Apple just got outclassed at its own game...

[Flint]

Say hello to the Asus Zenbook Infinity:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7035/asus-zenbook-infinity-hands-on-with-the-most-beautiful-notebook-at-computex




--
MFB

[Laszlo Lebrun]

On 07.06.2013 10:03, Flint wrote:
> Say hello to the Asus Zenbook Infinity:
>
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/7035/asus-zenbook-infinity-hands-on-with-the-most-beautiful-notebook-at-computex
>

glass might be a good option for the screen of a smartphone, but i'd
definitely don't want a glass screen on a notebook and even less a glass
back.



--
One computer and three operating systems, not the other way round.
One wife and many hotels, not the other way round ! ;-)

[KDT]

"....as did the build quality of the ****prototype**** machine."

"The ultra high resolution panel would normally be a mixed blessing on a Windows notebook thanks to ****horrible DPI**** scaling in Windows 8 desktop mode, but I'm actually wondering if that's a problem Microsoft will address with Windows 8.1 later this year."

And the killer

"Intel's Iris 5100 graphics (GT3 without Crystalwell) "

to driver that type of display?

And so what we know is that this prototype, uses horrid Intel graphics and runs an operating system that doesn't handle high DPI resolutions.

What we don't know is price, performance, or battery life.

[AD]

On Jun 7, 12:14 pm, KDT <scarface...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Friday, June 7, 2013 4:03:10 AM UTC-4, Flint wrote:
> > Say hello to the Asus Zenbook Infinity:
>

> >http://www.anandtech.com/show/7035/asus-zenbook-infinity-hands-on-wit...

>
> > --
>
> > MFB
>
> "....as did the build quality of the ****prototype**** machine."
>
> "The ultra high resolution panel would normally be a mixed blessing on a Windows notebook thanks to ****horrible DPI**** scaling in Windows 8 desktop mode,  but I'm actually wondering if that's a problem Microsoft will address with Windows 8.1 later this year."
>
> And the killer
>
> "Intel's Iris 5100 graphics (GT3 without Crystalwell) "
>
> to driver that type of display?
>
> And so what we know is that this prototype, uses horrid Intel graphics and runs an operating system that doesn't handle high DPI resolutions.
>
> What we don't know is price, performance, or battery life.

we do know the price for the rest of zenbook lineup though
and I doubt this one will be any cheaper
amen

[Flint]

Especially with an i7, but the cost isn't what bothers me as much as
the DPI scaling problem. Of course, it is rumored around several
websites this may be addressed in Windows 'blue' 8.1, and this Zenbook
won't be out till then anyway - so we'll see. Besides, I just got the
Taichi 31, and I'm pretty happy with it. I'll be even happier when
some of the 8.1 fixes for Windows 8 arrive.

--
MFB

[ed]

Man, if you think the Intel 5100 driving this is substandard, you must think the 13" macbbook pro with retina display and the Intel 4000 is a real pile of junk...

[Flint]

On 6/7/2013 2:47 PM, ed wrote:
> Man, if you think the Intel 5100 driving this is substandard, you must think the 13" macbbook pro with retina display and the Intel 4000 is a real pile of junk...
>

Good catch, Ed. :)

--
MFB

[Alan Baker]

In article <3e74d044-cabe-402c...@googlegroups.com>,

Riiiiiight.

Because it's so appropriate to compare a prototype--thus presumably
up-to-date--with a machine that was introduced a year ago and about to
be updated...

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

[Gary]

On 2013-06-07 08:03:10 +0000, Flint said:

> Say hello to the Asus Zenbook Infinity:
>
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/7035/asus-zenbook-infinity-hands-on-with-the-most-beautiful-notebook-at-computex

LMAO,
>
whats this macbook air wannabe?

Not even close.

Thank god Apple dont bother with Computex, i suppose Asus is trying i
give them that but it still runs windows which is the real issue with
the laptop.

If only developers would sort Linux out properly.

[ed]

Read his complaint. It's totally appropriate to compare. :-)

[Alan Baker]

In article <ba8e9aad-040f-486e...@googlegroups.com>,

ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:

> Read his complaint. It's totally appropriate to compare. :-)

Only if you compare the Asus when it is actually available to what is
actually available from Apple.

If we hold to your method, why not compare the Asus to discontinued
MacBooks?

[ed]

Because none run a display like this.

[Alan Baker]

In article <4c2f22cc-9b8c-407d...@googlegroups.com>,

ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:

> Because none run a display like this.

So?

[ed]

So the complaint was about driving this type of display...

[Alan Baker]

In article <202cc5e7-90d9-4965...@googlegroups.com>,

ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:

> So the complaint was about driving this type of display...

I'm not playing this new game...

[ed]

You mean you have no response...

[Flint]

On 6/7/2013 4:09 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <202cc5e7-90d9-4965...@googlegroups.com>,
> ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
>
>> So the complaint was about driving this type of display...
>
> I'm not playing this new game...
>

Because you lost it before you even started, right? Got it...

--
MFB

[Laszlo Lebrun]

On 07.06.2013 11:14, KDT wrote:
> "The ultra high resolution panel would normally be a mixed blessing on a Windows notebook thanks to ****horrible DPI**** scaling in Windows 8 desktop mode, but I'm actually wondering if that's a problem Microsoft will address with Windows 8.1 later this year."

Who has got this kind of laptop will use the desktop view anyhow and
that one is ways ahead of OSX when it comes to scale on high DPI screens.

[KDT]

On Friday, June 7, 2013 2:47:18 PM UTC-4, ed wrote:
> Man, if you think the Intel 5100 driving this is substandard, you must think the 13" macbbook pro with retina display and the Intel 4000 is a real pile of junk...

-----
Actually I do, the performance of the 13" Macbook is nothing to write home about....

[KDT]

On Saturday, June 8, 2013 6:12:15 AM UTC-4, Laszlo Lebrun wrote:
> On 07.06.2013 11:14, KDT wrote:
>
> > "The ultra high resolution panel would normally be a mixed blessing on a Windows notebook thanks to ****horrible DPI**** scaling in Windows 8 desktop mode, but I'm actually wondering if that's a problem Microsoft will address with Windows 8.1 later this year."
>
>
>
> Who has got this kind of laptop will use the desktop view anyhow and
>
> that one is ways ahead of OSX when it comes to scale on high DPI screens.
>
>

The better question is who would buy a Windows 8 Core I7 just to run Metro apps?

[jay birdsong]

"Alan Baker" wrote in message
news:alangbaker-DBE6D...@news.shawcable.net...

In article <202cc5e7-90d9-4965...@googlegroups.com>,
ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:

> So the complaint was about driving this type of display...

>I'm not playing this new game...

HOOT!!!!! Wadda Loser.

snip dcs

[Alan Baker]

In article <kouhm1$if2$1...@dont-email.me>,

I'll be sure to remind you to apply this new standard to other posters...

:-)

[Laszlo Lebrun]

That is the same idea: don't reduce Win8 to it's Modern view.
It is extremely powerful on the desktop and this is the main application
field anyhow.
Just think about architects,who will run their CAD on it and make a
finger driven presentation as well...

[KDT]

But it's the desktop apps that work horribly with high dpi screens.

[Laszlo Lebrun]

On 08.06.2013 20:59, KDT wrote:
> But it's the desktop apps that work horribly with high dpi screens.
>

No: only a very few oooold desktop apps are not DPI aware,
with all those that I use (a lot) the high DPI settings work brilliantly.
The Win8 complaints are on the Modern Apps.

[KDT]

So what PC hardware have you used running Windows 8 that has a DPI close to the Macbook 15" and which apps?

[Sandman]

It's fun to see Ed try to claim what the context of his comment was when
his responses are all devoid of... context :)

--
Sandman[.net]

[ed]

It's extra funny that your criticism is coming in a post that also devoid of context. ;)

[Sandman]

That was the entire point. You don't post context, so why should I?
Right? Who needs it, anyway!


--
Sandman[.net]

[Laszlo Lebrun]

On 08.06.2013 23:23, KDT wrote:
> So what PC hardware have you used running Windows 8 that has a DPI close to the Macbook 15" and which apps?
>

A Fujitsu H264 with a 1920*1200 display (non-glossy), running
everything from Windows, Linux ...and OSX.
;-)

[KDT]

A Fujitsu H264 with a 1920*1200 display (non-glossy), running
everything from Windows, Linux ...and OSX.

-----
Just as I thought. That's not a high dpi resolution. The displays we were talking about have double the pixel density.

