Do YOU want a 12 inch MacBook Pro?

[BanjoBanker]

12"PB really a Pro

To all the posters who claim a 12" PB is nothing more than an iBook in aluminum skin, I say you clearly know nothing. I have the original 867 12" PB I bought the week they were announced. I maxed the ram over the years, replaced the battery under a recall and nothing else. I have carried all over the country along w/ my Nikon D70 as a portable studio. My kids have had 12" iBooks, G3 and G4s, and while the iBook was one tough machine, saying either of them was the same as my PB is nuts! The PB is smaller, lighter, and light years faster than any iBook. My son had a 1.5 12" G4 iBook and he always commented on how much faster mine was with iMovie than his. I have a superdrive, so he used it a lot to durn DVDs of his mud buggy advetures. A friend of mine who has retired from Apple said there were so few inter changable parts in the 12" PB and iBooks you would be accurate to say there were none. When Apple releases a replacement, my 15" MBP C2D is toast!

 

[Spectrum]

What exactly are you trying to say?????????

Are you arguing for a 12" MBP to be 4:3 or 16:9 ?

In any case, the 15" PB was not 4:3... it is EXACTLY 3:2 (nicer than the 16:9 of the MBP IMO). Unfortunately 1440x900 LCD panels are far more common than 1440x960 that the last rev PB had.

Also, I think the screen on the PB is 15.2" not 15.0".

Here's a thought...

According to calculations using the Pythagorean theorem, a 12.1" widescreen MBP wouldn't be overly dinky!

Lets take the difference between the 15" PB and the 15.4" MBP first

• The PB's 4:3 ratio with 15" diagonal gave users 108 square inches of visio-pleasure.
• The MBP's 16:9 ratio with 15.4" diagonal gives users 101 square inches of visio-pleasure.

Notice how the numerically greater diagonal results in less actual viewing area!

Using the current MBP keyboard length as the indicator for the size of the screen base (having seen how the keyboard was set on the 12" PB), and using 16:9 as the screen aspect ratio, you'd end up with..

• The PB's 4:3 ratio with 12" diagonal gave users 69.12 square inches of visio-pleasure.
• A MBP's 16:9 ratio with 12.1" diagonal would give users 63 square inches of visio-pleasure!

So come on Apple - get busy!

***I'd buy the 12.1" MBP if it came along. Dell's M1210 and Sony's TX series have proven that these machines can be built small but fairly fully featured (just not as pretty )

EDIT**** Apple wouldnt have to sacrifice the DVD-RW drive either , so lets stop wishing for it

 

[Spectrum]

To all the posters who claim a 12" PB is nothing more than an iBook in aluminum skin, I say you clearly know nothing. ...

Agreed. It is a much nicer computer than the iBook. Problem is, people just compare the paper specs and say: "it's the same but in Aluminium", whereas in reality it is a different computer entirely - perhaps not equivalent to the 15/17 inchers in raw power, but significantly more compact instead.

 

[MaccilyEverAfte]

No Hesitation, Whatever the Cost, I want it!!!

I recently started consulting independantly, and in so doing, I had to buy my own hardware... Well after years of cursing my IBM, I made the switch to a Mac.... Awesome is all I have to say, you just look at it and want to work on it!

The only drawback is the size, I went for the 17, and although it is nowhere near as heavy as comparable PCs, it is bulky for travelling (which I do on a weekly basis).

I have been looking around for an ultra portable, and discovered Mac may produce one... If I knew it was a given, I would wait for months just to get one, Macs are great, adn teh MacBook Pro is the mecca in my mind!

 

[capoditutti]

What exactly are you trying to say?????????

Are you arguing for a 12" MBP to be 4:3 or 16:9 ?

In any case, the 15" PB was not 4:3... it is EXACTLY 3:2 (nicer than the 16:9 of the MBP IMO). Unfortunately 1440x900 LCD panels are far more common than 1440x960 that the last rev PB had.

