boncellis
Aug 11, 02:05 PM
I've said all along the imac will get conroe. With woodcrest in the mac pro, I'd say it's pretty well guaranteed. The imac only got a laptop processor because it was the only choice. From here on out it'll get the desktop processor it deserves.
I also think the macbook will get merom sooner rather than later. The two lines will still be differentiated by size, screen res, casing, backlit keys, dedicated graphics, and express card slot. The macbook needs to compete against PC laptops, not the macbook pro. The processors will pretty similar on the G4 laptops before intel (1.33/1.42 for the ibook, 1.5/1.67 for the powerbook) and yet there were still plenty of compelling reasons to go for the powerbook. Same thing still applies.
Your rock solid reasoning has won me over. I wasn't sure about what chips would be used where, but I think you have me convinced.
I just hope the Mini sees an upgrade relatively soon inasmuch as the phantom mid-range tower has yet to materialize. I may have to break down and get the Yonah one.
I also think the macbook will get merom sooner rather than later. The two lines will still be differentiated by size, screen res, casing, backlit keys, dedicated graphics, and express card slot. The macbook needs to compete against PC laptops, not the macbook pro. The processors will pretty similar on the G4 laptops before intel (1.33/1.42 for the ibook, 1.5/1.67 for the powerbook) and yet there were still plenty of compelling reasons to go for the powerbook. Same thing still applies.
Your rock solid reasoning has won me over. I wasn't sure about what chips would be used where, but I think you have me convinced.
I just hope the Mini sees an upgrade relatively soon inasmuch as the phantom mid-range tower has yet to materialize. I may have to break down and get the Yonah one.
DavidLeblond
May 4, 03:10 PM
So why sell it in the App Store?
Apple isn't a poor company, the Apple Store (the website) has been able to sell digital software for years. They could set up a very sophisticated method for selling Mac OS X to people without using the App Store.
If I was Apple, I'd sell (through their website) a licence for Mac OS X. You'd download a small App, which would give you the option to either install it to the computer you were on right then or to create a DVD or USB key which could also be used to install the OS. This App would then download the appropriate files and continue the install/make the DVD.
Maybe they want to consolidate onto the app store, who knows. I was just pointing out that OS X Lion clearly doesn't follow the "rules" of an app, so therefore Apple is open to doing whatever they want with the licensing.
Apple isn't a poor company, the Apple Store (the website) has been able to sell digital software for years. They could set up a very sophisticated method for selling Mac OS X to people without using the App Store.
If I was Apple, I'd sell (through their website) a licence for Mac OS X. You'd download a small App, which would give you the option to either install it to the computer you were on right then or to create a DVD or USB key which could also be used to install the OS. This App would then download the appropriate files and continue the install/make the DVD.
Maybe they want to consolidate onto the app store, who knows. I was just pointing out that OS X Lion clearly doesn't follow the "rules" of an app, so therefore Apple is open to doing whatever they want with the licensing.
Erasmus
Aug 4, 07:35 AM
I do not believe that Apple should wait to announce their new 64 bit systems. They should (and could) give promos of complete overhauls of their entire Mac lineup. (Final propaganda for iMac Ultra)
I think that Apple should concentrate on getting lots of switchers. Apple probably care about us old "maccies", because, of course, it is very rare for a mac user to change to using the Operating System That Must Not Be Named.
I therefore think Apple promoing iMacs, Macbooks, MBPs, MPs, MMs, etc. would be in their best interest, as potential switchers would know that Apple intends to bring out cool machines as soon as they can, if not immediately. Sure, it would impact on initial sales, as no-one would buy any of their computers between then and the shipping date, however, Apple would catch many fence-sitters who would otherwise bite the bullet and buy a much cheaper (and much more pathetic) PC after Steve's Keynote.
Wining Switchers should be Apple's goal now.
I think that Apple should concentrate on getting lots of switchers. Apple probably care about us old "maccies", because, of course, it is very rare for a mac user to change to using the Operating System That Must Not Be Named.
I therefore think Apple promoing iMacs, Macbooks, MBPs, MPs, MMs, etc. would be in their best interest, as potential switchers would know that Apple intends to bring out cool machines as soon as they can, if not immediately. Sure, it would impact on initial sales, as no-one would buy any of their computers between then and the shipping date, however, Apple would catch many fence-sitters who would otherwise bite the bullet and buy a much cheaper (and much more pathetic) PC after Steve's Keynote.
