Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

yoyoman · Aug 19, 2004, 02:50 AM

From every thing Iv been reading I will list all the things people have been sayin will be in tiger. You can add on if you would like. I didn't see a thread like this so hear it goes.

[:

lease do not copy and paste reports from other media outlets in their entirety without crediting the source::]

Chinasaur · Aug 19, 2004, 04:25 AM

IBL

msuper69 · Aug 19, 2004, 04:41 AM

Why not just tell everyone to look at these pages on AppleInsider? That's where you copied all that from.

Lame.

Horsepoo!!! · Aug 19, 2004, 06:33 AM

No...I don't think there will be advertisement in Tiger.

gorickey · Aug 19, 2004, 07:32 AM

Originally posted by Horsepoo!!!:
No...I don't think there will be advertisement in Tiger.

mishap · Aug 19, 2004, 08:13 AM

wtf? words, words, words, words....

ryju · Aug 19, 2004, 11:52 AM

Hey I heard Tiger will be the codename for Apple's next OS, confirm/deny?

nuggetman · Aug 19, 2004, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by ryju:
Hey I heard Tiger will be the codename for Apple's next OS, confirm/deny?

for the love of god please tell me you're joking...

gorickey · Aug 19, 2004, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by ryju:
Hey I heard Tiger will be the codename for Apple's next OS, confirm/deny?

Deny.

It's Pan-ter...

yoyoman · Aug 21, 2004, 05:59 PM

huh?

Superchicken · Aug 22, 2004, 01:14 AM

Wow... what a mouth full...

They can do all that but can't put FTP writing in the finder. DANG IT!

You know... I think the guys at Apple are simply extremely fast and smart ADHD cases.

"Hey guys lets make the windows bounce around when we press a key"
type type type
"Done! What do you want to call it?"
"I dono lets see if Steve likes- oh hey how bout we make an index of all the info in files"
Type type type
"Sweet, hey someone said we should do... what was it... FTP- oh look a bird!"
"Dude lets try letting people have THREE people in iChat!"
"Dude!"
Type type type
"Sweet, hmm weren't we supposed to work on making iMovie run fa- HEY LETS USE THE GRAPHICS CARD TO SPEED UP RENDERING TIMES!"
"SWEET!"

Nodnarb · Aug 22, 2004, 01:27 AM

Originally posted by Superchicken:
Wow... what a mouth full...

They can do all that but can't put FTP writing in the finder. DANG IT!

You know... I think the guys at Apple are simply extremely fast and smart ADHD cases.

"Hey guys lets make the windows bounce around when we press a key"
type type type
"Done! What do you want to call it?"
"I dono lets see if Steve likes- oh hey how bout we make an index of all the info in files"
Type type type
"Sweet, hey someone said we should do... what was it... FTP- oh look a bird!"
"Dude lets try letting people have THREE people in iChat!"
"Dude!"
Type type type
"Sweet, hmm weren't we supposed to work on making iMovie run fa- HEY LETS USE THE GRAPHICS CARD TO SPEED UP RENDERING TIMES!"
"SWEET!"

Ha, I got a laugh out of that. In a way you're right though. There's so much stuff for all them to be working on, if they only concentrated on one thing we'd all be screwed. They gotta work on everything at once.

dr. zoidberg · Aug 22, 2004, 07:03 PM

muahaha ... Superchicken, that was hilarious.

Superchicken · Aug 22, 2004, 07:38 PM

Wow... you know I thought it was funny but generally stuff like that only ends up being funny in my head

I'm just bitter because I hate FTP clients they all seem to suck.

Horsepoo!!! · Aug 23, 2004, 06:55 AM

Originally posted by Superchicken:
Wow... you know I thought it was funny but generally stuff like that only ends up being funny in my head

I'm just bitter because I hate FTP clients they all seem to suck.

FTP clients hate you too.

melman101 · Aug 23, 2004, 07:33 AM

I must say, great representation of coder's at apple. :-) FTP has never working properly in the finder, for me anyhow. I use Fetch, but man, oh man, the joy of getting a correctly working FTP client in finder, I guess I will have to wait to Mac OS XI

LoL,
Mel

Eug Wanker · Aug 23, 2004, 01:50 PM

Resolution independence in Tiger?

Catfish_Man · Aug 23, 2004, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Resolution independence in Tiger?

