What a pointless 'story'.
Why don't you guys spend time digging into why there are literally ZERO games out for OS-X SteamVR. There, see, that's something actually interesting and potentially useful.
At the risk of sounding like an old crank: You do get the irony of claiming some coverage of gaming would make this article more “useful”. While I enjoy recreation like the next guy, I don’t find articles that do not cover recreation inherently lacking “usefulness”.
of course I don’t play many video games. I guess my “productive” Mac use makes me more interested in this “story”.
but hey, thanks for the “update” on SteamVR for “OS-X”.
I like Mojave and dark mode some of the time ... but in all honesty I find it tiring on the eyes after a while in many situations and especially the Finder. I've used it extensively on a new BMP Touch Bar and a Mac Pro with two 27" 4K screens with Logic Pro X, Photos and FCPro, these applications in dark mode are great in a darkened room for color work. But for normal stuff it is not IMHO. Would you read a black newspaper with white print? It is really hard on the eyes. Thankfully it's easy to switch back an forth but my 2 cents is it should be possible to switch applications or the Finder to dark or light mode independently, i.e. not an all or nothing choice,
There's one real solution.
Apple needs to bring back Aqua.
Actually, they could do one better. Mac OS 9 was beautiful as shipped, and the themes like Gizmo and HiTech showed what could be done. Make macOS themeable again, Apple!
What Mac OS 8 Appearance Theming taught Apple was that creating and maintaining Appearances was a huge amount of work with zero real value, apart from watering down its brand and making it far more difficult to make any material changes of value. It also complicated the efforts of other developers without really benefitting anyone.
I remember themes being interesting for 15 minutes. The betas of Gizmo and HiTech really showed off how badly you could end up with some wonky way to generate niggling complaints from users. Very Old Apple.
The reason OS X got one new appearance was a) to show off what Quartz could do, b) to ditch the terrible goal of Appearance manager and c) to give the Mac a recognizable brand that could be flexibly incremented with each release in a way that developers and users would benefit from.
And technically, the current look of macOS is still referred to as Aqua, with Dark Mode called dark aqua in documentation. Both have just been toned down dramatically from the original launch of Aqua as "lickable" plastic candy everywhere.
On an LCD panel, the RGB sub-pixels filter the white light emitted from the backlight. So creating images on the screen is separate from its backlit brightness.
On OLED, the pixels are RGB LEDs lighting up from off to dim to bright.
I get that, but you can still adjust the brightness levels of LED pixels so I'm confused by what appears to be a conflating of the terms that are referrign to brightness levels of the pixel v the color profile of the pixel. Specifically, we know that the iPhone X has been measured at 634 nits of brightness, which is the highest full screen brightness for OLED smartphones. I don't understand why the term "brightness level of pixels" is being used when referring to pixels with color.
No LED LCD is made from liquid crystals that change shape in electrical current to block light from the backlight behind them.
OLED pixels actually emit light on their own.
1) My use of LED is not a reference to a separate backlights or an exclusion of OELD. It's stated as such because there are other LED-based systems out there, like microLED, that work similarity to OLED.
2) You still seem to be using "brightness level of pixels" in the same comment about the color profile of the pixel. As noted, the iPhone X has a brighter display, but you're trying to say that there is no difference in brightness of pixels in two OLED displays, only the color profile of the pixel? Nothing I've read says that's accurate.
I typed LED as a typo looking at what you wrote. I've only been talking about LCD and OLED.
And no, there are no Macs out there with LED screens. The only LED based panels on anything Mac or iOS is iPhone X's OLED display. Every other Mac has always been LCD.
The second thing you write sounds like a tangent distraction. Nothing here is talking about different panels from different makers. The discussion is all about how much power is consumed with different kinds of images on the same display.
Brighter images consume more power. Specific colors can consume more power.
can you also use the “graphite” UI with dark mode? I liked the colored buttons and blue menu selections in Aqua originally but it has devolved into something cheesy looking imo. Would prefer everything be dark and black/ grey.
Yes. When you pick grey as the Accent color (in either Light or Dark Mode) in Mojave, it not only turns off the color in UI elements (check boxes, pull down menus, radio buttons, etc), but also turns off the stoplight candy in the close/minimize/zoom buttons. The rest of the UI remains in color, but the chrome all turns grey.
