*shrugs* How many end users will actually use a database? I'd say there are very few in the market whom Apple targets with their consumer iWorks line.
With that being said, I hope they really improve Pages and Numbers - I'd love to see it finally be a drop in replacement for Microsoft Office 2008 given the crap quality of the Office suite so far.
MS Office compatibility is exactly why a database capable of editing Access files should be included
The year will end on a sad note. Most people have forgotten that resolution independence was supposed to debute in a point release during the course of this year.
Some may tell me this was never officially declared a 10.5 feature. While true, Apple twisting developer arms to create resolution independent UIs. FOR WHAT? Apple has been asleep at the switch on this. I'm surprised some developers haven't sued Apple for having been coerced into wasting time on higher resolution UI elements when the OS doesn't support this feature yet.
Fucking Apple. And to everyone that told me to sit and wait 'till the end of the year before whining about this...effe you too.
Taking this further off topic, Whatever happened to the Itablet? I thought there were rumors of this being due January 09 time. Am i the only one waiting for this lol?
Nothing happened to "it". It's ust a rumor. Rumors don't mean that there is a product in the works, just that some would like to think there are.
When the WSJ starts reporting "rumors" then I'd listen, otherwise, don't bother.
The year will end on a sad note. Most people have forgotten that resolution independence was supposed to debute in a point release during the course of this year.
Some may tell me this was never officially declared a 10.5 feature. While true, Apple twisting developer arms to create resolution independent UIs. FOR WHAT? Apple has been asleep at the switch on this. I'm surprised some developers haven't sued Apple for having been coerced into wasting time on higher resolution UI elements when the OS doesn't support this feature yet.
Fucking Apple. And to everyone that told me to sit and wait 'till the end of the year before whining about this...effe you too.
Why was it "supposed to debut"? This was just more wishful thinking. Unless Apple said that they would release it in a point update, there is no reason to think they would do so. It's much more likely that its release as a developers developmental tool as it is now, is exactly what Apple had planned for it during the 10.5 run. I see no reason why developers would be upset if Apple is waiting for 10.6. This isn't something that most developers are drooling over, as are some users here. It will take time for them to do this work, along with all the other work they are doing already. Developers don't want quick changes to OS's and hardware. They want slow, steady, changes so that they can move into it more easily, while overhauling their work on a normal schedule, rather than rushing into new areas that obsolete their current work.
More likely, if enough major developers have modified their products for the debut of 10.6, where it's more likely to be seen, it will be debuting there.
Why was it "supposed to debut"? This was just more wishful thinking. Unless Apple said that they would release it in a point update, there is no reason to think they would do so.
I believe what they said (at WWDC 2006) was "Coming 2008", and that it would not be in the initial release of Leopard as a user-accessible feature.
I believe what they said (at WWDC 2006) was "Coming 2008", and that it would not be in the initial release of Leopard as a user-accessible feature.
Apple did list it early on in the Leopard development of Leopard, but I don't recall ever reading about it being a point update. Also, I don't know if I'd classify a beta OS'es talking points as "supposed to debut" when they clearly state "All features on this page are subject to change."
For those who care to wade through archive.org and wait for the pages to load...
As I said, people will be pointing out that it was never promised as a point release feature...HOWEVER, Apple was seriously twisting arms. Apple was telling developers to make their UIs resolution independent. I see EVERY reason why developers should be upset over this.
Panic had developed a completely rez-independent Coda...for naught. While they may not have changed the UI significantly between 1.0 and 1.6, perhaps 2.0 will sport a different interface and all the work spent on rez-independence in 1.x was for absolutely nothing since 10.5 is unlikely to ever enable rez-independence.
Why was Apple bullying developers into creating rez-independent UIs? SHAME ON APPLE. And shame on the apologists.
As I said, people will be pointing out that it was never promised as a point release feature...HOWEVER, Apple was seriously twisting arms. Apple was telling developers to make their UIs resolution independent. I see EVERY reason why developers should be upset over this.
