When will Apple fix the bug where icons don't snap to grid on the desktop properly? My 15 inch PB can only fit 32 icons on the desktop when it should be able to hold twice this number, because the columns are twice as far apart as they should be. I know lots of other people are having this problem too, and it is exremely annoying. The desktop is the most visible feature of the whole operating system. If they can't even fix this, what chance do they really have at selling people on OS X.
Not trying to derail the topic, but perhaps you could post a screenshot of your desktop and the settings you're using?
You're thinking in terms of VGA. For DVI, calculating this is a more complicated matter. And as I said, a lot of VRAM will be required to drive QE (for window compositing acceleration), Q2DE (for actual drawing acceleration, especially when we're talking about resolution independence!) and CI/CV.
What are you wittering on about?
2560x1600 in 32-bit is 16MB of memory, for the framebuffer.
Double buffering therefore takes up 32MB.
That leaves you 96MB of VRAM for all the windows, etc. It's plenty. It's better than driving a 1280x1024 display from a Mac Mini, relatively.
In terms of a laptop display, they don't use DVI. They use their own internal digital connection that doesn't have the limitations of DVI (namely a 165MHz bandwidth that limits high resolutions).
When will Apple fix the bug where icons don't snap to grid on the desktop properly? My 15 inch PB can only fit 32 icons on the desktop when it should be able to hold twice this number, because the columns are twice as far apart as they should be. I know lots of other people are having this problem too, and it is exremely annoying. The desktop is the most visible feature of the whole operating system. If they can't even fix this, what chance do they really have at selling people on OS X.
Ugh, icons on the desktop!
(Says me, with an iBook full of icons, but mostly downloads)
The desktop is a workspace. Limiting the number of icons should mean you don't get a cluttered setup.
My iBook can fit dozens, maybe 50-60 icons on its desktop. I don't know what you are doing wrong given your higher resolution. You do know you can configure the icon size, spacing and layout, don't you?
With 32x32 icon size and 10pt text my iBook Desktop holds 77 icons (7x11).
I like minimizing Desktop clutter but it's temptingly convenient for grouping/labeling clusters of icons that serve as a quick-and-dirty workspace for spacial/visual reminders. I often drop stuff on the Desktop before it ends up in DEVONthink Pro, if it's worth keeping. Of course there's an overclutter threshold when it stops being a useful spacial/visual workspace; my iMac Desktop reached it months ago so it's long overdue for cleanup.
I've tried using folders as temporary "pseudo-desktops" but managing and preserving window sizes and icon positions can be tricky and tedious (a common complaint with the OS X Finder).
2560x1600 in 32-bit is 16MB of memory, for the framebuffer.
Double buffering therefore takes up 32MB.
That leaves you 96MB of VRAM for all the windows, etc. It's plenty.
You're still forgetting QE, which takes up vast amounts of VRAM, and Q2DE, which will probably take up even more, and CI/CV, which take some VRAM as well to process things.
You're still forgetting QE, which takes up vast amounts of VRAM, and Q2DE, which will probably take up even more, and CI/CV, which take some VRAM as well to process things.
That's why 64MB is enough. This is still 2D. It's 3D that requires vast amounts of memory and processing power.
You're still forgetting QE, which takes up vast amounts of VRAM, and Q2DE, which will probably take up even more, and CI/CV, which take some VRAM as well to process things.
No I'm not. That's what the extra 96MB is for. That's 6 full screen windows, 12 half-screen windows ... and future PowerBooks will use PCIe for the graphics, which negates the main-memory hit even more. As I keep pointing out, it is no worse than having a lower resolution display with proportionally less VRAM.
In Q2DE a lot of the textures will be reused anyway (interface elements), possibly leading to less VRAM usage than now, where each window is basically a texture mapped onto a polygon (or mesh, given how some of the effects work).
Anyway, back on topic; hopefully 104.4. will correct some problems that many of you guys are facing, I'm also hoping that they include the memory leak fixes that have been merged into the publicly available Safari - unfortunately, however, I don't see new features beyond the mundane stuff, getting merged into an update anytime soon.
As for my pet peeved, I would love to see iChat support more than just jabber and AIM - create a plugin interface so that protocols can be added like how CODECS can be added to Quicktime to expand functionality - that would be a big boost, especially for those of use who still use MSN.
As for the next version (10.5) - I have a feeling that they maybe doing some major changes in places - there has been no actual release date planned, just the announcement that at WWDC next year, they'll reveal what will be in store; I just hope, however, that they don't rush it out and the net result is what happened to 10.4; which quite frankly, should never have been released until it was properly ready.
