Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Mac OS X Lion (10.7)' started by zoran, Jun 7, 2011.
Did this feature come up finally in Lion?
No. I think I read somewhere that it even got worse.
Just bought a 27" iMac, and the system text is so small on the screen that it is hard to read. No way to increase the size.
Fortunately the fonts in Mail can be adjusted, but not so in iCal and in Address Book.
One would think that when Apple introduced a hi res 27" monitor they would have considered giving users some eye relief.
One would think that users would choose the appropriate screen for themselves.
The 27" iMac, while fairly high resolution, isn't high enough to warrant resolution independence. I can see it no problem, as can the majority of users. I understand completely that, just because I can see it easily, doesn't mean you can. However, that's what adjusting the resolution is for. Just lower the resolution, and everything gets bigger.
No question that some RI would be nice, but I don't see it as anywhere close to necessary on today's high-res screens. Screens of that pixel density haven't become practical to manufacture.
Not trying to bash OS X in favor of Windows here, but doesn't Windows 7 offer a simple way to scale all text/icons/UI features without the additional pixelation you'd get if you changed the screen to a lower non-native resolution. It'd be pretty useful if Apple incorporated a feature like that into OS X.
I agree with you, but use the zoom feature (in your system preferences on mouse) where you hold the command key(defualt but can be change) and scroll up and it zooms in.
Yes, Windows 7 does that quite nicely . . . . but it isn't a Mac
That is no longer available in Lion. Instead you must remember the keyboard shortcut.
No this is totally on Apple, esp. since they regard themselves as "User Friendly". Right now RI may not be necessary on a 27" screen but wait a few more years when we have "Retina" screen with densely packed pixels. Seriously, how difficult could it be to institute RI, at least on a system wide level?
Not true. The Zoom-feature works exactly the same as it did under 10.6 and before.
The default key is 'ctrl' though, not 'cmd'.
Lion includes a Hi-Res mode like the one in iOS, with a 2x scaling. It works.
Resolution is not what affects how large items appear on screen, it's pixel density. The higher the pixel density, the more can be fit on screen, so items appear smaller.
The 27" iMac actually has one of the lowest pixel densities of any of Apple's current displays, even lower than the 13" MBP.
Wrong and wrong.
You mean the imac has one of the highest pixel densities first.
And second resolution does affect how large things appear on screen if the os does not have resolution independence that's the whole point we are talking about. With the same pixel density of you downgrade to another resolution, a non native one (one that lcds are not meant to run at since they become fuzzy), a smaller one, items do become larger.
The user has a real problem that I happen to share, that as pixel densities become higher no resolution independence means that in the native resolution (the one lcd screens are meant to run in) system fonts become smaller and smaller with no way to enlarge them system wide. He posts his issue here and he gets a constant flow of apologists talking nonsense just because apple refuses to adequately address this issue once and for all.
Still no luck with the service pack to lion that is mountain lion... Let's wait for hi res desktop screens and shell out more cash it seems apple is saying to get a functionality that windoze has had way back when... What a greedy self serving way to address a problem millions of people are having from apple's aging demographic.
27" 108.79 PPI
21.5" 102.46 PPI
17" 133.19 PPI
15" 121.88 PPI
15" HR 128.65 PPI
13.3" 113.49 PPI
13.3" 135.09 PPI
11.6" 140.71 PPI
Correct but resolution on it's own doesn't effect how large things appear on screen until you factor in the dimensions of the display.
I know. Which is why I did not contest this.
No you don't know, and you did contest this, because when you claim that
and yet pixel density can be expressed as resolution on a set size of display, as the resolution goes up, the pixel density goes up on the same sized display.
I read quickly through your reply, and misunderstood the first part because the imac does have a low pixel density compared to the mobile screens, although it's one of the highest ppi monitors available currently for desktops. It's size and resolution AND the distance it's meant to be used make it extremely uncomfortable for reading system font what with apple's insistence on not fixing this issue.
Apple have opted for some half baked "solution" in doubling the pixel density for hidpi screens of the future, and it's all one can have at the moment, and provided they install dev tools, without of course all the elements of the os looking good since they haven't implemented it yet. There's also quartz debug way of setting dpi for fonts from tiger and leopard which still looks like s... they way it did all these years ago.
Thanks for the apple apologism, but the simple matter remains is that they haven't year over year over year done anything to fix a long standing request and problem, and what with resolutions constantly increasing people are finding it extremely hard to read system font on the os.
The way it is now is rubbish for legibility, there are no good work arounds, and to keep insisting it isn't rubbish and it isn't giving people usability problems is incredibly infuriating.
This is what I was highlighting when I said "resolution is not what affects how large items appear on screen", it is dependant on the resolution and display size. Obviously they're proportional at a fixed size. There is no disagreement here. I was trying to highlight the fact that some people seem to think the iMac's display had a 'high' pixel density due to its massive display, without working actually working out the PPI. I'm also not contesting anything you've said about resolution independence (that's the first time I've mentioned it in this thread).
We are cool bro.
Well written, and on point.