Mac OS X 10.6.4 now out
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Finder find broken
Next: OS X 10.6.4 and widemail
From: D.M. Procida on 18 Jun 2010 05:15 Chris Ridd <chrisridd(a)mac.com> wrote: > > I presume that the iPhone operating system is now pretty much > > resolution-independent. > > No, it has optimized bitmaps for the resolutions in actual devices. That's OK for known OS furniture, and for things like icons, but what about everything else in my applications? Many bitmapped things won't like being scaled; it's also difficult to decide how something like a line's width should adapt to the new resolution (should it maintain the same relative width?, for example) without explicit instruction. Daniele
From: Woody on 18 Jun 2010 05:25 On 18/06/2010 10:15, D.M. Procida wrote: > Chris Ridd<chrisridd(a)mac.com> wrote: > >>> I presume that the iPhone operating system is now pretty much >>> resolution-independent. >> >> No, it has optimized bitmaps for the resolutions in actual devices. > > That's OK for known OS furniture, and for things like icons, but what > about everything else in my applications? > > Many bitmapped things won't like being scaled; I think they will get over it. > it's also difficult to > decide how something like a line's width should adapt to the new > resolution (should it maintain the same relative width?, for example) > without explicit instruction. It has got explicit instruction, osx graphics always had. Unlike old graphics methods where you used integers to draw lines etc, OSX always had floating point numbers, so the actual resolution doesn't make that much of a difference, as long as it is an even multiple. Ordinary bitmap graphics are doubled, unless you program for the new display. So there is no difficulty. -- Woody
From: D.M. Procida on 18 Jun 2010 05:54 Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > it's also difficult to > > decide how something like a line's width should adapt to the new > > resolution (should it maintain the same relative width?, for example) > > without explicit instruction. > > It has got explicit instruction, osx graphics always had. Unlike old > graphics methods where you used integers to draw lines etc, OSX always > had floating point numbers, so the actual resolution doesn't make that > much of a difference, as long as it is an even multiple. > Ordinary bitmap graphics are doubled, unless you program for the new > display. > > So there is no difficulty. It seems like true resolution independence is on the way. Imagine an iMac or MacBook with a 300dpi screen! Daniele
From: Sak Wathanasin on 18 Jun 2010 07:35
On 18 June, 10:54, real-not-anti-spam-addr...(a)apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote: > It seems like true resolution independence is on the way. > > Imagine an iMac or MacBook with a 300dpi screen! I'm not sure the bank will give me another mortgage in the current economic climate... Xerox demo'ed a 300 dpi screen many years ago, but you needed to own an oilfield or two to be able to afford one. |