[Gamoe]

OK. So to re-hash the question now that prices and specs have changed. Is the 14" iBook worth the extra $$$, sporting the same resolution as it's smaller brother?

In my case, configuring the 12" iBook with a bluetooth module and an 80 GB HDD versus a 14" iBook with the same came to about a mere $120 difference, under Education pricing and including state taxes.

Now, is the extra 2" of screen and 130 Mhz difference worth that much, or do you see the extra size as a deterrent and the speed difference as negligible? What's you opinion on the matter?

[lord vader]

I would go with the 12" ibook, its cheaper, smaller, lighter, and it has the same specs. They both have the same screen res
so the 12" screen would make every thing smaller as if it was a higher res.

[iDaver]

I like the tighter resolution of the 106 ppi 12" display. It's the same (similar) ppi as all Apple displays except for the 14" iBook. If you have trouble seeing, I'd say the 14" is for you. Otherwise I see no advantage unless you want the Superdrive model.

There's a lot to be said for "cheaper, smaller and lighter." The extra 130 Mhz is not worth the extra cash and weight. I think the newly revised 12" iBook is the best value Mac available right now.

[kugino]

another vote for the 12". resolutions are the same so screen size is misleading. 14" makes it more cumbersome to travel with...12" is very portable. save the $130 and get a nice case/bag

[AleroLeanne]

I went through the same question you're asking. I was set on getting the 14" cause bigger is better, right? And I was going to get a Superdrive. However, after seeing a 12" in person I completely changed my mind. Not only does the display have crystal sharp quality (unlike the 14"), the portability size is amazing! For the price difference, I'd say definitely go with a 12". It just makes more sense. The speed difference is way too small to notice really. Now, I can't imagine getting anything else but the 12" - in fact I'm ordering mine tonight!

[jamil5454]

Although the 14" does have a slightly longer battery life...

[Aramas]

I've had a 12" for a couple of weeks now and I love it. Seriously, if your going to take it anywhere you wouldn't want anything bigger.

[A Ghost Is Born]

I am all about the 12". Use the money saved to invest in the extras you want.

[LukeGX]

I chose the 12" because it was smaller. I bought mine to use as a portable image editing studio so the smaller the better.

[Abit667]

I personally don't understand why anyone would buy the 14". It costs more, and has the same screen resolution. Who cares how many inches bigger it is, you're still not going to fit any more stuff on the screen.

130mhz isn't going to do you much anyway, personally if you're going to spend the extra money i'd get a 12" powerbook. At least you're getting an all around better computer.

[Nodnarb]

Originally posted by Abit667:
I personally don't understand why anyone would buy the 14". It costs more, and has the same screen resolution. Who cares how many inches bigger it is, you're still not going to fit any more stuff on the screen.

130mhz isn't going to do you much anyway, personally if you're going to spend the extra money i'd get a 12" powerbook. At least you're getting an all around better computer.

I have a 14" and my sister has a 12". Everyone is saying you can't fit more stuff on the screen, but to me this seems untrue. Right now I have the two side by side with the same windows open, and while it is easy to see everything clearly and bigger on the 14", it all looks so small on the 12".

I don't really understand the whole resolution thing though. Even though they have the same resolution, there is still the extra 2 inches on my iBook.

And the 14" is not hard to travel with at all. Of course the 12" is much smaller and easier, I just throw my 14" in my backpack with a bunch of other stuff and it all still fits.

[rilina]

I have the 12" G4 iBook, and I'd definitely recommend it over the 14". As others have said, the portability gain is huge (that extra weight and size makes a difference during a long day), and the screen resolution is very clear.

Yes, type can be pretty small on the screen due to the # of pixels packed into the screen area, but I've only noticed that as a problem on a few type-heavy web sites. And it's easy enough to increase the font size on a web page through your browser.

[andreas_g4]

Not again...

[LukeGX]

Everyone is saying you can't fit more stuff on the screen, but to me this seems untrue.

You can fit the same amount of information on either screen. The resolutions are the same. Yes the 12 inch screen will appear more compacted but you can't fit anymore stuff on the 14inch.

The number of dots that make up the image is the same in both displays. The dots in the 14 inch are bigger so the overall screen size is bigger. Both have resolutions of 1024x768 (width by height), meaning they can display a grid of dots on the screen that is 1024 dots along the width of the screen and 768 dots along the height of the screen.
As everything that is displayed on the screen (images, windows, text) is made up of dots, this means you can fit the same amount of things on each screen. The things on the 12" will appear smaller but the level of detail will be the same as the 14".

It could be seen as a little similar to having a standard photograph (=12" screen) and an enlargement (=14" screen). The amount of the image you can see is the same in both photographs but in the enlargement you can see the photo easier because it is bigger.
In this sense the 14" is simply an "enlargement" of the 12" screen.

Im pretty sure my theory is correct but if anyone wants to correct me go right ahead...

