It's there, I can see some difference. The pictures aren't very good examples.
It does look like the 200 DPI is lighter (less bold) than the 100 DPI, but the text sizes look exactly the same. If this is what resolution independence is, can't say as it would do me any good.
It does look like the 200 DPI is lighter (less bold) than the 100 DPI, but the text sizes look exactly the same.
It's subtle, but the text is slightly sharper.
Quote:
If this is what resolution independence is, can't say as it would do me any good.
I've already said that the image is a bad example. I'll spell it out more clearly and say that it's a horrible example. It looks like a screen capture of a presentation video.
It does look like the 200 DPI is lighter (less bold) than the 100 DPI, but the text sizes look exactly the same. If this is what resolution independence is, can't say as it would do me any good.
Yes, the size should look exactly the same. The 200 DPI one is sharper, however. Resolution independence means that text and images on the screen can be defined in terms of physical size (e.g. cm, inches) rather than pixel size. With no resolution independence, everything on that 200 dpi image would look 1/4 the size of the 100 dpi one. (1/2 the size vertically and horizontally -> 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/4 the size).
With resolution independence implemented, that would then present the opportunity for the user to set the scaling they want for the user interface. Rather than just increasing/decreasing font size, this would enlarge/shrink all interface elements by the same factor.
Yes, the size should look exactly the same. The 200 DPI one is sharper, however. Resolution independence means that text and images on the screen can be defined in terms of physical size (e.g. cm, inches) rather than pixel size. With no resolution independence, everything on that 200 dpi image would look 1/4 the size of the 100 dpi one. (1/2 the size vertically and horizontally -> 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/4 the size).
With resolution independence implemented, that would then present the opportunity for the user to set the scaling they want for the user interface. Rather than just increasing/decreasing font size, this would enlarge/shrink all interface elements by the same factor.
I suppose for some, the 200 DPI looks better. I also understand the picture quality is bad. For me, using the magnification feature of Mac OS, I filled the screen with the two images. I sort of like the bolder look of the 100 DPI image. The 200 DPI picture looks a little too bright (washed out). So would this allow me to increase everything on my screen by 25% and still have it all looking crisp? Just for giggles, why is this needed in Mac OS? I might see the benefit if Apple was going to employ a touch screen on the iMac. Larger place for big fingers. Lastly, I suspect this is a pretty intense deal. Probably nowhere near as easy as it might appear. Guess that is why we have not yet seen it in Leopard or Snow Leopard. Is it at all possible to get that cool blue look from Tiger in Leopard? I am still miffed with Apple for never finding a way to replace my Restore Tiger DVDs. They simply told me we are in a Leopard world now and those DVDs are gone. My DVDs are probably meant for another machine. They load but don't install. While I'm sure Leopard is better, I bought a Tiger machine and never got to use it. RATS!
So would this allow me to increase everything on my screen by 25% and still have it all looking crisp?
Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WPLJ42
Just for giggles, why is this needed in Mac OS?
Because increasing screen resolution gives you more work space and ultimately presents the possibility of rendering text with the same quality as print (laser printers have at least 600 dpi resolution) and maybe one day displaying images with the same resolution as in print (2400 dpi or more).
Without resolution independence, the UI (menu bar, window control widgets etc.) would be insanely, unusably small.
As it stands, lack of resolution independence is holding back the use of high DPI monitors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WPLJ42
Lastly, I suspect this is a pretty intense deal. Probably nowhere near as easy as it might appear. Guess that is why we have not yet seen it in Leopard or Snow Leopard.
Well, Apple have been working on it since Tiger. It would seem that there are issues getting it to work smoothly with carbon and getting developers to support it properly.
My feeling is that Apple ultimately want to ditch carbon. When OS X is cocoa only, we'll get our resolution independence. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple announce at next year's WWDC that 10.7 will be cocoa only, and will be released 18 months later at the earliest, giving those developers dragging their feet enough time to catch up.
Um ... is this gonna take lots more processor speed and memory? I have no clue what you are talking about with carbon or cocoa. Don't even try to explain. CoCo was my very first computer from Tandy/Radio Shack. The old Color Computer. Used a 6809E processor and sent an RF signal to a TV @ 320 x 240. Cost $400 and came with 4K of RAM. Yes, K! Those were the days. I would like to see a mini priced at $400 but I don't think Apple could do it and still allow it to run SL. So maybe when OS X 10.7 comes out in a couple of years, all Macs will come with 4 Gigs standard.
