"The respondents were not even able to see the Microsoft player, just a picture of it. And who knows what the description said."
Imagine a best case example of what the description might have said then explain how that might have negatively impacted the results particularly in light of the stated results showing that there was no significant difference in loyalty between iPod owners and non-iPod owners. The survey may not have been accurate but there's nothing in the description that suggests that it was not.
Since the Zune player hasn't shipped yet, no one here has seen one either yet it doesn't stop the rampant speculation on how bad it is. I wonder if Apple pays for these negative/. posts?
"If I were a loyal, satisfied ipod owner, I would be completely discounted from this survey."
Not true. Only if you didn't intend to buy another player in the next 12 months. Existing mp3 player owners DO buy new ones even if they're satisfied with their existing ones, just as existing mac owners buy new macs from time to time. The loyalty of owners out of the market is 100%.
"...and the remaining 500 could be raving lunatic apple fanatics, for all we know."
We know nothing about those people except that they don't plan to buy a new player in the next 12 months. They made that clear.
"...they say 58% of the users they surveyed WHO ARE GOING TO BUY A NEW MP3 PLAYER IN THE NEXT YEAR currently own ipods."
No, they didn't. 58% of current iPod owners that will be considering a new player in the next 12 months "said they would be "somewhat likely" or "extremely likely" to choose a Microsoft Zune player over an iPod or another brand of MP3 player." Your reading comprehesion sucks as do your conclusions.
"You see how sneaky this is?"
I would if it were true.
"The next step is even more of a non-sequitur. They state that 59% of the people who own other brand mp3 players say they are at least "somewhat likely" to buy a zune."
Not at all. In contrasting owners of iPods to owners of other players, you see that there is no significant difference in their loyalty to their existing brand. The language is plain. Funny how you can't understand it.
"1) 58% of the people in the market for a new mp3 player own an ipod."
Wrong.
"2) 59% of the people in the market for a new mp3 player who bought something other than an ipod are at least "somewhat likely" to buy a zune."
Yes, versus 58% of iPod owners in a similar situation.
"To simplify, if you bought an mp3 player and didn't pick the ipod last time and are buying a new one you're looking at offerings that aren't the ipod (i.e. the zune). No shit?"
To simplify, if you bought an mp3 player and DID pick the ipod last time and are buying a new one you're looking at offerings that aren't the ipod (i.e. the zune). Oh shit!
"Anyways, I'm not at all impressed by this survey, the methodology seems weak and I don't think there's really any useful information here."
That's because you can't read. Doesn't stop your nonsense ramblings for getting modded "+5 Insightful" since other fanboy/.'ers can't read either.
I feel that having user controllable scaling would be a very compelling feature but it would be only half complete without higher dpi screens. For a HTPC, the scaling feature would be a tremendous asset in compensating for varying viewing distances. I'm just pessimistic that Apple will allow that considering their history. Perhaps I will be pleasantly surprised or, as the other poster said, maybe at the very least a 3rd party could expose the control. Nevertheless, my argument was that Apple never stated an intention to provide such control as was previously claimed. We all agree that it would be useful.
I believe that making things larger is just as valuable as making things smaller BTW. What I want is more screen space along with more options on how to use it. I'd also want Apple to fix support for the IBM T221. It was supported at one time but it no longer works. A 9MP, 200 dpi desktop monitor would be a beautiful thing with an OS that can actually scale. That monitor, and Photoshop, are the only reasons that Windows still owns my desktop.
"Without any context, a DPI number is meaningless."
Yes, but I've given thorough context. It is indisputable that screen dpis higher than 100 are usable at viewing distances that computer users typically have. Instead, you offer complaints that ultimately arise from the total lack of control Mac OS gives you over scaling in the UI. No other GUI is so sorely lacking in that capability.
"...I'm pretty sure that around 2 mm is a much better size than 1 mm..."
See, you're the one lacking context. Without knowing viewing distance, no physical size can be considered "much better". That is the inherent problem with OS X that mac users are oblivious to due the that "reality distortion field" you claim to be uneffected by.
"I don't; go back and read my posts."
I did the first time. For someone so in favor of high screen resolutions I find this comment interesting:
"Maybe another 10% smaller would be workable for someone who has a 10% shorter eyes-to-lap distance than me, but I'll stick with my Powerbook until resolution independence is here."
Later you justified it by describing you typical usage pattern as having wildly varying distances. I believe I totally nailed your argument.
"Apple had a page up talking about how 100 DPI is the ideal resolution"
Yes, and I agree that it's a lame apology for their lack of fundamental tech. At typical monitor distances 150 is completely usable. All platforms suck with regard to scaling but OS X sucks the worst and Apple lies about it.
"Sad but true, although changing the default in Windows XP isn't entirely problem free."
No, in fact Windows is terrible. The dpi setting is broken and scaling font sizes is cumbersome and not effective.
"Hopefully this type of discussion will be history after the introduction of Leopard and a slew of ultra-high resolution Apple laptops."
