The MacBook Pro is the world's perfect laptop right now. These screen improvements will keep it perfect.

I know it's not Apple's style of doing things. But I really hope it's not going to take long for the new MBPs to be announced or at least that we get a peek of them at WWDC. This is because I need to purchase an MBP now and cannot wait until september (one Mac in my office broke and I will give my MB to the colleague and then purchase an MBP but, since it's broken currently, I cannot wait ages).

Why does 16:9 even matter, about 90% of all blockbuster movies are not filmed in 16:9, there are two other widescreen film formats that are used instead of 16:9. The only things that are actually filmed in this format are some animated movies, and any high-def television broadcasts (which not many exist).

Just seems like a waste to me to convert everything to a format that the majority of the content most uses want it for doesn't actually use this format. Not that the older 16:10 was any better. If we're going to convert the widescreen to a more compatible format it needs to be one of the two most widely used film formats.

"I know it's not Apple's style of doing things. But I really hope it's not going to take long for the new MBPs to be announced or at least that we get a peek of them at WWDC. This is because I need to purchase an MBP now and cannot wait until september (one Mac in my office broke and I will give my MB to the colleague and then purchase an MBP but, since it's broken currently, I cannot wait ages)."

I doubt it as the new intel platform is delayed to late summer, so aug/ sept will prob be the time frame for new mbp

I really don't think that computers have to be 16:9, because most computers aren't used for movies.

16:10 was supposedly chosen for computers because it fits document pages better.

I don't remember why movies were standardized on 16:9.

Shocking, I know, but for me at least, 16x10 aspect ratio has some advantages:

* View two word processing pages side-by-side, like an open book, which is great when composing longer material.... but with a little more vertical headroom than 16x9. (Two 8.5x11" pages side-by-side are closer to a 16x10 aspect ratio than a 16x9. This is what makes the 17" PBG4/MBP my dream creative writing machine.)

* View 16x9 video content at full width but still have room for the menu bar above and the dock below.

16:9 makes no sense for computers. I am quite happy with my 16:10; all 16:9 is going to do is lose my menu bar and dock space as someone mentioned above, and reduce the vertical height of the screen for viewing documents. There's a reason the early laptop/typewriter devices with in some cases 3:1 aspect ratio displays did not sell well -- people wanted to see more of the page on screen. Besides, what if you want to see old content that is 4:3 formatted?

16:9 is for DVD. 16:10 is for computers. But no doubt I'm whistling into the wind if this article is even half right.

Wider computers mean getting new computer bags and probably a little bit of unneeded extra weight. This changes mean at least another half inch to the width of the 15-going-on-16 MacBook Pro which already outgrew my Powerbook stuff. Hope they're offering ATI/Nvidia graphics as an option in the 14-inch.

1080p is a low resolution on computer displays! It works on a different scale.

Two comments

1) ref "fast growing trend" "16:9 widescreen LCD panels are the trend for information technology display applications" "big hit in the market" and "migration going fast" -- all of that pretty much sounds like marketing PR with no validation of accuracy, and no logical reason why such an alleged trend would be good for the consumer/user.
As pointed out, making screens wider and less tall results in major loss of vertical document space. The many business users who work with office documents need for usable vertical space contradicts the alleged 'trend for ino tech display applications' statement. And the shorter height possibly removes menubar and dock for those watching movies. Yet, most video apps allow a full screen mode to hide the dock and menu bar, so there is no need to physically remove screen space.
As most of my work is with vertical documents: web pages, word processing documents and the like, wider shorter screens are LESS useful to me.

2) There is no mention of whether these screens will have an anti-glare non-glossy option (sometimes called a matte screen). I have viewed, reviewed and worked with many new glossy screens and they are, in my opinion, a disaster for eye comfort and ergonomics. Having to position the screen just-so in order to avoid reflection is plain dumb, and having to train your brain to ignore screen reflections is even dumber (to borrow from movie title). For me anyway, the eye strain and fatigue caused by having to read and work on glossy screens is a major pain. Sigh.

WAAAAAAA JUE MEMITA MAMiiii hahahahahaha