I think people wants their panel lasts long as possible in a personal computer. Other than that, everyone who tried to make an OLED monitor failed. Remember when Asus announced their OLED display in CES? It's still "coming soon".
Could’ve sworn everyone had officially given up on it and moved to MicroLED displays.
I think people wants their panel lasts long as possible in a personal computer. Other than that, everyone who tried to make an OLED monitor failed. Remember when Asus announced their OLED display in CES? It's still "coming soon".
Could’ve sworn everyone had officially given up on it and moved to MicroLED displays.
Yep, much longer life span, definitely worth waiting for.
There's one real solution.
Apple needs to bring back Aqua.
Actually, they could do one better. Mac OS 9 was beautiful as shipped, and the themes like Gizmo and HiTech showed what could be done. Make macOS themeable again, Apple!
What Mac OS 8 Appearance Theming taught Apple was that creating and maintaining Appearances was a huge amount of work with zero real value, apart from watering down its brand and making it far more difficult to make any material changes of value. It also complicated the efforts of other developers without really benefitting anyone.
I remember themes being interesting for 15 minutes. The betas of Gizmo and HiTech really showed off how badly you could end up with some wonky way to generate niggling complaints from users. Very Old Apple.
The reason OS X got one new appearance was a) to show off what Quartz could do, b) to ditch the terrible goal of Appearance manager and c) to give the Mac a recognizable brand that could be flexibly incremented with each release in a way that developers and users would benefit from.
And technically, the current look of macOS is still referred to as Aqua, with Dark Mode called dark aqua in documentation. Both have just been toned down dramatically from the original launch of Aqua as "lickable" plastic candy everywhere.
Do you mean Copeland Mac OS 8 with it's themes?
There is a blast from the past although from memory the themes didn't make in any further than the Preview Disk.
There's one real solution.
Apple needs to bring back Aqua.
Actually, they could do one better. Mac OS 9 was beautiful as shipped, and the themes like Gizmo and HiTech showed what could be done. Make macOS themeable again, Apple!
What Mac OS 8 Appearance Theming taught Apple was that creating and maintaining Appearances was a huge amount of work with zero real value, apart from watering down its brand and making it far more difficult to make any material changes of value. It also complicated the efforts of other developers without really benefitting anyone.
I remember themes being interesting for 15 minutes. The betas of Gizmo and HiTech really showed off how badly you could end up with some wonky way to generate niggling complaints from users. Very Old Apple.
The reason OS X got one new appearance was a) to show off what Quartz could do, b) to ditch the terrible goal of Appearance manager and c) to give the Mac a recognizable brand that could be flexibly incremented with each release in a way that developers and users would benefit from.
And technically, the current look of macOS is still referred to as Aqua, with Dark Mode called dark aqua in documentation. Both have just been toned down dramatically from the original launch of Aqua as "lickable" plastic candy everywhere.
Do you mean Copeland Mac OS 8 with it's themes?
There is a blast from the past although from memory the themes didn't make in any further than the Preview Disk.
There's one real solution.
Apple needs to bring back Aqua.
Actually, they could do one better. Mac OS 9 was beautiful as shipped, and the themes like Gizmo and HiTech showed what could be done. Make macOS themeable again, Apple!
What Mac OS 8 Appearance Theming taught Apple was that creating and maintaining Appearances was a huge amount of work with zero real value, apart from watering down its brand and making it far more difficult to make any material changes of value. It also complicated the efforts of other developers without really benefitting anyone.
I remember themes being interesting for 15 minutes. The betas of Gizmo and HiTech really showed off how badly you could end up with some wonky way to generate niggling complaints from users. Very Old Apple.
The reason OS X got one new appearance was a) to show off what Quartz could do, b) to ditch the terrible goal of Appearance manager and c) to give the Mac a recognizable brand that could be flexibly incremented with each release in a way that developers and users would benefit from.
And technically, the current look of macOS is still referred to as Aqua, with Dark Mode called dark aqua in documentation. Both have just been toned down dramatically from the original launch of Aqua as "lickable" plastic candy everywhere.
Do you mean Copeland Mac OS 8 with it's themes?
There is a blast from the past although from memory the themes didn't make in any further than the Preview Disk.
To the guy who said that there are no LED Mac displays, you might want to look up the difference between LED backlight and non LED back light. (Typically called TFT even though there are TFTs in LED backlit displays) Typically when people say LED display they're talking about the backlight being LED not each pixel being an LED. (And yes I realize that it's different with OLED where each pixel is its own LED.)