Wining Switchers should be Apple's goal now.
wizard
Mar 27, 12:02 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
I just don't understand the thought of an iPad 3 this fall. Unless they're trying to line up iPad updates with iPod updates, I don't see how this is possible or even really needed. I like the timing of the current releases. It offsets any updates of iPhones and iPods because they all have different release times.
Having iOS 5 this fall does make sense, honestly.
Everyone assumes that iPad 3 is a direct upgrade/replacement for iPad 2. This doesn't have to be the case at all. If it is even real, it could be any number of things, it could be sub seven inch, a thirteen inch machine, a machine that supports 4G and Retina or any number of other configurations.
I have no doubt in my mind that Apple will eventually deliver iPads in sizes other than the current model. It only makes sense as it offers solutions for people with different needs. However such a machine (a smaller iPad) needs lower power hardware than what is seen in ipad 2. I believe that hardware is coming for iPhone 5 to allow for the performance boost without killing the battery.
I just don't understand the thought of an iPad 3 this fall. Unless they're trying to line up iPad updates with iPod updates, I don't see how this is possible or even really needed. I like the timing of the current releases. It offsets any updates of iPhones and iPods because they all have different release times.
Having iOS 5 this fall does make sense, honestly.
Everyone assumes that iPad 3 is a direct upgrade/replacement for iPad 2. This doesn't have to be the case at all. If it is even real, it could be any number of things, it could be sub seven inch, a thirteen inch machine, a machine that supports 4G and Retina or any number of other configurations.
I have no doubt in my mind that Apple will eventually deliver iPads in sizes other than the current model. It only makes sense as it offers solutions for people with different needs. However such a machine (a smaller iPad) needs lower power hardware than what is seen in ipad 2. I believe that hardware is coming for iPhone 5 to allow for the performance boost without killing the battery.
Blakeco123
Apr 23, 04:51 PM
LOL was going about it the hardware in CoreServices/Finder.app (which has all the sidebar icons btw). Didn't think it would be the obvious in the Contents of the app. DOH!
Thanks!
Wait, so the desktop wallpaper should be 3200x2000? I'm only seeing 2560x1600. Hmmmm.
The only wallpaper that currently show this resolution is the default lion wallpaper, So even if your in lion none of the other wallpapers are this resolution, anyway no problem im happy to help.
Thanks!
Wait, so the desktop wallpaper should be 3200x2000? I'm only seeing 2560x1600. Hmmmm.
The only wallpaper that currently show this resolution is the default lion wallpaper, So even if your in lion none of the other wallpapers are this resolution, anyway no problem im happy to help.
millerb7
May 6, 07:26 AM
Of course they will move to ARM, everyone will. Google is allready running their data centres on ARM based servers, Windows 8 will run on ARM as well, Apple is investing huge amount of money into their A4, A5 chips. The main problem of computers nowadays is power efficiency and not computing power, because most of the computers allready are overpowerd for what their users usually do with them.
Citation needed. Especially in light of this 2 month old article :
Intel, Google Doubt ARM and Atom Have Chances in Servers (http://www.cpu-wars.com/2011/03/intel-google-doubt-arm-and-atom-have.html)
And how did you go from that acquisition to "Google are running their datacenters on ARM" might I ask ?
Not to mention my article is 2 months old, yours is more than 1 year old. ;)
Nope, you'll have to retract your "facts". As far as we know, Google doesn't run their datacenters on ARM at all.
Best response of the whole thread.
Yeah... ARM servers are like JUST coming to light... let alone actually being used by google in their data centers... that won't come for YEARS.
Hell the CEO even says so...
Arm Holdings chief executive officer Warren East told EE Times Wednesday that servers based on ARM multicore processors should arrive within the next twelve months. The news confirms previous speculation stemming from Google's acquisition of Agnilux and a recent job advertisement posted by Microsoft. East said that the current architecture, designed for client-side computing, can also be used in server applications.
"The architecture can support server application as it is," he said while discussing the company's first quarter financial results. "The implementations [of ARM] have traditionally been aimed at relatively low performance optimized for minimum power consumption. But we are seeing higher speed, multicore implementations now pushing up to 2 GHz. The main difference for a server processor is the addition of high-speed communications interfaces."