[Laszlo Lebrun]

It's currently still one of the best high dpi available on 15" notebooks .
Which notebook was the basis for your assertion: "desktop apps that
work horribly with high dpi screens" ?

[Nashton]

On 6/9/2013 4:22 PM, Laszlo Lebrun wrote:
> On 09.06.2013 20:25, KDT wrote:
>> A Fujitsu H264 with a 1920*1200 display (non-glossy), running
>> everything from Windows, Linux ...and OSX.
>> -----
>> Just as I thought. That's not a high dpi resolution. The displays we
>> were talking about have double the pixel density.
>>
> It's currently still one of the best high dpi available on 15" notebooks .
> Which notebook was the basis for your assertion: "desktop apps that
> work horribly with high dpi screens" ?
>
>

The ones the crickets are chirping about?

[KDT]

On Sunday, June 9, 2013 3:22:32 PM UTC-4, Laszlo Lebrun wrote:
> On 09.06.2013 20:25, KDT wrote:
>
> > A Fujitsu H264 with a 1920*1200 display (non-glossy), running
>
> > everything from Windows, Linux ...and OSX.
>
> > -----
>
> > Just as I thought. That's not a high dpi resolution. The displays we were talking about have double the pixel density.
>
> >
>
> It's currently still one of the best high dpi available on 15" notebooks .
>
> Which notebook was the basis for your assertion: "desktop apps that
>
> work horribly with high dpi screens" ?
>

We're not talking about current resolutions on PC's, that are available now. We were talking about dpi's like on the Retina Macbook Pro. The Asus has a dpi double that of most current Windows laptops that Windows doesn't support well.

[KDT]

So you really think the 1920x1080 on a 15" is a high dpi compared to the Asus that Flint posted or the current Macbook Pro (2880x1800)?

[Laszlo Lebrun]

So how do you know that "desktop apps work horribly with high dpi screens"?

[KDT]

On Monday, June 10, 2013 2:54:54 AM UTC-4, Laszlo Lebrun wrote:
> On 10.06.2013 00:22, KDT wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, June 9, 2013 3:22:32 PM UTC-4, Laszlo Lebrun wrote:
>
> >> On 09.06.2013 20:25, KDT wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> A Fujitsu H264 with a 1920*1200 display (non-glossy), running
>
> >>
>
> >>> everything from Windows, Linux ...and OSX.
>
> >>
>
> >>> -----
>
> >>
>
> >>> Just as I thought. That's not a high dpi resolution. The displays we were talking about have double the pixel density.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >> It's currently still one of the best high dpi available on 15" notebooks .
>
> >>
>
> >> Which notebook was the basis for your assertion: "desktop apps that
>
> >>
>
> >> work horribly with high dpi screens" ?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > We're not talking about current resolutions on PC's, that are available now. We were talking about dpi's like on the Retina Macbook Pro. The Asus has a dpi double that of most current Windows laptops that Windows doesn't support well.
>
> >
>
> So how do you know that "desktop apps work horribly with high dpi screens"?
>
>

Well let's start with the article in first post of this thread....

"The ultra high resolution panel would normally be a mixed blessing on a Windows notebook thanks to horrible DPI scaling in Windows 8 desktop mode,"

http://winsupersite.com/blog/supersite-blog-39/windows8/microsoft-talks-high-dpi-displays-windows-8-142639

Pixel density. Yep, Windows supports high DPI displays as I wrote about last week. Poorly, but it does. From what I can tell, that support will continue in Windows 8. The biggest benefit, of course, will occur in Metro apps, not on the desktop, which has never scaled properly or well. "As the pixel density increases, the physical size of objects on screen gets smaller," Washington writes, noting the central issue here. "If Windows wasn’t built to accommodate different pixel densities, objects on screen would be too small to easily tap or read on these tablets."

The problem is, Windows isn't built to accommodate different pixel densities. Not today, and not for the desktop in Windows 8. But Metro apps will make a concession to this need, though they will not work like apps do on the iPad. Instead, Windows 8 will provide three, hard coded scale percentages that will apply automatically according to the device: 100% when no scaling is applied, 140% for HD tablets, and 180% for quad-XGA tablets. Honestly, on tablets, I think Apple's is the better approach, but then Apple only currently supports a single device/screen size, so it's easier for them to be consistent.

[AD]

On Jun 7, 11:09 pm, ed <n...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> So the complaint was about driving this type of display...

I don't want discrete graphics bugs in a laptop since the trend
for a swappable graphics in a laptop that nvidia tried to set
never caught up.

In desktop I want onboard intel but I want a pcix slot as well ;-)

[Laszlo Lebrun]

On 10.06.2013 13:33, KDT wrote:
> The problem is, Windows isn't built to accommodate different pixel densities.

And OSX even less...

I have got not problems with the basic Windows scaling, only very few of
my apps don't cope with it, but I have massive problems with the
inexistant OSX scaling excepted a beta functionality, that never made it up.

[KDT]

No Lloyd, you have never had a problem with Windows scaling on a high dpi laptop that you have never used.....

[Lloyd]

How did I get in the middle of this? :)

--
from Lloyd's iPad

[jay birdsong]

"Lloyd" wrote in message
news:2084469023392599330.286...@news.eternal-september.org...

The stench of animal shit has gotten him dizzy.

[KDT]

Oops, Lazlo not Lloyd :)

[Laszlo Lebrun]

Did you? Tell me: did you on your own or are you just parroting some
googled results?

I have seen how well Windows 7 and 8 desktop scales to 1900x1200 and
that Snow Leopard is amost unusable at that resolution unless you are
using surgeons spectacles. So it's not hard to extrapolate to higher
resolutions.

I know Mountain has -finally, 7 years after Windows- got their ability
to scale out of a tweaking beta status, but I won't switch to it for
other reasons.

[KDT]

Yes, I have worked with a Windows laptop with a 15" display with a1920 x 1200.

But You have admitted that you have never worked with a display with the dpi of the Retina.

Windows 8 doesn't support high dpi displays well. Engadget knows it, Microsoft knows it, and you can find hundreds of reference on Google.

Don't you think it's kind of silly for you to be arguing about it when you have never used a display comparable to the MacBook Retina displays with Windows 8?

[Laszlo Lebrun]

On 11.06.2013 11:16, KDT wrote:
> Yes, I have worked with a Windows laptop with a 15" display with a1920 x 1200.
>
> But You have admitted that you have never worked with a display with the dpi of the Retina.
>
> Windows 8 doesn't support high dpi displays well. Engadget knows it, Microsoft knows it, and you can find hundreds of reference on Google.
>

OSX does not support High DPI any better for older applications and and
you can find hundreds of references on Google as well.

> Don't you think it's kind of silly for you to be arguing about it when you have never used a display comparable to the MacBook Retina displays with Windows 8?
>

The question is: would Snow Leopard, that has proven to be worse than
Windows on supporting high resolution, be better than Windows on very
high DPI? Because I want precisely the apps that are not supported any
more by later versions.

Supporting High DPI will always be limited to the applications one uses...
Basically OSX will do nothing than scale 2x each pixel at high DPI which
reduces a 2880×1800 display at the same geometry than a crappy 1440x900
Macbook air
;-(

[KDT]

On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 6:21:17 AM UTC-4, Laszlo Lebrun wrote:

> OSX does not support High DPI any better for older applications and and
>
> you can find hundreds of references on Google as well.
>

Windows 8 doesn't support, high dpi resolutions for *any desktop apps*. The worst that will happen with old apps when running on a retina display is it will look pixellated.

>
>
> > Don't you think it's kind of silly for you to be arguing about it when you have never used a display comparable to the MacBook Retina displays with Windows 8?
>
> >
>
>
>
> The question is: would Snow Leopard, that has proven to be worse than
>
> Windows on supporting high resolution, be better than Windows on very
>
> high DPI? Because I want precisely the apps that are not supported any
>
> more by later versions.

Windows 8 is the current OS shipping with PC's.

Snow Leopard is 3 versions old.

>
>
>
> Supporting High DPI will always be limited to the applications one uses...
>
> Basically OSX will do nothing than scale 2x each pixel at high DPI which
>
> reduces a 2880×1800 display at the same geometry than a crappy 1440x900
>
> Macbook air
>
> ;-(

That's kind of the point. To make the display look better. Do you really think that an effective resolution of 2880x1800 is usable on a 15" screen? But yes you can change the resolution to make it higher.

[Laszlo Lebrun]

On 12.06.2013 12:48, KDT wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 6:21:17 AM UTC-4, Laszlo Lebrun wrote:
>
>> OSX does not support High DPI any better for older applications and and
>>
>> you can find hundreds of references on Google as well.
>>
>
> Windows 8 doesn't support, high dpi resolutions for *any desktop apps*.

