Kaiser_soze it's not a problem unless people, nor just you, think it is a problem.
If you want larger text you need to decrease the resolution. If not increase it. Apple played with resolution independence on OS X before and I think there is a way to turn it on even now. It didn't work for all apps so they abandoned it.
You are incorrect. Changing the screen resolution to something other than its native resolution has a horrible effect overall, and this is not the least bit acceptable as a means to address this problem. And I seriously doubt if Apple ever offered this capability in OS X. If they had, they would have kept it for the benefit not of applications, but for the benefit of the menu bar, and the windows that are managed by the system software. It is EXCEEDINGLY unlikely that they would have gone to the effort to develop this capability and after having done so they would have simply tossed it out. In fact, this suggestion is ludicrous at face value.
But this has been addressed in Lion. Try Googling for Lion HiDPI.
Basically if you have a 2560 x 1440 monitor (e.g. Cinema Display, iMac 27), then in Display Preferences you will now see two modes: 2560 x 1440 and 1280x720 (HiDPI). The HiDPI mode actually use 2560 x 1440 pixels to give you a 1280x720 mode that is highly detailed, with all the fonts properly scaled up as you said. And it looks beautiful.
It's not full resolution independence (which was abandoned), since it can't adapt to arbitrary resolutions: it requires that it always double in the vertical and horizontal. But I was thinking the other day: is that really an invalid assumption? Because other things in computers tend to grow exponentially so once pixel densities start to move, might they not too?
Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
The point you make regarding Apple's evident, present assumption being invalid is correct, and this is exactly what I also perceived within the first 30 seconds that I read the first article that turned up in the Google search. Your comments corroborate with what I inferred when I read that article: that rather than provide a flexible scaling capability, Apple has evidently cooked up a solution that will work well only for a very narrow range of physical pixel density, matching the physical density for "retinal display". It is as if someone decided that displays come in two varieties: "retinal display" and "displays that are not retinal displays". If this is what they have done, then they still have not done what they need to do. Physical pixel densities cover a broad gamut, and the solution should be flexible.
A useful analogy here is PDF files with embedded graphics. As long as the embedded graphic has sufficient inherent resolution, you can zoom in on the document and the graphic will remain sharp on the display. When you zoom in on the graphic, the graphic is mapped to a greater quantity of display pixels. This is precisely what you need to be able to do, no more and no less, with the menu bar and the text that appears in it, and all of the various windows that are presented under the control of system software, as opposed to a particular application. The mere fact that this capability exists for PDF files proposes, and has for a very long time, to anyone except for the people who defend Apple as if their own sense of personal self-worth depends on doing so, that this is the way that system-generated text and graphics for the display should be done.
I struggle with this because this is something that to me is perfectly self-evident. To me the present situation is not appreciably different from the problem that would exist if, upon buying a new printer with finer resolution, everything that I printed came out smaller. It is manifest to me that this is not acceptable. It is manifest to me that in order to deal in an adequately flexible way with the variety of native resolution that you find with printers, that a fully flexible approach to scaling is inherently necessary. To my way of thinking it is precisely the same with the monitor. There should be no forced correlation whatsoever between the physical pixel density of the screen and the physical size of text and graphics that appear on the screen, especially in the case of text and graphics placed on the screen by the system software.
To my way of thinking it is preposterous that something this obvious and fundamental should have to be explained here. It is manifestly the case that there are a lot of people here who simply take for granted that Apple is perfect, and who think that the way that Apple does something is always the way it should be done, and who, driven by this manner of thinking, have refuted what I have said. What I know to be true about these people is that if it were the other way around, i.e., if Apple did this the way it should be done and MS Windows did it the cheap way that Apple does it, these same people will immediately proclaim that it is obvious that this capability is absolutely essential and that the reason that MS doesn't have this capability is because MS are idiots. This is precisely what all the Apple-apologists would say. And they would gang up like a pack of wild dogs on anyone who dared to say otherwise.
Even though I abhor MS and Windows and hate to say anything that favors Windows over OSX, the fact is that Windows handles system-generated text and graphics in precisely this manner that is manifestly needed, and in fact Windows has done this for about as long as I can recall. I cannot even recall how far back you would have to go in the evolution of Windows to find the point in time when system-generated graphics were handled in a manner as crude as what Apple still thinks is adequate. I think it would have been at least fifteen years ago, back to the very earliest versions.
