[Rob van dam]

Hi,
This is by no means a thread on whethere the next revision will be a G4 or G5 but how many prospective powerbook users would like a 13.3" powerbook over the 12.1". I realise its a small screen size increase but ut could at least give it the resoloution of the 15".

So what's your take on this.

[Eug Wanker]

If it were to have the same aspect ratio as the 1280x854 15", I'd say a 13" or 13.3" with a screen rez of 1152x768 would be ideal. With that rez, a 13" would be the same pixel density as the current 12.1".

Aside from the screen size increase, it'd also become widescreen, making that screen rez that much more utilizable for movies.

Indeed, I've said before that my (reasonably plausible) PowerBook of choice for 2005 is:

13" 1152x768 widescreen
1.6 GHz G5 (preferably with 1 MB L2)
512 MB RAM built-in
PCIe, with Radeon X300 128 MB
Dual-layer 8X SuperDrive
Bluetooth 2.0 & Airport Extreme
DVI/VGA/S-video out
Backlit keyboard
80 GB 5400 rpm drive
4.5 lbs

[Rob van dam]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

If it were to have the same aspect ratio as the 1280x854 15", I'd say a 13" or 13.3" with a screen rez of 1152x768 would be ideal. With that rez, a 13" would be the same pixel density as the current 12.1".

Aside from the screen size increase, it'd also become widescreen, making that screen rez that much more utilizable for movies.

Indeed, I've said before that my (reasonably plausible) PowerBook of choice for 2005 is:

13" 1152x768 widescreen
1.6 GHz G5 (preferably with 1 MB L2)
512 MB RAM built-in
PCIe, with Radeon X300 128 MB
Dual-layer 8X SuperDrive
Bluetooth 2.0 & Airport Extreme
DVI/VGA/S-video out
Backlit keyboard
80 GB 5400 rpm drive
4.5 lbs

would there be much diffrence between 1152x768 and 1580x854. Regardless at 13.3"(fingers crossed)it would be ideal for me and i guess many other people. small footprint great balance of weight and features

[TheIceMan]

I would LOVE to have a 13.3 Powerbook. The 15", which I currently have, is a bit too big for my taste. I find that there is usually a 2-2.5 in. left over on the right side of my screen. Not sure why, but I usually have the Safari browser window open leaving 2.5 inches left over on the right.

While the 15" is great for watching movies, I find that I don't need that extra widescreen space when I'm working. I have messed around with the 12" and find that the screen is a tad too small and hurts my eyes.

Apple, please, PLEASE release a 13.3 widescreen with good resolution! That would be PERFECTION!

P.S. I *hand raised* nominate Eug as production manager for the 13.3" Powerbook!

[Rob van dam]

Originally Posted by TheIceMan

I would LOVE to have a 13.3 Powerbook. The 15", which I currently have, is a bit too big for my taste. I find that there is usually a 2-2.5 in. left over on the right side of my screen. Not sure why, but I usually have the Safari browser window open leaving 2.5 inches left over on the right.

While the 15" is great for watching movies, I find that I don't need that extra widescreen space when I'm working. I have messed around with the 12" and find that the screen is a tad too small and hurts my eyes.

Apple, please, PLEASE release a 13.3 widescreen with good resolution! That would be PERFECTION!

P.S. I *hand raised* nominate Eug as production manager for the 13.3" Powerbook!

agreed. i have played with the 15" a bit to big for what i need a 13.3 inch would be the perfect balance of everything. I believe the would sell extremely well

[ericssonboi]

13" Widescreen would be ideal for me too..
I love my 15" and all.. but it adds up when your trying to lug it around..

[OB1]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

If it were to have the same aspect ratio as the 1280x854 15", I'd say a 13" or 13.3" with a screen rez of 1152x768 would be ideal. With that rez, a 13" would be the same pixel density as the current 12.1".

Aside from the screen size increase, it'd also become widescreen, making that screen rez that much more utilizable for movies.

Indeed, I've said before that my (reasonably plausible) PowerBook of choice for 2005 is:

13" 1152x768 widescreen
1.6 GHz G5 (preferably with 1 MB L2)
512 MB RAM built-in
PCIe, with Radeon X300 128 MB
Dual-layer 8X SuperDrive
Bluetooth 2.0 & Airport Extreme
DVI/VGA/S-video out
Backlit keyboard
80 GB 5400 rpm drive
4.5 lbs

Yes please! I've always hoped Apple would revise the 12" PB to include a widescreen, and your specs above would do me just nicely.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Rob van dam

would there be much diffrence between 1152x768 and 1580x854.

At this screen size, It's a significant difference in pixel density.
1152x768 is comfortable for most people. 1280x854 is not so comfortable.