Panic had developed a completely rez-independent Coda...for naught. While they may not have changed the UI significantly between 1.0 and 1.6, perhaps 2.0 will sport a different interface and all the work spent on rez-independence in 1.x was for absolutely nothing since 10.5 is unlikely to ever enable rez-independence.
Have you any evidence that Apple stated that this would be available for a 10.5 release version to the public?
And what about all of the developers who have complex programs? Panics stuff is nice, but it's hardly complex. Pretty simple, actually.
I would be pretty surprised if most developers would have been happy if Apple popped in with RI for 10.5.
Don't you believe in breathing room? Look how long it took for the large programs to get updated as it is. Do you expect that the companies would be happy to have to re-do their interfaces the same time?
You think it's just icons?
Quote:
Why was Apple bullying developers into creating rez-independent UIs? SHAME ON APPLE. And shame on the apologists.
Can you show that Apple was "bullying" them? Or is a supposition?
Do you mean "encouraging" them?
It's like telling companies to move to Cocoa. Even Apple hasn't moved there with their large programs yet. Is Apple bullying themselves?
Somehow I doubt if even FCS, or Shake, or possibly most of Apple's programs are ready yet.
And shame on you for saying that we're apologists. You're being highly unrealistic about this. I want to see RI as much as you do.
On glossy notebook screens: [QUOTE=Blah64;1339775]I'm with you. Right now, for the first time in my 29 years of buying Apple computers, Apple doesn't make a machine I can use. Worst decision they've made in many years."
They make computers you can get your own non-apple branded screen for. Mac Pro comes to mind. Mac mini anyone?
They make computers you can get your own non-apple branded screen for. Mac Pro comes to mind. Mac mini anyone?
Come on, this is getting silly. Apple has no headless desktop that it is not a humongous workstation (costing thousands) or a miniature computer. If they should have or not though is another discussion.
Come on, this is getting silly. Apple has no headless desktop that it is not a humongous workstation (costing thousands) or a miniature computer. If they should have or not though is another discussion.
Well, let's all pray to the allmighty Steve that the Mac Mini gets a 9400M soon, if it does, it's just as capable as you want from a desktop machine. Heck, I suppose it'd be good enough for Pro photgraphers then...
... which is a reason NOT to put the 9400M in... I think one of the reasons why a Mini update takes so long is because Apple can't find a way to upgrade it without cannibalizing Pro machine sales. Considering this, no FireWire is a given.
Well, let's all pray to the allmighty Steve that the Mac Mini gets a 9400M soon, if it does, it's just as capable as you want from a desktop machine. Heck, I suppose it'd be good enough for Pro photgraphers then...
... which is a reason NOT to put the 9400M in... I think one of the reasons why a Mini update takes so long is because Apple can't find a way to upgrade it without cannibalizing Pro machine sales. Considering this, no FireWire is a given.
The mini does have the limitation of only having a notebook drive, and would probably use slower chips than the iMacs, I would hope that's enough.
Come on, this is getting silly. Apple has no headless desktop that it is not a humongous workstation (costing thousands) or a miniature computer. If they should have or not though is another discussion.
You didn't say there was a price point to meet
But really then, if a notebook is good enough but a mini is not. Then go get ya a macbook and hook matte monitor up. I've got mine hooked up to a Sony VPL-AW15, sure looks good with that 100" screen and no glare.
Apple has been pushing developers to start to play with resolution independence because when it comes out they want to have most of the software out there already compatible with it (as much as possible at least). But for the moment resolution-independence is mostly a non-issue for current computers. It only becomes meaningful when high-resolution screens (300dpi+) become available. We are starting to hear about some technologies that are being worked on for future screens (OLEDs, e-ink, etc) that will make resolution independence a necessary thing, but they are still a couple of years out.
