i'm excited for the 13.3 widescreen macbook's however, i was wondering how "tall" the screen would be now since 13.3" is measure by diagonal on a widescreen that means we are losing some height over say the 12 inch ibook... i hope we can exercise our creativity with that sized of screen.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
13.3 widescreen = 11 inches height
- Thread starter animefx
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The size of the screen is less important than the resolution - I seriously doubt the new ones will have less vertical resolution than the current iBooks and 12" PB.
animefx said:
It'll probably have a resolution of 1280x800 though, so you won't be losing any pixels.
All the hot rumors (Thinksecret, Apple Insider, MacRumors, HardMac) point to a 1280x720 resolution, a 48 vertical pixel loss, nothing too major when you consider the 256 pixel horizontal gain.
Another nice thing about wide screen is the ability to watch widescreen DVDs without the bars (assuming they are 16x9). Also an interesting note here is that this would represent the first 16x9 display in Apple's lineup, they have all previously been 16x10.
Another nice thing about wide screen is the ability to watch widescreen DVDs without the bars (assuming they are 16x9). Also an interesting note here is that this would represent the first 16x9 display in Apple's lineup, they have all previously been 16x10.
it is a shame everything is going widescreen. I use Reason 3.0 a lot, and it just isn't very wide. It is a LONG vertical program. Losing vertical pixels is bad for me.
Consider an external monitor then if you use that program alot. You can probably find a really cheap one. I've even seen some that are like widescreen.. except tall instead of wide. Weird to look at, but might fit your needs.
1dterbeest said:
Some diplays (like my Dell 2005FPW) can rotate 90 degrees, and there is software to rotate the desktop, which would give you quite a "long" screen indeed!
Not all movies are 16x9. Also, I agree with grockk, it's very unlikely for Apple to move away from 16x10, as it gives a decent compromise between 4:3 video (NTSC TV shows), documents (usually taller than wider), and movies.ChrisFromCanada said:
Counterfit said:
exactly, I watch a lot of old movies, and they are all at 4:3, a real pain when you watch them on a widescreen. Also, I'm just not that keen on changing the dimensions of the current 12in laptops, they are great as they are, small and square(ish), better quality screens is what I'm waiting for!
13.3" widescreen = 11" height - not exactly
Here is my calculation of each display's (current iBooks and rumored MacBooks) height and width, based on diagonal and aspect ratio (all figures are rounded) :
12.1" diagonal, 4:3 display : 9.7" wide, 7.3" high
14.1" diagonal, 4:3 display : 11.3" wide, 8.5" high
13.3" diagonal, 16:10 display : 11.2" wide, 7.0" high
13.3" diagonal, 16:9 display : 11.5" wide, 6.5" high
Here is my calculation of each display's (current iBooks and rumored MacBooks) height and width, based on diagonal and aspect ratio (all figures are rounded) :
12.1" diagonal, 4:3 display : 9.7" wide, 7.3" high
14.1" diagonal, 4:3 display : 11.3" wide, 8.5" high
13.3" diagonal, 16:10 display : 11.2" wide, 7.0" high
13.3" diagonal, 16:9 display : 11.5" wide, 6.5" high
Will : Hi ! said:
now this is very interesting. Assuming your figures are correct then the current 12in powerbooks screen has a physical area of 70.81" squared, whereas a new 13.3" screen (at 16:10) has an area of 78.4" squared. Quite a difference if you ask me, especially when you consider that the new screens will most likely have a much higher resolution.
Indeed, and not all Macs support this rotation, in particular it would seem any with Nvidia graphics cards (such as my 12" PB).bah-bah'd said:
However I can report that the GMA 950 in the mini does support rotation out of the box. I believe most ATI GFX cards do as well.