Those kinds of shortsighted brainless creatures are those that - when given something else than a Mac - start such a mess as just now in Bagdad.
Hold your horses! I am all for a BTO higher resolution Powerbook but that does not give you, or anyone else, the right to call the people who disagree - the things you just said. Your way of resoning is severly flawed and clearly lacks thought. Keep those arguments to yourself or better yet: save it for AppleOutsider where those outbursts of insanity belong.
I'm not opposed to higher resolutions, but they need to make sense people 1680+ on a 15" screen doesn't. 1440, wellll, some web pages will still suck ass on it, not pr0n, but lots of annoying flash pages, like Jaguar.co.uk for instance, but on the whole something up to 1400 could be alright with a strong video card behind it. I for one, wouldn't cry at a 1280 limit, though.
Agreed! 1680x1050 is too much for a 15.4-inch display. But as you state the 1440x900 would sure be sweet as a built-to-order option for us pixel-craving freaks. That being said, sitting on a Windows machine, I will still make the switch and buy the next Powerbook-revision regardless of whether we get an increase in resolution or not. This may be totally off-topic but I am really sick and tired of Windows XP!!
Agreed! 1680x1050 is too much for a 15.4-inch display. But as you state the 1440x900 would sure be sweet as a built-to-order option for us pixel-craving freaks.
I agree. I've considered getting a 17" PowerBook because sometimes 1280x854 isn't quite big enough for what I want to do. (I can't hook up an external display because I use the computer on my lap most of the time.) However, the slight bump from 1280x854 to 1440x900 doesn't justify the cost of a 17" AlBook. Ideally, I'd like to see 1440x900 on the 15" and 1680x1050 on the 17". That, for me would be the perfect choice, and I'd have a hard time deciding between the two.
There are roadwarriors like me who work at at least 2 places over the week. Certainly, you do not think that lugging around a 23" Cinema HD is a great idea? Neither is buying one powerbook and two external displays possible (esp. considering the fact that for that price, I could buy myself 3 Dells and 2 external displays).
Why can the Apple-apologists not just concede that different people may have different needs and be done with it? If your eye-sight is impaired and you can only stand the 1280 on a 15", fine. Other people might think different.
it's more of a question of satisfying as many people as possible. Obviously, apple can come out with like 100 different configuration to satisfy everyone's need, but it's not very economical. So they just try and satisfy most people which is what most companies will do.
The reason why dell can have so many configs probably because they're catering for 95% of the computer population where as apple is only catering for 4-5%... Economy of scale...
Right now, if you develop an application for Mac OS X (and target it for new-ish computers), you write the interface once, and it is the same size everywhere. 1 pixel = .25mm. If Apple started giving "options", then interface designers would lose that constant, and THEY would have to compromise. That alone would reduce the effectiveness of increasing the laptop dpi to, for example, 125dpi (1px = .2mm).
Right now, if you develop an application for Mac OS X (and target it for new-ish computers), you write the interface once, and it is the same size everywhere. 1 pixel = .25mm. If Apple started giving "options", then interface designers would lose that constant, and THEY would have to compromise. That alone would reduce the effectiveness of increasing the laptop dpi to, for example, 125dpi (1px = .2mm).
Barto
This has happened already!
- iBook 12" 1024x768
- iBook 14" 1024x760
- Powerbook Ti (last gen) 1280x854
- Powerbook Ti (previous gen) 1152x<cannot-remember>
If you do the calculation, not even the current Powerbook range has a constant dpi across the board!
The one thing that bothers me about the rumor that Apple will use a 15.4" display on the new PBs is that if you google search on this the common resolution for this display is 1280 x 800. Unless Apple is getting a custom resolution we could actually lose pixels going from Ti to Al.
The one thing that bothers me about the rumor that Apple will use a 15.4" display on the new PBs is that if you google search on this the common resolution for this display is 1280 x 800. Unless Apple is getting a custom resolution we could actually lose pixels going from Ti to Al.
If seen this speculation before. If it's true, then they need to offer 2 resolutions. I guess this could even have an impact on market share.
Eventhough some of the really high resolutions PC users have are just plainly unusable, at least a dpi density that's one step higher than now needs to come. This will be the same "race" as before with MHz. Part of Apples market is consumer, consumers want higher res (ask PC vendors, they sell them like crazy) ... ao at least some 1400x900 is a must.
Apple argues that for more pixels to actually be useable, they need to be on a bigger screen. I agree. And that if that screen size/pixel count is the top priority, then portability will of neccessity be comprimised to a degree. I also agree. If you want really high resolutions on a smaller screen, you will have to give up good comfortable ergos.