Luke

[Luca Rescigno]

My eyes aren't perfect, and recently I've been enjoying using a lower screen resolution on my monitor. I think I'd get the 14" even though it technically doesn't give you any more real estate. It's still easier on the eyes and the physical size of everything is larger. I guess you could also say that the 14" will allow at least a little more because you can make the fonts smaller and still see them as well, but that is pretty insignificant.

[DaBeav]

I was at the Apple Store at The Grove with a friend and we were looking at the new iBooks. He saw the 12" and turned up his nose. Too tiny, too cramped. Yeah, they have the same resolution, but the 14" is easier on the eyes, especially if you're using it for long periods of time. It's still smaller and thinner than most notebooks, and it still only weights 5.9lbs so it's not that unwieldy.

Personally, I'd likely go for the 12", unless the iBook were going to be my only machine, then I'd give some thought to the 14". I can see why people would like both, which is why Apple sells both.

[audvidsvs]

If two screens sit side by side and have the same resolution but one is bigger,the bigger one can not look as sharp as the smaller one.
It is not as much about the pixels as it is the space between the pixels.
The pixels look more closely connected to each other because they are closer.

Remember older large screen television sets that always look sort of fuzzy?
The same thing exactly happens with computer monitors.
Most TV's show the same number of scan lines but the bigger ones have bigger black between the lines of picture info. Thus the smaller ones look clearer but they are smaller.

Most people prefer a larger picture size within reason and the thing that makes this practical is the viewing distance. The further from the screen the less big a deal the scan lines are.

With laptops you have to sit within reach of the keyboard so your distance to the screen is sort of fixed. Couple that with everyones individual preference and ability to see or care about between pixel artifacts and there really is no right or wrong but just preference.

I think it is great that Apple offers the same machine with the optional larger display for those who want it easier on the eyes.
I have a 15" which seems like a good comprimise with some extra resolution in the width and the clarity of small pixels and pixel spacing.

People ask all the time why the dvd's now feature the black bars and I have to explain that they are actually black video.They reduce the available picture information on the screen to deliver the artistic picture the movie director intended you to see.
Most people can understand this if I show them on paper the geometric screen size difference but they had no idea they were loosing pixel quantity because the bars are just black picture.

We can get used to almost anything if we have to it seems.

[uberwald]

I have the 12" iBook and I love it. I don't sit so far away from it that the screen size seems small, and it's sooo small and portable -- it fits in my wife's purse, and I'm messing w/ the idea of using an old textbook as a "disguise" for it. Sitting here in my living room with the iBook on my lap, the screen seems about 20% larger than the 32" TV across the room. Size is relative to distance as well.

[A Ghost Is Born]

Agreed. I believe the formula that they use when selling TVs (and most other video equipment) is:

the distance from where you view the screen should be twice the size of the screen. i.e. if you sit 24" inches away from the screen your optimal screen size would be 12". keyword: should. each person is different but think about it. I thought the 12" was too small at first (primarily because I was comparing it to the larger 14" ibook or 15" powerbook). after messing with it for a while. I realized it was perfect for me.

[audvidsvs]

Ghost:
Actually the viewing distance for NTSC TV is 5 times the diaganal screen size as a minimum!
This means the line structure of TV set by the standards commitee that designed the color standards in the 1930's when they were designing broadcast TV was set realizing the inherent flaws and limitations of the broadcast system.
Almost no-one can even see the screen at these distances,much less enjoy it.

Most viewing today is much closer than this especially with large screens.When at the movies there are no similar line structure limitations to the picture. People at home try to get the same picture as in the movies but there is no where near the quality of information so we sit closer. Also at the movie our periferal vision is filled with the screen and we try to duplicate this at home and sit too close.

These are the main things driving the move to HDTV from a quality standpoint. Much more picture(pixel) information can be aavailable.
I say "can" because that extra bandwidth can either be used for improved quality or greater quantity of the signal.

Guess which one advertisers care about?!?

[Randman]

When the G4 iBooks first came out, I said the 14 because it was slightly bigger and at 1Ghz. Now, I'd opt for the 12.

[Commodus]

The 14" is really only for two people:

1. those who have poor eyesight

2. those who want a (budget) desktop replacement

In most any other case, it'd be smarter to either get a 12" iBook or step right up to the 15" PowerBook.

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally posted by audvidsvs:
It is not as much about the pixels as it is the space between the pixels.
The pixels look more closely connected to each other because they are closer.

Actually the pixels are larger, not closer together. If there was any space between pixels, the whole thing would look like a screen door.

[mac-kerouac]

It is a no-brainer. Get the 12" If you are concerned about the monitor size, jut plug in an additional at home and load the spanning hack.

You can't beat the portability. The 14 is huge compared with the 12.

Order the 12. Now.

[pat++]

Add one more for the 12". Really mobile, same screen resolution, lighter, and looks better IMHO.