I suspect that based on Apple's funding of research into micro LED they probably do plan on moving MacBooks over to displays that light each pixel individually. Though I really don't know if dark mode was born out of that as much as it was born out of apps like Final Cut Pro and Logic. I think dark mode is more out of a desire to throw professionals a bone. A lot of creative apps already offer a dark mode, and this is a fairly easy way for Apple to let those creatives who see dark as professional to see Apple as taking them more seriously. And Apple is ... sort of taking professionals more seriously. Though their approach to it might have infuriated people a bit, making every port on the MacBook Pro a Thunderbolt 3 port is actually a pretty pro centric decision.
I also think that this is a great way for Apple to build from the iMac Pro and the upcoming Mac Pro, and they do have a lot of work to do if they're going to win back a lot of the professionals they pissed off by letting their desktops languish. Hopefully that includes a redesigned Mac mini and Mac Pro, as well as a whole slate of Macs that use Intel's 8th gen processors. After they do that they just need to keep steady upgrades going until they can transition the Mac line over to their own ARM processors which will probably allow for a ridiculous amount of parallel processing. (I suspect you'll see MacBooks with the same processors as iPhones and Mac Pros with more high power cores than you can shake a stick at to ensure that render and build times are comparable with Intel's highest end multi cores.
Though I really don't know if dark mode was born out of that as much as it was born out of apps like Final Cut Pro and Logic. I think dark mode is more out of a desire to throw professionals a bone.
But you just know that when they show it off at the keynote they’ll only open Photos and gush about how good people’s pictures look. And they’ll say how their projectors can’t do it justice and you’ll have to buy one of our new half inch thick laptops to experience it!
Comments
of course I don’t play many video games. I guess my “productive” Mac use makes me more interested in this “story”.
but hey, thanks for the “update” on SteamVR for “OS-X”.
Cool story.
I remember themes being interesting for 15 minutes. The betas of Gizmo and HiTech really showed off how badly you could end up with some wonky way to generate niggling complaints from users. Very Old Apple.
The reason OS X got one new appearance was a) to show off what Quartz could do, b) to ditch the terrible goal of Appearance manager and c) to give the Mac a recognizable brand that could be flexibly incremented with each release in a way that developers and users would benefit from.
And technically, the current look of macOS is still referred to as Aqua, with Dark Mode called dark aqua in documentation. Both have just been toned down dramatically from the original launch of Aqua as "lickable" plastic candy everywhere.
I typed LED as a typo looking at what you wrote. I've only been talking about LCD and OLED.
And no, there are no Macs out there with LED screens. The only LED based panels on anything Mac or iOS is iPhone X's OLED display. Every other Mac has always been LCD.
The second thing you write sounds like a tangent distraction. Nothing here is talking about different panels from different makers. The discussion is all about how much power is consumed with different kinds of images on the same display.
Brighter images consume more power. Specific colors can consume more power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaleidoscope_(software)
I used to run some super stupid "stealth" theme on my Centris 650 back in the day which was fun for a while.
I suspect that based on Apple's funding of research into micro LED they probably do plan on moving MacBooks over to displays that light each pixel individually. Though I really don't know if dark mode was born out of that as much as it was born out of apps like Final Cut Pro and Logic. I think dark mode is more out of a desire to throw professionals a bone. A lot of creative apps already offer a dark mode, and this is a fairly easy way for Apple to let those creatives who see dark as professional to see Apple as taking them more seriously. And Apple is ... sort of taking professionals more seriously. Though their approach to it might have infuriated people a bit, making every port on the MacBook Pro a Thunderbolt 3 port is actually a pretty pro centric decision.
I also think that this is a great way for Apple to build from the iMac Pro and the upcoming Mac Pro, and they do have a lot of work to do if they're going to win back a lot of the professionals they pissed off by letting their desktops languish. Hopefully that includes a redesigned Mac mini and Mac Pro, as well as a whole slate of Macs that use Intel's 8th gen processors. After they do that they just need to keep steady upgrades going until they can transition the Mac line over to their own ARM processors which will probably allow for a ridiculous amount of parallel processing. (I suspect you'll see MacBooks with the same processors as iPhones and Mac Pros with more high power cores than you can shake a stick at to ensure that render and build times are comparable with Intel's highest end multi cores.