Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!yale!mintaka!bloom-beacon!eru!luth!sunic!liuida!isy!ingemar
From: ingemar@isy.liu.se (Ingemar Ragnemalm)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
Subject: Re: Why not a new screen size for compact Macs?
Message-ID: <1990Jun26.103722.8479@isy.liu.se>
Date: 26 Jun 90 10:37:22 GMT
References: <2270.26820896@csc.anu.oz> <145@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>
Sender: news@isy.liu.se (Lord of the News)
Organization: Dept of EE, University of Linkoping
Lines: 29

pepke@gw.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) writes:

>In article <2270.26820896@csc.anu.oz> pfr654@csc.anu.oz writes:
>> However, I would be happy with a 9,10,11 or 12 inch screen which was 4 
>or 8 
>> bit colour or greyscale, in a compact Mac box [gee if it wasn't 9inches 
>> then we might have to design a new box shape! what a huge expense!]

>I think the ideal basic Mac would be exactly the same shape as the Mac 
>Plus and SE but enlarged to hold a 12" monitor.  Don't think "toaster," 
>think "portable color TV."  Every time I mention this to an Apple person, 
>the answer is always something like, "We're really committed to the small 
>footprint."

Is it really impossible to use the full front of the current "toaster" to
fit a larger, standing screen? The high quality large TV monitor we got
here is hardly deeper than a "toaster" Mac. I would expect a larger screen
with even flatter tubes than the current "toaster" has.

Slighly wider is one of the needs. It would be nice if you could fit a full
line of text on a standing page - which you can't always do now! (I have
only experienced that with MacWrite, but anyway...) Standing screen is
rather a possibility, since the "toaster" already is "standing".

--
Ingemar Ragnemalm
Dept. of Electrical Engineering	     ...!uunet!mcvax!enea!rainier!ingemar
                  ..
University of Linkoping, Sweden	     ingemar@isy.liu.se