This is great news. In my mind, OS-level scaling of the interface can't arrive soon enough. Resolution independence will open the door to ever higher pixel densities without excluding those with poor eyesight.
Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
So I fully expect that Tiger (or some subsequent release) will swap in vectors for the current bitmaps wherever possible. There are some things (icons) which will probably remain bitmaps for the sake of speed or simplicity, but if Apple does this even half right then any bitmap can be swapped with a vector image at any time, and the system simply uses one scaling algorithm instead of another.
Amorph: Interesting comment on coexisting vector and bitmap interface elements. I hadn't thought of it that way, but your theory is quite plausible.
Yup. And it seems that Apple's moving from a 14-mo. dev. schedule to something closer to a 18-mo. dev. schedule, so.... unless they're preparing something really revolutionary.... 2007 for Tiger's successor would be a good bet.
However, there's also nothing keeping Apple from 1) actually adding the user access prior to Tiger's 2005 release, or 2) adding such in a point release.
This is great news. In my mind, OS-level scaling of the interface can't arrive soon enough. Resolution independence will open the door to ever higher pixel densities without excluding those with poor eyesight.
Amorph: Interesting comment on coexisting vector and bitmap interface elements. I hadn't thought of it that way, but your theory is quite plausible.
Escher
Especially since, even back with Mac OS 10.0, I was able to use vector graphics icons, at least for Cocoa apps: The reason is simply that Cocoa apps support any image format supported by NSImage. (I was even able to use vector EPS files for icons back in NeXTstep, for the same reason.)
That's great! As screens move towards 200 DPI we are really going to need this. But it's staying in my Apple Mac OS X Wish List until I have it in front of me! ;-)
Resolution independence will open the door to ever higher pixel densities without excluding those with poor eyesight.
Escher
Or even those of us with good eyesight but who prefer the WYSIWYG of 1" on screen equalling 1" on paper. It really throws me that my TiBook (91 ppi) shows items smaller than my desktop with a CRT (72 ppi). It's like looking at two clocks whose times don't match, or visiting the house of someone who sets their clocks 20 minutes ahead. Arghhh! I want 1"=1" again!
Or even those of us with good eyesight but who prefer the WYSIWYG of 1" on screen equalling 1" on paper. It really throws me that my TiBook (91 ppi) shows items smaller than my desktop with a CRT (72 ppi). It's like looking at two clocks whose times don't match, or visiting the house of someone who sets their clocks 20 minutes ahead. Arghhh! I want 1"=1" again!
That's exactly it. The ability to change the UI size to fit the requirements of the moment.
Nothing about this requires the whole screen to have the same logical resolution, either. You could have the desktop + icons at 100ppi, which Apple is now claiming is "optimal," a web page rendered at 96ppi, which is the W3C standard, and a Classic app running at 72ppi, all simultaneously, on a 200dpi screen — with any vector elements (e.g., text) rendered at the full native resolution of the screen and scaled to real-world measures like points and inches and centimeters.
Heck, they could even make a "point" actually correspond to a point, rather than 1/72". Not that there's that much difference, but it's the little things that Apple's known for.
Comments
Looks like they already found a way to burn that extra processing power unlocked by QE/expose/coreimage.
Originally posted by Amorph
So I fully expect that Tiger (or some subsequent release) will swap in vectors for the current bitmaps wherever possible. There are some things (icons) which will probably remain bitmaps for the sake of speed or simplicity, but if Apple does this even half right then any bitmap can be swapped with a vector image at any time, and the system simply uses one scaling algorithm instead of another.
Amorph: Interesting comment on coexisting vector and bitmap interface elements. I hadn't thought of it that way, but your theory is quite plausible.
Escher
Originally posted by Hobbes
Yup. And it seems that Apple's moving from a 14-mo. dev. schedule to something closer to a 18-mo. dev. schedule, so.... unless they're preparing something really revolutionary.... 2007 for Tiger's successor would be a good bet.
However, there's also nothing keeping Apple from 1) actually adding the user access prior to Tiger's 2005 release, or 2) adding such in a point release.
Originally posted by Escher
This is great news. In my mind, OS-level scaling of the interface can't arrive soon enough. Resolution independence will open the door to ever higher pixel densities without excluding those with poor eyesight.
Amorph: Interesting comment on coexisting vector and bitmap interface elements. I hadn't thought of it that way, but your theory is quite plausible.
Escher
Especially since, even back with Mac OS 10.0, I was able to use vector graphics icons, at least for Cocoa apps: The reason is simply that Cocoa apps support any image format supported by NSImage. (I was even able to use vector EPS files for icons back in NeXTstep, for the same reason.)
Cheers Daniel
Originally posted by Escher
Resolution independence will open the door to ever higher pixel densities without excluding those with poor eyesight.
Escher
Or even those of us with good eyesight but who prefer the WYSIWYG of 1" on screen equalling 1" on paper. It really throws me that my TiBook (91 ppi) shows items smaller than my desktop with a CRT (72 ppi). It's like looking at two clocks whose times don't match, or visiting the house of someone who sets their clocks 20 minutes ahead. Arghhh! I want 1"=1" again!
-boo
Originally posted by Boodlums
Or even those of us with good eyesight but who prefer the WYSIWYG of 1" on screen equalling 1" on paper. It really throws me that my TiBook (91 ppi) shows items smaller than my desktop with a CRT (72 ppi). It's like looking at two clocks whose times don't match, or visiting the house of someone who sets their clocks 20 minutes ahead. Arghhh! I want 1"=1" again!
That's exactly it. The ability to change the UI size to fit the requirements of the moment.
Heck, they could even make a "point" actually correspond to a point, rather than 1/72". Not that there's that much difference, but it's the little things that Apple's known for.