Apple has made the best choices here, live with it. Now if you want to argue prices...
Yes, I would actually quite like to argue prices: what's stopping Apple from offering a 15.4" display in, say, two different resolutions? I know, I know, this is a totally shocking, vulgar and immoral thought for those -- among us and in Cupertino and Palo Alto -- who think that Apple always, always, and automatically (being Apple), gets it just right.
I for one would not mind the ability to select between 1280 x 800 and 1680 x 1050 resolution for my next 15" PowerBook. The displays exist, no need to invent anything, and if I make a bad choice (too small text, or lower battery running time, or whatever), well, I know it was my choice.
Ideally, I'd like to see 1440x900 on the 15" and 1680x1050 on the 17". That, for me would be the perfect choice, and I'd have a hard time deciding between the two.
Same here.
What I won't have a hard time deciding is whether to get a new AIBook with less resolution that the one I have (the 15.4 display manufactured @ 1280x800). Not even SJs RDF is strong enough to compel me to spend $$$ for a step backwards.
Smircle. As much as I agree with the sum of your comments I have to inform you that this last thing you state is wrong. Both the 12-inch and 14-inch iBooks run at 1024x768.
Sorry, my wording was a bit obfuscated :-)
What I meant: the iBook 12" and 14" are at a different dotpitch with the 12" having a much higher resolution than my Titanium (the 12" resolution would translate into a healty 1350x895 on a 15.2" screen).
At least with me, Apple is currently missing the sale of a high-end notebook, because I am just not buying yesterdays resolution for a premium. Maybe I will a G5 Powerbook with the crap resolution just because I need to replace the Ti, but surely not a G4.
Yes, I would actually quite like to argue prices: what's stopping Apple from offering a 15.4" display in, say, two different resolutions? I know, I know, this is a totally shocking, vulgar and immoral thought for those -- among us and in Cupertino and Palo Alto -- who think that Apple always, always, and automatically (being Apple), gets it just right.
I for one would not mind the ability to select between 1280 x 800 and 1680 x 1050 resolution for my next 15" PowerBook. The displays exist, no need to invent anything, and if I make a bad choice (too small text, or lower battery running time, or whatever), well, I know it was my choice.
Since OS X uses display postscript, would it be possible to build a vector based GUI for apps that have a scalabilty to them?
Much the way you can slide the icon size view from small to large in many increments.-- How cool would it be for an app to have a UI slider that would scale tool boxes etc to be screen size appropriate. And maybe also include a separate scale for the document window, so that at 100%, the document is WYSWYG or 1 inch in the app = 1 inch on screen.
This is the future of UI for OS X in my mind.
I can see me now, working on my widescreen 15" AlBook in Photoshop.. hmm too many palettes.. lower the pallet size from setting 8 to 5. There, that's better.
1680x1050 is okay for heavy lifting, but way too small for casual surfing in the Lazy-Boy. It would be a nice compromise for Apple to offer a BTO option and let the buyer pick their screen size. Dell offers this.
The internet is funny, so many closed-minded individuals who have been sheltered their whole lives. You people need to stop claiming stuff and judging.
murbot- If you feel the need to make another personal attack at me, why dont you have the balls to even say it to my face on an internet message board. In future I would be appreciative if you wouldnt edit your comments. Don't you have a family, a wife and kids to attend to? Why dont you concentrate on that instead of trying to insult a 19 yr old on the internet.
I was just echoing a sentiment expressed by many others in this topic. And thanks to you, I have proved my point. Can I not have an opinion if it doesnt agree with Steve's RDF?
"Go buy a peecee" Keep telling enough people that.
Comments
Originally posted by BNOYHTUAWB
Those kinds of shortsighted brainless creatures are those that - when given something else than a Mac - start such a mess as just now in Bagdad.
Hold your horses! I am all for a BTO higher resolution Powerbook but that does not give you, or anyone else, the right to call the people who disagree - the things you just said. Your way of resoning is severly flawed and clearly lacks thought. Keep those arguments to yourself or better yet: save it for AppleOutsider where those outbursts of insanity belong.
Originally posted by Matsu
I'm not opposed to higher resolutions, but they need to make sense people 1680+ on a 15" screen doesn't. 1440, wellll, some web pages will still suck ass on it, not pr0n, but lots of annoying flash pages, like Jaguar.co.uk for instance, but on the whole something up to 1400 could be alright with a strong video card behind it. I for one, wouldn't cry at a 1280 limit, though.