13" 1152x768: 107 ppi <-- Same as 12.1" 1024x768 and acceptable
13" 1280x854: 118 ppi

13.3" 1152x768: 104 ppi <-- Perfect IMO
13.3" 1280x854: 116 ppi

15.2" 1280x854: 101 ppi

[Rob van dam]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

At this screen size, It's a significant difference in pixel density.
1152x768 is comfortable for most people. 1280x854 is not so comfortable.

13" 1152x768: 107 ppi <-- Same as 12.1" 1024x768 and acceptable
13" 1280x854: 118 ppi

13.3" 1152x768: 104 ppi <-- Perfect IMO
13.3" 1280x854: 116 ppi

15.2" 1280x854: 101 ppi

ohhk thanks for clearing that up however would 1200x800 be more reasonable or still no good

[Lundh]

I can't really understand why low pixel dencity is that big for everyone. I would love to see 13.3 or 12.1 with 1400x900 resolution, simply because I need the extra pixels to work with. It is much more comfortable to surf, write and chat at the same in higher resolutions.

If the default fonts become too small for some people, why not increase the font-size? I don't think that would be a big problem though, many x86-laptops has higher resolution already and I have yet to hear anything negative about that.

I've seen a Sony Vaio with an amazing 1280x800 13,3" screen, what an improvement from the 12" PB!

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Lundh

I can't really understand why low pixel dencity is that big for everyone. I would love to see 13.3 or 12.1 with 1400x900 resolution, simply because I need the extra pixels to work with. It is much more comfortable to surf, write and chat at the same in higher resolutions.

If the default fonts become too small for some people, why not increase the font-size? I don't think that would be a big problem though, many x86-laptops has higher resolution already and I have yet to hear anything negative about that.

The Taiwanese LCD makers about a year ago published a paper summarizing survey results of end users, which found that people are happy with screen pixel densities up to about 110 ppi.

I personally find 110 ppi already starting to get a bit too high for current OSes. Simply increasing the font-size doesn't work, because the OSes still aren't resolution independent. All that increasing the font-size does is make apps look funny. Everything gets out of proportion.

Indeed, the vast majority of people I know that actually buy the high pixel density screen run it at, you guessed it, around 195-110 ppi. And it looks like @ss, because it's not the native resolution. Some people do in fact make use of the higher pixel density screens, but most do not.

It is definitely reasonable for us to ask Apple to offer the option, but from a business perspective I can understand why Apple does not.

I've seen a Sony Vaio with an amazing 1280x800 13,3" screen, what an improvement from the 12" PB!

I'm not a big fan of them myself. BTW, they're 113ish ppi, which is not quite as extreme as say a 1280x854 13.0" screen.

[iREZ]

i dont have much to contribute to this thread, but lemme be the first to say that if apple released a 13" widescreen powerbook and didn't cripple it like they do the 12" now (no fw 800, no slot, somewhat crappy gpu), then it will be the most popular powerbook in the line. i think apple realizes this and doesn't wanna cut sales from the 15" and 17" where they really make the big bucks. i'll give up a toe for a 13' powerbook!!!

[slffl]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

If it were to have the same aspect ratio as the 1280x854 15", I'd say a 13" or 13.3" with a screen rez of 1152x768 would be ideal. With that rez, a 13" would be the same pixel density as the current 12.1".

Aside from the screen size increase, it'd also become widescreen, making that screen rez that much more utilizable for movies.

Indeed, I've said before that my (reasonably plausible) PowerBook of choice for 2005 is:

13" 1152x768 widescreen
1.6 GHz G5 (preferably with 1 MB L2)
512 MB RAM built-in
PCIe, with Radeon X300 128 MB
Dual-layer 8X SuperDrive
Bluetooth 2.0 & Airport Extreme
DVI/VGA/S-video out
Backlit keyboard
80 GB 5400 rpm drive
4.5 lbs

Wow, that would be a sweet laptop and my choice as well.

[wtmcgee]

i dont have much to contribute to this thread, but lemme be the first to say that if apple released a 13" widescreen powerbook and didn't cripple it like they do the 12" now (no fw 800, no slot, somewhat crappy gpu), then it will be the most popular powerbook in the line. i think apple realizes this and doesn't wanna cut sales from the 15" and 17" where they really make the big bucks. i'll give up a toe for a 13' powerbook!!!

I think you're dead on. We won't see something like the powerbooks mentioned above because it'd make the 15" obsolete for a lot of people.

I'd kill for a widescreen laptop with a similar footprint of the current 12" model. That'd be perfect for a lot of people's needs.

