Apple!! READ THIS RE: POWERBOOK RESOLUTION

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 28
    Powerbook's display looks lame next to the 12.1" iBook. Yeah it's bigger, but the iBook's display is higher quality, much sharper with better contrast because of it's greater pixel density.



    I agree, the Titanium should have at least the same DPI as the iBook, if not better.



    And OS X should be resolution independent. I don't understand why Apple hasn't implemented an adjustable interface, with a slider in the preferences for changing the size of the GUI. As someone already mentioned, this is the best solution, and I believe OS X has the technological underpinnings for this, doesn't it?



    Since Apple has moved to all LCD displays, it is even more important to have a resolution independent OS. If users are locked into a certain display resolution, then the GUI's size should be adjustable. Apple had a perfect opportunity to implement this in OS X, and they neglected it. LAME move.
  • Reply 22 of 28
    in case anyone cares, a powerbook w/the same dpi as the 12.1" ibook would have a resolution of 1335 x 890 (give or take a few pixels).
  • Reply 23 of 28
    Anything above 1400 horizontal pixels will be too small, IMO. I hate HATE HATED the Dell laptops at work when they jumped from 1024 to 1400. I wanted to strangle a goat......



    SDA
  • Reply 24 of 28
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    I actually looked at a couple of think pads a while ago and found that the models using ATI (the same 8meg version Apple used) scaled very nicely from higher res down. Almost no blocky weirdness, just a little softness, but that was compensated for by the larger size. It would be perfectly acceptable if you wanted to drop the reolution to pick up the frame rates for a game. I dunno if you'd wanna work this way though. Isn't one of the keys to OSX's graphical goodness it's ability to scale/zoom/control windows and their contents' size? It doesn't do this yet, but I think the whole point of quartz (besides looking nice) is to integrate the technologies that make such control possible. This would obviate the need to drop the res for all but a demanding 3-d shoot'em up.



    By comparison, another thinkpad on the same display used a cyberblade chipset and it looked awful when scaled down. So, scaling should be OK on a good quality graphics implementation, but I still think that anything over SXGA+ (1440/1400) is too much for a laptop screen.
  • Reply 25 of 28
    Well, if you can't beat 'em....

    There are certain things I find to be constant in this forum, going years back...



    -Nothing is ever big enough

    -Nothing is ever fast enough

    -As soon as posters' "dream machines" of yesterday come out, it's time to start complaining about why its still not enough.



    So sure. Bump that f*cker's resolution. Bump it twice.



    -S
  • Reply 26 of 28
    [quote]Originally posted by SpiffyGuyC:

    <strong>Well, if you can't beat 'em....

    There are certain things I find to be constant in this forum, going years back...



    -Nothing is ever big enough

    -Nothing is ever fast enough

    -As soon as posters' "dream machines" of yesterday come out, it's time to start complaining about why its still not enough.



    So sure. Bump that f*cker's resolution. Bump it twice.



    -S</strong><hr></blockquote>



    <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
  • Reply 27 of 28
    majukimajuki Posts: 114member
    [quote]Originally posted by SpiffyGuyC:

    <strong>Well, if you can't beat 'em....

    There are certain things I find to be constant in this forum, going years back...



    -Nothing is ever big enough

    -Nothing is ever fast enough

    -As soon as posters' "dream machines" of yesterday come out, it's time to start complaining about why its still not enough.



    So sure. Bump that f*cker's resolution. Bump it twice.



    -S</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Heh. Why do people bash on people bashing Apple? The company doesn't make all of the right moves. Usually, when they take a step forward, they do something to take a step back.
  • Reply 28 of 28
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Junkyard Dawg wrote:



    [quote]<strong>And OS X should be resolution independent. I don't understand why Apple hasn't implemented an adjustable interface, with a slider in the preferences for changing the size of the GUI. As someone already mentioned, this is the best solution, and I believe OS X has the technological underpinnings for this, doesn't it?



    Since Apple has moved to all LCD displays, it is even more important to have a resolution independent OS. If users are locked into a certain display resolution, then the GUI's size should be adjustable. Apple had a perfect opportunity to implement this in OS X, and they neglected it. LAME move.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Classic apps measure everything in literal pixels, so OS X would have to find a way to scale every single classic window without its knowledge (possible, but expensive). OpenGL also works in literal pixels, so it would have to be scaled as well, which would kill framerates.



    Quartz notwithstanding, the Aqua HI guidelines also measure things in literal pixels, which makes it easier to port apps to Carbon, and (perhaps) easier to port old NeXTStep apps as well.



    Rendering a vector-based image takes two steps: First, you calculate all the points you have to draw, and then you snap them to a grid sized to the actual onscreen pixels. (Omni learned the latter part while porting OmniWeb - it made the text come out a lot nicer). Now, imagine doing this for every single widget of every single window on screen. Apple's already getting heat for the OS X interface; going all vector now would have hurt performance even more, and forced Carbon developers to totally reconceive their UIs, and even the way they think about them.



    The hooks are there, but the hardware isn't yet, Apple didn't need yet another feature pulling OS X behind schedule, and the developers didn't want one more hurdle to clear in order to port their apps to X. Also, there aren't high enough resolution LCDs at reasonable prices to really justify the technology yet. A truly resolution independent UI will come when Classic is long dead and Apple is ready to retire Aqua. The hardware should be up to the task by then.
Sign In or Register to comment.