Wrong. It works perfectly fine on most apps I use.
Frequently I even don't want to scale: when I am working with 4 apps a
time, I need every pixel.

The worst that will happen with old apps when running on a retina
display is it will look pixellated.
>

Whis is really the worst thing i can imagine!

>>> Don't you think it's kind of silly for you to be arguing about it when you have never used a display comparable to the MacBook Retina displays with Windows 8?
>>

Did you? You didn't either.

>> The question is: would Snow Leopard, that has proven to be worse than
>> Windows on supporting high resolution, be better than Windows on very
>> high DPI? Because I want precisely the apps that are not supported any
>> more by later versions.
>
> Windows 8 is the current OS shipping with PC's.
>

...and runs every software even written for Windows 3.1 in 1992.

> Snow Leopard is 3 versions old.
>

...which is the last one to run a PPC software that shipped in 2004.

>
> That's kind of the point. To make the display look better.

Better? It don't look any better if evey pixel is just displayed x4.

Do you really think that an effective resolution of 2880x1800 is usable
on a 15" screen?

At least I would grab some reading spectacles _to use this resolution_.
Else I don't see any reason to sink money on an expensive display to
have the same pixelated result as a crappy 1440x900 low-end display.

And I am still running better with my 1920*1200 display that is used at
its native resolution.

But yes you can change the resolution to make it higher

Higher? You mean lower!
A Mac has always shown awfully blurried fonts so Maccies don't care of a
blurried resizing...

[KDT]

On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 7:56:58 AM UTC-4, Laszlo Lebrun wrote:

> Wrong. It works perfectly fine on most apps I use.

http://winsupersite.com/blog/supersite-blog-39/windows8/microsoft-talks-high-dpi-displays-windows-8-142639

"The problem is, Windows isn't built to accommodate different pixel densities. Not today, and not for the desktop in Windows 8. B"

What it does at 1920x1200 is irrelevant when it comes to high dpi displays

http://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1133388-windows-high-dpi-retina/

>
> Frequently I even don't want to scale: when I am working with 4 apps a
>
> time, I need every pixel.
>

So you would run a 15" display at 2880x1800?

> ...and runs every software even written for Windows 3.1 in 1992.

Uhh no,


http://support.microsoft.com/kb/896458

"64-bit versions of Windows do not support 16-bit components, 16-bit processes, or 16-bit applications"

>
>
> The worst that will happen with old apps when running on a retina
>
> display is it will look pixellated.
>
> >
>
> Whis is really the worst thing i can imagine!
>

That's only graphics, text would still look better.

>
>
> >>> Don't you think it's kind of silly for you to be arguing about it when you have never used a display comparable to the MacBook Retina displays with Windows 8?
>
> >>
>
> Did you? You didn't either.

No, because when *Microsoft* tells me that Windows 8 desktop apps don't support high dpi displays...I believe them.

>
>
>
> >> The question is: would Snow Leopard, that has proven to be worse than
>
> >> Windows on supporting high resolution, be better than Windows on very
>
> >> high DPI? Because I want precisely the apps that are not supported any
>
> >> more by later versions.
>
> >
>
> > Windows 8 is the current OS shipping with PC's.
>
> >
>
> ...and runs every software even written for Windows 3.1 in 1992.
>
> > Snow Leopard is 3 versions old.
>
> >
>
> ...which is the last one to run a PPC software that shipped in 2004.
>
>

And?

>
> >
>
> > That's kind of the point. To make the display look better.
>
> Better? It don't look any better if evey pixel is just displayed x4.
>

You haven't at least compared text or graphics on a *phone* with a high dpi? If you had, you wouldn't say that.

>
>
> Do you really think that an effective resolution of 2880x1800 is usable
>
> on a 15" screen?
>
>
>
> At least I would grab some reading spectacles _to use this resolution_.
>
> Else I don't see any reason to sink money on an expensive display to
>
> have the same pixelated result as a crappy 1440x900 low-end display.
>
>

The text isn't pixelated.

>
> And I am still running better with my 1920*1200 display that is used at
>
> its native resolution.
>
>

Better than what?

>
> But yes you can change the resolution to make it higher
>
> Higher? You mean lower!
>
> A Mac has always shown awfully blurried fonts so Maccies don't care of a
>
> blurried resizing...

Huh?

[Nashton]

On 6/10/2013 10:44 PM, KDT wrote:
> Oops, Lazlo not Lloyd :)
>
>

Forever fcking confused.

[Laszlo Lebrun]

On 13.06.2013 01:35, KDT wrote:
> So you would run a 15" display at 2880x1800?

sure! I also run a 6,5" display at 1920*1080, where is the problem?

[Laszlo Lebrun]

On 13.06.2013 01:35, KDT wrote:

> Uhh no,
>
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/896458
>
> "64-bit versions of Windows do not support 16-bit components, 16-bit processes, or 16-bit applications"

Uhh: 64-bit versions of Windows, yes, but who spoke about a 64 bit version?
In the Windows universe, you are still free. Did you forget that?

[Laszlo Lebrun]

On 13.06.2013 01:35, KDT wrote:

> You haven't at least compared text or graphics on a*phone* with a high dpi? If you had, you wouldn't say that.

Of course i have. It's that enables me to express a founded opinion.

[Laszlo Lebrun]

On 13.06.2013 01:35, KDT wrote:

>> But yes you can change the resolution to make it higher
>> >
>> >Higher? You mean lower!
>> >
>> >A Mac has always shown awfully blurried fonts so Maccies don't care of a
>> >
>> >blurried resizing...
> Huh?
>
>

Huh!

[Sandman]

In article <kpbshn$ura$1...@tota-refugium.de>,

Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_...@laszlomail.com> wrote:

> On 13.06.2013 01:35, KDT wrote:
> > So you would run a 15" display at 2880x1800?
>
> sure! I also run a 6,5" display at 1920*1080, where is the problem?

Michel snips away the context and makes himself look like an idiot...
again :)


--
Sandman[.net]

[KDT]

So you're going to buy a modern computer, that runs 64 bit windows and then downgrade to 32 bit windows where you can only use 4GB of RAM (Among other limitations).

[KDT]

What blurried resizing?

[Laszlo Lebrun]

On 13.06.2013 13:19, KDT wrote:
> What blurried resizing?

That one you get when you change the resolution of your panel one
something else than the native one.

[Laszlo Lebrun]

For the moment I don't have to buy a new one and my 4 Gigs of RAM never
have been a limitation. With a good SSD, even a 4 year old notebook is
blazing fast.

[Sandman]

In article <kpda1d$4eu$1...@tota-refugium.de>,

Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo....@live.de> wrote:

> On 13.06.2013 13:19, KDT wrote:
> > What blurried resizing?
>
> That one you get when you change the resolution of your panel one
> something else than the native one.

Haha, Michel thinks this has something to do with Macs!!! Hahaha, yes he
really is this clueless :)


--
Sandman[.net]

[KDT]

That one you get when you change the resolution of your panel one
something else than the native one.

------
Okay. This officially qualifies as the stupidest statement I've ever heard on the Internet.

[KDT]

Uhh: 64-bit versions of Windows, yes, but who spoke about a 64 bit version?
In the Windows universe, you are still free. Did you forget that?

--------
So you're going to buy a 64 bit computer, downgrade it to run a 32 bit OS, so you can run 16 bit software.....in 2013.

[Laszlo Lebrun]

I didn't want to put it so crudely when you expressed it, but if you
tell it yourself...

[KDT]

On Saturday, June 15, 2013 8:29:17 AM UTC-4, Laszlo Lebrun wrote:
> On 14.06.2013 00:13, KDT wrote:
>
> > That one you get when you change the resolution of your panel one
>
> > something else than the native one.
>
> > ------
>
> > Okay. This officially qualifies as the stupidest statement I've ever heard on the Internet.
>


> >
>
> I didn't want to put it so crudely when you expressed it, but if you
>
> tell it yourself...
>

Huh? You think that running at non-native resolutions and getting blurry images on an LCD is an Apple only problem?

[Laszlo Lebrun]

No, you stated:

"Do you really think that an effective resolution of 2880x1800 is usable

on a 15" screen? But yes you can change the resolution to make it higher"

So giving that "higher" was a mistake, you proposed to change the
resolution down, which I found not being a good idea (irrespecive on the
OS).