[Lundh]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

The Taiwanese LCD makers about a year ago published a paper summarizing survey results of end users, which found that people are happy with screen pixel densities up to about 110 ppi.

I personally find 110 ppi already starting to get a bit too high for current OSes. Simply increasing the font-size doesn't work, because the OSes still aren't resolution independent. All that increasing the font-size does is make apps look funny. Everything gets out of proportion.

Indeed, the vast majority of people I know that actually buy the high pixel density screen run it at, you guessed it, around 195-110 ppi. And it looks like @ss, because it's not the native resolution. Some people do in fact make use of the higher pixel density screens, but most do not.

It is definitely reasonable for us to ask Apple to offer the option, but from a business perspective I can understand why Apple does not.


I'm not a big fan of them myself. BTW, they're 113ish ppi, which is not quite as extreme as say a 1280x854 13.0" screen.

I can only talk for myself and I would prefer higher resolution displays. You are right about that just increase the font size is a bad solution. A better one would be to offer two versions as you say. IBM among others had done just that for a long time. That would make me happy and the others that want lower resolution.

I had to use a 1024x768 TFT when I did some assambler programming, that's when you really start appreciate higher resolutions. When you have to read many rows and have documentation open at the same time. I would rather have high pixel dencity then large menus in such scnario.

[Eug Wanker]

I had to use a 1024x768 TFT when I did some assambler programming that's when you really start appreciate higher resolutions.

It's interesting. I have noticed that a lot of people who buy the higher pixel density screens and actually make use of the higher resolutions are programmers. Even more so with young programmers with good eyes.

It makes sense since programming is one area where it can really help. Unfortunately, Apple is not really marketing itself to this group (and other similar groups). Apple markets itself to the general population who make the bulk of the purchases.

However, like I said, it is quite reasonable to want a high pixel density screen option, for higher cost. I just think it would be a bad idea to make it the default like some companies do.

[wilsonng]

Originally Posted by iREZ

i dont have much to contribute to this thread, but lemme be the first to say that if apple released a 13" widescreen powerbook and didn't cripple it like they do the 12" now (no fw 800, no slot, somewhat crappy gpu), then it will be the most popular powerbook in the line. i think apple realizes this and doesn't wanna cut sales from the 15" and 17" where they really make the big bucks. i'll give up a toe for a 13' powerbook!!!

From the various threads, I've read that the 12.1" was cram-packed and no space is wasted inside the small confines of the 12.1". Other arguments for the lack of features is to prevent cannibalization of sales from the 15" and 17" form factors.

I'm wondering if the 13" form would give Apple just a little more breathing room to fit more goodies like a PC card slot, backlit keyboard, and TWO upgradable RAM slots.

However, I'd like to make sure the 13" PowerBook will play back full-screen H.264 smoothly without stuttering. It looks like it will be awhile before ATI or nVidia will produce laptop GPUs with the H.264 built-in decoder.

I previously had a 14" Lombard and that was the start of a beautiful relationship with Apple laptops. When I got my first 15" TiBook, I was amazed at how huge it was to me at that time.

When I tried out the 12" PB, I knew I could never go back to a 15". I had put the 12" into the shop for AppleCare service and had to lug my 15" for awhile. I was amazed at the difference. I was spoiled rotten with the portability of the 12" form factor.

I'm hoping that Steve Jobs and Apple are scouring the MacNN forums and reading all the discussions of everybody wanting a 13" PB.

The 12" PB is the only one that isn't widescreen. It's about time the entire PB line goes to the widescreen format.

Even though I really hate buying 1st generation designs, I would get the 13" in a heartbeat......

[Randman]

If the PB went to 13 and the iBook dropped to to 12" and a 10" model, that would be nice.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by iREZ

i dont have much to contribute to this thread, but lemme be the first to say that if apple released a 13" widescreen powerbook and didn't cripple it like they do the 12" now (no fw 800, no slot, somewhat crappy gpu), then it will be the most popular powerbook in the line. i think apple realizes this and doesn't wanna cut sales from the 15" and 17" where they really make the big bucks. i'll give up a toe for a 13' powerbook!!!

while I'd love a 13.3" Powerbook, your assessment of why the 12" Powerbook is "crippled" is probably outright wrong, and you'd know it if you ever opened one up yourself.

Do so, and then come back and explain to us where the FW800 chip and connector, and especially the CardBus slot, would go. Be sure to figure in cooling for higher-powered graphics cards.

[iREZ]

that's why they should boot the 12" all together and get a 13" widescreen. look i'm not bashing the 12" powerbook by any means, it's the best computer i've ever owned, but i don't think asking for fw800 or a decent gpu is too much.