Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 17th Dec 2011 00:17 UTC
Apple Apple makes the best consumer laptops. For me, there's absolutely no denying that this is the case. Apple has had this lead over the competition since the iBook G3 Dual USB 12.1" and 14", and has never lost it. Right now, the rumour mill is abuzz about Apple supposedly prepping to launch a MacBook Pro with a retina display - 2880x1800.
Thread beginning with comment 500409
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
one_of_many
Member since:
2009-01-01

I agree with gsyb. You can't really bring into the conversation models for specialized medical use, ones only available offshore, or noshed together. No, the true apogee was in 08 - 09, with the Dell Precision, the Thinkpad, or my Clevo M860TU. They all had WUXGA displays at a gorgeous 146 DPI, and 16:10 ratio, with matte surface. And, of course, decent video subsystems.
Honourable mention to the Thinkpads with 1600x1200 displays. I thought their 4:3 ratios were the best for productivity, but their video chips were lacking.
The culprit is the stupid 16:9 ratio the screen manufacturing monopoly forces on us. Even the modern 16:9 1920x1080 look lame at 15.6 size. The use of 1366x768 is almost criminal!
I say bring back 4:3 screens! Boost resolutions to 2400x1800 or better, and give me a reason to upgrade. Now, I live in fearcthat if my trusty Clevis were to die tommorow, my only choice is the MacBook Pro, at a paltry wsxga 1680x1050!

Reply Parent Score: 0

gsyoungblood Member since:
2007-01-09

I guess the problem is there just aren't enough of us to justify the cost to keep the 16:10 with high resolution screens alive.

Sure I settled for 1680x1050 on the MBP, which is less than the 1920x1080 I could have had, but when I customized the Lenovo systems to match what I got on the MBP (remember I bought refurb and saved a LOT over the list price), the MBP proved to be a better value for me.

If the Lenovo had offered 1920x1200 screen (or better) in the 15.4-15.6 form factor, I would have paid the the price and bought the Lenovo in a heartbeat. Especially in the W series with 4 DIMMs for memory expansion and a max capacity of 32 gb.

I almost went for the 17" MBP just to get that same screen resolution, except sanity finally took hold and I realized just how big of a beast that would have been. ;) The 15" machine is big enough to make using it on an airplane a challenge at times, the 17" would have been insane in that circumstance.

Now there's an interesting thought. A battery powered, headless Mac Mini server with a MacBook Air as a remote screen. Power and portability, leave the mini in the bag, just pull out the Air. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

I guess the problem is there just aren't enough of us to justify the cost to keep the 16:10 with high resolution screens alive.

More specifically, you and many here whine that the vast majority of 'commoner' users are perfectly happy with the present widespread resolutions, basically topping at 1080p, and won't fund your craving (how dare they?!).

"Very high res" screens didn't really become that much rarer[1] than they were (always very rare, popping up here and there sometimes), didn't really become that much more expensive[2]. They primarily just stayed in place - and looking increasingly "bad" especially in comparison to how the presently popular sizes galloped forward, rapidly dropped their prices and dramatically increased availability.

Which means 1080p as the "high baseline" on typical screens, and on smaller - something between that at best, and what would be a proportionally lower res.
If not having "very high res" screens at mass-market prices is so unbearable... too bad, you just have to wait a short decade+, maybe two; standard manufacturing processes should be dictated by then by "postHD" TVs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_High_Definition_Television ...or will 7680x4320 at mass-market prices also prove not good enough by then?
(though TBH, I suspect the present HDTV might as well end up "good enough" - like it ended up with CDs - in which case ...oh well, pay up!)


1. Perhaps when seen as % vs. the exploding, in the last decade, overall number of "normal" PCs; plus maybe becoming more niche by the virtue of many past "target users" coming to conclusion that they are happy with "standard 1080p"*
2. Heck, inflation alone could be responsible for large part of perceived increases ...while (*for various reasons) their economies of scale ~stayed in place at best; possibly also competing for manufacturing resources etc. vs. what really sells & keeps the production lines going.

Edited 2011-12-24 23:02 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2