And with Apple offering HD downloads or at least full DVD quality downloads I don't think there'd be one person bitching about it...
that you cant watch on a tv easily...i wonder why
And with Apple offering HD downloads or at least full DVD quality downloads I don't think there'd be one person bitching about it...
I've seen hdtv, it does look sharper than regular tv. And? To me, standard definition tv delivers about 95% of the entertainment that hdtv does, and most downloaded video gives me about 95% also, just using a different mix of variables. I have a very strong visual sense, but beyond a certain point you reach diminishing returns in terms of entertainment.
My biggest complaint about the menu bar is that when you have 6+ windows on screen there have been times I've gone to the menubar to do [insert action here] and I've had the wrong window\app active. when its integrated into the window its just there. That being said I like the way its integrated into the menubar because IMHO its a waste to have the same menus spread across multiple windows. There are pros and cons to both ways of doing it. I haven't decided which I like the best. There must be a happy medium between the two designs but what?
I sure hope someone from Apple reads these Mac forums, preferably Steve Jobs himself. Otherwise how will they know what we want? Does anyone know if there's any better/official way to get our point across to Apple?
So Diatribe, if for some reason you feel like now that you've seen hdtv that standard definition tv is no longer entertaining enough to you, then that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. But if you look at the fast increasing rate at which people are choosing to use highly compressed media and then look at the rate at which old uncompressed media are declining and the slow rate of adoption for new high definition mediums, then you'll see that most people don't share the same opinion. So if iTunes downloads aren't high definition enough for you, then that's a perfectly acceptable opinion to hold, but that doesn't mean Apple is doing anything wrong in the quality it offers.
No offense, but you do not have a "very strong visual sense" if you think standard def gives "95% of the entertainment that hdtv does" (whatever that means). This is true for little kids or people who just don't care, which is fine. But if you knew how to judge quality you would not make an absurd comment like that.
that you cant watch on a tv easily...i wonder why
I sure as heck hope you're not suggesting we go through a UI "switch" every five or so years. When something is broken, it needs to be fixed, but it'd take a heck of an argument to convince me that the OS X UI metaphor is broken. When these subtle accents (such as the purported use of Core Animation throughout now) come together with the UI, it forms a new and -- more importantly -- improved experience. The changes made to Office 2007, on the other hand, are where UI redesign and rethinking can fix an outstanding issue.
Even having said all that, what sort of UI "revolution" are you looking for here, and in what way are the "minor tweaks" not alluding to or accomodating of an overall change in UI direction? Expose, Spotlight, Front Row and Time Machine are all in step with changing the way we interface with our computers. How are these not UI "revolutions?"
If I'm picking up on what you may mean, Apple's canned various "revolutionary" efforts in the past -- such as the 3D Finder project -- and I think we should understand why that might be. Project Looking Glass from Sun may be cool, but why do we need to flip a window around in 3D space to attach a note to the back of it? Xgl may be neat, but what is in Xgl that Apple can't implement with Quartz/the Core Foundation frameworks? I guess my question is -- if Apple isn't implementing UI changes, then who else is implementing revolutionary UI changes?
I find it a bit interesting that you may believe Apple is sitting on their thumbs, simply because they fail to demo anything that lies within your view of "truly revolutionary." The best progress takes time so that each piece can be implemented with thought, care, and refinement. I see Apple's direction as being the most ideal. As a general curiousity, what sort of practical changes do you recommend they implement in Leopard that would radically change the OS X metaphor such that it could be deemed "revolutionary," while improving it at the same time?
No offense, but you do not have a "very strong visual sense" if you think standard def gives "95% of the entertainment that hdtv does" (whatever that means). This is true for little kids or people who just don't care, which is fine. But if you knew how to judge quality you would not make an absurd comment like that.
No offense, but you do not have a "very strong visual sense" if you think standard def gives "95% of the entertainment that hdtv does" (whatever that means). This is true for little kids or people who just don't care, which is fine. But if you knew how to judge quality you would not make an absurd comment like that.
And why is AeroXP posting such pics, if it is a Windows-fanboy website? Is it to enable copying of features by Microsoft?
I think it's more of a sign of things to come. Notice that all the new features that have been coming out lately have involved the use of floating "shadow" boxes or rich black backgrounds (iLife from '05, Quicktime 7, Coverflow, Front Row, Quick Look, my Adium theme , Time Machine, etc.)? All the long-standing features are still the same, as one would expect this far out in development. The poorly scaling UI widgets and the puzzling lack of Finder improvements also seem to point to this. If you look at Quick Look in particular, you can see a strong embodiment of what Illuminous potentially will be--light use of transparency, consistent rich smoke and black colors (but not overbearing--bright, vibrant colors still pop in the previews), and the use of Core Animation and Core Image effects to accent, but not upstage, the UI.Back on topic though... what do people think about Quick Look? It seems like a much more elegant version of something Microsoft did a number of years back. That being said, it certainly speaks to Apple's continued interest in that window look, as it appears in iPhoto, iTunes, and now Finder.
Wasn't this a foregone conclusion? Why shouldn't Macs be able to boot to USB?I just noticed the install to USB.
You've got that right, unfortunately. These Leopard pics better not represent the UI of the final release or I'm gonna run my new Mac through I wood chipper and post the video on YouTube and send it to Steve Jobs.
Apple could do SO MUCH BETTER than the current UI. I have no idea why they don't. Hopefully they're just hiding it til the expo.
Wasn't this a foregone conclusion? Why shouldn't Macs be able to boot to USB?
How old are these builds? I mean, is there any way of knowing when this particular build was compiled? I know Microsoft were on builds much further ahead of what was released for Beta 2, RC1 etc internally.
He didn't say that it give 95% of the visual quality, he said it give 95% of the entertainment value. The two are quite different things.
Personally I'd say 70 to 85 percent, but that's just me.
Of course movies with a lot of special effects are a lot more fun for me in HD. But if I'm watching a British murder mystery or a film that was shot in black and white 40 years ago, HD doesn't really add that much.
For me, and what I think he was getting at, is that the quality of the story and how it's told comprises a significant amount of the total 'Entertainment Value' of a movie.
Another factor that is often overlooked when describing HD vs SD is compression. Heavily compressed video in either format can be less than appealing.
~iGuy
Back on topic though... what do people think about Quick Look?