Anyway, back on topic; hopefully 104.4. will correct some problems that many of you guys are facing, I'm also hoping that they include the memory leak fixes that have been merged into the publicly available Safari - unfortunately, however, I don't see new features beyond the mundane stuff, getting merged into an update anytime soon.
As for my pet peeved, I would love to see iChat support more than just jabber and AIM - create a plugin interface so that protocols can be added like how CODECS can be added to Quicktime to expand functionality - that would be a big boost, especially for those of use who still use MSN.
As for the next version (10.5) - I have a feeling that they maybe doing some major changes in places - there has been no actual release date planned, just the announcement that at WWDC next year, they'll reveal what will be in store; I just hope, however, that they don't rush it out and the net result is what happened to 10.4; which quite frankly, should never have been released until it was properly ready.
I'm hoping to hear SOMETHING about it in January. We would have heard something at the last dev conf but for the intel thingy. Even if he makes five minutes available during the presentation, it will be enough.
I'm hoping to hear SOMETHING about it in January. We would have heard something at the last dev conf but for the intel thingy. Even if he makes five minutes available during the presentation, it will be enough.
I"m assuming you're referring to Intel machines? why do you need it by January? whats the rush? he said before WWDC - so they have atleast a 6 month window.
Give them time to get it RIGHT rather than it being a rush, botched, half ass job.
I"m assuming you're referring to Intel machines? why do you need it by January? whats the rush? he said before WWDC - so they have atleast a 6 month window.
Give them time to get it RIGHT rather than it being a rush, botched, half ass job.
Well, I'm talking about him giving us some information on what will be in 10.5. I certainly don't want them to rush getting it out.
I was one of those who was unhappy that they came out with 10.4 when they did. But when they announced the Intel switch, I could see why they wanted to get it out of the way for the conf.
I haven't thought that Apple would be coming out with Intel machines until May, or so. But now, things have changed. Along with all of the expectations that new machines will be announced in January, have come some interesting surprises in the x86 OS. One is that 10.4.4 will make the two versions the same, and two is that Rosetta will now emulate a G4 with Altivec, rather than a G3 without it.
Comments
Originally posted by Alex3917
When will Apple fix the bug where icons don't snap to grid on the desktop properly? My 15 inch PB can only fit 32 icons on the desktop when it should be able to hold twice this number, because the columns are twice as far apart as they should be. I know lots of other people are having this problem too, and it is exremely annoying. The desktop is the most visible feature of the whole operating system. If they can't even fix this, what chance do they really have at selling people on OS X.
Not trying to derail the topic, but perhaps you could post a screenshot of your desktop and the settings you're using?
(Setting labels to the right makes tighter spacing, I believe. And Font size is a factor.)
Originally posted by nagromme
My desktop is VERY tightly spaced (and cluttered). It closely resembles the Vietnam Memorial.
(Setting labels to the right makes tighter spacing, I believe. And Font size is a factor.)
Also the length of the names.
Originally posted by Chucker
You're thinking in terms of VGA. For DVI, calculating this is a more complicated matter. And as I said, a lot of VRAM will be required to drive QE (for window compositing acceleration), Q2DE (for actual drawing acceleration, especially when we're talking about resolution independence!) and CI/CV.
What are you wittering on about?
2560x1600 in 32-bit is 16MB of memory, for the framebuffer.
Double buffering therefore takes up 32MB.
That leaves you 96MB of VRAM for all the windows, etc. It's plenty. It's better than driving a 1280x1024 display from a Mac Mini, relatively.
In terms of a laptop display, they don't use DVI. They use their own internal digital connection that doesn't have the limitations of DVI (namely a 165MHz bandwidth that limits high resolutions).
Originally posted by Alex3917
When will Apple fix the bug where icons don't snap to grid on the desktop properly? My 15 inch PB can only fit 32 icons on the desktop when it should be able to hold twice this number, because the columns are twice as far apart as they should be. I know lots of other people are having this problem too, and it is exremely annoying. The desktop is the most visible feature of the whole operating system. If they can't even fix this, what chance do they really have at selling people on OS X.
Ugh, icons on the desktop!
(Says me, with an iBook full of icons, but mostly downloads)
The desktop is a workspace. Limiting the number of icons should mean you don't get a cluttered setup.
My iBook can fit dozens, maybe 50-60 icons on its desktop. I don't know what you are doing wrong given your higher resolution. You do know you can configure the icon size, spacing and layout, don't you?