[KDT]

On Saturday, June 15, 2013 12:20:44 PM UTC-4, Laszlo Lebrun wrote:
> On 15.06.2013 16:38, KDT wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, June 15, 2013 8:29:17 AM UTC-4, Laszlo Lebrun wrote:
>
> >> On 14.06.2013 00:13, KDT wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> That one you get when you change the resolution of your panel one
>
> >>
>
> >>> something else than the native one.
>
> >>
>
> >>> ------
>
> >>
>
> >>> Okay. This officially qualifies as the stupidest statement I've ever heard on the Internet.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >> I didn't want to put it so crudely when you expressed it, but if you
>
> >>
>
> >> tell it yourself...
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > Huh? You think that running at non-native resolutions and getting blurry images on an LCD is an Apple only problem?
>
> >
>
> No, you stated:
>
> "Do you really think that an effective resolution of 2880x1800 is usable
>
> on a 15" screen? But yes you can change the resolution to make it higher"
>
>
>
> So giving that "higher" was a mistake, you proposed to change the
>
> resolution down, which I found not being a good idea (irrespecive on the
>
> OS).

It's not about the OS, it's about the pixel density.


I'm about to make up a term so that we are on the same page.....

Effective resolution -- the available number of virtual pixels that a program can use -- a 2880x1800 Retina MacBook has an effective resolution of 1440x900 with a 1.6 ratio.

You can change the effective resolution to 1920x1200, 1680x1050, 1280x800, and 1024x640 (without third party utilities). With as many real pixels as available on the MacBook, at least with 1680x1050 and 1920x1200, the images don't look blurry because you're working with a lot more (real) pixels than the traditional LCD has and it's keeping the same ratio -- 1.6

[Laszlo Lebrun]

On 16.06.2013 07:14, KDT wrote:

> Effective resolution -- the available number of virtual pixels that a program can use -- a 2880x1800 Retina MacBook has an effective resolution of 1440x900 with a 1.6 ratio.
>

Your statement. For me 1440X900 is not enough for working with several
windows in parallel.

> You can change the effective resolution to 1920x1200, 1680x1050, 1280x800, and 1024x640 (without third party utilities).

Of course that's hardware, but it will become blurry.

>With as many real pixels as available on the MacBook, at least with 1680x1050 and 1920x1200, the images don't look blurry

You ought to see an optician.

> because you're working with a lot more (real) pixels than the traditional LCD has and it's keeping the same ratio -- 1.6
>

Anyhow a *native* 1920*1200 is always sharper as any 2880x1800 downsized
to 1920:1200 can be, that's just elementary physics.
Downsized to exactly 1440x900 its sharp again, but that's pearls in
front of swines.

Personally, if I had a 2880x1800 resolution on a 17" notebook (I am a
screen real estate fan) I would use it almost only natively... with a
pair of good spectacles.

[KDT]

On Sunday, June 16, 2013 4:36:39 AM UTC-4, Laszlo Lebrun wrote:
> On 16.06.2013 07:14, KDT wrote:
>
>
>
> > Effective resolution -- the available number of virtual pixels that a program can use -- a 2880x1800 Retina MacBook has an effective resolution of 1440x900 with a 1.6 ratio.
>
> >
>
> Your statement. For me 1440X900 is not enough for working with several
>
> windows in parallel.
>

Then run it a higher resolution.

>
>
> > You can change the effective resolution to 1920x1200, 1680x1050, 1280x800, and 1024x640 (without third party utilities).
>
> Of course that's hardware, but it will become blurry.
>

You're working with higher dpi than normal -- traditional you get blurriness when running at a lower resolution than "native". No other LCD panel had a native effective resolution that was 4x lower than it was physically capable of.

>
>
> >With as many real pixels as available on the MacBook, at least with 1680x1050 and 1920x1200, the images don't look blurry
>
> You ought to see an optician.

So you've actually used a Macbook Retina now?

>
>
>
> > because you're working with a lot more (real) pixels than the traditional LCD has and it's keeping the same ratio -- 1.6
>
> >
>
>
>
> Anyhow a *native* 1920*1200 is always sharper as any 2880x1800 downsized
>
> to 1920:1200 can be, that's just elementary physics.

How so, ever heard of sub pixel rendering? The only blurriness would come from using a non native display ratio (which you can't do without third party utilities)

>
> Downsized to exactly 1440x900 its sharp again, but that's pearls in
>
> front of swines.

With your vast non-experience.....

>
>
>
> Personally, if I had a 2880x1800 resolution on a 17" notebook (I am a
>
> screen real estate fan) I would use it almost only natively... with a
>
> pair of good spectacles.

See how that works out for you for reading.....

[Laszlo Lebrun]

On 16.06.2013 14:43, KDT wrote:
> How so, ever heard of sub pixel rendering? The only blurriness would come from using a non native display ratio (which you can't do without third party utilities)

So I think discussing further with you is vain, you mix everything.

[Nashton]

On 6/16/2013 12:48 PM, Laszlo Lebrun wrote:
> On 16.06.2013 14:43, KDT wrote:
>> How so, ever heard of sub pixel rendering? The only blurriness would
>> come from using a non native display ratio (which you can't do without
>> third party utilities)
>
> So I think discussing further with you is vain, you mix everything.
>

One cannot feign education. ;)

[-hh]

On Jun 16, 11:48 am, Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo.leb...@live.de> wrote:
> On 16.06.2013 14:43, KDT wrote:
>
> > How so, ever heard of sub pixel rendering? The only blurriness
> > would come from using a non native display ratio (which you
> > can't do without third party utilities)
>
> So I think discussing further with you is vain, you mix everything.

Unfortunately, what you're missing is that *all* fonts are 'blurry' on
all digital systems because in becoming discrete pixels, their curves
must be approximated.

The good news is that bitmap fonts are sooo 1980s and have been
replaced with outline fonts (which have varied from Bézier curves in
Adobe PostScript to TrueType) and of course, having a smaller "delta
X" will always make the curves smoother (less blurry), if all other
factors are equal. And that's where the question of resolution
independence for an OS and its Applications comes into the question -
specifically if these are using bitmap fonts are not.

For more education, here ya go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_font#Bitmap_fonts


-hh

[KDT]

On Sunday, June 16, 2013 11:48:47 AM UTC-4, Laszlo Lebrun wrote:
> On 16.06.2013 14:43, KDT wrote:
>
> > How so, ever heard of sub pixel rendering? The only blurriness would come from using a non native display ratio (which you can't do without third party utilities)
>
>
>
> So I think discussing further with you is vain, you mix everything.
>
>

So, you don't know that sub pixel rendering helps alleviate fuzziness based on your non experience with Retina Macbook Pros...

got it.

[KDT]

How's that text editing coming along?

[Alan Baker]

In article <kpkqe8$dac$2...@speranza.aioe.org>, Nashton <na...@na.com>
wrote:

The the other hand, the education of a physiotherapist doesn't exactly
give one special insights into computing, now does it?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

[Nashton]

On 6/16/2013 8:04 PM, -hh wrote:
> On Jun 16, 11:48 am, Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo.leb...@live.de> wrote:
>> On 16.06.2013 14:43, KDT wrote:
>>
>>> How so, ever heard of sub pixel rendering? The only blurriness
>>> would come from using a non native display ratio (which you
>>> can't do without third party utilities)
>>
>> So I think discussing further with you is vain, you mix everything.
>
> Unfortunately, what you're missing is that *all* fonts are 'blurry' on
> all digital systems because in becoming discrete pixels, their curves
> must be approximated.

You're delusional. This is why fonts are best viewed at the specific
monitors *native* resolution where they are as sharp as can be to the
naked eye.

Ever heard of picture perfect?

>
> The good news is that bitmap fonts are sooo 1980s and have been
> replaced with outline fonts (which have varied from Bézier curves in
> Adobe PostScript to TrueType) and of course, having a smaller "delta
> X" will always make the curves smoother (less blurry), if all other
> factors are equal. And that's where the question of resolution
> independence for an OS and its Applications comes into the question -
> specifically if these are using bitmap fonts are not.
>
> For more education, here ya go:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_font#Bitmap_fonts
>
>
> -hh
>

WTF do bitmap fonts have anything to do with this discussion?



WTF do

[Nashton]

On 6/16/2013 9:09 PM, KDT wrote:
> On Sunday, June 16, 2013 11:48:47 AM UTC-4, Laszlo Lebrun wrote:
>> On 16.06.2013 14:43, KDT wrote:
>>

>
> So, you don't know that sub pixel rendering helps alleviate

> fuzziness based on your non experience with Retina Macbook Pros...
>
> got it.

And this is....unique to retina displays?

Dear God.

[Nashton]

You mean config files? Haven't touched those in a long time.
Why the interest, fanguuurl?