Can ARM stand up against rivals Intel and AMD in the server market? In regards to raw processing power, the current ARM processors can't compete with x86. But with a growing concern to reduce the amount of energy consumed by servers and server farms, ARM processors pose as a viable candidate, especially the multi-core options in the higher range.
"We are seeing people experimenting with multiple ARM cores on a chip," East said. "They have the option to use our A9 at 2 GHz, and four cores. So people can do server experiments with the existing technology at the high-end of the road-map."
East did not elaborate on the parties considering ARM-based servers. Softpedia also points out that there was also no indication that the company plans to go head to head with Intel's Xeon and AMD's Opteron series. Instead ARM may limit its options to the print and storage server market.
Citation needed. Especially in light of this 2 month old article :
Intel, Google Doubt ARM and Atom Have Chances in Servers (http://www.cpu-wars.com/2011/03/intel-google-doubt-arm-and-atom-have.html)
And how did you go from that acquisition to "Google are running their datacenters on ARM" might I ask ?
Not to mention my article is 2 months old, yours is more than 1 year old. ;)
Nope, you'll have to retract your "facts". As far as we know, Google doesn't run their datacenters on ARM at all.
Best response of the whole thread.
Yeah... ARM servers are like JUST coming to light... let alone actually being used by google in their data centers... that won't come for YEARS.
Hell the CEO even says so...
Arm Holdings chief executive officer Warren East told EE Times Wednesday that servers based on ARM multicore processors should arrive within the next twelve months. The news confirms previous speculation stemming from Google's acquisition of Agnilux and a recent job advertisement posted by Microsoft. East said that the current architecture, designed for client-side computing, can also be used in server applications.
"The architecture can support server application as it is," he said while discussing the company's first quarter financial results. "The implementations [of ARM] have traditionally been aimed at relatively low performance optimized for minimum power consumption. But we are seeing higher speed, multicore implementations now pushing up to 2 GHz. The main difference for a server processor is the addition of high-speed communications interfaces."
Can ARM stand up against rivals Intel and AMD in the server market? In regards to raw processing power, the current ARM processors can't compete with x86. But with a growing concern to reduce the amount of energy consumed by servers and server farms, ARM processors pose as a viable candidate, especially the multi-core options in the higher range.
"We are seeing people experimenting with multiple ARM cores on a chip," East said. "They have the option to use our A9 at 2 GHz, and four cores. So people can do server experiments with the existing technology at the high-end of the road-map."
East did not elaborate on the parties considering ARM-based servers. Softpedia also points out that there was also no indication that the company plans to go head to head with Intel's Xeon and AMD's Opteron series. Instead ARM may limit its options to the print and storage server market.
Zeos
Nov 2, 02:48 PM
We use Sophos at work and love it! Can't wait to start using it at home too.
UPDATE: Nevermind. What a pain. It kills my Time Machine backups and freezes my computer.
UPDATE: Nevermind. What a pain. It kills my Time Machine backups and freezes my computer.
greenstork
Aug 2, 12:42 PM
(HDMI isn't really designed for computer displays)
I think that's kind of his point isn't it. I know I'd like to see more "media center" type features in my Mac.
I think that's kind of his point isn't it. I know I'd like to see more "media center" type features in my Mac.
GGJstudios
Dec 29, 10:45 AM
For those who insist that Mac OS X needs not AV protection, I politely disagree .... Today we know her as "Typhoid Mary". Approximately 30 people died as a direct result of the Typhus virus she carried, but was apparently immune to.
Poor analogy. Mary was a source of the virus. Macs are not the source of Windows viruses. No Mac can have a file containing a Windows virus, unless it first receives that file from a Windows computer. Windows, not Mac, is the source for Windows viruses.
Yes, Macs may be largely immune in today's threat environment.
Macs are not immune. They are not affected in any way by Windows malware, but they are not immune to threats. The only malware threats in the wild that can affect current Mac OS X are those which can be avoided by prudent action on the part of the user.
But threats change.
Yes, they do change. If the situation changes and a virus is introduced in the wild that affects Mac OS X, it will make news headlines and anyone paying attention will be alerted. Until that time, no AV software can detect a threat that does not yet exist.
But we all communicate with the Windows world.
Not every Mac user shares files with Windows users. You can communicate with Windows users without sharing files that could pose a threat.
Please consider taking one for the team and getting some sort of AV.
Interesting you should choose that phrase:
1. take one for the team
The act of someone willingly making a sacrafice for the benefit of others.
