[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Dark Goob 

Well, they could distinguish between GUI text, and WYSIWYG text. I.e. text that is corresponding to some GUI element like a button or tab or whatever, would be fixed to pixel dimensions of that GUI element.

However any text that's something you might ever print, such as text in a scrolling window like the one I'm currently typing in, or that's in a DTP or WP app, like TextEdit, would display at the proper scaled size.

That would make it not WYSIWYG, because then the text would not look or flow the same onscreen as it will in the printout. (For example, if Quark is drawing its boxes at 72 DPI and OS X forces the text to draw at 110 DPI, that text is going to look completely wrong on screen.)

[0157988944]

Well, technically, the screen resolution goes up at the same rate as screen size, so text on a 17" 1400x900 and on a 20" 1650x1580 shouldn't be any different.

[himself]

Originally Posted by adamfishercox 

Well, technically, the screen resolution goes up at the same rate as screen size, so text on a 17" 1400x900 and on a 20" 1650x1580 shouldn't be any different.

That applies only if pixel density doesn't change. The pixel densities of current displays can vary greatly, but are generally increasing.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by autumnmist 

I'll be really disappointed if RI isn't in Leopard at all. I'm about to buy a new LCD and without RI, the high resolutions (1680x1050, 1920x1200) are really a pain to use when you need to squint at tiny text on them.

I have a 22" LCD that runs 1680x1050 and the text is nice and readable.
If it's not in the list, it's not going to be there.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I have a 22" LCD that runs 1680x1050 and the text is nice and readable.

I bet it is. RI is probably more of concern to people running that resolution on a 20" screen or people who have only an inch more screen size, but run it at 1920x1200.

[Kevin]

Yeah I was running 1600x1200 on my 19" and text was hard to read sometimes.

I much prefer this resolution on my 22" Its not the most expensive 22" but I needed a LCD because of space reasons. And I noticed that my eyes didn't tire as easily on the LCD at work as it did on my CRT at home.

[Dark Goob]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

That would make it not WYSIWYG, because then the text would not look or flow the same onscreen as it will in the printout. (For example, if Quark is drawing its boxes at 72 DPI and OS X forces the text to draw at 110 DPI, that text is going to look completely wrong on screen.)

HUH? You greatly misunderstand what I'm saying. What I'm saying is, at 100% in Quark a 12-point font should be 12-points in size if you put a ruler up to your screen and measure it. Same with Word, Safari, TextEdit, etc. The OS should facilitate this. Apps properly coded for such an OS would not have errors when displaying stuff.

It's that simple.

-=DG=-

[MacTheKnife]

Funny, until I saw this thread, I thought I was the only person who felt that the switch to OS X had screwed up on-screen resolution. Before OS X, Apple had the best on-screen rendering and dithering technology. The Mac II, and Mac Plus before it, were easy to read.

Now, as the OP says, the font rendering mismatch continues to be a mess. I always know when a Mac person has created a Word document, because they invariably saved the doc at 125%. There should be no need to enlarge your documents to be able to read them.

It's one of the main reasons why I switched to the PC, I just can't stand that small, fuzzy type that 100% typically generates. This definitely needs to be fixed, if Microsoft can do it, Apple can do it.

Disclosure, I'm the founder of MacWEEK, so I've decided to put my name and URL below.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Tchong
Founder of MacWEEK, now Trend Analyst at Ubercool
Ubercool � About

[tkmd]

Originally Posted by MacTheKnife 

I always know when a Mac person has created a Word document, because they invariably saved the doc at 125%. There should be no need to enlarge your documents to be able to read them.

Ha - thats funny I do that with Word!

[Dark Goob]

Originally Posted by MacTheKnife 

Funny, until I saw this thread, I thought I was the only person who felt that the switch to OS X had screwed up on-screen resolution. Before OS X, Apple had the best on-screen rendering and dithering technology. The Mac II, and Mac Plus before it, were easy to read.

Now, as the OP says, the font rendering mismatch continues to be a mess. I always know when a Mac person has created a Word document, because they invariably saved the doc at 125%. There should be no need to enlarge your documents to be able to read them.

It's one of the main reasons why I switched to the PC, I just can't stand that small, fuzzy type that 100% typically generates. This definitely needs to be fixed, if Microsoft can do it, Apple can do it.

Disclosure, I'm the founder of MacWEEK, so I've decided to put my name and URL below.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Tchong
Founder of MacWEEK, now Trend Analyst at Ubercool
Ubercool � About

Wow, how honored I feel that the founder of MacWeek not only agrees but posted in my thread. That's so cool. Man, I bet half these nubs don't even remember what MacWeek was! (Only the best Mac magazine of all time, back when magazines used to be good, before the internets killed them.)

You know, we're some of the last few people who remember the true good old days of the Mac, and what it stood for. I feel like the current OS developers at Apple probably never even used a Mac before OS X. Or else they wouldn't leave such glaring things as WYSIWYG missing from the OS. With all the other junk they're packing into the OS these days, you'd think they could at least do that much.

Well, I'd like to start a blog with some like-minded people to join in and criticize the Mac platform for all the things that it should be but it's not. If any of you are interested then email me at jjj@[remove]io.com ... I will put together the blog site and make you all authors.

-=DG=-

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by MacTheKnife 

This definitely needs to be fixed, if Microsoft can do it, Apple can do it.

Mac OS assumes a display resolution of 72 dpi. Windows assumes a display resolution of 96 dpi. Neither fixes the problem of resolution dependence. It's only that Windows happens to be closer to today's usual monitor resolutions.

Both companies are way behind in fixing this problem. Unfortunately a stepped display resolution scaling factor as it is (in preparation) in Leopard is not a real fix.