Widescreen iBook?

[ThatSoundAgain]

Pretty sure it won't void your warranty. It's an AppleScript that changes some settings in OpenFirmware. Also, it can be completely removed without a trace by just booting up your machine while holding a couple of keys that reset the systems firmware, so there's almost no reason to bring a machine in for service that has the hack applied. (I s'pose your power supple could fail and you'd be unable to power on the machine and remove the modification).

I've never heard of a warranty claim being denied due to this hack, and if one were, in the US at least, it'd be a pretty slam dunk case to get them to reverse that, as I don't think Apple could prove that hack does any damage.

I can report that this tweak (too minor to even call it a hack) works like a charm. I've used my 1600 x 1200 CRT many a time as well as projectors and TV's as extended desktop with my iBook G4 (radeon 9200/32MB). I think I read somewhere that it should even be able to do 2048 x 1536.

Before the computer went in for repair under warranty, I zapped the P-Ram just to be sure, and then ran the nifty utility again afterwards. I've also done it with a couple of 1st generation iMac G5s and never had a problem.

As for the widescreen iBook.. It sounds interesting, but I don't consider it likely that we'll get a widescreen PPC. Recently I went shopping for a Windows laptop for my GF (she has to use Rhino), and we saw a couple of 12-inch widescreens. They looked nice (as PC laptops go), apart from the fact that the form-factor was about the same as a 12" iBook. It looked like they'd just slapped a wider screen in a 4:3 case. As a result, the screen looked too short and it all seemed quite idiotic - I mean, if the whole package doesn't get any smaller and you could just as well have had two inches of extra screen real estate at the top and bottom, then what's the point?

To do it right, you'd have to redesign the case completely so the screen + bezel doesn't take any extra space (think 15" PB, just shrunk a little). This is not trivial, and I doubt that Apple would want to give the PPC mainboard & internal arrangement of components a major overhaul at this point.

So, these points:

1) I don't believe we'll see a widescreen G4
2) I think it's too optimistic to expect Intel Macs this year

lead me to conclude that a widescreen iBook is not imminent.

I could be wrong, of course.

 

[tdewey]

Take a look at the world around you. In 5 years you won't be able to get a TV that isn't widescreen. Movies have been widescreen since the beginning. Computers are going widescreen as someone else mentioned because you can fit more onscreen. Not everything is 3:4. IM status screens. Wigets. Etc. With widescreen you can have a center app open in 3:4 and still have more then enough room to have other apps open. Question: Have you or are you on a widescreen? If not I suggest you try one for a few weeks. I had a 23" Dell widescreen. Sent it back because of backlight bleed issues. Reverted back to my 17" Size issues aside its painful going back to 3:4.

Agreed, once you've gone widescreen it is hard to go back.

 

[iPoster]

Ideally, I'd like to see the current 12" iBook updated with a 1280x1024 display (or some other similar resolution) and a CoreImage-compatible video chip, for approximately the same price.

1280x1024 on a 12" display? Hope it would come with a magnifying glass so you can read the fonts in applications, and identify the icons...

 

[iKwick7]

Agreed, once you've gone widescreen it is hard to go back.

Well said.

To me, it's not even the increased functionality for side by side documents or what have you. I just find the widescreen format to be MUCH more easy on the eyes. I mean, let's be honest, we don't see in a "square" format.

 

[jeffreyg]

...Movies have been widescreen since the beginning. ....

Well maybe to someone born in 1976 it would seem that way. But not literally true of course. Almost all movies were 3:4 ratio until the mid-50s.


Jeffreyg

 

[bloodycape]

I wonder if this comes out with an intel chip if it will be using an intel celeron mobile chip. I know laptops with the Celeron M chip can go low as like $500 and P4 m's can get pretty cheap too. So could this be a hint of another mac prtable maybe something either in-between ibook and the powerbook or somethig lower than the ibook maybe? Then they can differencient the difference pretty well that way. Where one can be using a celeron m chip the other a pentium 4 m chip and the top of the like could like be using the standard desktop Pentium 4EE chip with the dual core and all the latest goodies? I could be very wrong though and it just a thought.

