If we're talking about resolution independence, then surely there is no longer a need for @2x images? The UI should scale properly the image nominated for a purpose. The image should be of the resolution preferred by the developer.
Mac OS X icons and the Dock have always scaled smoothly, and since Mac OS X Tiger there has been a hidden option to scale up window controls and menu bars to cope with increasingly higher screen resolutions.
I think this was a great article that explains and clears a lot of confusion on resolution strategies and how it affects desktops and mobile devices. I will forward this on to people who don't have a full grasp on this side of tech knowledge.
wow, the trolls can't even take a break when steve announces he's taking another medical leave. no class. you guys really have nothing better to do than go on a apple fan site just to be dicks? and please don't bother attempting to defend yourselves, it's laughable when you do.
anyway, another great article from AI, full of hyperbole of course but lots of useful information and insights too.. it looks more and more like apple is going to come out with an ipad pro. not only do they blindside the incompetent and unoriginal competition by dominating the low end of the market, they're creating another high end to compliment it! great stuff.. i expect, and hope, that apple is going to do the same thing with the iphone soon as well.
You have used the phrase resolution independence wrong.
It should be resolution irrelevance.
Apple has devalued pixels as a marketing tool, a spec to wave about. Once you can't really see them it really doesn't matter how many more you have.
By making the iPhone and then the iPad screens "retina" Apple cannot be out-specced.
So resolution is now irrelevant.
Resolution independent refers to graphics that use mathematical functions instead of bitmaps to express them and as such can be scaled to any size without changing visually.
Where did he use it incorrectly? The term ?resolution independence? is well known and means exactly what you said in the last sentence, which is exactly the issue Mac OS has with using higher resolution displays, just as he stated.
Only you would look at this picture and think the only difference is the physical size.
... and that screen -shot is of an iOS app (the Mail App to be specific), something that is indeed a different experience on the iPad... which happens to be exactly what I posted.
Now go ahead and try to make up some nonsense of how drastically different the UI/etc is.
As for performance, it?s not enough that the GPU can push 3 millions pixels instead of just 700k, it?s how this affects the battery and I?m not convinced that 4x as many pixels can result in about the same power usage in a YoY upgrade of the GPU..
Agree..
If ever, Apple to deliver that kind of high resolution screen on iPad 2, then the main concern for the Cupertino company and us (the users) is battery life. It's a hard bargain for road warriors, and a nuisance for every day use if the battery life sucks.
Hopefully they bring this back to the Mac for Lion so we can finally get some advancement in windowed OS display resolutions.
It would be nice and does seem prohibitively expensive, but I still wonder about the power needs and performance.
Only you would look at this picture and think the only difference is the physical size.
Why don?t you go back to Engadget to troll.
I think is point is well supported by the SDK. The differences are there in the GAuI but they are very minor. In the end a vast portion of the SDK is identical on each platform. Even if you take the referenced picture in to consideration, the behavior of the list is virtually the same.
Frankly it is hard to look at the iPad and not see a lot of the iPhone in it.
If ever, Apple to deliver that kind of high resolution screen on iPad 2, then the main concern for the Cupertino company and us (the users) is battery life. It's a hard bargain for road warriors, and a nuisance for every day use if the battery life sucks.
The iPad's battery life is pretty outstanding, so even if they lose a few minutes, it shouldn't prove an issue for most users.
I think is point is well supported by the SDK. The differences are there in the GAuI but they are very minor. In the end a vast portion of the SDK is identical on each platform. Even if you take the referenced picture in to consideration, the behavior of the list is virtually the same.
Frankly it is hard to look at the iPad and not see a lot of the iPhone in it.
it uses the same SDK, something that didn?t happen for a few months after the SDK for the iPad was released. Don?t we now have a single SDK for iOS and Mac OS apps? Sure, they both use CocoaTouch as that is the primary I/O, but that DOES NOT MAKE THEM THE SAME APPS. They are uniquely designed for the different display sizes and dimensions because, as previously stated, that is also the primary I/O. It?s fucking silly argument to say that apps are the same because the development tools are the same. Does that make all apps made with .NET the same? Does that make all PS3 games the same?
The only thing that's remotely 'straining' on the iPad (for the reader) is the excessive weight after holding it for extended periods- IMO.