Well... it's more saying (correctly) that support will be in Tiger, and it'll actually be accessible sometime after that.

Horsepoo!!! · Aug 23, 2004, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by Catfish_Man:
Well... it's more saying (correctly) that support will be in Tiger, and it'll actually be accessible sometime after that.

If 10.4 offers this to developers...then, yeah, it's most likely going to show up in 10.5.

bborofka · Aug 23, 2004, 02:32 PM

I'm curious about resolution independence and how it will be implemented. The whole purpose of it is to have high-res. monitors running in native resolution without shrinking the screen elements down to a size that a lot of people can't see well, right? Because currently, running a nice 17" 1280x1024 LCD in native resolution makes things too small on the screen for a lot of people, who then resort to a lower resolution, like 1024x768 which then brings about ugly, interpolated text and blurry graphics.

If this is the whole thinking behind having a res.-indep. GUI, why would it even be a user-servicable option? Wouldn't it be up to Apple to come up with a static size for elements? Say for example, the menu bar is supposed to be 7mm thick, based on research and testing. With a resolution independent GUI, then it should stay at 7mm whether you are at 800x600 or 1280x1024. That way people can benefit of the crisp and sharpness of high-res. monitors and not lose sight of things on the screen.

Is this the thinking behind a resolution-independent GUI and if so, why would Apple make it a user-servicable option?

Catfish_Man · Aug 23, 2004, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by bborofka:
I'm curious about resolution independence and how it will be implemented. The whole purpose of it is to have high-res. monitors running in native resolution without shrinking the screen elements down to a size that a lot of people can't see well, right? Because currently, running a nice 17" 1280x1024 LCD in native resolution makes things too small on the screen for a lot of people, who then resort to a lower resolution, like 1024x768 which then brings about ugly, interpolated text and blurry graphics.

If this is the whole thinking behind having a res.-indep. GUI, why would it even be a user-servicable option? Wouldn't it be up to Apple to come up with a static size for elements? Say for example, the menu bar is supposed to be 7mm thick, based on research and testing. With a resolution independent GUI, then it should stay at 7mm whether you are at 800x600 or 1280x1024. That way people can benefit of the crisp and sharpness of high-res. monitors and not lose sight of things on the screen.

Is this the thinking behind a resolution-independent GUI and if so, why would Apple make it a user-servicable option?

People have different eyes. My parents run a high quality 19" CRT at 1024x768, while I run it at 1344x1008, and my friend runs it at 1600x1200 and wishes it would go higher.

sambeau · Aug 27, 2004, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by msuper69:
Why not just tell everyone to look at these pages on AppleInsider? That's where you copied all that from.

Lame.

Put your handbag down.. so where is your Tiger knowledge from? first hand? are you an Apple developer?..

Thought not.

I thought the summary was an eye-opener really. Having looked at AppleInsider from time-to-time I hadn't put it all together in my head - it was good to see them all in one place.

It's one hell of a list

sambeau · Aug 27, 2004, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by bborofka:
I'm curious about resolution independence and how it will be implemented. The whole purpose of it is to have high-res. monitors running in native resolution without shrinking the screen elements down to a size that a lot of people can't see well, right? Because currently, running a nice 17" 1280x1024 LCD in native resolution makes things too small on the screen for a lot of people, who then resort to a lower resolution, like 1024x768 which then brings about ugly, interpolated text and blurry graphics.

If this is the whole thinking behind having a res.-indep. GUI, why would it even be a user-servicable option? Wouldn't it be up to Apple to come up with a static size for elements? Say for example, the menu bar is supposed to be 7mm thick, based on research and testing. With a resolution independent GUI, then it should stay at 7mm whether you are at 800x600 or 1280x1024. That way people can benefit of the crisp and sharpness of high-res. monitors and not lose sight of things on the screen.

Is this the thinking behind a resolution-independent GUI and if so, why would Apple make it a user-servicable option?

The original OSX preview had huge buttons which looked (at a higher dpi) the same size as the old mac biuttons did at 72dpi. Apple realised that most graphics professionals were running huge monitors at high resolutions (I used to and could barely read some system text).

However the developers balked at this idea as it would have meant re-doing all their UIs for OSX. And it was dropped.

However, Quartz has the ability to use multiple dpi's as it has to do this to produce a preview before sending it to print (etc). It doesn't care what device it's rendering to - just the dpi (oversimplification but you get the picture).