 

[xinxin]

Why wide screen?

I used wide screen dell for a while when I went to friend's house. The funny thing is in safe mode, you won't find system tray coz safe mode only recognize default 800x600 resolution. Similar issue might happen in other situation unless the designer make the OS support wide screen EVERYWHERE in a system not just "display property" and DVD play.

After been using my powerbook for a month, I think 12" is a little bit small, 15" is a little bit wide. A 14" pb will be perfect for IT technician.

 

[efoto]

more practical for what? watching movies? for many people the most practical thing would be a vertical screen, since documents (paper) are in general longer than wider!

I actually think non wideangle screens have the best compromise and that wide screens are only nice when they are very big, so a vertical document still has a decent size.

Finally a voice of reason! I completely agree, most applications are more easily interacted with when in a vertically tall format. I use my 2001FP (20.1" non-wide) in vertical 'mode' (tilt the screen and rotate the desktop) a ton when at school working with either Word, Excel, and on rare occasion Powerpoint (because you can almost get two full slides stacked). I think widescreen is awesome for viewing things, not for working on them though (unless as mentioned the screen is big enough to allow enough vertical space).

Edit: After continuing to read a little more, and thinking about my arguement and those of others, I think that widescreen is a good thing (completely forgot the arguement for full-screen apps in 4:3 with toolbars aside) however in a notebook, I would still need to be convinced due to size constraints. In desktops however, widescreen all the way.

 

[wrldwzrd89]

I wonder if this comes out with an intel chip if it will be using an intel celeron mobile chip. I know laptops with the Celeron M chip can go low as like $500 and P4 m's can get pretty cheap too. So could this be a hint of another mac prtable maybe something either in-between ibook and the powerbook or somethig lower than the ibook maybe? Then they can differencient the difference pretty well that way. Where one can be using a celeron m chip the other a pentium 4 m chip and the top of the like could like be using the standard desktop Pentium 4EE chip with the dual core and all the latest goodies? I could be very wrong though and it just a thought.

Remember that Steve Jobs (indirectly) said in the keynote that they intend to use the Pentium M and its derivatives as much as possible in all Mac lines because he loved its watts/performance ratio of 70 (totally blows away the PPC970's ratio of 15). Therefore, I highly doubt that we'll see anything other than Yonah-core Pentium M CPUs in the laptops, Pentium D (a dual-core Pentium M derivative) for the high-end desktops, and the single-core version of Pentium D (forgot its name) for the low-end desktops. The midrange desktops could use either.

 

[Truffy]

more practical for what? watching movies? for many people the most practical thing would be a vertical screen, since documents (paper) are in general longer than wider!

As has already been said, for working on a document, but with plenty of room for palettes to one side. I use BBEdit and Photoshop both on my 15"PB and Cube linked to a 19" 4:3 CRT, and the CRT always seems cramped.

I can't wait to upgrade to a 20" ACD ... that extra wide will be very welcome

 

[efoto]

I wonder if this comes out with an intel chip if it will be using an intel celeron mobile chip. I know laptops with the Celeron M chip can go low as like $500 and P4 m's can get pretty cheap too. So could this be a hint of another mac prtable maybe something either in-between ibook and the powerbook or somethig lower than the ibook maybe? Then they can differencient the difference pretty well that way. Where one can be using a celeron m chip the other a pentium 4 m chip and the top of the like could like be using the standard desktop Pentium 4EE chip with the dual core and all the latest goodies? I could be very wrong though and it just a thought.

