iTunes 9.1.1 and artwork
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Rowland McDonnell on 17 May 2010 03:44 Jim <jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > >> > >> Your original post made no mention of Coverflow. > > > > Not in name, no - but it was talking only about coverflow, because at > > the time, from what I could recall, that's the only way to view big > > album artwork in iTunes. > > > > That point did get cleared up, and eventually everyone understood that > > this thread was all about the iTunes coverflow display. > > > > Or so I thought - so why are you being such a pain? > > Your only route now is, like I said, to file a bug report with Apple if you > truly think it's a problem. [snip] Mmm - odd response to my question, Jim. Are you living in some parallel universe whereby the words you read on your screen are the words written by a parallel-universe version of me, and due to some weird space-time warp, the messages are swapping over to the wrong reality? Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Jim on 17 May 2010 03:50 On 2010-05-17, Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: >> > >> > That point did get cleared up, and eventually everyone understood that >> > this thread was all about the iTunes coverflow display. >> > >> > Or so I thought - so why are you being such a pain? >> >> Your only route now is, like I said, to file a bug report with Apple if you >> truly think it's a problem. > [snip] > > Mmm - odd response to my question, Jim. > > Are you living in some parallel universe whereby the words you read on > your screen are the words written by a parallel-universe version of me, > and due to some weird space-time warp, the messages are swapping over to > the wrong reality? No, I'm just ignoring your insults and trying to answer your questions. If you want an argument, fine. If you want an answer to your question, fine. Make up your mind. Jim -- Twitter:@GreyAreaUK "[The MP4-12C] will be fitted with all manner of pointlessly shiny buttons that light up and a switch that says 'sport mode' that isn't connected to anything." The Daily Mash.
From: Peter Ceresole on 17 May 2010 04:04 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > Really? That's odd, that - I thought it was all about the subject of > this thread which I started, which was all about iTunes's coverflow > display. No it wasn't. You didn't mention coverflow, so a number of us checked and found that the display was excellent. It was only when you mentioned coverflow, some way in, that it became clear what you meant. -- Peter
From: Woody on 17 May 2010 04:55 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > > > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > Moreover: whatever code does the coverflow display in iTunes, whatever > > > > > methods are applied, the resolution of the displayed images is always > > > > > much less than the resolution of the original image. > > > > > > > > No it isn't. I am looking at a series of 57 by 57 images in coverflow at > > > > at least 400x400. How can that be much less? > > > > > > I do not understand your question. > > And I still don't understand it. No surprise, given that you've made no > attempt to explain yourself. That is becasue I fail to understand how you can not understand. You claim that the displayed resolution of the displayed image in coverflow is _always much less than the the resolution of the original image_ . I want to know how you cannot understand that if your original image is 300x300 pixels and you were displaying it at (say) 500 x 500 pixels you beleive it could be true. > > > Absolutely all of them are lower quality than the original artwork as > > > pasted in to iTunes. > > > > > > I have seen zero exceptions. > > > > So? What does your experience have to do with the fact your incorrect > > assumption that the resolution on coverflow is always lower when it > > clearly isn't always? > > [snip] > > When you claim `clearly isn't always', in response to me saying it > clearly looks that way always to me, I fail to understand your mind. That doesn't surprise me. I am saying that it is irrelevent that you have not seen any exceptions as to whether something happens or not. And in this case, anyone who could apply any sort of thought to the subject would realise that what you claim (that it is always lower resolution) cannot be true. -- Woody
From: Bella Jones on 17 May 2010 07:17
Jim <jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote: > On 2010-05-17, Rowland McDonnell > <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: >> > > >> > That point did get cleared up, and eventually everyone understood that > >> > this thread was all about the iTunes coverflow display. > >> > > >> > Or so I thought - so why are you being such a pain? > >> > >> Your only route now is, like I said, to file a bug report with Apple if you > >> truly think it's a problem. > > [snip] > > > > Mmm - odd response to my question, Jim. > > > > Are you living in some parallel universe whereby the words you read on > > your screen are the words written by a parallel-universe version of me, > > and due to some weird space-time warp, the messages are swapping over to > > the wrong reality? > > No, I'm just ignoring your insults and trying to answer your questions. > > If you want an argument, fine. If you want an answer to your question, fine. > > Make up your mind. Get your ocelot's spleens here! -- bellajonez at yahoo dot co dot uk |