Quote from: _MT_ on October 25, 2021, 15:00:14Quote from: diagonals on October 22, 2021, 01:19:16diagonals are of no use, if there is no std screen aspect ratio for all brands of screens; either laptops, pc monitors, tv screens, pads, mobile phones, ...Diagonal is just as useful as width if you have a given aspect ratio. But a diagonal captures both width and height. In an obscure fashion. That's the advantage it has over just width. Width tells you nothing whatsoever about height. Diagonal anchors both width and height. It doesn't tell you what exactly they are but they are bound; you know where the numbers must fall. If a diagonal is 40 cm, then height can't be 90 cm. Just can't. Both width and height have to be within 40 cm.
But they are. Or were. To an extent. Nowadays, we have more options than ever. But historically, aspect ratios were pretty fixed and slow changing. TV broadcast used to be 4:3. Now it's 16:9. Cinema has their favourite aspect ratios. Still photography has theirs. Even computer monitors have a set of common ratios that were largely influenced by video. Only phones are sort of whatever fits. When you're buying monitors or TVs, you tend to compare like for like. If you want a super-wide monitor, you won't be looking at 16:9. Aspect ratio tells you the shape. And a diagonal tells you the size.
Quote from: _MT_ on October 25, 2021, 15:00:14Quote from: diagonals on October 22, 2021, 01:19:16Diagonal is just as useful as width if you have a given aspect ratio. But a diagonal captures both width and height. In an obscure fashion. That's the advantage it has over just width. Width tells you nothing whatsoever about height. Diagonal anchors both width and height. It doesn't tell you what exactly they are but they are bound; you know where the numbers must fall. If a diagonal is 40 cm, then height can't be 90 cm. Just can't. Both width and height have to be within 40 cm.
diagonals are of no use, if there is no std screen aspect ratio for all brands of screens; either laptops, pc monitors, tv screens, pads, mobile phones, ...
But they are. Or were. To an extent. Nowadays, we have more options than ever. But historically, aspect ratios were pretty fixed and slow changing. TV broadcast used to be 4:3. Now it's 16:9. Cinema has their favourite aspect ratios. Still photography has theirs. Even computer monitors have a set of common ratios that were largely influenced by video. Only phones are sort of whatever fits. When you're buying monitors or TVs, you tend to compare like for like. If you want a super-wide monitor, you won't be looking at 16:9. Aspect ratio tells you the shape. And a diagonal tells you the size.
Quote from: _MT_ on October 25, 2021, 15:00:14Quote from: diagonals on October 22, 2021, 01:19:16Diagonal is just as useful as width if you have a given aspect ratio. But a diagonal captures both width and height. In an obscure fashion. That's the advantage it has over just width. Width tells you nothing whatsoever about height. Diagonal anchors both width and height. It doesn't tell you what exactly they are but they are bound; you know where the numbers must fall. If a diagonal is 40 cm, then height can't be 90 cm. Just can't. Both width and height have to be within 40 cm.
diagonals are of no use, if there is no std screen aspect ratio for all brands of screens; either laptops, pc monitors, tv screens, pads, mobile phones, ...
But they are. Or were. To an extent. Nowadays, we have more options than ever. But historically, aspect ratios were pretty fixed and slow changing. TV broadcast used to be 4:3. Now it's 16:9. Cinema has their favourite aspect ratios. Still photography has theirs. Even computer monitors have a set of common ratios that were largely influenced by video. Only phones are sort of whatever fits. When you're buying monitors or TVs, you tend to compare like for like. If you want a super-wide monitor, you won't be looking at 16:9. Aspect ratio tells you the shape. And a diagonal tells you the size.
Quote from: _MT_ on October 25, 2021, 15:00:14Quote from: diagonals on October 22, 2021, 01:19:16Diagonal is just as useful as width if you have a given aspect ratio. But a diagonal captures both width and height. In an obscure fashion. That's the advantage it has over just width. Width tells you nothing whatsoever about height. Diagonal anchors both width and height. It doesn't tell you what exactly they are but they are bound; you know where the numbers must fall. If a diagonal is 40 cm, then height can't be 90 cm. Just can't. Both width and height have to be within 40 cm.
diagonals are of no use, if there is no std screen aspect ratio for all brands of screens; either laptops, pc monitors, tv screens, pads, mobile phones, ...
