolution differing greatly, of course). DVI and L3 cache on all three.
Start at $1599 for the Combo Drive 13" and top out at $2999 for the SuperDrive 17". The SuperDrive 12" and both models of the 15" fill up the spaces in the middle.
But you could save money and get a smaller screen (or if size/compactness was crucial to you), but you wouldn't be "taking a hit" or compromising in any way because it would have the same features as its two big brothers (DVI, cache, FireWire 800, etc.).
How could those three NOT sell?
Students, travelers, journalists, etc. would probably buy the 13" in HUGE numbers.
Your typical PowerBook customer(s) would go for the 15" models.
And since it's below the $3000 mark, many more people would have an honest shot at owning the big, honkin' 17" one (breaking that psychological barrier of $3000 probably can't be understated).
Hell, I have to come clean: if these new PowerBooks come out in the next couple of months AND they're sporting the 7457 and are running fast and cool and feel a tad more "future-ready" and they magically drop that 17" model to $2999, it'll take quite a bit of restraint and reasoning to keep me from getting THAT one.
I'd only be a few hundred bucks away, meeting my target for my intended 15" purchase...
Comments
Originally posted by Paul
I do. That is something I mocked-up a while back for something else. But all the measurements/proportions are correct. And it perfectly illustrates my point about being able to have many things open, and - due to the wideness of the screen - have them all peeking out and showing a bit. You can easily surf while keeping an eye on the iChat comings-and-goings, control iTunes, monitor e-mail, open up Address Book or iSync, etc.
I realize that Exposé is going to help a lot in this area, but you often still want your stuff visable a true, actual size. I'd imagine a widescreen layout COMBINED with Exposé makes for an ideal, "best of both worlds" solution/approach.
Not to mention that watching movies on a wide screen means larger viewing area because, while not true 16:9, it will still letterbox MUCH less than your typical 4:3 display.
I honestly can't think of any downsides to a widescreen (16:10, say) display. Good for work, good for productivity, good for efficiency, good for getting an overall view of all you have going on, good for movie viewing.
Bad for
Originally posted by johnq
I never understood the fetish of widescreen. Squarer -should- be better for computer usage. I wish there were truly square screens.
Your arguments make no sense in the context of computer screens, and not really for cameras either. 4:3 is a square enough comprimise that still lets you crop ro frame wider/taller as you wish.
On a computer screen, wider is better as you get bigger. Get it? It mimics your field of view 160 by 90/100 degrees, give or take. That ratio means less head and eye movement as screen sizes increase, and a nice natural field of view.
On a smaller screen, a taller display makes sense, less scrolling, or squarer, maximized area. But in a laptop, ther is also the penalty of increased height of a square display. You would NOT get a 5:4 17" Powerbook. It would look huge and be nearly impossible to open in a travel compartment. The widescreen format lets Apple add space to the laptop without making in a big square pizzabox. This way you can have a 17" that still drops into a bag, and a 15" that clears an airline seat with room to spare.
And for the 17", I think they really need to ship a resolution of 1600x1066 for their absolute high end machine which is currently $3300. The regular 1440x900 17" can then ship for $3000. There is still a lot of room between $2000 to $3000 for the 15" to play around with, so maybe a 1440x900 screen for the 15" at around $2700. If the 17" doesn't ship with a PPC 970 chip in the next version, here's hoping it'll ship with a dual 1.3 GHz 7457.
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
The 14" iBook is enough of a pointless tub as it is.
Couldn't have said it better, Ensign Pulver. "Pointless Tub!"
Originally posted by pscates
The ONLY thing that should differentiate the 3 PowerBooks is screen size. Perhaps the hard drive size and base RAM might be different in the stock configurations (but they'd all be tweakable via the online store or whatever).
But if you buy a 12" PowerBook, you should have all the coolness the 17" model does, only in a smaller package.
If you don't want/need the DVI and cache and all that, there's the iBook line.
You're taking the words out of my mouth, pscates. The Rev.B 12-incher needs to put the "Power" back in PowerBook by adding DVI-out, more max RAM, and some cache, not to mention a 1Ghz+ processor.
Escher
The 1440 on the 17" were such a disappointment to me, they really could have whipped the res up to 1920 or something insane like that.
However, it seems Mac-users all have an impaired eyesight :-)
I use a 1280x1024 19" LCD at work. I love it, it's luxurious, I can sit way back and see everything clearly, even with OSX's antialiasing turned on. That pixel density is a little low, but it is VERY comfortable.
1920 on a 15", NO THANK YOU. even 1600 looks horribly squinty on it. I know, I've had to use a Dell with that res on occasion, it sucks when you have to view a web page and for a great many UI elements (even enlarged ones), but it does give nice smooth text when you zoom it all the way in Word.
1920 might be (barely) passable on the 17"
1600 would probably be OK,
1440 actually looks like the sweet spot there.
If apple were to bump resolutions on the PB's, as software commuities catch up, I'd expect 1600x1024 on the 17" and 1440x900 on a new 15.4.
1920 really is too much for either book given current practice among web designers and UI engineers.
Another iBook fix: The keyboard. Make it like the Powerbook's. Rock solid.
As for a 14" Powerbook: No thank you.
Originally posted by fryke
I still hope the 12" PB will be replaced by something better. Only slightly larger (wider only) with a 13.5" widescreen display (1152*768, like the first TiBook had, only smaller). And, of course, DVI, two RAM-slots and a PC-Card slot.
I don't see any reason why there should be a 14" 1024*768 PB any time again...
Please no, not larger. The whole point is the small package. I only wish they hadn't handicapped the 12" so much compared to the 17", especially now that Windows machines are really getting lightweight and long battery life, they need to really be more aggressive with the ultra-portables. Take a look at the Panasonic W2 to see where Apple should be aiming.
You'd had all three PowerBooks in widescreen, all only 2" apart in physical screen size (resolution differing greatly, of course). DVI and L3 cache on all three.
Start at $1599 for the Combo Drive 13" and top out at $2999 for the SuperDrive 17". The SuperDrive 12" and both models of the 15" fill up the spaces in the middle.
But you could save money and get a smaller screen (or if size/compactness was crucial to you), but you wouldn't be "taking a hit" or compromising in any way because it would have the same features as its two big brothers (DVI, cache, FireWire 800, etc.).
How could those three NOT sell?
Students, travelers, journalists, etc. would probably buy the 13" in HUGE numbers.
Your typical PowerBook customer(s) would go for the 15" models.
And since it's below the $3000 mark, many more people would have an honest shot at owning the big, honkin' 17" one (breaking that psychological barrier of $3000 probably can't be understated).
Hell, I have to come clean: if these new PowerBooks come out in the next couple of months AND they're sporting the 7457 and are running fast and cool and feel a tad more "future-ready" and they magically drop that 17" model to $2999, it'll take quite a bit of restraint and reasoning to keep me from getting THAT one.
I'd only be a few hundred bucks away, meeting my target for my intended 15" purchase...