The only ones who would benefit by Mac users making the sacrifice of system performance in running AV software are Windows users who don't run AV software. Even then, it would only protect them from infected files you might send them. It would not protect them from files sent from other computers, websites, emails, IMs, etc., which pose a far greater threat than any Mac.
If Windows users are properly protected, they have no need for Mac users to run AV, since they're protected from threats, no matter where they come from. If you want to do this, that's your choice, but I have no desire to take steps to try to protect any Windows users who don't care enough to protect themselves.
Poor analogy. Mary was a source of the virus. Macs are not the source of Windows viruses. No Mac can have a file containing a Windows virus, unless it first receives that file from a Windows computer. Windows, not Mac, is the source for Windows viruses.
Yes, Macs may be largely immune in today's threat environment.
Macs are not immune. They are not affected in any way by Windows malware, but they are not immune to threats. The only malware threats in the wild that can affect current Mac OS X are those which can be avoided by prudent action on the part of the user.
But threats change.
Yes, they do change. If the situation changes and a virus is introduced in the wild that affects Mac OS X, it will make news headlines and anyone paying attention will be alerted. Until that time, no AV software can detect a threat that does not yet exist.
But we all communicate with the Windows world.
Not every Mac user shares files with Windows users. You can communicate with Windows users without sharing files that could pose a threat.
Please consider taking one for the team and getting some sort of AV.
Interesting you should choose that phrase:
1. take one for the team
The act of someone willingly making a sacrafice for the benefit of others.
The only ones who would benefit by Mac users making the sacrifice of system performance in running AV software are Windows users who don't run AV software. Even then, it would only protect them from infected files you might send them. It would not protect them from files sent from other computers, websites, emails, IMs, etc., which pose a far greater threat than any Mac.
If Windows users are properly protected, they have no need for Mac users to run AV, since they're protected from threats, no matter where they come from. If you want to do this, that's your choice, but I have no desire to take steps to try to protect any Windows users who don't care enough to protect themselves.
citizenzen
Apr 16, 01:23 PM
It's spending on investment rather than spending on consumption.
This is a key point to the growing inequity of wealth in America. The rich have surplus funds that they are able to invest, while the poor, and a growing number of people are spending all of the income on consumption.
In 2007 Zhu Xiao Di wrote a report for the Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies title, Growing Wealth, Inequity, and Housing in the United States [PDF] (http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/w07-1.pdf)
Abstract
The rapid growth of household wealth in the United States has been accompanied by drastic growing inequality. This paper discusses both wealth and inequality growth, examines demographic factors behind the growth, and analyzes housing�s role in it, using the Survey of Consumer Finances data collected by the Federal Reserve Bank. While aggregate household net wealth grew from $25.9 trillion in 1995 to $50.1 trillion in 2004 (both in 2004 dollars), nearly 90 percent of the net gains occurred only among the top quartile of households in the wealth distribution. Although housing wealth (both home equity and housing value) was still more evenly distributed than other types of wealth, it largely served to widen the wealth gap rather than to narrow it during the last decade.
In this report, he clearly illustrates the difference between household net wealth and household income.
Wealth Inequality and Household Net Wealth Growth
It is well known that the distribution of household net wealth is even more unbalanced than that of household income. Net wealth is defined as all assets net out all debts. In the top quartile of the household net wealth distribution held the lion�s share�87 percent (or $43.6 trillion) while the bottom quartile of households had nothing. The upper and lower middle quartiles combined held $6.5 trillion, or 13 percent of total household net wealth (see Chart 1).
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/members/citizenzen-albums-album-picture1305-screen-shot-2011-04-16.png
As he says in the report, "In other words, the bottom 28 million of American households in 2004 had nothing once their debt is netted out ..."
The difference between inequalities in wealth and income is quite natural, as one is from a stock perspective and the other is from a flow perspective. Low income households have to spend most or all of their incomes on life necessities with little capability of saving and investment so they can hardly accumulate any household net wealth. Thus they often remain in the bottom distribution of household wealth with nothing; the exception is the group of low income senior households who recently fell into the low-income category due to retirement and the loss of income. In short, while the bottom quartile of income distribution still has income, the bottom quartile of wealth distribution does not have any wealth net of debt.
This is a key point to the growing inequity of wealth in America. The rich have surplus funds that they are able to invest, while the poor, and a growing number of people are spending all of the income on consumption.