I like minimizing Desktop clutter but it's temptingly convenient for grouping/labeling clusters of icons that serve as a quick-and-dirty workspace for spacial/visual reminders. I often drop stuff on the Desktop before it ends up in DEVONthink Pro, if it's worth keeping. Of course there's an overclutter threshold when it stops being a useful spacial/visual workspace; my iMac Desktop reached it months ago so it's long overdue for cleanup.
I've tried using folders as temporary "pseudo-desktops" but managing and preserving window sizes and icon positions can be tricky and tedious (a common complaint with the OS X Finder).
Originally posted by Hattig
What are you wittering on about?
2560x1600 in 32-bit is 16MB of memory, for the framebuffer.
Double buffering therefore takes up 32MB.
That leaves you 96MB of VRAM for all the windows, etc. It's plenty.
You're still forgetting QE, which takes up vast amounts of VRAM, and Q2DE, which will probably take up even more, and CI/CV, which take some VRAM as well to process things.
Originally posted by Chucker
You're still forgetting QE, which takes up vast amounts of VRAM, and Q2DE, which will probably take up even more, and CI/CV, which take some VRAM as well to process things.
That's why 64MB is enough. This is still 2D. It's 3D that requires vast amounts of memory and processing power.
Originally posted by Chucker
You're still forgetting QE, which takes up vast amounts of VRAM, and Q2DE, which will probably take up even more, and CI/CV, which take some VRAM as well to process things.
No I'm not. That's what the extra 96MB is for. That's 6 full screen windows, 12 half-screen windows ... and future PowerBooks will use PCIe for the graphics, which negates the main-memory hit even more. As I keep pointing out, it is no worse than having a lower resolution display with proportionally less VRAM.
In Q2DE a lot of the textures will be reused anyway (interface elements), possibly leading to less VRAM usage than now, where each window is basically a texture mapped onto a polygon (or mesh, given how some of the effects work).
As for my pet peeved, I would love to see iChat support more than just jabber and AIM - create a plugin interface so that protocols can be added like how CODECS can be added to Quicktime to expand functionality - that would be a big boost, especially for those of use who still use MSN.
As for the next version (10.5) - I have a feeling that they maybe doing some major changes in places - there has been no actual release date planned, just the announcement that at WWDC next year, they'll reveal what will be in store; I just hope, however, that they don't rush it out and the net result is what happened to 10.4; which quite frankly, should never have been released until it was properly ready.
Originally posted by kaiwai
Anyway, back on topic; hopefully 104.4. will correct some problems that many of you guys are facing, I'm also hoping that they include the memory leak fixes that have been merged into the publicly available Safari - unfortunately, however, I don't see new features beyond the mundane stuff, getting merged into an update anytime soon.
As for my pet peeved, I would love to see iChat support more than just jabber and AIM - create a plugin interface so that protocols can be added like how CODECS can be added to Quicktime to expand functionality - that would be a big boost, especially for those of use who still use MSN.
As for the next version (10.5) - I have a feeling that they maybe doing some major changes in places - there has been no actual release date planned, just the announcement that at WWDC next year, they'll reveal what will be in store; I just hope, however, that they don't rush it out and the net result is what happened to 10.4; which quite frankly, should never have been released until it was properly ready.
I'm hoping to hear SOMETHING about it in January. We would have heard something at the last dev conf but for the intel thingy. Even if he makes five minutes available during the presentation, it will be enough.
Originally posted by melgross
I'm hoping to hear SOMETHING about it in January. We would have heard something at the last dev conf but for the intel thingy. Even if he makes five minutes available during the presentation, it will be enough.
I"m assuming you're referring to Intel machines? why do you need it by January? whats the rush? he said before WWDC - so they have atleast a 6 month window.
Give them time to get it RIGHT rather than it being a rush, botched, half ass job.
Originally posted by kaiwai
I"m assuming you're referring to Intel machines? why do you need it by January? whats the rush? he said before WWDC - so they have atleast a 6 month window.
Give them time to get it RIGHT rather than it being a rush, botched, half ass job.
Well, I'm talking about him giving us some information on what will be in 10.5. I certainly don't want them to rush getting it out.
I was one of those who was unhappy that they came out with 10.4 when they did. But when they announced the Intel switch, I could see why they wanted to get it out of the way for the conf.
I haven't thought that Apple would be coming out with Intel machines until May, or so. But now, things have changed. Along with all of the expectations that new machines will be announced in January, have come some interesting surprises in the x86 OS. One is that 10.4.4 will make the two versions the same, and two is that Rosetta will now emulate a G4 with Altivec, rather than a G3 without it.
So, we might see Mactels in January.
But I'm not in a hurry.