[-hh]

On Jun 16, 10:11 pm, Nashton <n...@na.com> wrote:
> On 6/16/2013 8:04 PM, -hh wrote:
>
> > On Jun 16, 11:48 am, Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo.leb...@live.de> wrote:
> >> On 16.06.2013 14:43, KDT wrote:
>
> >>> How so, ever heard of sub pixel rendering? The only blurriness
> >>> would come from using a non native display ratio (which you
> >>> can't do without third party utilities)
>
> >> So I think discussing further with you is vain, you mix everything.
>
> > Unfortunately, what you're missing is that *all* fonts are 'blurry' on
> > all digital systems because in becoming discrete pixels, their curves
> > must be approximated.
>
> You're delusional. This is why fonts are best viewed at the specific
> monitors *native* resolution where they are as sharp as can be to the
> naked eye.

What you're claiming does apply to bit mapped fonts. However, even a
bitmap is still only an *approximation* of the typecast form, plus it
hasn't been the only font reproduction approach for nearly 30 years
(Type 1 fonts date from 1984).

> Ever hear of picture perfect?

Ever hear of Calculus or Differential Equations? Better yet, ever
have *and pass* multiple classes thereof? If you had, you would
understand why the technology was invented in the first place to
supersede bitmaps.

> > The good news is that bitmap fonts are sooo 1980s and have been
> > replaced with outline fonts (which have varied from Bézier curves in
> > Adobe PostScript to TrueType) and of course, having a smaller "delta
> > X" will always make the curves smoother (less blurry), if all other
> > factors are equal.  And that's where the question of resolution
> > independence for an OS and its Applications comes into the question -
> > specifically if these are using bitmap fonts are not.
>
> > For more education, here ya go:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_font#Bitmap_fonts
>
> > -hh
>
> WTF do bitmap fonts have anything to do with this discussion?
>
> WTF do

Try reading for comprehension: the answer is already in the text you
quoted.

Try reading!

-hh

[Nashton]

On 6/16/2013 11:26 PM, -hh wrote:
> On Jun 16, 10:11 pm, Nashton <n...@na.com> wrote:
>> On 6/16/2013 8:04 PM, -hh wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 16, 11:48 am, Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo.leb...@live.de> wrote:
>>>> On 16.06.2013 14:43, KDT wrote:
>>
>>>>> How so, ever heard of sub pixel rendering? The only blurriness
>>>>> would come from using a non native display ratio (which you
>>>>> can't do without third party utilities)
>>
>>>> So I think discussing further with you is vain, you mix everything.
>>
>>> Unfortunately, what you're missing is that *all* fonts are 'blurry' on
>>> all digital systems because in becoming discrete pixels, their curves
>>> must be approximated.
>>
>> You're delusional. This is why fonts are best viewed at the specific
>> monitors *native* resolution where they are as sharp as can be to the
>> naked eye.
>
> What you're claiming does apply to bit mapped fonts. However, even a
> bitmap is still only an *approximation* of the typecast form, plus it
> hasn't been the only font reproduction approach for nearly 30 years
> (Type 1 fonts date from 1984).

It applies to all modern fonts which is why one is left scratching
his/her head with your fixation on bitmap fonts.

Most of the notion of blurry fonts emanates from the fact that LCDs rely
on interpolation when viewed at resolutions that are further from the
native reolution, hence the fact that things are best viewed as close to
the native resolution as possible.

Modern LCDs have tremendous pixel counts and fonts are visible in a
wider range of resolutions because the human eye can't detect the
difference as much as it can on an ancient LCD.

>
>> Ever hear of picture perfect?
>
> Ever hear of Calculus or Differential Equations?

Ya think?

? Better yet, ever
> have *and pass* multiple classes thereof? If you had, you would
> understand why the technology was invented in the first place to
> supersede bitmaps.

Last course I remember was Calculus Trig, solid objects from revolution
and other sundry goodies. My kids are and were grateful that I could
still remember enough to help them out. I also remember much of my
advanced Chem and and as far as physics, ask me anything.

Try Quantum Operations, now that's hard. Did that too.
The unwashed masses always like to impress with their alleged knowledge
of calculus which is probably one of the easiest branches of
mathematics, developed by Sir Isaac Newton when he was a teenager.

>
>>> The good news is that bitmap fonts are sooo 1980s and have been
>>> replaced with outline fonts (which have varied from Bézier curves in
>>> Adobe PostScript to TrueType) and of course, having a smaller "delta
>>> X" will always make the curves smoother (less blurry), if all other
>>> factors are equal. And that's where the question of resolution
>>> independence for an OS and its Applications comes into the question -
>>> specifically if these are using bitmap fonts are not.
>>
>>> For more education, here ya go:
>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_font#Bitmap_fonts
>>
>>> -hh
>>
>> WTF do bitmap fonts have anything to do with this discussion?
>>
>> WTF do
>
> Try reading for comprehension: the answer is already in the text you
> quoted.
>
> Try reading!
>
> -hh

Well, if you believe that you understood what you read, you wouldn't
have mentioned bitmap fonts in the first place.

You can't feign education.

[Laszlo Lebrun]

On 17.06.2013 01:04, -hh wrote:
>> So I think discussing further with you is vain, you mix everything.

> Unfortunately, what you're missing is that*all* fonts are 'blurry' on

> all digital systems because in becoming discrete pixels, their curves
> must be approximated.

So I think discussing further with you is vain, you mix everything.

Go read something about hinting.

[Laszlo Lebrun]

On 17.06.2013 02:09, KDT wrote:

> So, you don't know that sub pixel rendering helps alleviate fuzziness based on your non experience with Retina Macbook Pros...
> got it.
>

come on with your half-knowledge! When you reduce a 2880 display to 1920
a one pixel line will be blurry, or with sub-pixel rendering, colored.
In any case it can't be as sharp as a display used at it's native
resolution.

[-hh]

On Jun 16, 11:07 pm, Nashton <n...@na.com> wrote:
> On 6/16/2013 11:26 PM, -hh wrote:
> > On Jun 16, 10:11 pm, Nashton <n...@na.com> wrote:
> >> On 6/16/2013 8:04 PM, -hh wrote:
>
> >>> On Jun 16, 11:48 am, Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo.leb...@live.de> wrote:
> >>>> On 16.06.2013 14:43, KDT wrote:
>
> >>>>> How so, ever heard of sub pixel rendering? The only blurriness
> >>>>> would come from using a non native display ratio (which you
> >>>>> can't do without third party utilities)
>
> >>>> So I think discussing further with you is vain, you mix everything.
>
> >>> Unfortunately, what you're missing is that *all* fonts are 'blurry' on
> >>> all digital systems because in becoming discrete pixels, their curves
> >>> must be approximated.
>
> >> You're delusional. This is why fonts are best viewed at the specific
> >> monitors *native* resolution where they are as sharp as can be to the
> >> naked eye.
>
> > What you're claiming does apply to bit mapped fonts.  However, even a
> > bitmap is still only an *approximation* of the typecast form, plus it
> > hasn't been the only font reproduction approach for nearly 30 years
> > (Type 1 fonts date from 1984).
>

> It applies to all modern fonts ...

Congratulations, Nicky: yes, you correctly interpreted what I said.


> ... which is why one is left scratching

> his/her head with your fixation on bitmap fonts.

Oops! You failed to apply what you seemingly had just learned. So so
sorry!

> Most of the notion of blurry fonts emanates from the fact that LCDs rely
> on interpolation when viewed at resolutions that are further from the
> native reolution, hence the fact that things are best viewed as close to
> the native resolution as possible.

Except that outline fonts don't have a "native resolution" in that
sense. Only bitmap fonts do.

> Modern LCDs have tremendous pixel counts and fonts are visible in a
> wider range of resolutions because the human eye can't detect the
> difference as much as it can on an ancient LCD.

Yes, but pixel counts - as quantified by the term of "dpi" - is really
no more than the 'Delta X' approximation that leads to Calculus. And
when Delta X becomes sufficiently small, then it can be considered to
have satisfactorily become 'dX'.

> >> Ever hear of picture perfect?
>
> > Ever hear of Calculus or Differential Equations?
>
> Ya think?
>

> > Better yet, ever
> > have *and pass* multiple classes thereof?  If you had, you would
> > understand why the technology was invented in the first place to
> > supersede bitmaps.
>
> Last course I remember was Calculus Trig, solid objects from revolution
> and other sundry goodies.

Too bad you didn't remember enough to be demonstrably able to apply
it.