In 2007 Zhu Xiao Di wrote a report for the Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies title, Growing Wealth, Inequity, and Housing in the United States [PDF] (http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/w07-1.pdf)
Abstract
The rapid growth of household wealth in the United States has been accompanied by drastic growing inequality. This paper discusses both wealth and inequality growth, examines demographic factors behind the growth, and analyzes housing�s role in it, using the Survey of Consumer Finances data collected by the Federal Reserve Bank. While aggregate household net wealth grew from $25.9 trillion in 1995 to $50.1 trillion in 2004 (both in 2004 dollars), nearly 90 percent of the net gains occurred only among the top quartile of households in the wealth distribution. Although housing wealth (both home equity and housing value) was still more evenly distributed than other types of wealth, it largely served to widen the wealth gap rather than to narrow it during the last decade.
In this report, he clearly illustrates the difference between household net wealth and household income.
Wealth Inequality and Household Net Wealth Growth
It is well known that the distribution of household net wealth is even more unbalanced than that of household income. Net wealth is defined as all assets net out all debts. In the top quartile of the household net wealth distribution held the lion�s share�87 percent (or $43.6 trillion) while the bottom quartile of households had nothing. The upper and lower middle quartiles combined held $6.5 trillion, or 13 percent of total household net wealth (see Chart 1).
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/members/citizenzen-albums-album-picture1305-screen-shot-2011-04-16.png
As he says in the report, "In other words, the bottom 28 million of American households in 2004 had nothing once their debt is netted out ..."
The difference between inequalities in wealth and income is quite natural, as one is from a stock perspective and the other is from a flow perspective. Low income households have to spend most or all of their incomes on life necessities with little capability of saving and investment so they can hardly accumulate any household net wealth. Thus they often remain in the bottom distribution of household wealth with nothing; the exception is the group of low income senior households who recently fell into the low-income category due to retirement and the loss of income. In short, while the bottom quartile of income distribution still has income, the bottom quartile of wealth distribution does not have any wealth net of debt.
dba7dba
Apr 26, 03:08 PM
add me to another purchaser of android phone. i myself have iphone. i wanted to buy a smartphone for a family member. considered iphone but one thing that drove me away from iphone was the requirement of a pc to activate it. no such requirement for android.
boncellis
Aug 2, 11:11 AM
Mac Pro + Cinema Display (iSight), Leopard demo, Core 2 Duo iMac & MacBook Pro. New Nano's too (more storage + bluetooth)
Long shot, iPhone + iChat 4.0 (VoiP), Mac & Windows.
I think the iPhone is more consumer-oriented, though that hasn't meant exclusivity to MWSF as of late, so who knows. I agree with you about the Cinema Displays though, I think they could get an update--which could also mean the current models see a price drop...
It's my feeling too that the Nano will see an update before the end of the year, I wouldn't be surprised if they hold off and do a silent update (capacity) shortly after WWDC. Back to school buying has been going for a while, and it seems like Apple is taking advantage of it to clear out inventory to make way for something new.
Just like introducing new products in January--after the holiday shopping season--they could very well wait until September or October to introduce new iPods in order to get consumers to buy the current iteration one more time.
If new rumors don't start coming fast and furious, I think that means we know just about what to expect.
Long shot, iPhone + iChat 4.0 (VoiP), Mac & Windows.
I think the iPhone is more consumer-oriented, though that hasn't meant exclusivity to MWSF as of late, so who knows. I agree with you about the Cinema Displays though, I think they could get an update--which could also mean the current models see a price drop...
It's my feeling too that the Nano will see an update before the end of the year, I wouldn't be surprised if they hold off and do a silent update (capacity) shortly after WWDC. Back to school buying has been going for a while, and it seems like Apple is taking advantage of it to clear out inventory to make way for something new.
Just like introducing new products in January--after the holiday shopping season--they could very well wait until September or October to introduce new iPods in order to get consumers to buy the current iteration one more time.
If new rumors don't start coming fast and furious, I think that means we know just about what to expect.
MovieCutter
Jul 29, 09:45 PM
what will become of the rockr?
The ROKR died a painful death long ago...
The ROKR died a painful death long ago...
danpass
May 7, 01:49 PM
hmmm ............. iWork.com is free.
maybe some combined functionality setup soon?
maybe some combined functionality setup soon?
diamond.g
May 4, 02:45 PM
I wish Apple would sell the USB key + Lion. I think their Key is nifty...