Maybe I have a bad feeling in general towards P4m and P4 chips in general, but sticking a full-blown desktop P4 into a laptop never seemed like a good idea to me. My friend's father just purchased a new Sony 15.4" something or other because he loves Sony, comes with a "super-fast P4-M" and brand-new he is getting a whomping 1:57 from the battery, awesome

I hope the other rumors and Jobs' hint about only using Pentium-M and derivatives is correct. What I would like to see is:
PowerBooks - Dual Core/64 bit chips
iBooks - Perhaps a high-clocked Celeron-M or single core/32 bit P-M (depends if they insert a new offering in the line lower than iBook or not)

Not sure those will happen, but I think it would be sweet if it does.

 

[SiliconAddict]

I can't wait to upgrade to a 20" ACD ... that extra wide will be very welcome

As Pontiac likes to say "Wider is better"

 

[cubist]

It won't matter what software you try because Virtual PC doesn't provide direct access to the graphics card in the first place - instead it emulates a very simple graphics chipset. Therefore, I can conclude that your idea is doomed from the very start.

Yes, Virtual PC provides emulation of an S3 Virge and does not support any fancy features at all.

 

[dejo]

Almost all movies were 3:4 ratio until the mid-50s.

You mean they were TALLER than they were wide? Strange.

 

[BlizzardBomb]

You mean they were TALLER than they were wide? Strange.

LOL!!

Anyways, there's more to the widescreen format than you think. The reason is that a widescreen format is much better suited to your eye's "field of vision"

 

[mcarnes]

more practical for what? watching movies? for many people the most practical thing would be a vertical screen, since documents (paper) are in general longer than wider!

I actually think non wideangle screens have the best compromise and that wide screens are only nice when they are very big, so a vertical document still has a decent size.

I concur. Plus 4:3 portables give more room for the palm rests on small computers like the 12" iBook and PB.

 

[shamino]

Take a look at the world around you. In 5 years you won't be able to get a TV that isn't widescreen.

Some people were saying that five years ago.

Movies have been widescreen since the beginning.

Not true. Go watch some old movies - like the Wizard Of Oz or Fantasia. They are in "full-screen" - the way they were originally filmed. Nothing (or very little, anyway) is cropped from the film in producing these home-video releases.

You may find this site of interest. Of particular interest will be this page and this page.

Of note:

• Although there have always been a huge number of different film sizes and aspects in the early days, the Edison-standard film size of 35mm has been almost universally used for cinema (until 70mm took over). It uses the Academy-standard (as it is now known) aspect of 1.33:1 aspect for silent film and 1.37:1 for film with sound.
• 70mm film uses a 2.21:1 aspect.
• Widescreen movies started to became popular in the 50's. Originally, this was done using ordinary 35mm film stock, by matting (letterboxing) the content. Either when shooting the movie (hard-matte) or when projecting it (soft-matte).
• A lot of films (especially early ones) were shot on 35mm in a 1.37:1 aspect, with the directors taking steps to make sure nothing important is seen in the top/bottom edges, so it can later be cropped to other aspects at projection time (a "soft-matte" process). For these films, widescreen versions show less information than full-screen versions, not more.

 

[SiliconAddict]

Some people were saying that five years ago.

When was the last time you walked into a Best Buy, Circuit City, etc?

I don't consider it a trend when most TV shows now are in widescreen. Star Trek, West Wing, CSI, Battlestar Galactica, Stargate, etc. Hell a lot of TV commercials are in widescreen as well. Next time you see a commercial on TV check for borders on your 4:3 TV.

Its happening.

 

[SiliconAddict]

Of note:

• Although there have always been a huge number of different film sizes and aspects in the early days, the Edison-standard film size of 35mm has been almost universally used for cinema (until 70mm took over). It uses the Academy-standard (as it is now known) aspect of 1.33:1 aspect for silent film and 1.37:1 for film with sound.
• 70mm film uses a 2.21:1 aspect.
• Widescreen movies started to became popular in the 50's. Originally, this was done using ordinary 35mm film stock, by matting (letterboxing) the content. Either when shooting the movie (hard-matte) or when projecting it (soft-matte).
• A lot of films (especially early ones) were shot on 35mm in a 1.37:1 aspect, with the directors taking steps to make sure nothing important is seen in the top/bottom edges, so it can later be cropped to other aspects at projection time (a "soft-matte" process). For these films, widescreen versions show less information than full-screen versions, not more.