I like how the zombie thread segued smoothly from the exciting promise of RI in Leopard three years ago to talking now about how it would work were it ever to actually be implemented while barely pausing to acknowledge the heavy irony.
I like how the zombie thread segued smoothly from the exciting promise of RI in Leopard three years ago to talking now about how it would work were it ever to actually be implemented while barely pausing to acknowledge the heavy irony.
I always thought that folks expecting full RI in Leopard were getting ahead of themselves.
RI is clearly something that Apple have been working on for a long time, and they have to get it working if they ever want to use high DPI monitors in their hardware. If they can get RI working properly before Microsoft, it'll be another advantage of the Mac platform over the PC platform.
I think the dumping of 64-bit carbon is a signal that Apple have finally bit the bullet and decided to eventually go cocoa-only in OS X. I'm confident that when that happens, RI will happen too.
I like how the zombie thread segued smoothly from the exciting promise of RI in Leopard three years ago to talking now about how it would work were it ever to actually be implemented while barely pausing to acknowledge the heavy irony.
I don't get where the irony is.
Is there irony in being excited about technology which ends up not being ready for the next OS X release?
My screenshots from the previous post were (rather obviously) from a WWDC State of the Union video. The idea was to prove that it's real by pointing to a publicly-available video. I accept the criticism that it wasn't good quality, though, but I wasn't really expecting them to be discussed almost two and a half years later. So here's a bunch of screenshots that do roughly the same, only in Leopard, and with full quality:
Granted, some of the differences in smoothness will be due to the scaling, but regardless, there are definitely changes. The radius of the window border's round corder and the inner texture/bevel of the buttons, for instance.
There are also still bugs; I doubt the non-centered placement of the Apple logo is intentional, for example.
My screenshots from the previous post were (rather obviously) from a WWDC State of the Union video. The idea was to prove that it's real by pointing to a publicly-available video. I accept the criticism that it wasn't good quality, though, but I wasn't really expecting them to be discussed almost two and a half years later. So here's a bunch of screenshots that do roughly the same, only in Leopard, and with full quality:
Thanks for the new images, chucker.
What do you think of my "no RI (by default) in OS X until OS X is cocoa-only" theory? Is a carbon-free 10.7 likely?
Comments
Yeah.
Straight from the horse's mouth:
I see zero difference in these two images!
I see zero difference in these two images!
It's there, I can see some difference. The pictures aren't very good examples.
It's there, I can see some difference. The pictures aren't very good examples.
It does look like the 200 DPI is lighter (less bold) than the 100 DPI, but the text sizes look exactly the same. If this is what resolution independence is, can't say as it would do me any good.
It does look like the 200 DPI is lighter (less bold) than the 100 DPI, but the text sizes look exactly the same.
It's subtle, but the text is slightly sharper.
If this is what resolution independence is, can't say as it would do me any good.
I've already said that the image is a bad example. I'll spell it out more clearly and say that it's a horrible example. It looks like a screen capture of a presentation video.
It does look like the 200 DPI is lighter (less bold) than the 100 DPI, but the text sizes look exactly the same. If this is what resolution independence is, can't say as it would do me any good.
Yes, the size should look exactly the same. The 200 DPI one is sharper, however. Resolution independence means that text and images on the screen can be defined in terms of physical size (e.g. cm, inches) rather than pixel size. With no resolution independence, everything on that 200 dpi image would look 1/4 the size of the 100 dpi one. (1/2 the size vertically and horizontally -> 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/4 the size).
With resolution independence implemented, that would then present the opportunity for the user to set the scaling they want for the user interface. Rather than just increasing/decreasing font size, this would enlarge/shrink all interface elements by the same factor.
Yes, the size should look exactly the same. The 200 DPI one is sharper, however. Resolution independence means that text and images on the screen can be defined in terms of physical size (e.g. cm, inches) rather than pixel size. With no resolution independence, everything on that 200 dpi image would look 1/4 the size of the 100 dpi one. (1/2 the size vertically and horizontally -> 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/4 the size).
With resolution independence implemented, that would then present the opportunity for the user to set the scaling they want for the user interface. Rather than just increasing/decreasing font size, this would enlarge/shrink all interface elements by the same factor.