.jpg "Mothers Day Cake Decorating")
Jape
Dec 27, 12:05 AM
Hey well my girlfriend just got me a kit for Christmas, and it works great. I've be on a trip with a total drive time of 18 to 20
hours, and I haven't had a problem, and it actually improves my iPhone 3g function since it doesn't have to use the native gps chip. So I think it is a good product. Good luck with BLT!!!
hours, and I haven't had a problem, and it actually improves my iPhone 3g function since it doesn't have to use the native gps chip. So I think it is a good product. Good luck with BLT!!!
chaosbringer
Apr 27, 03:24 PM
How exactly is a PSU at the bottom going to aid cooling? Heat Rises . . . . so anything above the PSU gets even hotter, this is why traditionally PSUs are at the top of the case.
Aids with the psu cooling, cooler psu = expanded lifetime and less noise on fans
..so at the BOTTOM of the case there is cool air (at least cooler then on top, since hot air rises), that means if the PSU is on the bottom it gets cool air and expells hot hair out the back of the case (NOT inside the case, meaning NO hot air coming out of the PSU back will stay in the case and get things even hotter).
Hope i was clear since english is not my primary language, but i think it's quite simple :)
Aids with the psu cooling, cooler psu = expanded lifetime and less noise on fans
..so at the BOTTOM of the case there is cool air (at least cooler then on top, since hot air rises), that means if the PSU is on the bottom it gets cool air and expells hot hair out the back of the case (NOT inside the case, meaning NO hot air coming out of the PSU back will stay in the case and get things even hotter).
Hope i was clear since english is not my primary language, but i think it's quite simple :)
.jpg "with Pearls Mother#39;s Day")
Akme
Mar 30, 08:23 PM
Yes I did, it was still grayed out.
And yes, you can remove Launchpad from the dock.
And yes, you can remove Launchpad from the dock.
coder12
Apr 7, 06:36 PM
You should bring your iPad.
Both of them, and facetime with yourself.
Both of them, and facetime with yourself.
Skoal
Apr 18, 03:25 PM
Good God Apple, whatever!
ihaveNFC
May 7, 10:10 AM
I personally wouldn't care either way. I used the trial for about 25 days before the nostalgia wore off. That's me though.
louis Fashion
Mar 28, 10:50 AM
Wow, a new iPad3 AND a new phone. Guess I will have to cash in some worthless Bank of America stock next year. Not that it will be worth anymore then than now. Yuck. (the stock, not the new iToys)
solvs
Jul 23, 10:02 PM
The iBook never went under $999.
I said sub-$1000. $999 is sub-$1000. ;) The iMac started out at $1300, and dropped to $800 at one point. Stuff it getting cheaper. I don't know when a cheaper laptop will be coming out, but I'll bet one is.
I said sub-$1000. $999 is sub-$1000. ;) The iMac started out at $1300, and dropped to $800 at one point. Stuff it getting cheaper. I don't know when a cheaper laptop will be coming out, but I'll bet one is.
Elijahg
Apr 23, 08:02 PM
Again, KDE 2.0, 10 years ago. My Pentium 2 333 mhz didn't break a sweat doing SVG icons then (the Krystal SVG icon theme). ;)
I seriously doubt this is even an issue.
I doubt it had to process translucency or resize 50 times per second for 30+ images though :P If it were as efficient as bitmaps, it'd be used for game textures for sure... A texture would scale to any size with no pixellation at all, and the details wouldn't get blurred out when scaling down.
But I don't understand the resistance to SVG support, which would be a decade late. Sure it's not a shortcoming, but in light of these stories, it would be a "nicer to have".
I do agree SVG support is a good thing, just I don't see it getting used much. Even with resolution independence, standard pixel images are much easier to handle.
I seriously doubt this is even an issue.
I doubt it had to process translucency or resize 50 times per second for 30+ images though :P If it were as efficient as bitmaps, it'd be used for game textures for sure... A texture would scale to any size with no pixellation at all, and the details wouldn't get blurred out when scaling down.
But I don't understand the resistance to SVG support, which would be a decade late. Sure it's not a shortcoming, but in light of these stories, it would be a "nicer to have".
I do agree SVG support is a good thing, just I don't see it getting used much. Even with resolution independence, standard pixel images are much easier to handle.
No comments:
Post a Comment