Was Quicktime made more quad-CPU capable? Current versions max out at two CPU utilization, some codecs can't take advantage of more than one CPU. Was MPEG-2 encoding made multi-CPU capable? iDVD takes forever to encode regardless of the number of CPUs because it will only use one CPU, or 50% of each of two CPUs, or maybe 25% of each of four CPUs.
Was there any mention of being able to assign processes to specific CPUs?
This is one reason why I decided to wait, rather than rushing out and buying a Quad.
Apple is aware of this, but they had bigger fish to fry, hopefully, now they will have done something about it, as so many have complained.
It also makes their equipment look underpowered (again!).
I hate to be ants at a picnic, but resolutions independence is going to require a lot of changes that have to be implemented in the code of an application, particularly for graphics applications.
Since this wasn't mentioned at the keynote, the only way this is going into Leopard is if it's a big part of the NDA'd material, and even then, lots of people's apps will get screwed up.
I'm sad too.. that was one feature I was really looking forward too.
Yes. This has been discussed before. Apple can do this on their own. If even the only thing that used it at first was the finder, there would be a big enough group of happy people (such as myself) that Apple, and others, would see the competitive advantage to it. But it could take a year when apps got upgraded before we would see a significent number of them using it. Small apps would go first.
"if control over the look of your Web page is your biggest concern, then you should use pixels. Pixels are the standard unit of measure for screens and monitors, and fonts will be more precisely the size you want on the screen."
Well then, what they are saying is simply incorrect. This should be obvjous too. My Sony 24" monitor is normally run at 1920 x 1200. If I halve the rez to 960 x 600, are you going to tell me that the pixels are the same size? And if someone else has a 19" that they run at 1920 x 1200, are you going to say that those pixels are the same as well?
Unless they are talking about some fixed size screen.
Otherwise the fonts clearly won't be the same size. What they will have is the same APPEARENCE. The same number of pixels will keep the font detail the same, even though the fonts themselves will vary in size.
I don't know what they are thinking, because without reading the rest of the article, something else they said might clear that up. But, as it stands, it's wrong.
Yes however using Points or EM will break your design no matter what. Fonts rendered in Pixels will always be rendered the same size in proportion to images and other elements. I do not see how using Points will work better than Pixels in resolution independence.
Ideally any resolution independence would look at the font size and enlarge it or shrink it the same way it does images.
You just changed what you said before.
That's a poor way to do a web page. The font size should be able to change for different monitor sizes. The designer can always lock the images to the text to keep it where it should be. But on larger screens, the type simply gets too small to read comfortably. That's why browsers, such as Safari allow the user to spec the size fonts will appear.
Anything else is very poor design. The elements should be allowed to move as type size varies. too many pages don't do that. You change the font size, and the type overlays itself onto other screen elements. Very bad.
Whoever wrote that article is thinking like a paper designer. Magazine pages are fixed. The designer knows exactly what is available to them. Not true on the computer. Designers MUST learn that their precious designs have to exist within that space.
For the web FreeState is right that a pixel is resolution independent. You can read from Dave Hyatt where he explains that css pixels do not equal device pixels. Kind of confusing but that's the W3C for you.
For the web FreeState is right that a pixel is resolution independent. You can read from Dave Hyatt where he explains that css pixels do not equal device pixels. Kind of confusing but that's the W3C for you.
Except that he, too, gets things confused. pt and cm ARE absolute values.
He confuses that issues a couple of times. Once he says that pt is not absolute, the next time, he says that it is.
But, a CSS pixel is not what had been discussed here before. He is correct when he says that web designers don't understand the difference between a CSS pixel and a "real" device pixel. But the idea of calling the CSS point of measure a pixel, was bound to cause confusion.
Both em and ex are differently related, because em is not a point value at all. It is a relative measurement, which traditionally is equal to the width of the capital "M".
Except that he, too, gets things confused. pt and cm ARE absolute values.
He confuses that issues a couple of times. Once he says that pt is not absolute, the next time, he says that it is.
I would suspect that Hyatt knows a little bit more about units and CSS than most people, and it is you who is misunderstanding what he means.
It is correct that he starts by saying that no units are absolute, but the part where he calls pt absolute is just because that's what they are called - absolute or not.