I stand corrected. I thought widescreen was always a hallmark of cinematic features. Come to think of it I guess not. I remember seeing Transformers: The Movie in the theatre as a kid and it wasn't widescreen. Oops.

 

[dejo]

Hell a lot of TV commercials are in widescreen as well. Next time you see a commercial on TV check for borders on your 4:3 TV.

If only they would make them HDTV, especially when watching HDTV programs. Or at least anamorphic widescreen. Whenever they go to commercials, the black bars on the sides show up (on my HDTV). Then when the show comes back on, most of the time it switches back. But not always. Sometimes it gets stuck in the 4:3 ratio. Is this a manual thing?

P.S. The only HDTV "commercial" I've seen is from Circuit City on the Discovery HD channel.

 

[tsk]

I don't consider it a trend when most TV shows now are in widescreen. Star Trek, West Wing, CSI, Battlestar Galactica, Stargate, etc. Hell a lot of TV commercials are in widescreen as well. Next time you see a commercial on TV check for borders on your 4:3 TV.

I don't watch TV all that much, but my experience is that most commercials are not widescreen. I have a widescreen HD TV.

I notice that almost all commercials on 16:9 HD channels have letterbox on the side (indicating they are 4:3). The only commercials I ever remember seeing in full HD widescreen are network commercials. Maybe there were some during the superbowl as well. I don't recall for certain.

I do notice that many commercials are shown in a sort of widescreen-esque format with the letterbox on the bottom, but if you watch a 16:9 HD channel, these are still clearly only 4:3 ratios (so they have letterbox on the bottom and on the sides). It may be that this is the networks making things easier by putting all commercials in a 4:3 ratio even though many are ready for 16:9. I don't know that.

 

[mcarnes]

Perhaps they'll wait for the Intel chips, and put out fast widescreen iBooks, and turbo-fast, dual-core PowerBooks?

That would be my guess. Speed will differentiate the iBook from PB, not screen ratio or size. That is the way it should be. Everyone needs a decent screen, but not everyone needs top speed.

 

[eXan]

(And, I recommend, your Dock on the left.)

I have my dock in the bottom, but it's not visible (hiding is on). I find it to be extremely small if placed on the sides of the screen.

I don't think these rumors are true. If Apple makes a 15.4 inch iBook, what will happen to the 15.2 inch PowerBook? Who will buy 12inch Powerbook if a cheaper 13 or 14 inch widescreen iBook will come out?

 

[efoto]

I have my dock in the bottom, but it's not visible (hiding is on). I find it to be extremely small if placed on the sides of the screen.

I don't think these rumors are true. If Apple makes a 15.4 inch iBook, what will happen to the 15.2 inch PowerBook? Who will buy 12inch Powerbook if a cheaper 13 or 14 inch widescreen iBook will come out?

If Apple is smart about producing its lines then people who need an ultra-compact power portable will buy the 12"PB regardless of widescreen iBooks or 24" iBooks. Personally I would still have purchased today's current 12"PB over a 13.3" iBook or 15.4" iBook, they just didn't interest me both in performance and style. I realize the performance is nearly the same, so it isn't a big arguement I realize.

Assuming the 12" gets the updates it needs and goes dual-core or 64bit or both (not sure if the two are potato-sacked or not) then even a 12"PB *should* outperform a widescreen iBook. If Apple gets the power line back up to power, it will be an easy decision for power users of which portable to purchase....or as easy as it ever is deciding between 12, 15, and 17 inch models

 

[jeriqo]

Ideally, I'd like to see the current 12" iBook updated with a 1280x1024 display (or some other similar resolution)

If they keep the 14" in 4:3 it should have 1280x1024.

1280x1024 is NOT 4:3.
1280x960 is.

This 1280x1024 sh.t comes from windows.. absurd.