But they are. Or were. To an extent. Nowadays, we have more options than ever. But historically, aspect ratios were pretty fixed and slow changing. TV broadcast used to be 4:3. Now it's 16:9. Cinema has their favourite aspect ratios. Still photography has theirs. Even computer monitors have a set of common ratios that were largely influenced by video. Only phones are sort of whatever fits. When you're buying monitors or TVs, you tend to compare like for like. If you want a super-wide monitor, you won't be looking at 16:9. Aspect ratio tells you the shape. And a diagonal tells you the size.
Quote from: diagonals on October 22, 2021, 01:19:16Diagonal is just as useful as width if you have a given aspect ratio. But a diagonal captures both width and height. In an obscure fashion. That's the advantage it has over just width. Width tells you nothing whatsoever about height. Diagonal anchors both width and height. It doesn't tell you what exactly they are but they are bound; you know where the numbers must fall. If a diagonal is 40 cm, then height can't be 90 cm. Just can't. Both width and height have to be within 40 cm.
diagonals are of no use, if there is no std screen aspect ratio for all brands of screens; either laptops, pc monitors, tv screens, pads, mobile phones, ...
Quote from: _MT_ on October 21, 2021, 18:33:32Quote from: misleading ad on October 21, 2021, 09:04:47I have never met anyone who would confuse diagonal (like 16") with an aspect ratio (such as 16:9). You do know what is a diagonal in a rectangle, right? And where did the ":10" come from? Why not 16.2:7? Or 16.2:13? And why would the two models have different aspect ratios? When you specify an aspect ratio as a single number, it's something like 1.5 (3:2) or 1.6 (8:5) or 1.78 (16:9), not 14.2 - that would be incredibly wide. Manufacturers always advertise diagonals as a primary screen size parameter. They sometimes don't mention aspect ratio at all or even state wrong aspect ratio (I have seen several laptops claiming to have "16:10" [8:5] while the resolution was clearly 16:9). In this case, Apple doesn't, probably because it's not a nice number and an average consumer wouldn't relate to it. If my calculations are correct, one is 756:491 and the other 1728:1117.
yes, they both 14 & 16 are a 3.0...:2 screen aspect ratio, but they confuse customers advertising that the 14 is a 14.2-inch (diagonal), so you think it is a 14.2:10 screen aspect ratio, and the 16 is a 16.2-inch (diagonal), so again you think it is a 16.2:10 screen aspect ratio
As for the cursor, this is, I think, the best way given a notch. Perhaps not ideal (ideal would be no notch), but I think a cursor that would "dip" below the notch so it remains visible would end up being more annoying.
Quote from: misleading ad on October 21, 2021, 09:04:47I have never met anyone who would confuse diagonal (like 16") with an aspect ratio (such as 16:9). You do know what is a diagonal in a rectangle, right? And where did the ":10" come from? Why not 16.2:7? Or 16.2:13? And why would the two models have different aspect ratios? When you specify an aspect ratio as a single number, it's something like 1.5 (3:2) or 1.6 (8:5) or 1.78 (16:9), not 14.2 - that would be incredibly wide. Manufacturers always advertise diagonals as a primary screen size parameter. They sometimes don't mention aspect ratio at all or even state wrong aspect ratio (I have seen several laptops claiming to have "16:10" [8:5] while the resolution was clearly 16:9). In this case, Apple doesn't, probably because it's not a nice number and an average consumer wouldn't relate to it. If my calculations are correct, one is 756:491 and the other 1728:1117.
yes, they both 14 & 16 are a 3.0...:2 screen aspect ratio, but they confuse customers advertising that the 14 is a 14.2-inch (diagonal), so you think it is a 14.2:10 screen aspect ratio, and the 16 is a 16.2-inch (diagonal), so again you think it is a 16.2:10 screen aspect ratio
Quote from: john mon on October 21, 2021, 01:32:37
apple is giving you an extra strip of real estate at the top.
the overall screen ratio is taller than 16:10, almost 3:2
no big deal
Quote from: Art on October 20, 2021, 19:37:06For your concern, my S21U punch hole front camera can record 4k60fps video.Quote from: toven on October 20, 2021, 13:18:00This laptop has 720p webcam, so that wasn't a good comparison...
After I look at Asus ROG M16, there is zero reason for macbook to have that notch.
Quote from: Art on October 20, 2021, 19:37:06Quote from: toven on October 20, 2021, 13:18:00This laptop has 720p webcam, so that wasn't a good comparison...
After I look at Asus ROG M16, there is zero reason for macbook to have that notch.
Quote from: toven on October 20, 2021, 13:18:00This laptop has 720p webcam, so that wasn't a good comparison...
After I look at Asus ROG M16, there is zero reason for macbook to have that notch.
Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
Magyar