A couple of years ago I would have said the same thing, but they have been slow in developing. Apple probably was coving their bases on that. And it is a good thing that they have been working on it. The migration path is going to be nasty for some applications that do their own pixel-based drawing, and a number of applications are going to look blurry when scaled because they use pixel-based images in their GUI (which is the best way of doing it at the moment).
Apple has been pushing developers to start to play with resolution independence because when it comes out they want to have most of the software out there already compatible with it (as much as possible at least). But for the moment resolution-independence is mostly a non-issue for current computers. It only becomes meaningful when high-resolution screens (300dpi+) become available. We are starting to hear about some technologies that are being worked on for future screens (OLEDs, e-ink, etc) that will make resolution independence a necessary thing, but they are still a couple of years out.
A couple of years ago I would have said the same thing, but they have been slow in developing. Apple probably was coving their bases on that. And it is a good thing that they have been working on it. The migration path is going to be nasty for some applications that do their own pixel-based drawing, and a number of applications are going to look blurry when scaled because they use pixel-based images in their GUI (which is the best way of doing it at the moment).
I'd really like to hear, just for once, why higher rez screens are required for RI.
It's not likely that people are going to use RI to make things on their screen smaller. The problem now is that with the rez we already have, they are now too small, and hard to see, or read. That higher rez would be useful only if we were to shrink the screen objects so small that we could see or read them with even more difficulty. They will be using it to make things larger, for which use higher rez would serve no purpose.
When you expand the size of objects in RI, you get more pixels making up the objects, and so get a finer look at detail, not less. That's one of the points to it.
It really seems that this nonsense got started a while ago by people who don't understand the purpose of RI, and has been read by others who don't understand, and so repeat it endlessly.
Do you have a logical, technological, explanation as to why higher rez screens are necessary for this, or is it just a "feeling"?
It only becomes meaningful when high-resolution screens (300dpi+) become available.
I don't think that's the only valid use for it, nor does it need to be such an extreme resolution to be useful. I like to sit back from a screen without having to reduce the resolution and make everything blurry.
At 150ppi, you're talking about text being displayed at about half the size it would be on a page because the OS was designed with the assumption that one point equals one pixel.
I don't think that's the only valid use for it, nor does it need to be such an extreme resolution to be useful. I like to sit back from a screen without having to reduce the resolution and make everything blurry.
At 150ppi, you're talking about text being displayed at about half the size it would be on a page because the OS was designed with the assumption that one point equals one pixel.
Bingo. Text already looks eyestrain-small on the 1920x1200 display on the 17" MacBook Pro. And that's nowhere near "300+ ppi".
I think the cost is too high and will be too high come January to remove the White MB from the lineup. I think we have another year before Apple can consider its removal. I have a feeling that it's probably selling pretty well at its new price-point.
I think you're right. Up until recently, I, like a lot of ppl, assumed that the PlasticBook was a goner as of MacWorld.
But then I thought... hmm, keep the PlasticBook around, and...
1) You're under much less pressure to lower the price on the $1299 MetalBook, which is still expensive to make at this point (its still early days on the unibody. Apple has said the unibody costs will fall over time. MWSF seems too early for much of a fall, as Solip says).
2) By now, the margins on the PlasticBook are probably pretty good, even at the $999 pricepoint.
3) There's also quite a recession going on. While I think Apple would LOVE IT if the Macbook line started at 1199 or 1299 (the bastids), now is the exact wrong time for that.
Call me crazy, but I think the PlasticBook is going to be "staying alive" (apologies to the Bee Gees) for quite awhile longer.
Until it meets a Snow Leopard, of course, which will be the PlasticBook's demise.
Those wimpy integrated graphics simply won't do, in regards to OpenCL.
I'd really like to hear, just for once, why higher rez screens are required for RI.
It is the other way around - RI is required for higher rez screens, otherwise the UI is way too small.