Agreed! 1680x1050 is too much for a 15.4-inch display. But as you state the 1440x900 would sure be sweet as a built-to-order option for us pixel-craving freaks. That being said, sitting on a Windows machine, I will still make the switch and buy the next Powerbook-revision regardless of whether we get an increase in resolution or not. This may be totally off-topic but I am really sick and tired of Windows XP!!
Originally posted by KANE
Agreed! 1680x1050 is too much for a 15.4-inch display. But as you state the 1440x900 would sure be sweet as a built-to-order option for us pixel-craving freaks.
I agree. I've considered getting a 17" PowerBook because sometimes 1280x854 isn't quite big enough for what I want to do. (I can't hook up an external display because I use the computer on my lap most of the time.) However, the slight bump from 1280x854 to 1440x900 doesn't justify the cost of a 17" AlBook. Ideally, I'd like to see 1440x900 on the 15" and 1680x1050 on the 17". That, for me would be the perfect choice, and I'd have a hard time deciding between the two.
Originally posted by Smircle
There are roadwarriors like me who work at at least 2 places over the week. Certainly, you do not think that lugging around a 23" Cinema HD is a great idea? Neither is buying one powerbook and two external displays possible (esp. considering the fact that for that price, I could buy myself 3 Dells and 2 external displays).
Why can the Apple-apologists not just concede that different people may have different needs and be done with it? If your eye-sight is impaired and you can only stand the 1280 on a 15", fine. Other people might think different.
it's more of a question of satisfying as many people as possible. Obviously, apple can come out with like 100 different configuration to satisfy everyone's need, but it's not very economical. So they just try and satisfy most people which is what most companies will do.
The reason why dell can have so many configs probably because they're catering for 95% of the computer population where as apple is only catering for 4-5%... Economy of scale...
Right now, if you develop an application for Mac OS X (and target it for new-ish computers), you write the interface once, and it is the same size everywhere. 1 pixel = .25mm. If Apple started giving "options", then interface designers would lose that constant, and THEY would have to compromise. That alone would reduce the effectiveness of increasing the laptop dpi to, for example, 125dpi (1px = .2mm).
Barto
Originally posted by Barto
Another big factor is interfaces.
Right now, if you develop an application for Mac OS X (and target it for new-ish computers), you write the interface once, and it is the same size everywhere. 1 pixel = .25mm. If Apple started giving "options", then interface designers would lose that constant, and THEY would have to compromise. That alone would reduce the effectiveness of increasing the laptop dpi to, for example, 125dpi (1px = .2mm).
Barto
This has happened already!
- iBook 12" 1024x768
- iBook 14" 1024x760
- Powerbook Ti (last gen) 1280x854
- Powerbook Ti (previous gen) 1152x<cannot-remember>
If you do the calculation, not even the current Powerbook range has a constant dpi across the board!
Originally posted by neutrino23
The one thing that bothers me about the rumor that Apple will use a 15.4" display on the new PBs is that if you google search on this the common resolution for this display is 1280 x 800. Unless Apple is getting a custom resolution we could actually lose pixels going from Ti to Al.
If seen this speculation before. If it's true, then they need to offer 2 resolutions. I guess this could even have an impact on market share.
Eventhough some of the really high resolutions PC users have are just plainly unusable, at least a dpi density that's one step higher than now needs to come. This will be the same "race" as before with MHz. Part of Apples market is consumer, consumers want higher res (ask PC vendors, they sell them like crazy) ... ao at least some 1400x900 is a must.
Originally posted by AirSluf
Sorry, they're not mine but belong to a school lab.
Thanks, AirSluf. Sigh. I really love this monitor (SGI 1600SW)- and its 110 dpi resolution...
Originally posted by Matsu
Apple argues that for more pixels to actually be useable, they need to be on a bigger screen. I agree. And that if that screen size/pixel count is the top priority, then portability will of neccessity be comprimised to a degree. I also agree. If you want really high resolutions on a smaller screen, you will have to give up good comfortable ergos.
Apple has made the best choices here, live with it. Now if you want to argue prices...
Yes, I would actually quite like to argue prices: what's stopping Apple from offering a 15.4" display in, say, two different resolutions? I know, I know, this is a totally shocking, vulgar and immoral thought for those -- among us and in Cupertino and Palo Alto -- who think that Apple always, always, and automatically (being Apple), gets it just right.
I for one would not mind the ability to select between 1280 x 800 and 1680 x 1050 resolution for my next 15" PowerBook. The displays exist, no need to invent anything, and if I make a bad choice (too small text, or lower battery running time, or whatever), well, I know it was my choice.
Cost difference: US$ 50 .