+1
An iPad with the rumoured specs would be amazing and beautiful and I'd want one for about a minute. Then I'd walk away because it's still too big to take with me everywhere.
... and that screen -shot is of an iOS app (the Mail App to be specific), something that is indeed a different experience on the iPad... which happens to be exactly what I posted.
Now go ahead and try to make up some nonsense of how drastically different the UI/etc is.
Hint: it Isn't.
Your first and second sentences appear contradictory.
There are certainly UI differences between the two devices -- an iPad is not just a larger iPhone. Perhaps you have not used both devices extensively. Why would it be "drastically" different?! They are both touchscreen systems running the same version of iOS, but with the UI optimized for the different display sizes.
I bet the resolution would be 25% or 50% more ....
25% ... 1280x960 ... perfect for 720p video...
also possible
50% ... 1536x1152 ... though less likely due to the odd resolution size...
You'll bet wrong.
There is a reason LG with Apple are investing in Billions ramping up production of just panels. It's goes beyond just stamping out what they have developed for today.
It’s fucking silly argument to say that apps are the same because the development tools are the same.
It's even 'sillier' to continue this inane 'argument' given that the initial point wasn't that the APPS were the same, only the core OS/UI... Which the certainly are.
If we're talking about resolution independence, then surely there is no longer a need for @2x images? The UI should scale properly the image nominated for a purpose. The image should be of the resolution preferred by the developer.
Resolution independence isn't about bit maps rather it is about elements drawn to the screen. By elements I mean the fonts, lines, circles and other things that render a user interface.
The idea here is that if you draw a circle that is one inch in diameter it will be seen the same way no matter what the resolution of the screen. That is one inch in diameter in the same relative location on the screen. For the user this would be very noticeable when viewing fonts as a 14 point font will be the same size on both screens. What the user Willard on the higher resolution screen however is a much better looking font.
If this screen comes to pass the results should be stunning.
Comments
Mac OS X icons and the Dock have always scaled smoothly, and since Mac OS X Tiger there has been a hidden option to scale up window controls and menu bars to cope with increasingly higher screen resolutions.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
Hidden option? Guess I've been in the dark on this. Could anyone clue me in?
Thanks,
Tucker
Cheers
anyway, another great article from AI, full of hyperbole of course
Can't wait. Hoping for a Feb. 15th announcement.
Nice article, thanks.
And as someone above said, the trolls have no class. Let's remind ourselves exactly who they are for minute shall we? http://video.nytimes.com/video/2010/...-iphone-4.html
... followed by Apple's own introduction of the MacBook Air, which offers the company's smallest notebook screen ever.
Not true. My old PowerBook 100 had a 9" screen.
Hi Daniel,
You have used the phrase resolution independence wrong.
It should be resolution irrelevance.
Apple has devalued pixels as a marketing tool, a spec to wave about. Once you can't really see them it really doesn't matter how many more you have.
By making the iPhone and then the iPad screens "retina" Apple cannot be out-specced.
So resolution is now irrelevant.
Resolution independent refers to graphics that use mathematical functions instead of bitmaps to express them and as such can be scaled to any size without changing visually.
Where did he use it incorrectly? The term ?resolution independence? is well known and means exactly what you said in the last sentence, which is exactly the issue Mac OS has with using higher resolution displays, just as he stated.
As a photographer making a living with pictures, the current iPad causes quite a stir. The resolving power of iPad 2 will be something to behold.
Nice article, thanks.
And as someone above said, the trolls have no class. Let's remind ourselves exactly who they are for minute shall we? http://video.nytimes.com/video/2010/...-iphone-4.html
Thanks for that link. Brilliant, I say
Not true. My old PowerBook 100 had a 9" screen.
i thought I adopted notebooks early, but you beat me by 6-7 years. And even before you PowerBook 100 they had this beast for $6500. We?ve come a long way.
Only you would look at this picture and think the only difference is the physical size.
... and that screen -shot is of an iOS app (the Mail App to be specific), something that is indeed a different experience on the iPad... which happens to be exactly what I posted.
Now go ahead and try to make up some nonsense of how drastically different the UI/etc is.
Hint: it Isn't.