You are confused about this option. The "Use LCD font smoothing when available" refers only to subpixel rendering, not font anti-aliasing.
Try it. Zoom in on some text with LCD font smoothing turned on. See how the edges of the letters are colored? Then quit that app, turn off LCD font smoothing, start the app again and zoom in on the text again. See how the edges of the letters are now grayscale?
Nope. I am not the least bit confused. You are confused. Ah, but why would I say something this boorish to a complete stranger? Because he said it to me first? Nope. I try not to play that game. Rather, the reason is that I did not say anything whatsoever about subpixel rendering vs. anti-aliasing. Not a single, solitary word.
I really, really abhor comments of the sort that you made, that pretend to add clarification where in reality it is obfuscation. Pretentious, pretentious, pretentious. I abhor pretentiousness. Especially when someone's tendency toward pretentiousness is so uncontrolled that they insult strangers. When you write something like "You are confused ...", this should be based in substantive fact, not in something that you dreamed up in your head because you wanted to make it look like you knew more about something than someone else. In order for what you wrote to be sincere, you have have to start by defining the difference between sub-pixel rendering and anti-aliasing.
We can't hide this under the carpet anymore, Resolution Independence is a real, evident, and grave shortcoming of the os and sugar coating with make this pill any easier to swallow...
We can't hide this under the carpet anymore, Resolution Independence is a real, evident, and grave shortcoming of the os and sugar coating with make this pill any easier to swallow...
Is there even one thread about resolution independence on any Windows forum anywhere?
It's quite evident that not only is this a vocal minority, it's a vocal minority that will cut people's heads off for even suggesting that they shut up about it because it's no more important than any of the other thousand fringe-case features that people want. Heck, there are a dozen or so other changes that Apple should be making before resolution independence.
Is there even one thread about resolution independence on any Windows forum anywhere?
Heck, there are a dozen or so other changes that Apple should be making before resolution independence.
no there isn't because windows has ri, and no there aren't resolution independence is a must, I chuck my 27" inch imac and 11" air out the window otherwise.
No it doesn’t. WPF is nice and I wish Apple had it’s own intermediate option but this is not RI the way Apple tried to make an RI (and failed) and the way some early OSes did, ilke Amiga.
Does 10.7 include 32-bit kernels? If so, does it boot by default from a 32-bit or 64-bit kernel?
The system requirements for Lion are a 64-bit processor. This is probably mostly done for security reasons but there is likely some truth to simply trimming the R&D on the comparatively very few Intel Macs with 32-bit processors that were sold.
Lion does include the Open in 32-bit mode for apps just like Snow Leopard, but that, of course, doesn?t have anything to do with the kernel, just thought I?d mention it still be part of the future OS.
The system requirements for Lion are a 64-bit processor. This is probably mostly done for security reasons but there is likely some truth to simply trimming the R&D on the comparatively very few Intel Macs with 32-bit processors that were sold.
Lion does include the Open in 32-bit mode for apps just like Snow Leopard, but that, of course, doesn?t have anything to do with the kernel, just thought I?d mention it still be part of the future OS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcarling
Does 10.7 include 32-bit kernels? If so, does it boot by default from a 32-bit or 64-bit kernel?
I thought I'd read somewhere on these forums people managing to boot in 32bit kernels. That may be disabled by the time it comes out, I'd imagine.
I thought I'd read somewhere on these forums people managing to boot in 32bit kernels. That may be disabled by the time it comes out, I'd imagine.
Yeah, it?s possible, but with Preview 3 out and very stable* without any sign of support for CoreDuo chips I would say that Apple will not be supporting them.
I'm surprised how buggy Launch Pad still is when trying to arrange icons. Makes me wonder if they're going to be able to get it right.
Hmm. I've had no trouble. You're running Preview 3, right? Launchpad is written well enough to be actually usable now, as opposed to any point in Preview 2.
Comments
Kaiser_soze it's not a problem unless people, nor just you, think it is a problem.
If you want larger text you need to decrease the resolution. If not increase it. Apple played with resolution independence on OS X before and I think there is a way to turn it on even now. It didn't work for all apps so they abandoned it.
