iMac manual
in [Mac Systems]
|
Prev: Help With Mac Security! MacBookPro Hacked?
Next: now with a timestamp and log... but still no clue: Re: MacBook Pro automatically shuts down after a while... really don't know why...
From: Doug Anderson on 19 Mar 2010 19:31 Lewis <g.kreme(a)gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes: > In message <piljdov042.fsf(a)ethel.the.log> Doug > <ethelthelogremovethis(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Lewis <g.kreme(a)gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes: > > >> In message <180320102204095306%nospam(a)nospam.invalid> nospam > >> <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > >> > In article <slrnhq612n.u0.g.kreme(a)cerebus.local>, Lewis > >> > <g.kreme(a)gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > >> >> >> Make sure that in "Universal Access" (er... was that renamed > >> in 10.6?) > >> >> >> "Zoom" is turned on. Show him how to zoom the screen by holding the > >> >> >> control key while sliding his finger on the top of the magic mouse. > >> >> > > >> >> > which is effectively the same thing as changing the native resolution, > >> >> > just a lot more work. > >> >> No it's not. Not at all. Not even a little bit. > >> > of course it is. either way, the pixels get interpolated. > >> No, that's not at all accurate. > > > It _seems_ accurate. > > It seems accurate, but it isn't. When you do a ctrl+scroll what the > system does is take a portion of the screen and zoom it up. It does not > re-interpolate that portion of the screen at all. What you see is exactly > what is there, only bigger. I don't understand this. When I look at the screen at its native resolution, every pixel is in use. If I "zoom it up" to 1.5 times original size, I _haven't_ made the pixels 1.5 times bigger - the pixels are physical, and I can't change their size. To make this clearer, imagine there are 4 pixels, b for black, w for white at native resolution arranged in a square like this: bw wb If I zoom it up by 1.5 times original size, that image is now 9 pixels. How do you assert they are lit in order to "exactly what is there, only bigger?" > You can see the difference if you have a flat panel that can do 'half' > resolution (really, 1/4th res) where the hight and width are half the > native rez. Set the machine to that and look at it. It will be a little > fuzzy, but not to the extend if you zoom in on 1/4 of your full > screen. I don't understand this.
From: nospam on 19 Mar 2010 19:36 In article <slrnhq7u6n.q58.g.kreme(a)cerebus.local>, Lewis <g.kreme(a)gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > It seems accurate, but it isn't. When you do a ctrl+scroll what the > system does is take a portion of the screen and zoom it up. It does not > re-interpolate that portion of the screen at all. What you see is exactly > what is there, only bigger. how does it zoom it up, without interpolating it? there is no longer a 1:1 mapping of the image data to the display pixels. it *must* interpolate. > You can see the difference if you have a flat panel that can do 'half' > resolution (really, 1/4th res) where the hight and width are half the > native rez. Set the machine to that and look at it. It will be a little > fuzzy, but not to the extend if you zoom in on 1/4 of your full screen. post screen shots.
From: Fred Moore on 20 Mar 2010 12:22
In article <C7C97FEC.55295%nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid>, Nick Naym <nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid> wrote: > In article fmoore-6BAF0E.12064019032010(a)mail.eternal-september.org, Fred > Moore at fmoore(a)gcfn.org wrote on 3/19/10 12:06 PM: > > > In article <tom_stiller-83B47A.17322018032010(a)news.individual.net>, > > Tom Stiller <tom_stiller(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> In article <fmoore-102731.15090918032010(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > >> Fred Moore <fmoore(a)gcfn.org> wrote: > >> > >>> Richard, my wife tried progressives, and they made her terminally > >>> nauseous. > >> > >> They killed her? > > > > Well, okay, Mr. Literal. Zheesh, must be an engineer! ;) Fortunately, > > my wife is still alive and kicking. Unlike my experience, progressive > > lenses gave my wife headaches and made her want to vomit. I was using > > the word 'terminal', in the current colloquial form for 'very', > > 'extremely', or 'to the nth degree', as in 'When they gave the boy a > > large bowl of his favorite ice cream, he was terminally happy.' The > > usage ariginated in the 60s IIRC, but then I do remember at least part > > of the 60s so perhaps I wasn't really there. > > Fred, I'm just guessing, here...but I'm willing to bet that Tom was pulling > your leg. ;) Right, which is why I took care to put the winking smiley in my response (and I'm an engineer myself). Since he made the effort to post the comment, I felt I should respond. No offense meant to Tom. Besides, a large bowl of my favorite ice cream is a wonderful thing to contemplate! All together now: YYUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM... |