I would suspect that Hyatt knows a little bit more about units and CSS than most people, and it is you who is misunderstanding what he means.
It is correct that he starts by saying that no units are absolute, but the part where he calls pt absolute is just because that's what they are called - absolute or not.
You would would be wrong in that. My publishing industry experience goes back to the early '70's. Absolute measurement standards are just that. They have been defined by internationally recognized groups. Neither he, nor you, can change that. If some want to bastardize standards, that is never a good thing.
Adding additional standards for newer methods of publication is a different situtation. But taking recognized terms, and attempting to fit them into a different standard, with a different definition, is bad.
Absolute units are physical standards. The cm is one of the most well known of those. It isn't a relative measurement, and it doesn't change its value. Pt is defined in terms of the inch, and also by the cm. Digital pts are 72 per inch, and physical pts are slightly smaller.
CSS standards are very different. When you understand it, come back to me.
I was going to reply to FreeState but Melgross pretty much nailed it; you shouldn't use pixels for fonts because of accesibility issues and pt and cm are absolute. What isn't? Ems and percentages. Also description words. Telling a font to be "large" or "x-large" isn't absolute because its up to the browser and host OS to determine what those words mean. If you said 2.54cm or something, THAT is absolute.
It goes back to two design philosphies really; and its based on either giving visitors options and allowing them to choose within limits (using relative font sizing, for example) or that as designer you know best (pixels for all). The former worries more of accessiblity, of readability across not only screens but media.
You can make pixel perfect blah, but I'm gonna have a min. font size that will blow it apart. And don't think you can get away from it by making tiny fonts into graphics!
Regardless of what Mr. Hyatt is saying or even thinking, its wrong. What he may be describing might not be, but how he goes about describing it is. Measured units (think a ruler) ARE absolute. He just can't call them otherwise.
Here, I'm a respected and popular member of my field OK? See that glass of water in your hands, its not a liquid, its a solid. You can drink it you say? It must be a liquid? No, no, its a solid. I said so. A standards bodies backs me up. Solid. Drink your solid water.
Same deal. Right Melgross?
Oh and resolution indepenance would be great because I like thinks larger then normal on the screen. And all those other features are snazzy too. Hehe.
To specify 2.54cm is absolute, but the end result isn't. 2.54cms have no meaning whatsoever on a screen, so you know nothing (nor should you) about how big or small the result will appear.
To specify 2.54cm is absolute, but the end result isn't. 2.54cms have no meaning whatsoever on a screen, so you know nothing (nor should you) about how big or small the result will appear.
WRONG ANSWER!
Pixels have WIDTH and HEIGHT, once the OS has this information, GAME OVER!
Pixels have WIDTH and HEIGHT, once the OS has this information, GAME OVER!
You should get off your cancer-induction, then get back to this discussion. I didn't even mention pixels in my post; I mentioned centimeters, but even if I had, we've already established in this thread that, for better or worse, CSS pixels do not correspond to device pixels. This is especially the case on advanced graphics engines like Quartz, where device subpixels are heavily used, enabling strokes to be thinner than a regular device pixel.
To specify 2.54cm is absolute, but the end result isn't. 2.54cms have no meaning whatsoever on a screen, so you know nothing (nor should you) about how big or small the result will appear.
Sure about that?
Since the OS knows the device dpi, rendering exactly 2.54cm is within it's capability. Whether that's what actually happens, I've no idea as I've not used absolute positioning web design like that in years.
Freestate, please read some decent articles about web design, not the shit on about.com. http://alistapart.com/articles/elastic/ has a good summation of the problem of resolution independence as far as the web goes and suggests a solution. You should free yourself from using the pixel as a design crutch.
You should get off your cancer-induction, then get back to this discussion. I didn't even mention pixels in my post; I mentioned centimeters, but even if I had, we've already established in this thread that, for better or worse, CSS pixels do not correspond to device pixels. This is especially the case on advanced graphics engines like Quartz, where device subpixels are heavily used, enabling strokes to be thinner than a regular device pixel.
Doesn't matter!
You'rer still mapping AND scaling whatever it is your doing to a 2D PHYSICAL SPACE. IT HAS WIDTH, IT HAS HEIGHT!