As for performance, it?s not enough that the GPU can push 3 millions pixels instead of just 700k, it?s how this affects the battery and I?m not convinced that 4x as many pixels can result in about the same power usage in a YoY upgrade of the GPU..
Agree..
If ever, Apple to deliver that kind of high resolution screen on iPad 2, then the main concern for the Cupertino company and us (the users) is battery life. It's a hard bargain for road warriors, and a nuisance for every day use if the battery life sucks.
Hopefully they bring this back to the Mac for Lion so we can finally get some advancement in windowed OS display resolutions.
It would be nice and does seem prohibitively expensive, but I still wonder about the power needs and performance.
Only you would look at this picture and think the only difference is the physical size.
Why don?t you go back to Engadget to troll.
I think is point is well supported by the SDK. The differences are there in the GAuI but they are very minor. In the end a vast portion of the SDK is identical on each platform. Even if you take the referenced picture in to consideration, the behavior of the list is virtually the same.
Frankly it is hard to look at the iPad and not see a lot of the iPhone in it.
Agree..
If ever, Apple to deliver that kind of high resolution screen on iPad 2, then the main concern for the Cupertino company and us (the users) is battery life. It's a hard bargain for road warriors, and a nuisance for every day use if the battery life sucks.
The iPad's battery life is pretty outstanding, so even if they lose a few minutes, it shouldn't prove an issue for most users.
I think is point is well supported by the SDK. The differences are there in the GAuI but they are very minor. In the end a vast portion of the SDK is identical on each platform. Even if you take the referenced picture in to consideration, the behavior of the list is virtually the same.
Frankly it is hard to look at the iPad and not see a lot of the iPhone in it.
it uses the same SDK, something that didn?t happen for a few months after the SDK for the iPad was released. Don?t we now have a single SDK for iOS and Mac OS apps? Sure, they both use CocoaTouch as that is the primary I/O, but that DOES NOT MAKE THEM THE SAME APPS. They are uniquely designed for the different display sizes and dimensions because, as previously stated, that is also the primary I/O. It?s fucking silly argument to say that apps are the same because the development tools are the same. Does that make all apps made with .NET the same? Does that make all PS3 games the same?
The only thing that's remotely 'straining' on the iPad (for the reader) is the excessive weight after holding it for extended periods- IMO.
+1
An iPad with the rumoured specs would be amazing and beautiful and I'd want one for about a minute. Then I'd walk away because it's still too big to take with me everywhere.
... and that screen -shot is of an iOS app (the Mail App to be specific), something that is indeed a different experience on the iPad... which happens to be exactly what I posted.
Now go ahead and try to make up some nonsense of how drastically different the UI/etc is.
Hint: it Isn't.
Your first and second sentences appear contradictory.
There are certainly UI differences between the two devices -- an iPad is not just a larger iPhone. Perhaps you have not used both devices extensively. Why would it be "drastically" different?! They are both touchscreen systems running the same version of iOS, but with the UI optimized for the different display sizes.
I bet the resolution would be 25% or 50% more ....
25% ... 1280x960 ... perfect for 720p video...
also possible
50% ... 1536x1152 ... though less likely due to the odd resolution size...
You'll bet wrong.
There is a reason LG with Apple are investing in Billions ramping up production of just panels. It's goes beyond just stamping out what they have developed for today.
It’s fucking silly argument to say that apps are the same because the development tools are the same.
It's even 'sillier' to continue this inane 'argument' given that the initial point wasn't that the APPS were the same, only the core OS/UI... Which the certainly are.
If we're talking about resolution independence, then surely there is no longer a need for @2x images? The UI should scale properly the image nominated for a purpose. The image should be of the resolution preferred by the developer.
Resolution independence isn't about bit maps rather it is about elements drawn to the screen. By elements I mean the fonts, lines, circles and other things that render a user interface.
The idea here is that if you draw a circle that is one inch in diameter it will be seen the same way no matter what the resolution of the screen. That is one inch in diameter in the same relative location on the screen. For the user this would be very noticeable when viewing fonts as a 14 point font will be the same size on both screens. What the user Willard on the higher resolution screen however is a much better looking font.
If this screen comes to pass the results should be stunning.