> My kids are and were grateful that I could
> still remember enough to help them out. I also remember much of my
> advanced Chem and and as far as physics, ask me anything.

Did you really forget the basics of Calculus, or did you never
actually learn them?

This is a basic foundational tenant of Calculus - - learned the first
week - - and it is all that is needed to understand that in the
context of outline fonts, more pixels is always better when it comes
to reducing font 'fuzziness': the concept of smaller pixels is the
"delta X" which can become the dX of Calculus, manifesting itself as
an ever-improving estimate of its discrete approximation (ie, digital
pixels) of the original ... IE, the analog curve of an outline
font.

And of course, the above doesn't apply is if/where a system is still
using bitmapped fonts. Bitmap's not completely dead yet: I don't
know if/where bitmap fonts are still being used today in OS X, but I
do know that bitmap fonts are still being used in some parts of
Windows OS..


-hh

[-hh]

On Jun 17, 3:38 am, Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_leb...@laszlomail.com> wrote:
> On 17.06.2013 01:04, -hh wrote:
>
> >> So I think discussing further with you is vain, you mix everything.
> >

> > Unfortunately, what you're missing is that *all* fonts are 'blurry' on

> > all digital systems because in becoming discrete pixels, their curves
> > must be approximated.
>
> So I think discussing further with you is vain, you mix everything.

Go ahead and run away, Laz... but the fact remains that having more
pixels *always* produces a better discrete approximation of an analog
shape - - at all font sizes.

> Go read something about hinting.

Hinting was a 1980s approach to try to compensate for Bézier curves
not scaling well. Plus there's spatial anti-aliasing and subpixel
rendering too.

We could say that Apple's "retina" display products are the first ones
good enough to be able to say that technology has finally gotten to be
good enough to be considered 'dx' continuous, even though it still
pedantically is just a 'Delta X' digital approximation.

But unfortunately, what the program designers (particularly of the
day) didn't realize or appreciate is that the analog originals of the
fonts that they were trying to discretely (digitally) mimic weren't a
convenient constant across their different original sizes. For a
computer to have full resolution independence, you either end up with
a potentially very complex set of numerical reductions to be able to
scale the font endlessly ... or you simplify your curves set by
changing the font to be less complex. Typography is a topic area
where the digital technology has historically chronically
underestimated its form.


-hh

[Nashton]

On 6/17/2013 4:46 AM, Laszlo Lebrun wrote:
> On 17.06.2013 02:09, KDT wrote:
>
>> So, you don't know that sub pixel rendering helps alleviate fuzziness
>> based on your non experience with Retina Macbook Pros...
>> got it.
>>
>
> come on with your half-knowledge! When you reduce a 2880 display to 1920
> a one pixel line will be blurry, or with sub-pixel rendering, colored.
> In any case it can't be as sharp as a display used at it's native
> resolution.
>
>
>

They simply have no clue.
It's astonishing, really.

[Nashton]

On 6/17/2013 7:07 AM, -hh wrote:
> On Jun 16, 11:07 pm, Nashton <n...@na.com> wrote:
>> On 6/16/2013 11:26 PM, -hh wrote:
>>> On Jun 16, 10:11 pm, Nashton <n...@na.com> wrote:
>>>> On 6/16/2013 8:04 PM, -hh wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jun 16, 11:48 am, Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo.leb...@live.de> wrote:
>>>>>> On 16.06.2013 14:43, KDT wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> How so, ever heard of sub pixel rendering? The only blurriness
>>>>>>> would come from using a non native display ratio (which you
>>>>>>> can't do without third party utilities)
>>
>>>>>> So I think discussing further with you is vain, you mix everything.
>>
>>>>> Unfortunately, what you're missing is that *all* fonts are 'blurry' on
>>>>> all digital systems because in becoming discrete pixels, their curves
>>>>> must be approximated.
>>
>>>> You're delusional. This is why fonts are best viewed at the specific
>>>> monitors *native* resolution where they are as sharp as can be to the
>>>> naked eye.
>>
>>> What you're claiming does apply to bit mapped fonts. However, even a
>>> bitmap is still only an *approximation* of the typecast form, plus it
>>> hasn't been the only font reproduction approach for nearly 30 years
>>> (Type 1 fonts date from 1984).
>>
>> It applies to all modern fonts ...
>
> Congratulations, Nicky: yes, you correctly interpreted what I said.

Except that you are still stuck in...bitmap fonts.

>> ... which is why one is left scratching
>> his/her head with your fixation on bitmap fonts.
>
> Oops! You failed to apply what you seemingly had just learned. So so
> sorry!

There is no connection between bitmap fonts, interpolation on LCDs and
the topic of the discussion.
Period. Let alone calculus and my knowledge or lack thereof.

>
>
>> Most of the notion of blurry fonts emanates from the fact that LCDs rely
>> on interpolation when viewed at resolutions that are further from the
>> native reolution, hence the fact that things are best viewed as close to
>> the native resolution as possible.
>
> Except that outline fonts don't have a "native resolution" in that
> sense. Only bitmap fonts do.

In fact, they do:

"The native resolution of a LCD, LCoS or other flat panel display refers
to its single fixed resolution. As an LCD display consists of a fixed
raster, it cannot change resolution to match the signal being displayed
as a CRT monitor can, meaning that optimal display quality can be
reached only when the signal input matches the native resolution."

"In theory, some resolutions could work well, if they are exact
multiples of smaller image sizes. For example, a 1600×1200 LCD could
display an 800×600 image well, as each of the pixels in the image could
be represented by a block of four on the larger display, without
interpolation. Since 800×600 is an integer factor of 1600×1200, scaling
should not adversely affect the image. But in practice, most monitors
apply a smoothing algorithm to all smaller resolutions, so the quality
still suffers for these "half" modes."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_resolution

>
>
>> Modern LCDs have tremendous pixel counts and fonts are visible in a
>> wider range of resolutions because the human eye can't detect the
>> difference as much as it can on an ancient LCD.
>
> Yes, but pixel counts - as quantified by the term of "dpi" - is really
> no more than the 'Delta X' approximation that leads to Calculus. And
> when Delta X becomes sufficiently small, then it can be considered to
> have satisfactorily become 'dX'.
>
>
>
>>>> Ever hear of picture perfect?
>>
>>> Ever hear of Calculus or Differential Equations?
>>
>> Ya think?
>>
>>> Better yet, ever
>>> have *and pass* multiple classes thereof? If you had, you would
>>> understand why the technology was invented in the first place to
>>> supersede bitmaps.
>>
>> Last course I remember was Calculus Trig, solid objects from revolution
>> and other sundry goodies.
>
> Too bad you didn't remember enough to be demonstrably able to apply
> it.

Are you talking about mathematical operations involved in vector fonts
and smoothing of fonts or the scalability of primitive fonts and where
the fck does calculus have anything to do with any of this?

>
>
>> My kids are and were grateful that I could
>> still remember enough to help them out. I also remember much of my
>> advanced Chem and and as far as physics, ask me anything.
>
> Did you really forget the basics of Calculus, or did you never
> actually learn them?
>
> This is a basic foundational tenant of Calculus - - learned the first
> week - - and it is all that is needed to understand that in the
> context of outline fonts, more pixels is always better when it comes
> to reducing font 'fuzziness': the concept of smaller pixels is the
> "delta X" which can become the dX of Calculus, manifesting itself as
> an ever-improving estimate of its discrete approximation (ie, digital
> pixels) of the original ... IE, the analog curve of an outline
> font.

Before this is even given any consideration, when you realize that LCDs,
contrary to CRTs have a specific native resolution, by the time
interpolation kicks in, your silly notion of the causal relationship
between calculus and font fuziness falls by the wayside quite quickly.

>
> And of course, the above doesn't apply is if/where a system is still
> using bitmapped fonts. Bitmap's not completely dead yet: I don't
> know if/where bitmap fonts are still being used today in OS X, but I
> do know that bitmap fonts are still being used in some parts of
> Windows OS..

Bitmap fonts are used in dumb terminals and were popular when computers
were the size of outhouses so this is irrelevant.

It's all about pixel density and the capacity of the human eye to
discern the solid color of the body of the font vis a vis the outline.


>
>
> -hh
>

[-hh]

Sorry, but wrong again. There's simply been more than one
technological approach used for displaying fonts on computers, and
contrasting approaches is illuminating.

> >> ... which is why one is left scratching
> >> his/her head with your fixation on bitmap fonts.
>
> > Oops!  You failed to apply what you seemingly had just learned.  So so
> > sorry!
>
> There is no connection between bitmap fonts, interpolation on LCDs and
> the topic of the discussion.