Also, I think the screen on the PB is 15.2" not 15.0".

Having messed around with a Sony TX3 before, i'd say bring on the 12.1" @ 16:9! Everyone buying a WS notebook now would be losing visio-space as compared to their older 4:3 or 3:2 displays.

Thanks for the corrections, i'll post the corrected figures when my headache subsides a bit

 

[Spectrum]

I still don't get it.

You want less screen?

Having messed around with a Sony TX3 before, i'd say bring on the 12.1" @ 16:9! Everyone buying a WS notebook now would be losing visio-space as compared to their older 4:3 or 3:2 displays.

If they ever do bring out a small MacBook Pro with the same width as the old 12" PB (thus matching the keyboard width), but WITH a 16:9 widescreen, the diagonal will be less than on the 12" PB.

The 12" PB (4:3) gives: 9.6" wide x 7.2" tall = 69.1 sq inches.

A Macbook with the same width screen, but 16:9 would give:

9.6" wide x 5.4" tall = 51.8 sq inches, with a resulting 11" diagonal.

Too small for me. However, on the plus side it would be tiny and most likely very light.

 

[iW00t]

I actually kind of like the extra screen resolution available to the sides nowadays. At least with widescreen I can actually run 2 applications side by side (ie: MS Word and Adium) rather than just MS Word alone.

Sure it is all smaller, but at least more can be laid out besides each other.

 

[mad jew]

12 inches is too large for my girlfriend, but 11 inches doesn't satisfy her. She wants an 11.7 inch MacBook Pro with a super bright display so her face can be illuminated by the glow of a thousand pixels.

 

[johnee]

no, i would not want a smaller screen.

12 inches is too large for my girlfriend, but 11 inches doesn't satisfy her.

 

[Skrilla™]

I guess so, but I don't know if I would get it, depending on the price. Now if the MB had a GPU in it, I would take that over a 12" MBP.

Graphics on the MB have really impressed me so far. Plays any kind of HD video flawlessly, runs Vista Aero w/ no problems, even installed WoW on it today and was surprised at the quality! MB rules!

 

[iBookG4user]

I would definitely like a 12" MacBook Pro, but I already have a 15" MacBook Pro and I think a Mac Mini would suit just fine as a secondary computer, or maybe a refurbished Mac Pro for some real power. (Don't like the iMac too much, I'm not a fan of the all in ones) All in all a 12" MacBook Pro might have been my purchase instead of the 15", but it was painful using 1024 x 768 on my 14" iBook, let alone a 12" screen.

 

[capoditutti]

I still don't get it.

You want less screen?



If they ever do bring out a small MacBook Pro with the same width as the old 12" PB (thus matching the keyboard width), but WITH a 16:9 widescreen, the diagonal will be less than on the 12" PB.

The 12" PB (4:3) gives: 9.6" wide x 7.2" tall = 69.1 sq inches.

A Macbook with the same width screen, but 16:9 would give:

9.6" wide x 5.4" tall = 51.8 sq inches, with a resulting 11" diagonal.

Too small for me. However, on the plus side it would be tiny and most likely very light.

Spectrum

I doubt the Macbook would have the same width screen - it would demand the designing of a different-sized keyboard, and there is no need, considering the current keyboard on e.g. the Macbook Pro, would fit fully across a 12.1" @ 16:9....

Everyone buying a widescreen laptop now @ whatever diagonal size is losing screen area compared to the same diagonal on a 4:3 or even 3:2 aspect ratio. What they gain (subject to debate), is a better ability to use the area available on the 16:9 aspect screen rather than what is available on the 4:3..

12" @ 4:3/3:2 has more area than 12.1" @ 16:9
15"/15.2" @ 4:3/3:2 has more area than 15.4" @ 16:9
17" @ 4:3/3:2 has more area than 17" @ 16:9

It's not a case of wanting a smaller screen, its a case of getting one whether you'd like it or not

 

[Martin C]

Everyone buying a widescreen laptop now @ whatever diagonal size is losing screen area compared to the same diagonal on a 4:3 or even 3:2 aspect ratio. What they gain (subject to debate), is a better ability to use the area available on the 16:9 aspect screen rather than what is available on the 4:3..