But of course I'm dreaming here: Uncle Steve knows best whats good for us, thanks God.
Originally posted by iDave
Ideally, I'd like to see 1440x900 on the 15" and 1680x1050 on the 17". That, for me would be the perfect choice, and I'd have a hard time deciding between the two.
Same here.
What I won't have a hard time deciding is whether to get a new AIBook with less resolution that the one I have (the 15.4 display manufactured @ 1280x800). Not even SJs RDF is strong enough to compel me to spend $$$ for a step backwards.
Originally posted by KANE
Smircle. As much as I agree with the sum of your comments I have to inform you that this last thing you state is wrong. Both the 12-inch and 14-inch iBooks run at 1024x768.
Sorry, my wording was a bit obfuscated :-)
What I meant: the iBook 12" and 14" are at a different dotpitch with the 12" having a much higher resolution than my Titanium (the 12" resolution would translate into a healty 1350x895 on a 15.2" screen).
At least with me, Apple is currently missing the sale of a high-end notebook, because I am just not buying yesterdays resolution for a premium. Maybe I will a G5 Powerbook with the crap resolution just because I need to replace the Ti, but surely not a G4.
Originally posted by philby
But of course I'm dreaming here: Uncle Steve knows best whats good for us, thanks God.
... and if in doubt, Matsu will tell him what to do
Originally posted by BNOYHTUAWB
If you do the calculation, not even the current Powerbook range has a constant dpi across the board!
The only major exception to the rule is the 12" iBooks and PowerBooks.
This single, necessary exception leaves enough of a constant for interface designers.
Barto
Originally posted by Barto
The only major exception to the rule is the 12" iBooks and PowerBooks.
This single, necessary exception leaves enough of a constant for interface designers.
Barto
So, please Apple, make another excption: a 15" PowerBook with the same pixel density as the iBook 12"
Originally posted by Barto
The only major exception to the rule is the 12" iBooks and PowerBooks.
This single, necessary exception leaves enough of a constant for interface designers.
Hmmm, let's just see ....
The iBook 12" and the Powerbook 12" have a dotpitch of 0.24.
The TiBooks have a dotpitch of 0.258, as the 20" and 23" Cinema displays.
The Cinema 17" has a dotpitch of 0.264.
The iBook 14" has a dotpitch of around 0.28.
Single exception?
(data for the displays: specs pages. Other resolutions calculated with a ruler and the horizontal pixels)
Originally posted by philby
Yes, I would actually quite like to argue prices: what's stopping Apple from offering a 15.4" display in, say, two different resolutions? I know, I know, this is a totally shocking, vulgar and immoral thought for those -- among us and in Cupertino and Palo Alto -- who think that Apple always, always, and automatically (being Apple), gets it just right.
I for one would not mind the ability to select between 1280 x 800 and 1680 x 1050 resolution for my next 15" PowerBook. The displays exist, no need to invent anything, and if I make a bad choice (too small text, or lower battery running time, or whatever), well, I know it was my choice.
Cost difference: US$ 50 .
But of course I'm dreaming here: Uncle Steve knows best whats good for us, thanks God.
I definetely wouldn't mind a BTO option for 1400x900 at 15" and 1600x970 at 17", but generally Jobs does get it right. The only exceptions:
Early PB's: 640x400, should have been 640x480
PB 5300 (many): 640x480, should have been 720x540 or 800x600
iBooks (14"): 1024x768, should have been 1152x864.
Oh, and for those who complain that OS X requires a ton of screen space: it does pretty well at 1024x768. Try toolbar off, and size 32x32 or 28x28.
Much the way you can slide the icon size view from small to large in many increments.-- How cool would it be for an app to have a UI slider that would scale tool boxes etc to be screen size appropriate. And maybe also include a separate scale for the document window, so that at 100%, the document is WYSWYG or 1 inch in the app = 1 inch on screen.
This is the future of UI for OS X in my mind.
I can see me now, working on my widescreen 15" AlBook in Photoshop.. hmm too many palettes.. lower the pallet size from setting 8 to 5. There, that's better.
Whomever patents this owes me money...
MSKR
murbot- If you feel the need to make another personal attack at me, why dont you have the balls to even say it to my face on an internet message board. In future I would be appreciative if you wouldnt edit your comments. Don't you have a family, a wife and kids to attend to? Why dont you concentrate on that instead of trying to insult a 19 yr old on the internet.
I was just echoing a sentiment expressed by many others in this topic. And thanks to you, I have proved my point. Can I not have an opinion if it doesnt agree with Steve's RDF?
"Go buy a peecee"