Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

jetta_gt · Oct 27, 2003, 02:39 AM

I don't get it, the 12" and the 14" iBooks have the same resolution, how does this effect things? Can someone explain it in layman's terms? I'm not stupid, but it's late and I am regretting my 14" order from Apple, is it too late to cancel? What are the benefits of the 14" besides a little extra speed?

scaught · Oct 27, 2003, 02:51 AM

um. you get the same picture, its just ~16% bigger. theres the same amount of pixels on the screen, theyre just a bit bigger on the 14" model.

you get better battery life, faster speed and a bigger harddrive.

Scooterboy · Oct 27, 2003, 03:33 AM

Don't feel bad about ordering a 14" iBook. For me size is an issue and I prefer the smaller form factor and sharper appearing screen. Others prefer the larger form factor and bigger screen. If size wasn't an issue for me I'd order a 14" 1 GHz iBook G4 today. Heck, for watching DVD's and playing games I'm sure the bigger screen is much better.
But I really want a 12" at the same specs as the 14". So until that happens I'll keep using my own 12" iBook 600.

C-Bear · Oct 27, 2003, 03:50 AM

Originally posted by scaught:
um. you get the same picture, its just ~16% bigger. theres the same amount of pixels on the screen, theyre just a bit bigger on the 14" model.

you get better battery life, faster speed and a bigger harddrive.

I think what jetta_gt is asking about is the notorious "fuzziness" the 14" iBooks' screens are reputed to have compared to their 12" brethren.

Simply (because that's about the only way I can understand it too, and just barely at that), both the 12" and 14" screens have the same resolution, and therefore have the same number of pixels to work with (Jeebus, someone please correct me if I'm blowing this). As a result, the pixels on the 14" are more spread out to cover the extra real estate, and there is a slight diminishment of sharpness as a result, whereas on the 12," that same number of pixels doesn't have to cover as much ground and that yields a more condensed "pixel-per-sqare-inch" number, hence a slightly sharper image.

Basically, if the number of pixels available to two different screens is equal (which in this case it is), the smaller of the two screens will have better image "crispness" because it doesn't have to spread its pixels out as far and wide as the larger screen.

The more pixels-per-spare-inch, the better, I suppose.

That being said, the difference between the two is minimal at best (I;ve comapred them), and shouldn't affect which model you choose. Let your needs in a laptop dicate that.

Luca Rescigno · Oct 27, 2003, 04:23 AM

C-Bear, you're basically correct, except it's not that the pixels are more spread out on the 14", they're just bigger. Pixels are not points of light like stars - they have a specific size. So the 14" screen has larger pixels. Actually the 14" should appeal to anyone with less than perfect vision because it's basically a magnified version of the 12" screen. Also, the 14" screen will be better for DVDs and games where a larger physical size helps. For general use, they're equally good.

For reference, most of Apple's LCDs have about 100 pixels per inch (pixels per square inch is an equally good way to measure pixel density). Anyway, the 12" iBook and PowerBook have 106 pixels per inch, the 15" PowerBook has about 101, the 17" PowerBook has about 100, the 20" Cinema has 99, and the 23" Cinema has 98. By contrast, the iBook only has about 90, so it's not so sharp. If the 14" iBook were to get a slightly higher resolution screen (1152x864), it would have 102 pixels per inch, much like the rest of Apple's displays. However, I think they're keeping it at 1024x768 for the benefit of people with poor eyesight.

issandr · Oct 27, 2003, 05:58 AM

However, I think they're keeping it at 1024x768 for the benefit of people with poor eyesight.

I don't think they're keeping at 1024x768 "for the benefit of people with poor eyesight." They're deliberately crippling a card that may very well be capable of higher resolutions so it doesn't compete with the Powerbooks. After all, people with poor eyesight could simply use a lower resolution if they needed it.

shabbasuraj · Oct 27, 2003, 06:16 AM

Originally posted by issandr:
I don't think they're keeping at 1024x768 "for the benefit of people with poor eyesight." They're deliberately crippling a card that may very well be capable of higher resolutions so it doesn't compete with the Powerbooks. After all, people with poor eyesight could simply use a lower resolution if they needed it.

I agree with the above...

they are keeping it at that level to increase profit margins...

it is no secret that Apple is offering 2 year old TFT technology in all of their notebooks (both PBs and iBs)...

just look at the top of the line 17" PB it's maximum resolution is a pathetic 1400x900... not even 4 digits for both parameters...

this is my primary gripe with Apple nowadays, I know it is a small one but it is actually the ony thing hindering me from buying a 17" PB...that being the resolution does not fully take advantage of all that available real estate...

I mean why buy a 15" or 14" screen when it can essentially only display as much info as my 12' PB screen (the computer I presently use)...

I am young and my eyes are still good, and I know this can be remedied by Apple providing its users with a BTO option, so for those who want a higher resolution screen they can pay for it and get it...

I spend time on some of my buddies 15" PC notebooks and (I wonder) why Apple can't offer higher resolutions is completely beyond me....

I know this will never be addressed until (hopefully) the RevC PBs or the G5ivver PB...(read 12 months from now...)

those new Sony X-brite screen are cutting edge and nice...I love their sharpness, but I am not so sure about that 'glossy' coating...

thanks for the ranting opportunity...

darcybaston · Oct 28, 2003, 10:50 AM

I'll be hopefully ordering a 14" in the next month or so and I've had a chance to check out a 12" and 14" at an Apple store about...well...8 hours drive away heh. MUST COMPLETE RESEARCH!

Anyway, I've had this issue running around in my mind for half a year now and I've come to the following conclusion : although the 12" is crisper, and you may notice while the two are side by side, you have to ask yourself if you'll have your eyes closer to the 12" screen because of its size anyway. So this means that I will naturally not need my face glued so close to the 14" and the fuzziness (so subtle) will not matter as much.

So I'll be ok with the 14". I've been imagning the scenario where I've got it on a small tv tray sized foldup table/tray thing next to my Roland workstation to do some sequencing. With that screen size, and distance caused by sitting at the Roland, it's larger size and my head's distance from the screen will more than compensate for any slightly less sharpness. I probably wont' even notice after a few days!

Do you find that with the 12", you're naturally leaning in to be closer to it for ease of use on the eyes? Would that not exponentiate the fuzzy malaise of the 14" if not accounted for?

piot · Oct 28, 2003, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by issandr:
I don't think they're keeping at 1024x768 "for the benefit of people with poor eyesight." They're deliberately crippling a card that may very well be capable of higher resolutions so it doesn't compete with the Powerbooks.

What is so hard to understand here?

The screen is a a 1024 x 768 pixel screen!
It doesn't matter if the card is capable of higher resolutions. The screen is not!

piot · Oct 28, 2003, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by shabbasuraj:

I mean why buy a 15" or 14" screen when it can essentially only display as much info as my 12' PB screen ?

Well 1st of all, the 15" Powerbooks offer you around 40% more real estate than the 12" 'books.

The 14" iBooks simply give you.... a bigger screen.
Apple have just updated them...so someone must be buying them!