The purpose of RI is to scale up (ZOOM IN) the text, images and UI without making them blurry. As you mentioned, even the current displays make the UI too small for some people. With the CRT, you could switch between different resolutions and choose the one you are comfortable with. With the LCD this is no longer true. If you select lower resolution, the display is blurred. The RI is supposed to fix this.
It would be very useful for the current displays too, and for higher resolution displays it is a must. Why higher resolution? With RI and scaling turned on it will give better quality at the same size. It will enable usable full HD on smaller screens as well (some people want this for various reasons).
Comments
*shrugs* How many end users will actually use a database? I'd say there are very few in the market whom Apple targets with their consumer iWorks line.
With that being said, I hope they really improve Pages and Numbers - I'd love to see it finally be a drop in replacement for Microsoft Office 2008 given the crap quality of the Office suite so far.
MS Office compatibility is exactly why a database capable of editing Access files should be included
Some may tell me this was never officially declared a 10.5 feature. While true, Apple twisting developer arms to create resolution independent UIs. FOR WHAT? Apple has been asleep at the switch on this. I'm surprised some developers haven't sued Apple for having been coerced into wasting time on higher resolution UI elements when the OS doesn't support this feature yet.
Fucking Apple. And to everyone that told me to sit and wait 'till the end of the year before whining about this...effe you too.
Taking this further off topic, Whatever happened to the Itablet? I thought there were rumors of this being due January 09 time. Am i the only one waiting for this lol?
Nothing happened to "it". It's ust a rumor. Rumors don't mean that there is a product in the works, just that some would like to think there are.
When the WSJ starts reporting "rumors" then I'd listen, otherwise, don't bother.
The year will end on a sad note. Most people have forgotten that resolution independence was supposed to debute in a point release during the course of this year.
Some may tell me this was never officially declared a 10.5 feature. While true, Apple twisting developer arms to create resolution independent UIs. FOR WHAT? Apple has been asleep at the switch on this. I'm surprised some developers haven't sued Apple for having been coerced into wasting time on higher resolution UI elements when the OS doesn't support this feature yet.
Fucking Apple. And to everyone that told me to sit and wait 'till the end of the year before whining about this...effe you too.
Why was it "supposed to debut"? This was just more wishful thinking. Unless Apple said that they would release it in a point update, there is no reason to think they would do so. It's much more likely that its release as a developers developmental tool as it is now, is exactly what Apple had planned for it during the 10.5 run. I see no reason why developers would be upset if Apple is waiting for 10.6. This isn't something that most developers are drooling over, as are some users here. It will take time for them to do this work, along with all the other work they are doing already. Developers don't want quick changes to OS's and hardware. They want slow, steady, changes so that they can move into it more easily, while overhauling their work on a normal schedule, rather than rushing into new areas that obsolete their current work.
More likely, if enough major developers have modified their products for the debut of 10.6, where it's more likely to be seen, it will be debuting there.
Why was it "supposed to debut"? This was just more wishful thinking. Unless Apple said that they would release it in a point update, there is no reason to think they would do so.
I believe what they said (at WWDC 2006) was "Coming 2008", and that it would not be in the initial release of Leopard as a user-accessible feature.
People read into that quite a lot of stuff.
Amorya
I believe what they said (at WWDC 2006) was "Coming 2008", and that it would not be in the initial release of Leopard as a user-accessible feature.
Apple did list it early on in the Leopard development of Leopard, but I don't recall ever reading about it being a point update. Also, I don't know if I'd classify a beta OS'es talking points as "supposed to debut" when they clearly state "All features on this page are subject to change."
For those who care to wade through archive.org and wait for the pages to load...
Panic had developed a completely rez-independent Coda...for naught. While they may not have changed the UI significantly between 1.0 and 1.6, perhaps 2.0 will sport a different interface and all the work spent on rez-independence in 1.x was for absolutely nothing since 10.5 is unlikely to ever enable rez-independence.
Why was Apple bullying developers into creating rez-independent UIs? SHAME ON APPLE. And shame on the apologists.