Comments
Was Quicktime made more quad-CPU capable? Current versions max out at two CPU utilization, some codecs can't take advantage of more than one CPU. Was MPEG-2 encoding made multi-CPU capable? iDVD takes forever to encode regardless of the number of CPUs because it will only use one CPU, or 50% of each of two CPUs, or maybe 25% of each of four CPUs.
Was there any mention of being able to assign processes to specific CPUs?
This is one reason why I decided to wait, rather than rushing out and buying a Quad.
Apple is aware of this, but they had bigger fish to fry, hopefully, now they will have done something about it, as so many have complained.
It also makes their equipment look underpowered (again!).
I hate to be ants at a picnic, but resolutions independence is going to require a lot of changes that have to be implemented in the code of an application, particularly for graphics applications.
Since this wasn't mentioned at the keynote, the only way this is going into Leopard is if it's a big part of the NDA'd material, and even then, lots of people's apps will get screwed up.
I'm sad too.. that was one feature I was really looking forward too.
Yes. This has been discussed before. Apple can do this on their own. If even the only thing that used it at first was the finder, there would be a big enough group of happy people (such as myself) that Apple, and others, would see the competitive advantage to it. But it could take a year when apps got upgraded before we would see a significent number of them using it. Small apps would go first.
From the link I posted:
"if control over the look of your Web page is your biggest concern, then you should use pixels. Pixels are the standard unit of measure for screens and monitors, and fonts will be more precisely the size you want on the screen."
Well then, what they are saying is simply incorrect. This should be obvjous too. My Sony 24" monitor is normally run at 1920 x 1200. If I halve the rez to 960 x 600, are you going to tell me that the pixels are the same size? And if someone else has a 19" that they run at 1920 x 1200, are you going to say that those pixels are the same as well?
Unless they are talking about some fixed size screen.
Otherwise the fonts clearly won't be the same size. What they will have is the same APPEARENCE. The same number of pixels will keep the font detail the same, even though the fonts themselves will vary in size.
I don't know what they are thinking, because without reading the rest of the article, something else they said might clear that up. But, as it stands, it's wrong.
Every screen renders pixels the exact same size, points and EM's are rendered different from system to system and monitors.
You have it exactly backwards.
Yes however using Points or EM will break your design no matter what. Fonts rendered in Pixels will always be rendered the same size in proportion to images and other elements. I do not see how using Points will work better than Pixels in resolution independence.
Ideally any resolution independence would look at the font size and enlarge it or shrink it the same way it does images.
You just changed what you said before.
That's a poor way to do a web page. The font size should be able to change for different monitor sizes. The designer can always lock the images to the text to keep it where it should be. But on larger screens, the type simply gets too small to read comfortably. That's why browsers, such as Safari allow the user to spec the size fonts will appear.
Anything else is very poor design. The elements should be allowed to move as type size varies. too many pages don't do that. You change the font size, and the type overlays itself onto other screen elements. Very bad.
Whoever wrote that article is thinking like a paper designer. Magazine pages are fixed. The designer knows exactly what is available to them. Not true on the computer. Designers MUST learn that their precious designs have to exist within that space.
Too many don't. Hence that article.
Ideally any resolution independence would look at the font size and enlarge it or shrink it the same way it does images.
You just crapped on your own argument.
http://webkit.opendarwin.org/blog/
(read the part about CSS units part way down)
For the web FreeState is right that a pixel is resolution independent. You can read from Dave Hyatt where he explains that css pixels do not equal device pixels. Kind of confusing but that's the W3C for you.
http://webkit.opendarwin.org/blog/
(read the part about CSS units part way down)
Except that he, too, gets things confused. pt and cm ARE absolute values.
He confuses that issues a couple of times. Once he says that pt is not absolute, the next time, he says that it is.
But, a CSS pixel is not what had been discussed here before. He is correct when he says that web designers don't understand the difference between a CSS pixel and a "real" device pixel. But the idea of calling the CSS point of measure a pixel, was bound to cause confusion.
Both em and ex are differently related, because em is not a point value at all. It is a relative measurement, which traditionally is equal to the width of the capital "M".