So Apple is (rightly) banking on the idea that screen resolution is going to go up and up - and in doing so ui elemnts are going to get smaller and smaller. LCDs especially. So, the sensible thing to do is to make the ui resizable.

Two ways to do this 1) make everything a vector (slow - but maybe OpenGL could help a bit) 2) make everything a big icon (faster). Seems Apple is going to do with bigger icons and scale everything down. 256bit is 4 times the size we have now.. Whether the new icons will be calculated and cached every time you change resolution will remain to be seen - although looking at the dock this shouldn't be too much of a problem (does the dock cache? - doubt it)..

By making it a user setting (apart from being a nice feature) it will allow graphics professionals to be able to accuratley set their screen dpi to match exactly what they see eg 100% *is* 100% (1 inch of screen = 1 inch of reality). This used to be the case on early Macs but has been lost somewhere along the line. I used to hold up peices of paper to the monitor all the time to check things (sad I know).

That's my guess anyway..

gunnar · Aug 27, 2004, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by bborofka:
Wouldn't it be up to Apple to come up with a static size for elements? Say for example, the menu bar is supposed to be 7mm thick, based on research and testing. With a resolution independent GUI, then it should stay at 7mm whether you are at 800x600 or 1280x1024. That way people can benefit of the crisp and sharpness of high-res. monitors and not lose sight of things on the screen.

Is this the thinking behind a resolution-independent GUI and if so, why would Apple make it a user-servicable option?

Well, that's a good start, but I think the idea is to allow people to scale the UI to their liking. It would all remain proportional but a dynamic slider that changed it all at once would allow people to choose a size that was comfortable for them. The dock already does this. Since the actual UI would be the same regardless of size, there wouldn't be any problem of inconsistency from computer to computer like with themes. People with very small or very large displays could really benefit from this, or those with vision problems, or even those that use something like a TV monitor.

Superchicken · Aug 28, 2004, 12:48 AM

Anything that makes my 12 inch PB's monitor seem bigger while not getting actually bigger would be welcome. I already consider 1024/768 to have to big of UI widgets on it

booboo · Aug 29, 2004, 05:04 PM

Resolution independence: if it happens it will be in 10.5 - if we're lucky. Great idea though.

Catfish_Man · Aug 29, 2004, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by booboo:
Resolution independence: if it happens it will be in 10.5 - if we're lucky. Great idea though.

It's not an "if"

I've used it.

Millennium · Aug 30, 2004, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by Catfish_Man:
Well... it's more saying (correctly) that support will be in Tiger, and it'll actually be accessible sometime after that.

Apple has a history of doing stuff like this, at least with OSX. They'll implement support for something experimentally and not put any real UI on it, and then add UI in later releases. An example of this would be the MacOS Journaled filesystem. It was actually first released with 10.2.3, but no UI was given for it until much later, and it didn't become the default option intil 10.3 was released.

As a QA engineer, I don't know what to think of this, to tell you the truth. It really all depends on how the developers and QA engineers relate to one another. If the QA folks have an opportunity to test things like this even in the initial releases, then there's no real problem. If, however, the developers are sneaking these things by QA, then it's possible for very serious issues to arise. To be honest, I suspect the latter, as it could easily account for what we've perceived as lapses in the QA process over Apple's last few releases. Where I work, we've been bitten before by major bugs in features that we couldn't test because we didn't know they existed. Perhaps Apple has the same problem?

fireside · Aug 31, 2004, 01:10 AM

Originally posted by Superchicken:
Wow... what a mouth full...

They can do all that but can't put FTP writing in the finder. DANG IT!

You know... I think the guys at Apple are simply extremely fast and smart ADHD cases.

"Hey guys lets make the windows bounce around when we press a key"
type type type
"Done! What do you want to call it?"
"I dono lets see if Steve likes- oh hey how bout we make an index of all the info in files"
Type type type
"Sweet, hey someone said we should do... what was it... FTP- oh look a bird!"
"Dude lets try letting people have THREE people in iChat!"
"Dude!"
Type type type
"Sweet, hmm weren't we supposed to work on making iMovie run fa- HEY LETS USE THE GRAPHICS CARD TO SPEED UP RENDERING TIMES!"
"SWEET!"

thats pretty funny stuff there. you should make more posts like that chicken.