On the contrary: bitmap fonts are more susceptible to poor legibility
than others when there's a mismatch. Their redeeming quality had been
that they generally required less computational overhead.

> Period. Let alone calculus and my knowledge or lack thereof.

Your lack of knowledge thereof is why you're trying to argue an
unwinnable point. These are discrete systems trying to emulate an
analog output.

> >> Most of the notion of blurry fonts emanates from the fact that LCDs rely
> >> on interpolation when viewed at resolutions that are further from the
> >> native reolution, hence the fact that things are best viewed as close to
> >> the native resolution as possible.
>
> > Except that outline fonts don't have a "native resolution" in that
> > sense.  Only bitmap fonts do.
>
> In fact, they do:
>
> "The native resolution of a LCD, LCoS or other flat panel display refers
> to its single fixed resolution. As an LCD display consists of a fixed
> raster, it cannot change resolution to match the signal being displayed
> as a CRT monitor can, meaning that optimal display quality can be
> reached only when the signal input matches the native resolution."
>
> "In theory, some resolutions could work well, if they are exact
> multiples of smaller image sizes. For example, a 1600×1200 LCD could
> display an 800×600 image well, as each of the pixels in the image could
> be represented by a block of four on the larger display, without
> interpolation. Since 800×600 is an integer factor of 1600×1200, scaling
> should not adversely affect the image. But in practice, most monitors
> apply a smoothing algorithm to all smaller resolutions, so the quality
> still suffers for these "half" modes."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_resolution

Sorry, but that's the hardware - - not the font. When you get into
the questions of how to display outlines, even if a "2x2" block is
appropriate on a high resolution grid, it does not necessarily mean
that a "1x1" applies on a low resolution grid: this is why I've
already said that Typography is a topic area where the digital

technology has historically chronically underestimated its form.

> >> Modern LCDs have tremendous pixel counts and fonts are visible in a
> >> wider range of resolutions because the human eye can't detect the
> >> difference as much as it can on an ancient LCD.
>
> > Yes, but pixel counts - as quantified by the term of "dpi" - is really
> > no more than the 'Delta X' approximation that leads to Calculus.  And
> > when Delta X becomes sufficiently small, then it can be considered to
> > have satisfactorily become 'dX'.
>
> >>>> Ever hear of picture perfect?
>
> >>> Ever hear of Calculus or Differential Equations?
>
> >> Ya think?
>
> >>>   Better yet, ever
> >>> have *and pass* multiple classes thereof?  If you had, you would
> >>> understand why the technology was invented in the first place to
> >>> supersede bitmaps.
>
> >> Last course I remember was Calculus Trig, solid objects from revolution
> >> and other sundry goodies.
>
> > Too bad you didn't remember enough to be demonstrably able to apply
> > it.
>
> Are you talking about mathematical operations involved in vector fonts
> and smoothing of fonts or the scalability of primitive fonts and where
> the fck does calculus have anything to do with any of this?

As display pitches improve, it incrementally becomes closer to
functionally being an infinitesimal - - and you've already alluded to
this.

Calculus is related to this because it s foundation is in the concept
of increasingly smaller *discrete* measures of a continuous function
as a technique for approximation:

'Calculus has historically been called "the calculus of
infinitesimals",
or "infinitesimal calculus". The word "calculus" comes from Latin
(calculus) and means a small stone used for counting.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus

But of course, since you don't understand even these basics, you can't
see how obviously it applies.

> >> My kids are and were grateful that I could
> >> still remember enough to help them out. I also remember much of my
> >> advanced Chem and and as far as physics, ask me anything.
>
> > Did you really forget the basics of Calculus, or did you never
> > actually learn them?
>
> > This is a basic foundational tenant of Calculus - - learned the first
> > week - - and it is all that is needed to understand that in the
> > context of outline fonts, more pixels is always better when it comes
> > to reducing font 'fuzziness':  the concept of smaller pixels is the
> > "delta X" which can become the dX of Calculus, manifesting itself as
> > an ever-improving estimate of its discrete approximation (ie, digital
> > pixels) of the original  ... IE, the analog curve of an outline
> > font.
>
> Before this is even given any consideration, when you realize that LCDs,

> contrary to CRTs have a specific native resolution...

Factually incorrect, because conventional color CRTs have discrete
screens inside them which also results in them being functionally
discrete devices. If you want truely continuously variable, you at
least have to go monochrome.


> ... by the time

> interpolation kicks in, your silly notion of the causal relationship
> between calculus and font fuziness falls by the wayside quite quickly.

Hardly. If you really want to talk about true analog displays which
worked off of analog vectors being rastorized, you have to go back 30+
years to the big old monochrome Tektronix 4014 terminals...and given
how much they cost, they were *never* part of personal computing.

> > And of course, the above doesn't apply is if/where a system is still
> > using bitmapped fonts.  Bitmap's not completely dead yet:  I don't
> > know if/where bitmap fonts are still being used today in OS X, but I
> > do know that bitmap fonts are still being used in some parts of
> > Windows OS..
>
> Bitmap fonts are used in dumb terminals and were popular when
> computers were the size of outhouses so this is irrelevant.

Sorry, but the only way that you'll be convinced is to see it
yourself. So the next time you have a BSD on your Windows PC (which
shouldn't be too long of a wait for you), do be sure to note what the
font used is.

> It's all about pixel density and the capacity of the human eye to
> discern the solid color of the body of the font vis a vis the outline.

Yes, the human eye does play a part, in that it contributes to "how
dense is good enough" for purposes of **functionally being an
infinitesimal** ... but that is an illusion because it does not
magically transform the hardware into actually being analog
(continuous).


-hh

[Nashton]

Nobody said that calculus and other basic mathematical operations don't
apply, it's that just throwing it in the pot without any logical hook to
the topic is simply idiotic. One can easily describe in physical terms
without any calculus and based on the characteristics of displays, why
fonts behave the way they do in relation to our perception of degrees of
sharpness.

>
>
>>>> My kids are and were grateful that I could
>>>> still remember enough to help them out. I also remember much of my
>>>> advanced Chem and and as far as physics, ask me anything.
>>
>>> Did you really forget the basics of Calculus, or did you never
>>> actually learn them?
>>
>>> This is a basic foundational tenant of Calculus - - learned the first
>>> week - - and it is all that is needed to understand that in the
>>> context of outline fonts, more pixels is always better when it comes
>>> to reducing font 'fuzziness': the concept of smaller pixels is the
>>> "delta X" which can become the dX of Calculus, manifesting itself as
>>> an ever-improving estimate of its discrete approximation (ie, digital
>>> pixels) of the original ... IE, the analog curve of an outline
>>> font.
>>
>> Before this is even given any consideration, when you realize that LCDs,
>> contrary to CRTs have a specific native resolution...
>
> Factually incorrect, because conventional color CRTs have discrete
> screens inside them which also results in them being functionally
> discrete devices. If you want truely continuously variable, you at
> least have to go monochrome.

Factually correct with proof attached in my previous post. Did you
bother to read it or are you going to try to dazzle me with your copy
and paste jobs from wikipedia without connecting it to the discussion.

>
>
>> ... by the time
>> interpolation kicks in, your silly notion of the causal relationship
>> between calculus and font fuziness falls by the wayside quite quickly.
>
> Hardly. If you really want to talk about true analog displays which
> worked off of analog vectors being rastorized, you have to go back 30+
> years to the big old monochrome Tektronix 4014 terminals...and given
> how much they cost, they were *never* part of personal computing.

Another tidbit you harvested from wikipedia without a rudimentary
understanding of how displays work.

>
>
>>> And of course, the above doesn't apply is if/where a system is still
>>> using bitmapped fonts. Bitmap's not completely dead yet: I don't
>>> know if/where bitmap fonts are still being used today in OS X, but I
>>> do know that bitmap fonts are still being used in some parts of
>>> Windows OS..
>>
>> Bitmap fonts are used in dumb terminals and were popular when
>> computers were the size of outhouses so this is irrelevant.
>
> Sorry, but the only way that you'll be convinced is to see it
> yourself. So the next time you have a BSD on your Windows PC (which
> shouldn't be too long of a wait for you), do be sure to note what the
> font used is.

Oh pulease, when did the discussion turn to text editors and terminal apps?

>
>
>> It's all about pixel density and the capacity of the human eye to
>> discern the solid color of the body of the font vis a vis the outline.
>
> Yes, the human eye does play a part, in that it contributes to "how
> dense is good enough" for purposes of **functionally being an
> infinitesimal** ...
> but that is an illusion because it does not
> magically transform the hardware into actually being analog
> (continuous).