Except that he, too, gets things confused. pt and cm ARE absolute values.
He confuses that issues a couple of times. Once he says that pt is not absolute, the next time, he says that it is.
I would suspect that Hyatt knows a little bit more about units and CSS than most people, and it is you who is misunderstanding what he means.
It is correct that he starts by saying that no units are absolute, but the part where he calls pt absolute is just because that's what they are called - absolute or not.
I would suspect that Hyatt knows a little bit more about units and CSS than most people, and it is you who is misunderstanding what he means.
It is correct that he starts by saying that no units are absolute, but the part where he calls pt absolute is just because that's what they are called - absolute or not.
You would would be wrong in that. My publishing industry experience goes back to the early '70's. Absolute measurement standards are just that. They have been defined by internationally recognized groups. Neither he, nor you, can change that. If some want to bastardize standards, that is never a good thing.
Adding additional standards for newer methods of publication is a different situtation. But taking recognized terms, and attempting to fit them into a different standard, with a different definition, is bad.
Absolute units are physical standards. The cm is one of the most well known of those. It isn't a relative measurement, and it doesn't change its value. Pt is defined in terms of the inch, and also by the cm. Digital pts are 72 per inch, and physical pts are slightly smaller.
CSS standards are very different. When you understand it, come back to me.
It goes back to two design philosphies really; and its based on either giving visitors options and allowing them to choose within limits (using relative font sizing, for example) or that as designer you know best (pixels for all). The former worries more of accessiblity, of readability across not only screens but media.
You can make pixel perfect blah, but I'm gonna have a min. font size that will blow it apart. And don't think you can get away from it by making tiny fonts into graphics!
Regardless of what Mr. Hyatt is saying or even thinking, its wrong. What he may be describing might not be, but how he goes about describing it is. Measured units (think a ruler) ARE absolute. He just can't call them otherwise.
Here, I'm a respected and popular member of my field OK? See that glass of water in your hands, its not a liquid, its a solid. You can drink it you say? It must be a liquid? No, no, its a solid. I said so. A standards bodies backs me up. Solid. Drink your solid water.
Same deal. Right Melgross?
Oh and resolution indepenance would be great because I like thinks larger then normal on the screen. And all those other features are snazzy too. Hehe.
Certainly
To specify 2.54cm is absolute, but the end result isn't. 2.54cms have no meaning whatsoever on a screen, so you know nothing (nor should you) about how big or small the result will appear.
WRONG ANSWER!
Pixels have WIDTH and HEIGHT, once the OS has this information, GAME OVER!
WRONG ANSWER!
Pixels have WIDTH and HEIGHT, once the OS has this information, GAME OVER!
You should get off your cancer-induction, then get back to this discussion. I didn't even mention pixels in my post; I mentioned centimeters, but even if I had, we've already established in this thread that, for better or worse, CSS pixels do not correspond to device pixels. This is especially the case on advanced graphics engines like Quartz, where device subpixels are heavily used, enabling strokes to be thinner than a regular device pixel.
To specify 2.54cm is absolute, but the end result isn't. 2.54cms have no meaning whatsoever on a screen, so you know nothing (nor should you) about how big or small the result will appear.
Sure about that?
Since the OS knows the device dpi, rendering exactly 2.54cm is within it's capability. Whether that's what actually happens, I've no idea as I've not used absolute positioning web design like that in years.
Freestate, please read some decent articles about web design, not the shit on about.com. http://alistapart.com/articles/elastic/ has a good summation of the problem of resolution independence as far as the web goes and suggests a solution. You should free yourself from using the pixel as a design crutch.
You should get off your cancer-induction, then get back to this discussion. I didn't even mention pixels in my post; I mentioned centimeters, but even if I had, we've already established in this thread that, for better or worse, CSS pixels do not correspond to device pixels. This is especially the case on advanced graphics engines like Quartz, where device subpixels are heavily used, enabling strokes to be thinner than a regular device pixel.
Doesn't matter!
You'rer still mapping AND scaling whatever it is your doing to a 2D PHYSICAL SPACE. IT HAS WIDTH, IT HAS HEIGHT!
Like I said, GAME OVER!
Um, duh? And?
WRONG ANSWER!