As I said, people will be pointing out that it was never promised as a point release feature...HOWEVER, Apple was seriously twisting arms. Apple was telling developers to make their UIs resolution independent. I see EVERY reason why developers should be upset over this.
Panic had developed a completely rez-independent Coda...for naught. While they may not have changed the UI significantly between 1.0 and 1.6, perhaps 2.0 will sport a different interface and all the work spent on rez-independence in 1.x was for absolutely nothing since 10.5 is unlikely to ever enable rez-independence.
Have you any evidence that Apple stated that this would be available for a 10.5 release version to the public?
And what about all of the developers who have complex programs? Panics stuff is nice, but it's hardly complex. Pretty simple, actually.
I would be pretty surprised if most developers would have been happy if Apple popped in with RI for 10.5.
Don't you believe in breathing room? Look how long it took for the large programs to get updated as it is. Do you expect that the companies would be happy to have to re-do their interfaces the same time?
You think it's just icons?
Why was Apple bullying developers into creating rez-independent UIs? SHAME ON APPLE. And shame on the apologists.
Can you show that Apple was "bullying" them? Or is a supposition?
Do you mean "encouraging" them?
It's like telling companies to move to Cocoa. Even Apple hasn't moved there with their large programs yet. Is Apple bullying themselves?
Somehow I doubt if even FCS, or Shake, or possibly most of Apple's programs are ready yet.
And shame on you for saying that we're apologists. You're being highly unrealistic about this. I want to see RI as much as you do.
They make computers you can get your own non-apple branded screen for. Mac Pro comes to mind. Mac mini anyone?
They make computers you can get your own non-apple branded screen for. Mac Pro comes to mind. Mac mini anyone?
Come on, this is getting silly. Apple has no headless desktop that it is not a humongous workstation (costing thousands) or a miniature computer. If they should have or not though is another discussion.
Come on, this is getting silly. Apple has no headless desktop that it is not a humongous workstation (costing thousands) or a miniature computer. If they should have or not though is another discussion.
Well, let's all pray to the allmighty Steve that the Mac Mini gets a 9400M soon, if it does, it's just as capable as you want from a desktop machine. Heck, I suppose it'd be good enough for Pro photgraphers then...
... which is a reason NOT to put the 9400M in... I think one of the reasons why a Mini update takes so long is because Apple can't find a way to upgrade it without cannibalizing Pro machine sales. Considering this, no FireWire is a given.
Well, let's all pray to the allmighty Steve that the Mac Mini gets a 9400M soon, if it does, it's just as capable as you want from a desktop machine. Heck, I suppose it'd be good enough for Pro photgraphers then...
... which is a reason NOT to put the 9400M in... I think one of the reasons why a Mini update takes so long is because Apple can't find a way to upgrade it without cannibalizing Pro machine sales. Considering this, no FireWire is a given.
The mini does have the limitation of only having a notebook drive, and would probably use slower chips than the iMacs, I would hope that's enough.
Come on, this is getting silly. Apple has no headless desktop that it is not a humongous workstation (costing thousands) or a miniature computer. If they should have or not though is another discussion.
You didn't say there was a price point to meet
But really then, if a notebook is good enough but a mini is not. Then go get ya a macbook and hook matte monitor up. I've got mine hooked up to a Sony VPL-AW15, sure looks good with that 100" screen and no glare.
A couple of years ago I would have said the same thing, but they have been slow in developing. Apple probably was coving their bases on that. And it is a good thing that they have been working on it. The migration path is going to be nasty for some applications that do their own pixel-based drawing, and a number of applications are going to look blurry when scaled because they use pixel-based images in their GUI (which is the best way of doing it at the moment).
