Resolution Independence Support in Snow Leopard?

[bobertoq]

it seems like apple is in "Leave-users-behind mode"

yea thats right.

leopard has been out what, 6months? already a refresh on it? lame.

how bout making this stuff available in 10.5.x instead of 10.6.

just seems apples mentality has shifted the past year to the iphone, and NEW STUFF. Forget the stuff we released x months ago.

Snow Leopard isn't coming out for a YEAR. Did you miss that part? This isn't a dinky little two-bug fix update. Snow Leopard isn't a bug-update at all.

Microsoft Exchange Support built in to various apps, full 64 bit, upto 16TB of RAM, grand central, optimized for multi-core processors, Open CL, GPU acceleration, ZFS, Quicktime X, rebuilding and recoding from the bottom up, etc, etc ,etc is not a dot update. If you think those 498MB dot updates are annoying, then you wouldn't like Snow Leopard as a dot update. It'd be like an 8GB update.

Also, look at the post above.

 

[NewGenAdam]

Resolution independence sounds like fun!
But how do filesizes compare? And how do they deal with stuff like circles, and curves?
Hmm I need to do my research.

 

[dgdosen]

I just read this thread for the first time, as my interpretation of the need for resolution independence means something completely different.

Sure, I'm a big fan of higher resolution displays - I Frankenbooked my 15" Merom MacBook Pro to 1920x1200 screen. Higher res? - Yes, please.

But scaling down application size doesn't mesh with the fact that we have bigger HDs, faster procs and more memory on any current or future mac as we know them. Why be stingy?

To me, this all points to Apple coming out with high-resolution (maybe), yet much smaller footprint devices. Like a MacPad or something like that. You can search through my history and realize I've always been a proponent of something the size of my 5x7 (or 5x8 to get to the magical 1.6x ratio) Franklin Planner that you could carry everywhere. To me, that means a new iPhone-like tablet that's pretty thin yet runs the full mac os. It will be important to have a higher resolution to have enough real estate to get stuff done, and it will be important to slim down the size of the apps you put on there because we may be back to smaller SSD devices. Throw in the ability to zoom like on the iPhone and everyone is happy.

I'd like to see that small of a device with a 1344x840 resolution. That's the same pixel density as an iPhone (do the math).

Stick a low powered proc and ssd to make it last all day, and Bob's your uncle.

Furthermore - give it a gui framework (some kind of cross between the iPhone and traditional mac gui) AND start selling apps for them on the store like the iPhone and Apple takes mobile computing to a new level.

Apple, are you with me? Feel free to hire me if you need someone to lead the way.

 

[phased]

Bumping an old topic here, but will we be seeing resolution independence come September?

This has been in the pipeline for some time now, hasn't it..

Cheers!

 

[slackpacker]

Bumping an old topic here, but will we be seeing resolution independence come September?

This has been in the pipeline for some time now, hasn't it..

Cheers!

what about the latest build? ANYONE?

 

[phased]

Bumping an old topic here, but will we be seeing resolution independence come September?

This has been in the pipeline for some time now, hasn't it..

Cheers!

Nobody with any clues?

Thanks!

 

[Ballis]

id like to know this aswell. I have a mini hooked up to my 1080p projector, and while thats great for media center purposes, for anything else Vista was better simply due to resolution independence.

 

[djrod]

I just read this thread for the first time, as my interpretation of the need for resolution independence means something completely different.

Sure, I'm a big fan of higher resolution displays - I Frankenbooked my 15" Merom MacBook Pro to 1920x1200 screen. Higher res? - Yes, please.

But scaling down application size doesn't mesh with the fact that we have bigger HDs, faster procs and more memory on any current or future mac as we know them. Why be stingy?

To me, this all points to Apple coming out with high-resolution (maybe), yet much smaller footprint devices. Like a MacPad or something like that. You can search through my history and realize I've always been a proponent of something the size of my 5x7 (or 5x8 to get to the magical 1.6x ratio) Franklin Planner that you could carry everywhere. To me, that means a new iPhone-like tablet that's pretty thin yet runs the full mac os. It will be important to have a higher resolution to have enough real estate to get stuff done, and it will be important to slim down the size of the apps you put on there because we may be back to smaller SSD devices. Throw in the ability to zoom like on the iPhone and everyone is happy.

I'd like to see that small of a device with a 1344x840 resolution. That's the same pixel density as an iPhone (do the math).

Stick a low powered proc and ssd to make it last all day, and Bob's your uncle.

Furthermore - give it a gui framework (some kind of cross between the iPhone and traditional mac gui) AND start selling apps for them on the store like the iPhone and Apple takes mobile computing to a new level.

Apple, are you with me? Feel free to hire me if you need someone to lead the way.

You almost nailed it far seeing the iPad