You are incorrect. Changing the screen resolution to something other than its native resolution has a horrible effect overall, and this is not the least bit acceptable as a means to address this problem. And I seriously doubt if Apple ever offered this capability in OS X. If they had, they would have kept it for the benefit not of applications, but for the benefit of the menu bar, and the windows that are managed by the system software. It is EXCEEDINGLY unlikely that they would have gone to the effort to develop this capability and after having done so they would have simply tossed it out. In fact, this suggestion is ludicrous at face value.
But this has been addressed in Lion. Try Googling for Lion HiDPI.
Basically if you have a 2560 x 1440 monitor (e.g. Cinema Display, iMac 27), then in Display Preferences you will now see two modes: 2560 x 1440 and 1280x720 (HiDPI). The HiDPI mode actually use 2560 x 1440 pixels to give you a 1280x720 mode that is highly detailed, with all the fonts properly scaled up as you said. And it looks beautiful.
It's not full resolution independence (which was abandoned), since it can't adapt to arbitrary resolutions: it requires that it always double in the vertical and horizontal. But I was thinking the other day: is that really an invalid assumption? Because other things in computers tend to grow exponentially so once pixel densities start to move, might they not too?
Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
The point you make regarding Apple's evident, present assumption being invalid is correct, and this is exactly what I also perceived within the first 30 seconds that I read the first article that turned up in the Google search. Your comments corroborate with what I inferred when I read that article: that rather than provide a flexible scaling capability, Apple has evidently cooked up a solution that will work well only for a very narrow range of physical pixel density, matching the physical density for "retinal display". It is as if someone decided that displays come in two varieties: "retinal display" and "displays that are not retinal displays". If this is what they have done, then they still have not done what they need to do. Physical pixel densities cover a broad gamut, and the solution should be flexible.
A useful analogy here is PDF files with embedded graphics. As long as the embedded graphic has sufficient inherent resolution, you can zoom in on the document and the graphic will remain sharp on the display. When you zoom in on the graphic, the graphic is mapped to a greater quantity of display pixels. This is precisely what you need to be able to do, no more and no less, with the menu bar and the text that appears in it, and all of the various windows that are presented under the control of system software, as opposed to a particular application. The mere fact that this capability exists for PDF files proposes, and has for a very long time, to anyone except for the people who defend Apple as if their own sense of personal self-worth depends on doing so, that this is the way that system-generated text and graphics for the display should be done.
I struggle with this because this is something that to me is perfectly self-evident. To me the present situation is not appreciably different from the problem that would exist if, upon buying a new printer with finer resolution, everything that I printed came out smaller. It is manifest to me that this is not acceptable. It is manifest to me that in order to deal in an adequately flexible way with the variety of native resolution that you find with printers, that a fully flexible approach to scaling is inherently necessary. To my way of thinking it is precisely the same with the monitor. There should be no forced correlation whatsoever between the physical pixel density of the screen and the physical size of text and graphics that appear on the screen, especially in the case of text and graphics placed on the screen by the system software.
To my way of thinking it is preposterous that something this obvious and fundamental should have to be explained here. It is manifestly the case that there are a lot of people here who simply take for granted that Apple is perfect, and who think that the way that Apple does something is always the way it should be done, and who, driven by this manner of thinking, have refuted what I have said. What I know to be true about these people is that if it were the other way around, i.e., if Apple did this the way it should be done and MS Windows did it the cheap way that Apple does it, these same people will immediately proclaim that it is obvious that this capability is absolutely essential and that the reason that MS doesn't have this capability is because MS are idiots. This is precisely what all the Apple-apologists would say. And they would gang up like a pack of wild dogs on anyone who dared to say otherwise.
Even though I abhor MS and Windows and hate to say anything that favors Windows over OSX, the fact is that Windows handles system-generated text and graphics in precisely this manner that is manifestly needed, and in fact Windows has done this for about as long as I can recall. I cannot even recall how far back you would have to go in the evolution of Windows to find the point in time when system-generated graphics were handled in a manner as crude as what Apple still thinks is adequate. I think it would have been at least fifteen years ago, back to the very earliest versions.
You are confused about this option. The "Use LCD font smoothing when available" refers only to subpixel rendering, not font anti-aliasing.