Apple has been pushing developers to start to play with resolution independence because when it comes out they want to have most of the software out there already compatible with it (as much as possible at least). But for the moment resolution-independence is mostly a non-issue for current computers. It only becomes meaningful when high-resolution screens (300dpi+) become available. We are starting to hear about some technologies that are being worked on for future screens (OLEDs, e-ink, etc) that will make resolution independence a necessary thing, but they are still a couple of years out.
A couple of years ago I would have said the same thing, but they have been slow in developing. Apple probably was coving their bases on that. And it is a good thing that they have been working on it. The migration path is going to be nasty for some applications that do their own pixel-based drawing, and a number of applications are going to look blurry when scaled because they use pixel-based images in their GUI (which is the best way of doing it at the moment).
I'd really like to hear, just for once, why higher rez screens are required for RI.
It's not likely that people are going to use RI to make things on their screen smaller. The problem now is that with the rez we already have, they are now too small, and hard to see, or read. That higher rez would be useful only if we were to shrink the screen objects so small that we could see or read them with even more difficulty. They will be using it to make things larger, for which use higher rez would serve no purpose.
When you expand the size of objects in RI, you get more pixels making up the objects, and so get a finer look at detail, not less. That's one of the points to it.
It really seems that this nonsense got started a while ago by people who don't understand the purpose of RI, and has been read by others who don't understand, and so repeat it endlessly.
Do you have a logical, technological, explanation as to why higher rez screens are necessary for this, or is it just a "feeling"?
It only becomes meaningful when high-resolution screens (300dpi+) become available.
I don't think that's the only valid use for it, nor does it need to be such an extreme resolution to be useful. I like to sit back from a screen without having to reduce the resolution and make everything blurry.
At 150ppi, you're talking about text being displayed at about half the size it would be on a page because the OS was designed with the assumption that one point equals one pixel.
I don't think that's the only valid use for it, nor does it need to be such an extreme resolution to be useful. I like to sit back from a screen without having to reduce the resolution and make everything blurry.
At 150ppi, you're talking about text being displayed at about half the size it would be on a page because the OS was designed with the assumption that one point equals one pixel.
Bingo. Text already looks eyestrain-small on the 1920x1200 display on the 17" MacBook Pro. And that's nowhere near "300+ ppi".
...
I think the cost is too high and will be too high come January to remove the White MB from the lineup. I think we have another year before Apple can consider its removal. I have a feeling that it's probably selling pretty well at its new price-point.
I think you're right. Up until recently, I, like a lot of ppl, assumed that the PlasticBook was a goner as of MacWorld.
But then I thought... hmm, keep the PlasticBook around, and...
1) You're under much less pressure to lower the price on the $1299 MetalBook, which is still expensive to make at this point (its still early days on the unibody. Apple has said the unibody costs will fall over time. MWSF seems too early for much of a fall, as Solip says).
2) By now, the margins on the PlasticBook are probably pretty good, even at the $999 pricepoint.
3) There's also quite a recession going on. While I think Apple would LOVE IT if the Macbook line started at 1199 or 1299 (the bastids), now is the exact wrong time for that.
Call me crazy, but I think the PlasticBook is going to be "staying alive" (apologies to the Bee Gees) for quite awhile longer.
Until it meets a Snow Leopard, of course, which will be the PlasticBook's demise.
Those wimpy integrated graphics simply won't do, in regards to OpenCL.
...
I'd really like to hear, just for once, why higher rez screens are required for RI.
It is the other way around - RI is required for higher rez screens, otherwise the UI is way too small.
The purpose of RI is to scale up (ZOOM IN) the text, images and UI without making them blurry. As you mentioned, even the current displays make the UI too small for some people. With the CRT, you could switch between different resolutions and choose the one you are comfortable with. With the LCD this is no longer true. If you select lower resolution, the display is blurred. The RI is supposed to fix this.
It would be very useful for the current displays too, and for higher resolution displays it is a must. Why higher resolution? With RI and scaling turned on it will give better quality at the same size. It will enable usable full HD on smaller screens as well (some people want this for various reasons).