Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

TheRenfro

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Sep 14, 2009
7
0
When I first heard of this device I thought it would be a great alternative to my MacBook to watching movies while in bed, on an airplane, or wherever else I could use it. But after finding out it has a 4:3 screen i'm pretty bummed. I remember a few years ago before I bought an HDTV I hated watching widescreen movies on my old TV (which was also 4:3), and it'll probably be the same with the iPad. I guess i'm going to keep using my MacBook as a portable movie device....unless iPad 2.0 has a wider aspect ratio.

And since it won't run Flash I sure hope Hulu has an app in development.
 

Diapason

macrumors newbie
Apr 8, 2009
22
0
When I first heard of this device I thought it would be a great alternative to my MacBook to watching movies while in bed, on an airplane, or wherever else I could use it. But after finding out it has a 4:3 screen i'm pretty bummed. I remember a few years ago before I bought an HDTV I hated watching widescreen movies on my old TV (which was also 4:3), and it'll probably be the same with the iPad. I guess i'm going to keep using my MacBook as a portable movie device....unless iPad 2.0 has a wider aspect ratio.

And since it won't run Flash I sure hope Hulu has an app in development.

The movie will play letterboxed. So what?

What counts is the number of pixels in the x-axis. They could have used an x-res of more than 1024 pixels, but probably it would have ended up with a thing which is too big for its target, and/or many other apps would have been more difficult to work with. Think about a word processor running on a wide-screen in portrait mode
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.