17" inch Widescreen is smaller than 17" 4:3??
Do you think Apple would make all of their display options widescreen? i would certainly hope so. But a 17" widescreen display would be smaller (screen area?) than a 4:3 model?? is that right?
As a user of Final Cut pro and Audio apps I would very much like a widescreen display, even if it meant less over all space. I have done the dual monitors, but would much rather have a single well made monitor.
Do you think they would replace the current 17" with a 17" widescreen? or would they replace the current 17" with a 19" widescreen which would probably keep the screen space the same, but add widescreen?
I saw over at macmall that there are companies that sell the 17" widescreen display for around $550 - $699. could apple make these and keep the costs down? $599 for an apple 17" widescreen seems acceptable, but would that kill 20" sales? Then again 20" widescreen for $899 would be downright awesome!
Ok, so do you think they will go to an all widescreen display system?
As a user of Final Cut pro and Audio apps I would very much like a widescreen display, even if it meant less over all space. I have done the dual monitors, but would much rather have a single well made monitor.
Do you think they would replace the current 17" with a 17" widescreen? or would they replace the current 17" with a 19" widescreen which would probably keep the screen space the same, but add widescreen?
I saw over at macmall that there are companies that sell the 17" widescreen display for around $550 - $699. could apple make these and keep the costs down? $599 for an apple 17" widescreen seems acceptable, but would that kill 20" sales? Then again 20" widescreen for $899 would be downright awesome!
Ok, so do you think they will go to an all widescreen display system?
Comments
BUT, as someone pointed out a while back, that translates into less area than your typical, big-ass 128x128 OS X icon takes up. Hardly worth missing, IMO.
The benefit gained by that extra width (for palettes and so forth) is worth it for me and a fair trade off. I'd welcome at standalone 17" widescreen Cinema Display, as would about 93% of you out there, I'd imagine. Especially if was redesigned a bit and given a sleeker, "less dead space around the display" look.
Skin those things in a G5/PowerBook-inspired aluminum, make it thin and tight, design some cool tilt/rotate/raise device that makes it as cool and fun to use as a G4 iMac's display and call it done. And watch them fly off the shelves.
I really can't see using the 17" powerbook. It just seems too big for me. Maybe if they split that huge mouse button in two...
I agree that there will probably always be squar laptops, but I think the desktop line will have to go all widescreen.
1280x768 is one such oddball rez. So is the 15" PB's 3:2 1280x854, but since that is a notebook display and the drivers and card are tailor supplied from Apple it makes no difference. 3:2 is actually ideal at the res and size where Apple uses it.
Currently, there are a number of standard aspect ratios:
5:4 (1280x1024) pretty much seen ONLY on 17-19" LCDs
4:3 (1024x768, 1152x870, 1280x960, 1440x1080, 1400x1050, 1600x1200, 2048x1536 and a few others in between)
16:9 (HDTV) 1280x720, 1920x1080 and weirdo 1366x768.
Then a bastard resolution at 16:9.6 1280x768.
Then computer monitor wide XGA tyoe displays at 16:10.
1600x1024 (actually 16x10.24, but close enough since it has been in use for a long time)
1440x900
1680x1050
1920x1200
and a future 2048x1280
there's enough bandwidth in current DVI for 2240x1400 in a 16x10 given that it will push a narrower but taller 2048x1536 in a 4x3 at 60hz. While 60hz isn't especialy high, it's more than high enough for an LCD type display that doesn't suffer from flicker. Pixel response an still be fast enough as makes no difference.
BUt getting back to the wide versus tall screen. Wide is not always better. Most documents scroll up-down, not side to side. A page is tall, not wide, typically. Art projects may come in any variety of aspect ratios that favor a taller aspect aswell. It is more natural to look at a wide screen in larger sizes, since this more closely mimics the human field of view, but for a smaller screen, a taller aspect might actually reduce the amount of scrolling one has to put up with, which is better for Office and internet use.