Try it. Zoom in on some text with LCD font smoothing turned on. See how the edges of the letters are colored? Then quit that app, turn off LCD font smoothing, start the app again and zoom in on the text again. See how the edges of the letters are now grayscale?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpixel_rendering
Nope. I am not the least bit confused. You are confused. Ah, but why would I say something this boorish to a complete stranger? Because he said it to me first? Nope. I try not to play that game. Rather, the reason is that I did not say anything whatsoever about subpixel rendering vs. anti-aliasing. Not a single, solitary word.
I really, really abhor comments of the sort that you made, that pretend to add clarification where in reality it is obfuscation. Pretentious, pretentious, pretentious. I abhor pretentiousness. Especially when someone's tendency toward pretentiousness is so uncontrolled that they insult strangers. When you write something like "You are confused ...", this should be based in substantive fact, not in something that you dreamed up in your head because you wanted to make it look like you knew more about something than someone else. In order for what you wrote to be sincere, you have have to start by defining the difference between sub-pixel rendering and anti-aliasing.
I've been having this horrible thought lately. What happens when we run out of really cool, big cat names for OS X?
Here's an even more horrible thought: Lion is the last version of OS X as we know it. After that it will be a unified iOS.
We can't hide this under the carpet anymore, Resolution Independence is a real, evident, and grave shortcoming of the os and sugar coating with make this pill any easier to swallow...
Is there even one thread about resolution independence on any Windows forum anywhere?
It's quite evident that not only is this a vocal minority, it's a vocal minority that will cut people's heads off for even suggesting that they shut up about it because it's no more important than any of the other thousand fringe-case features that people want. Heck, there are a dozen or so other changes that Apple should be making before resolution independence.
Does anyone have problem with Quick Look locked at a small dimension? Anyway to fix it?
You're saying the dimensions of the window don't change when you cycle between images?
Is there even one thread about resolution independence on any Windows forum anywhere?
Heck, there are a dozen or so other changes that Apple should be making before resolution independence.
no there isn't because windows has ri, and no there aren't resolution independence is a must, I chuck my 27" inch imac and 11" air out the window otherwise.
no there isn't because windows has ri...
No it doesn’t. WPF is nice and I wish Apple had it’s own intermediate option but this is not RI the way Apple tried to make an RI (and failed) and the way some early OSes did, ilke Amiga.
Does 10.7 include 32-bit kernels? If so, does it boot by default from a 32-bit or 64-bit kernel?
The system requirements for Lion are a 64-bit processor. This is probably mostly done for security reasons but there is likely some truth to simply trimming the R&D on the comparatively very few Intel Macs with 32-bit processors that were sold.
Lion does include the Open in 32-bit mode for apps just like Snow Leopard, but that, of course, doesn?t have anything to do with the kernel, just thought I?d mention it still be part of the future OS.
The system requirements for Lion are a 64-bit processor. This is probably mostly done for security reasons but there is likely some truth to simply trimming the R&D on the comparatively very few Intel Macs with 32-bit processors that were sold.
Lion does include the Open in 32-bit mode for apps just like Snow Leopard, but that, of course, doesn?t have anything to do with the kernel, just thought I?d mention it still be part of the future OS.
Does 10.7 include 32-bit kernels? If so, does it boot by default from a 32-bit or 64-bit kernel?
I thought I'd read somewhere on these forums people managing to boot in 32bit kernels. That may be disabled by the time it comes out, I'd imagine.
no there isn't because windows has ri
You've completely missed the point of the question.
, and no there aren't resolution independence is a must,
Could you rewrite this to make sense? I think this is what I'm looking for, but I can't understand it.
I thought I'd read somewhere on these forums people managing to boot in 32bit kernels. That may be disabled by the time it comes out, I'd imagine.
Yeah, it?s possible, but with Preview 3 out and very stable* without any sign of support for CoreDuo chips I would say that Apple will not be supporting them.
* Well, I have had zero issues with it.
I'm surprised how buggy Launch Pad still is when trying to arrange icons. Makes me wonder if they're going to be able to get it right.
Hmm. I've had no trouble. You're running Preview 3, right? Launchpad is written well enough to be actually usable now, as opposed to any point in Preview 2.