Regardless of G4 or G5, would next PB have brighter screen?

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 27
    plan-bplan-b Posts: 36member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by nsousansousa

    So do I...









    i surely hope so...... 2499us ill take ten please

    (although i have no idea why)
  • Reply 22 of 27
    ipodandimacipodandimac Posts: 3,273member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by DMBand0026

    What about OLEDs, is it possible to see those in the next generation of PBs?



    maybe in 3 years...
  • Reply 23 of 27
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by PB

    Why having a fully scaleable Dock is easy, while a fully scaleable interface so difficult?



    Well, if you turn on Zoom in the accessibility prefs, you'll see that Dock-style magnification is already there. It's just not very useful in the general case.



    There's very little demand to scale the interface down, especially with today's low-resolution (~100ppi) screens, and scaling it up looks ugly given the number of bitmaps in Aqua. (Quartz is vector-based; Aqua is a mishmash of vectors and bitmaps).



    Once we have a vector-based UI and truly high-resolution displays, scaleable interfaces will become interesting. There will still be the problem of legacy interfaces that use bitmaps, but they'll just have to look a bit chunkier than everything else.



    The only way past the LCD's inability to change resolutions without loss is very high-resolution LCDs. You pay for high resolution in terms of cost and brightness, but I'm sure there are plenty of talented engineers working around those problems.
  • Reply 24 of 27
    pbpb Posts: 4,234member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorph

    There's very little demand to scale the interface down, especially with today's low-resolution (~100ppi) screens, and scaling it up looks ugly given the number of bitmaps in Aqua. (Quartz is vector-based; Aqua is a mishmash of vectors and bitmaps).





    It is so hard to have a fully vector Aqua? What are the difficulties?



    Quote:



    The only way past the LCD's inability to change resolutions without loss is very high-resolution LCDs.




    Something like the 1920x1200 15" displays in Wintel laptops?
  • Reply 25 of 27
    satchmosatchmo Posts: 2,699member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by PB







    Something like the 1920x1200 15" displays in Wintel laptops?




    The Toshiba 17" I checked out had those resolutions but scaled poorly, Perhaps 15" would be different given the higher pixel density.
  • Reply 26 of 27
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by PB

    It is so hard to have a fully vector Aqua? What are the difficulties?



    I can't answer that 100%, but I'd guess performance on older hardware, and particularly older graphics chipsets. GPUs have been able to cache bitmaps since 1986 or so, and the code to copy a bitmap to a screen has been blazing fast since the 1970s.



    Also, there's legacy support. Legacy UIs assume that 1 logical pixel = 1 screen pixel, and controls and text are positioned in terms of absolute pixels. They basically assume that everything's painted onto a 72dpi screen. A vector UI blows that assumption to hell, obviously. It also kills support for the bitmap copy (or "blit") function, which has been a mainstay of personal computing for as long as personal computers have done graphics.



    Trivia: The original QuickDraw was resolution independent! That was killed late in development with the introduction of CopyBits(), a blitter function, which was deemed necessary to get adequate performance out of the early Macintoshes.



    Quote:

    Something like the 1920x1200 15" displays in Wintel laptops?



    That's in the ballpark, yes. I'm thinking laser printer resolutions, but that's getting there.



    That sort of resolution makes no sense without a scalable interface. It's like computing with your monitor on the other side of the room.
  • Reply 27 of 27
    escherescher Posts: 1,811member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorph

    Once we have a vector-based UI and truly high-resolution displays, scaleable interfaces will become interesting.



    I keep forgetting that all of our interfaces are still based on bitmap images. It's kind of crazy to think that all those obnoxious Flash ads that pollute the Web are vector-based while neither Windows nor Mac OS X have vector-based interfaces. Vector-based imaging is obviously more efficient? It should be ubiquitous by now.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorph

    GPUs have been able to cache bitmaps since 1986 or so, and the code to copy a bitmap to a screen has been blazing fast since the 1970s.



    Thanks for the historical trivia, Amorph. Very enlightening!



    Quote:

    That sort of resolution [1920x1200] makes no sense without a scalable interface. It's like computing with your monitor on the other side of the room.



    Good analogy. There's obviously a physiological reason why the vast majority of people at my firm run their 1280x1024 LCD displays at 1024x768 or even 800x600. For the same reason I have no desire for higher resolution on my 1024x768 12" iBook.



    The arrival of high-res displays with a truly scalable vector-based UI will be like heaven on earth!



    Escher
Sign In or Register to comment.