In the larger screen laptops it also makes sense since it makes for a shallower footprint and lower height (good in close quarters). It should also make it possible to have a less vulnerable screen. Larger surfaces flex more, a widescreen very slightly reduces the surcae area and crucially makes at least two of the sides shorter and stronger than they would be if they were square. Can you imagine how ungainly a 17" (5:4) display would look in a laptop, and how thick the lid would have to be just to guard against flexing and cracking from the simple act of opening the notebook?
If Apple makes a 17" wide display to replace the 17" currently on offer, then the display should be substantially cheaper than the current 17, since glass is paid by the square inch (and a rectangle has less square inches) and the cost of the panel would then be spread over 3 lines (iMac, PB17 and a new display)
It sounds like a good idea to me. Get a cheap 17" display in there and a headless G5 cube to go with it!
If so, then YES! Buy in bulk.
An everyone mentions the scrolling aspect. I don't look at it like that as much. Since the Mac is such a heavily-used platform in the graphic/creative fields, I'm betting more Mac users (with all their palettes and so forth) would appreciate a little wider space to put this stuff.
Really, the only "square-ish" screens are those remaining on the iStuff (and eMac) at 1024x768 (iBooks and low-end iMac). The two upper-end PowerBooks and LCDs are wide aspect (the current 17" isn't, of course, but I'll bet anyone here $1 that it will be by March 2004).
As a matter of fact, I'll bet you that's one of thing things on tap for MWSF: a new, redesigned display line: all widescreen (17", 20" and 23"), new G5-matching enclosures, thinner bezel, some sort of mobility(!) and USB 2.0 hubs built in (since they're made to go with the G5 and the PowerBooks, makes sense).
As for the talk of a 30"...I'll believe it when I see it.
The worse one would be a 1000/1 ratio : 2000 per 1 pixel
This is just a question of basical geometria.
However, the 16/10 and in general widescreen are mored adapted to human visioni, than 4/3.
4/3 have been push essentially for technical reasons.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Wides screens are smaller than 4:3 ones. It's a question of surface. The biggest 17 inch screen avalaible will be a square one.
The worse one would be a 1000/1 ratio : 2000 per 1 pixel
This is just a question of basical geometria.
However, the 16/10 and in general widescreen are mored adapted to human visioni, than 4/3.
4/3 have been push essentially for technical reasons.
Yes, the largest screen (area-wise) for any given diagonal measurement is square. The farther you get from square, the less area the screen will have.
I don't believe the 4:3 was for tech reasons, I believe it was because that is the aspect ratio of a "standard" TV, and back in the dark ages, computers used to connect to TVs.
Originally posted by Matsu
If Apple makes a 17" wide display to replace the 17" currently on offer, then the display should be substantially cheaper than the current 17, since glass is paid by the square inch.
I hope this is ment as a joke and not a serious argument!
Originally posted by Derrick 61
I don't believe the 4:3 was for tech reasons, I believe it was because that is the aspect ratio of a "standard" TV, and back in the dark ages, computers used to connect to TVs.
You know i am rather an old thing, and i was referring to the TV standart ...
It's been my experience that anyone that works with text (programming, office applications like word processing, ...) needs screen height more than width. This comprises a significant part of "normal" computer use, frankly speaking graphics creation is a niche, and average people are more likely to watch movies on something else than a computer.
Typically all programs I run (web browsers, text consoles, text editors) use about 800-900px horizontally but I'd like to have as much vertical space as possible. I regard 1000px as an absolute minimum for a desktop display height. Widescreen can have the benefit of running two programs side by side, when you reach something like 1400-1600px horizontal width, but it's no substitute for having decent height available for your primary program.
Apple realizes this, and that is why they have the low end at 4:3 both in desktops and portables.
Originally posted by Gon
It's been my experience that anyone that works with text (programming, office applications like word processing, ...)
As a programmer I can say that until something like this becomes more widespread, I much prefer width to heigh. Scroll-wheel mouses (mice?) make it effortless to scroll up and down, but it's still a pain to have to scroll right to see text that runs off the side of the screen.