Mac OS X 10.6.4 now out
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Finder find broken
Next: OS X 10.6.4 and widemail
From: SM on 17 Jun 2010 11:40 Elliott Roper <nospam(a)yrl.co.uk> wrote: > > > I'm waiting to see what the next Pro looks like. I was going to fling > > > this one at the home cinema, drive it with an iPad and buy a shiny new > > > Pro. > > > > > > The mini option arrives and starts me on a road of being saner. Mini at > > > the cinema, keep this one, and wait for a v2 iPad. > > > > It's been a long wait for the Pro hasn't it? I'm so glad I gave up and > > bought a second hand one. > > I'm a sad old sucker for grunt. I deffo won't buy until the latest is > > 4x performance of what I have. This is a 2.6GHz 1,1 with 4870 graphics > and it still ain't /that/ shabby. I've got a 2.8 2,1 8-core - goes like the clappers compressing as a virtual cluster. I've got a 4870 but not installed yet since I've been really busy. I think it's got a 2600 in it which is pretty limp. > On the subject 10.6.4 they were not lying about full screen mode in > Aperture. It is /almost/ usable, which is a great step forward. Well, > it is pretty OK really. The only thing it still does seriously wrong is > brushes don't work on the second monitor. Aperture seems much faster > overall as though it is using the graphics card more betterer. I haven't yet upgraded to Aperture 3. > errk! Am I talking myself into an expensive upgrade? I waited for years (seemed like it anyway) for an update to the base 8-core since I wouldn't pay the extra �1000 for a faster pair of processors. I've been doing some light editing on an i5 27" iMac. I could get used to the long long timeline although I miss the HDMI out to an HD monitor which my Pro's got. I hope the Pro update will be good when it eventually arrives. Stuart -- cut that out to reply
From: Bruce Horrocks on 17 Jun 2010 13:00 On 16/06/2010 19:12, James Jolley wrote: >> The mini option arrives and starts me on a road of being saner. Mini at >> the cinema, keep this one, and wait for a v2 iPad. > > That's actually not a bad idea you know. For me, i'm waiting for version > 2 of the iPad myself, just because I don't think you get much for you're > money right now from the perspective of a blind user. I'm guessing the > updated version will have camera, but i'm also hoping more memory and a > faster proc. Ironically, I'm hoping that the v2 iPad will have the same pixel density screen as the new iPhone. -- Bruce Horrocks Surrey England (bruce at scorecrow dot com)
From: Ben Shimmin on 18 Jun 2010 03:41 Bruce Horrocks <07.013(a)scorecrow.com>: [...] > Ironically, I'm hoping that the v2 iPad will have the same pixel density > screen as the new iPhone. Which would give it more pixels than the 27" iMac. To be fair, the iPad does seem a little low-res -- and it will definitely feel that way in comparison with the iPhone 4. Something like 1440x1080 would be pretty nice. b. -- <bas(a)bas.me.uk> <URL:http://bas.me.uk/> `Zombies are defined by behavior and can be "explained" by many handy shortcuts: the supernatural, radiation, a virus, space visitors, secret weapons, a Harvard education and so on.' -- Roger Ebert
From: D.M. Procida on 18 Jun 2010 04:09 Ben Shimmin <bas(a)llamaselector.com> wrote: > Bruce Horrocks <07.013(a)scorecrow.com>: > > [...] > > > Ironically, I'm hoping that the v2 iPad will have the same pixel density > > screen as the new iPhone. > > Which would give it more pixels than the 27" iMac. > > To be fair, the iPad does seem a little low-res -- and it will definitely > feel that way in comparison with the iPhone 4. Something like 1440x1080 > would be pretty nice. I presume that the iPhone operating system is now pretty much resolution-independent. Otherwise, I can see how the fabled retinal screen could render type (and images with aware applications) with super-duper smoothness, but everything else on the screen would have to be made out of doubled-up pixels or something. What happens to an application's icons - that were say 20x20px - when rendered on the new iPhone? True resolution independence requires vector graphics for almost everything. Daniele
From: Chris Ridd on 18 Jun 2010 04:53
On 2010-06-18 09:09:23 +0100, D.M. Procida said: > Ben Shimmin <bas(a)llamaselector.com> wrote: > >> Bruce Horrocks <07.013(a)scorecrow.com>: >> >> [...] >> >>> Ironically, I'm hoping that the v2 iPad will have the same pixel density >>> screen as the new iPhone. >> >> Which would give it more pixels than the 27" iMac. >> >> To be fair, the iPad does seem a little low-res -- and it will definitely >> feel that way in comparison with the iPhone 4. Something like 1440x1080 >> would be pretty nice. > > I presume that the iPhone operating system is now pretty much > resolution-independent. No, it has optimized bitmaps for the resolutions in actual devices. > Otherwise, I can see how the fabled retinal screen could render type > (and images with aware applications) with super-duper smoothness, but > everything else on the screen would have to be made out of doubled-up > pixels or something. > > What happens to an application's icons - that were say 20x20px - when > rendered on the new iPhone? They're scaled. > True resolution independence requires vector graphics for almost > everything. Yes. However that's not practical, read <http://mrgan.tumblr.com/post/708404794/ios-app-icon-sizes> for some details. -- Chris |