You're boring me, enough already.

>
>
> -hh
>

[Nashton]

On 06-17-13 7:21 AM, -hh wrote:
> On Jun 17, 3:38 am, Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_leb...@laszlomail.com> wrote:
>> On 17.06.2013 01:04, -hh wrote:
>>
>>>> So I think discussing further with you is vain, you mix everything.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, what you're missing is that *all* fonts are 'blurry' on
>>> all digital systems because in becoming discrete pixels, their curves
>>> must be approximated.
>>
>> So I think discussing further with you is vain, you mix everything.
>
> Go ahead and run away, Laz... but the fact remains that having more
> pixels *always* produces a better discrete approximation of an analog
> shape - - at all font sizes.

Don't confuse abandoning a futile discussion with an individual who
can't even use their own words to describe native resolution and the
various software tricks to make fonts appear as sharp as possible with
running away.

>
>> Go read something about hinting.
>

> Hinting was a 1980s approach to try to compensate for B�zier curves

> not scaling well. Plus there's spatial anti-aliasing and subpixel
> rendering too.
>
> We could say that Apple's "retina" display products are the first ones
> good enough to be able to say that technology has finally gotten to be
> good enough to be considered 'dx' continuous, even though it still
> pedantically is just a 'Delta X' digital approximation.
>
> But unfortunately, what the program designers (particularly of the
> day) didn't realize or appreciate is that the analog originals of the
> fonts that they were trying to discretely (digitally) mimic weren't a
> convenient constant across their different original sizes. For a
> computer to have full resolution independence, you either end up with
> a potentially very complex set of numerical reductions to be able to
> scale the font endlessly ... or you simplify your curves set by
> changing the font to be less complex. Typography is a topic area
> where the digital technology has historically chronically
> underestimated its form.

More verbosity, meaningless at that.
But then again, this is your MO.
>
>
> -hh
>

[-hh]

Nicholas's prior post:

"There is no connection between bitmap fonts, interpolation

on LCDs and the topic of the discussion. Period. Let alone

calculus and my knowledge or lack thereof."

> ...it's that just throwing it in the pot without any logical hook to

> the topic is simply idiotic.

The logical hook is display dot pitch --> delta x (--> to dx)

> One can easily describe in physical terms
> without any calculus and based on the characteristics of displays, why
> fonts behave the way they do in relation to our perception of degrees of
> sharpness.

Except that no "calculus" was used: merely that one of its core
principles was cited.

> >>>> My kids are and were grateful that I could
> >>>> still remember enough to help them out. I also remember much of my
> >>>> advanced Chem and and as far as physics, ask me anything.
>
> >>> Did you really forget the basics of Calculus, or did you never
> >>> actually learn them?
>
> >>> This is a basic foundational tenant of Calculus - - learned the first
> >>> week - - and it is all that is needed to understand that in the
> >>> context of outline fonts, more pixels is always better when it comes
> >>> to reducing font 'fuzziness':  the concept of smaller pixels is the
> >>> "delta X" which can become the dX of Calculus, manifesting itself as
> >>> an ever-improving estimate of its discrete approximation (ie, digital
> >>> pixels) of the original  ... IE, the analog curve of an outline
> >>> font.
>
> >> Before this is even given any consideration, when you realize that LCDs,
> >> contrary to CRTs have a specific native resolution...
>
> > Factually incorrect, because conventional color CRTs have discrete
> > screens inside them which also results in them being functionally
> > discrete devices.  If you want truely continuously variable, you at
> > least have to go monochrome.
>
> Factually correct with proof attached in my previous post. Did you
> bother to read it or are you going to try to dazzle me with your copy
> and paste jobs from wikipedia without connecting it to the discussion.

Perhaps you should read the "talk" section of the page you cited for
the relevant discussion before claiming it as infallable. Take with
that the half decade worth of advancements in 'dot pitch' in LCD
displays which makes the statement dates and you just might realize
that there was an unstated assumption of "All Other Factors Equal" in
the comparison which no longer is correct.

If you can't find it on your own, just say so and I'll copy/paste the
text for you to gnash your teeth over ;-)

> >> ... by the time
> >> interpolation kicks in, your silly notion of the causal relationship
> >> between calculus and font fuziness falls by the wayside quite quickly.
>
> > Hardly.  If you really want to talk about true analog displays which
> > worked off of analog vectors being rastorized, you have to go back 30+
> > years to the big old monochrome Tektronix 4014 terminals...and given
> > how much they cost, they were *never* part of personal computing.
>
> Another tidbit you harvested from wikipedia without a rudimentary
> understanding of how displays work.

A bad guess...and a wrong one at that. The 4014 was somewhat 'fun' to
watch it methodically plot out an illustration...but given how slow it
was, watching it draw got pretty boring. That's when one learned that
the 'screen wipe' button was more entertaining because it meant you
were done with the drugery.

> >>> And of course, the above doesn't apply is if/where a system is still
> >>> using bitmapped fonts.  Bitmap's not completely dead yet:  I don't
> >>> know if/where bitmap fonts are still being used today in OS X, but I
> >>> do know that bitmap fonts are still being used in some parts of
> >>> Windows OS..
>
> >> Bitmap fonts are used in dumb terminals and were popular when
> >>   computers were the size of outhouses so this is irrelevant.
>
> > Sorry, but the only way that you'll be convinced is to see it
> > yourself.  So the next time you have a BSD on your Windows PC (which
> > shouldn't be too long of a wait for you), do be sure to note what the
> > font used is.
>
> Oh pulease, when did the discussion turn to text editors and terminal apps?

It didn't: you were trying to claim that bitmaps are utterly
irrelevant ("computers the size of outhouses") to try to deny the fact
that they're still on your Windows laptop to this day.

> >> It's all about pixel density and the capacity of the human eye to
> >> discern the solid color of the body of the font vis a vis the outline.
>
> > Yes, the human eye does play a part, in that it contributes to "how
> > dense is good enough" for purposes of **functionally being an
> > infinitesimal** ...
> >  but that is an illusion because it does not
> > magically transform the hardware into actually being analog
> > (continuous).
>
> You're boring me, enough already.

Translation: Nicky suddenly has realized that my discussion points
have easily been two steps ahead of him for the past three posts.



-hh

[Flint]

On 6/16/2013 8:18 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <kpkqe8$dac$2...@speranza.aioe.org>, Nashton <na...@na.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/16/2013 12:48 PM, Laszlo Lebrun wrote:
>>> On 16.06.2013 14:43, KDT wrote:
>>>> How so, ever heard of sub pixel rendering? The only blurriness would
>>>> come from using a non native display ratio (which you can't do without
>>>> third party utilities)
>>>
>>> So I think discussing further with you is vain, you mix everything.
>>>
>>
>> One cannot feign education. ;)
>
> The the other hand, the education of a physiotherapist doesn't exactly
> give one special insights into computing, now does it?
>

It doesn't necessarily preclude it either. Your point?

--
MFB

[Alan Baker]

In article <kq0opt$qgc$1...@dont-email.me>,

Fascinating...

How many times will you leap in to defend, Nicolas, "Flint"?

[Flint]

On 6/21/2013 1:51 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <kq0opt$qgc$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Flint <agen...@section-31.net> wrote:
>
>> On 6/16/2013 8:18 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>> In article <kpkqe8$dac$2...@speranza.aioe.org>, Nashton <na...@na.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/16/2013 12:48 PM, Laszlo Lebrun wrote:
>>>>> On 16.06.2013 14:43, KDT wrote:
>>>>>> How so, ever heard of sub pixel rendering? The only blurriness would
>>>>>> come from using a non native display ratio (which you can't do without
>>>>>> third party utilities)
>>>>>
>>>>> So I think discussing further with you is vain, you mix everything.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> One cannot feign education. ;)
>>>
>>> The the other hand, the education of a physiotherapist doesn't exactly
>>> give one special insights into computing, now does it?
>>>
>>
>> It doesn't necessarily preclude it either. Your point?
>
> Fascinating...
>
> How many times will you leap in to defend, Nicolas, "Flint"?
>

As long as there remains an uppity stench of PC-ness and elitist
attitude on your part while making factually incorrect statements.
--
MFB

[Alan Baker]

In article <kq0qfu$2ah$1...@dont-email.me>,

I made no such statements, "Flint".

Nicolas chose to make veiled insults about someone's education, so if
anyone was being "elitist" it was him.

:-)

[KDT]

But the fact that he bragged about "installing Linux" and "configuring Apache" as evidence of his technical capabilities does say a lot.