It doesn't matter as widescreen is now becoming an industry standard for computer screens, televisions, and now more and more movies offer widescreen DVDs as well.

 

[MacbookSwitcher]

Don't need a 12" MBP. The Macbook at 2.0 GHz with 2 GB RAM is actually very powerful, yet small enough to be very portable. Perfect as a desktop replacement for me, yet also great as a laptop.

 

[capoditutti]

Don't need a 12" MBP. The Macbook at 2.0 GHz with 2 GB RAM is actually very powerful, yet small enough to be very portable. Perfect as a desktop replacement for me, yet also great as a laptop.

As a highly mobile semi-power user, i'd miss the backlit keyboard most, ability to play above-average 3D-games via xp, and the ExpressCard/34 slot for when Vodafone makes a 3G Broadband card available to us in the UK - i use a USB 3G broadband card ATM and although it works perfectly on both xp and OSX (rare for something to do this straight out of the box), the use of the card slot would keep things a bit tidier..

 

[Spectrum]

Don't need a 12" MBP. The Macbook at 2.0 GHz with 2 GB RAM is actually very powerful, yet small enough to be very portable. Perfect as a desktop replacement for me, yet also great as a laptop.

I don't think anyone is really debating the power of the MacBook in this thread (aside form the built-in GPU, it is well specced). The point of this thread is about a getting this amount of power in a smaller/lighter "pro" enclosure, with a nicer keyboard (backlit), FW800, Express Card slot, and an aluminium shell.

The MacBook may be portable enough for you, but that doesn't mean it is portable enough for everyone. For me, it's a fine computer, but it is not a 12" PB replacement.

 

[Spectrum]

I doubt the Macbook would have the same width screen - it would demand the designing of a different-sized keyboard, and there is no need, considering the current keyboard on e.g. the Macbook Pro, would fit fully across a 12.1" @ 16:9....

The keyboard on the 12" PB and 15/17"PB and 15/17" MBPro are all the same size. There is no need to go 12" 16:9 to fit the keyboard. It already fit perfectly at 12" 4:3.

What this means is that if Apple wanted, they could make a 11" 16:9 Macbook Pro and still retain the full-size keyboard infact.

I'd still prefer a 12" 4:3, but that's just me - I don't watch movies. I like widescreen screens, but not under a certain vertical size.

 

[richard4339]

I'd prefer a 15 inch MacBook.

 

[debuggemee]

12 inch mbp is too small for my fingers. i have the 15 inch pb g4 and its just perfect. im just waiting for the new os before i can buy my mbp

 

[capoditutti]

The keyboard on the 12" PB and 15/17"PB and 15/17" MBPro are all the same size. There is no need to go 12" 16:9 to fit the keyboard. It already fit perfectly at 12" 4:3.

What this means is that if Apple wanted, they could make a 11" 16:9 Macbook Pro and still retain the full-size keyboard infact.

I'd still prefer a 12" 4:3, but that's just me - I don't watch movies. I like widescreen screens, but not under a certain vertical size.

Spectrum

It wasn't a case of going 12" to fit the keyboard; it was just a case of the current keyboard being perfect for a 12" widescreen, because that's now the default screen format for most of the manufacturers..

Look, at the end of the day, I'd take a 13.3" MBP (thin & light MacBook) if it kept the specs of something like the 15.4"MBP @2.33 minimum, and ofcourse lost some weight, from it's current 5.2lbs to about 3.3lbs as a maximum .. If it's gonna be the smallest in the range, it should also offer more portability than it currently does..

 

[xyian]

Hell yeah! As much as I like the Macbook, I'd rather have a MBP for my future world travels. 1.3" counts!