I suppose for some, the 200 DPI looks better. I also understand the picture quality is bad. For me, using the magnification feature of Mac OS, I filled the screen with the two images. I sort of like the bolder look of the 100 DPI image. The 200 DPI picture looks a little too bright (washed out). So would this allow me to increase everything on my screen by 25% and still have it all looking crisp? Just for giggles, why is this needed in Mac OS? I might see the benefit if Apple was going to employ a touch screen on the iMac. Larger place for big fingers. Lastly, I suspect this is a pretty intense deal. Probably nowhere near as easy as it might appear. Guess that is why we have not yet seen it in Leopard or Snow Leopard. Is it at all possible to get that cool blue look from Tiger in Leopard? I am still miffed with Apple for never finding a way to replace my Restore Tiger DVDs. They simply told me we are in a Leopard world now and those DVDs are gone. My DVDs are probably meant for another machine. They load but don't install. While I'm sure Leopard is better, I bought a Tiger machine and never got to use it. RATS!
So would this allow me to increase everything on my screen by 25% and still have it all looking crisp?
Yes.
Just for giggles, why is this needed in Mac OS?
Because increasing screen resolution gives you more work space and ultimately presents the possibility of rendering text with the same quality as print (laser printers have at least 600 dpi resolution) and maybe one day displaying images with the same resolution as in print (2400 dpi or more).
Without resolution independence, the UI (menu bar, window control widgets etc.) would be insanely, unusably small.
As it stands, lack of resolution independence is holding back the use of high DPI monitors.
Lastly, I suspect this is a pretty intense deal. Probably nowhere near as easy as it might appear. Guess that is why we have not yet seen it in Leopard or Snow Leopard.
Well, Apple have been working on it since Tiger. It would seem that there are issues getting it to work smoothly with carbon and getting developers to support it properly.
My feeling is that Apple ultimately want to ditch carbon. When OS X is cocoa only, we'll get our resolution independence. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple announce at next year's WWDC that 10.7 will be cocoa only, and will be released 18 months later at the earliest, giving those developers dragging their feet enough time to catch up.
Yeah.
Straight from the horse's mouth:
If you want to show people the difference between 100dpi and 200dpi you have to save the PNG at 100dpi and 200dpi respectively.
They are at 96dpi. That doesn't help.
If you want to show people the difference between 100dpi and 200dpi you have to save the PNG at 100dpi and 200dpi respectively.
They are at 96dpi. That doesn't help.
You could so easily have started your post with "Umm."
But you didn't and I want to thank you for that.
From the bottom of my heart.
If you want to show people the difference between 100dpi and 200dpi you have to save the PNG at 100dpi and 200dpi respectively.
They are at 96dpi. That doesn't help.
They are screenshots of a QT movie
I like how the zombie thread segued smoothly from the exciting promise of RI in Leopard three years ago to talking now about how it would work were it ever to actually be implemented while barely pausing to acknowledge the heavy irony.
I always thought that folks expecting full RI in Leopard were getting ahead of themselves.
RI is clearly something that Apple have been working on for a long time, and they have to get it working if they ever want to use high DPI monitors in their hardware. If they can get RI working properly before Microsoft, it'll be another advantage of the Mac platform over the PC platform.
I think the dumping of 64-bit carbon is a signal that Apple have finally bit the bullet and decided to eventually go cocoa-only in OS X. I'm confident that when that happens, RI will happen too.
So maybe when OS X 10.7 comes out in a couple of years, all Macs will come with 4 Gigs standard.
MacBook Pros already do, afaik. I'm on a 17" one now. Bought 3 months ago. With 4 Gigs standard. Goes like greased lightning.
I like how the zombie thread segued smoothly from the exciting promise of RI in Leopard three years ago to talking now about how it would work were it ever to actually be implemented while barely pausing to acknowledge the heavy irony.
I don't get where the irony is.
Is there irony in being excited about technology which ends up not being ready for the next OS X release?
Some people have been wanting RI for a while now. They still want it even though it has been delayed.
Regular shot, at 72ppi:
The same thing, except with 144ppi:
And finally, the above, scaled down to 50%:
The first and last next to each other:
Granted, some of the differences in smoothness will be due to the scaling, but regardless, there are definitely changes. The radius of the window border's round corder and the inner texture/bevel of the buttons, for instance.
There are also still bugs; I doubt the non-centered placement of the Apple logo is intentional, for example.
My screenshots from the previous post were (rather obviously) from a WWDC State of the Union video. The idea was to prove that it's real by pointing to a publicly-available video. I accept the criticism that it wasn't good quality, though, but I wasn't really expecting them to be discussed almost two and a half years later. So here's a bunch of screenshots that do roughly the same, only in Leopard, and with full quality:
Thanks for the new images, chucker.
What do you think of my "no RI (by default) in OS X until OS X is cocoa-only" theory? Is a carbon-free 10.7 likely?