I sure hope so. This disussion isn't about scaling which we all know Apple is promising. The discussion is about allowing user control over scaling. I would find that feature compelling but I doubt Apple will offer it. That was my entire point and the one I took exception to the original poster for claiming.
"I suggest that you consider the possibility that just like computers, people have widely different hard- and software attributes so what works for you doesn't necessarily work for everyone else."
I do; it's mac people who don't get that. Because of the RDF, mac lovers are convinced that 100 dpi really is the magic number and there's no greater proponent of that than you in your original post. I own a MBP and I use it despite its low resolution screen. Fixing that would make the MBP even better and allowing people with varying eyesight the ability to control scaling just makes sense. It is Apple that demonstrates time and again that they have no respect for people's widely varying attributes as you say. If they did there would be more configurability to the UI.
"Tell me again _who_ is the biased one here? Read its name closely again: Windows MEDIA PLAYER 11, in case you've got trouble (with something I don't want to hear about). Please don't try any lame "but Apple does it too" excuse. MS is not Apple. If others do something stupid, it doesn't mean that you can do the same. Did your mom never tell you this?"
I'd be curious to see your diatribes on iTunes then considering that everything you criticised WMP for has already existed in iTunes for some time. Apparently the world doesn't agree with you.
No media player plays all media formats so why don't you light into all the other failed media players as well? WMP is simply a recent "me-too" of the some of the issues you criticise.
You want to know what bias is? It's offering unfair criticism of one media player while ignoring others with similar faults. That a more apt description of your post than the parent.
I'm not advocating that anyone sit further away. In fact, I feel the opposite but I was pointing out what the maximum viewable distance is at a given dpi and how much further away that is than common usage. For a notebook 150 dpi is perfectly reasonable and only mac people (who don't have the option) argue that it isn't. Arguing with them is meaningless since the only thing that will change their mind is Apple introducing it (sure PCs did it first but Apple made it easy to use!).
Curious that your computer usage specifically creates a problem that can't be solved without a user-controllable global scaling option which (a) doesn't exist and (b) there is no promise that it will exist in the future, then you use that problem of your own creation to argue against the value of display resolutions greater than 100 dpi. Perhaps what you need is a more ergonomic setup for computer usage, as once you learn how to use a computer well you will realize that screens with greater than 100 dpi are indeed valuable.
There is no need for screens to have crappy resolution just so you can continue to read them from a meter away using an OS that provides absolutely no control over viewing sizes. Even Windows does better than that.
How far from your notebook screen do you sit and how far from your desktop screen do you sit? Is it the same? Notebooks are typically closer yet Apple thinks they should have the same dpi. Stupid.
10% or 15% sure isn't enough difference for me to worry about in this context but to each his own. I still don't accept that "a lot of Apple users" are complaining about the screen having too much resolution. Frankly I think it's ridiculous.
The resolving power of the eye at 24" is about 150 dpi for good vision. That means your Powerbook could be 36" away and the MBP only 32". Chances are you use it closer than that so, unless you have poor vision, you don't really have a problem with the MBP at 110 dpi. I use a 204 dpi desktop monitor at 20" and it's a bit too small. 150 dpi is perfect for laptop distances and that's what a 15.4" WUXGA display is. Perhaps all these complaining MBP owners just need glasses.
On a related topic, I've read comments that the Zune is inferior to the iPod because its screen is larger but has no greater resolution. Curiously, iPod screens are 160dpi yet I don't hear anyone complaining about too much resolution there. Perhaps Apple should offer 100 dpi iPod versions for you guys that are complaining that everything is too small.
What makes you think I didn't? You were the one with the comprehension problem. I fully understood your post and called attention to the fact that Apple has never stated they would provide the control you suggested.
"Hell, a lot of Apple users complain already about the MacBook Pros for everything being too tiny."
I don't believe that for a second. MBP screens are only 100 dpi and everything is big. It is the single worst problem with the MBP IMO.
"Will they "lock users out" from this functionality? It'd be stupid to do that, and you have no reason to think they will."
I have every reason to think they will and, unlike you, I've expressed those reasons specifically. Good to see you've finally caught on to the discussion that you, yourself, started.
"If nothing else, they're opening some control to developers, which means that at a bare minimum, you should be able to tweak the setting somewhere."
Really? That doesn't follow either. The bare minimum is no control at all. You started out assuming we'd get the control. Now you're claiming that the control is available to developers and they could expose it if they wished. Again, I ask you for a reference to back up your claim.
"But what, this whole inane discussion is for you to brag that you like tiny UI controls, running a 17" display at 1600x1200?"
No, that's bullshit as well as being incorrect. 100 dpi is totally uncompetitive and the PC world hasn't been tied to it for many years now. Apple needs to get with the program and not only allow better displays but also let it's users choose how to use them. That's the point.
"Great, pat yourself on the back for being a 733t h4x0r. I'm out."
Odd that you would describe me, a man in my mid 40's, using such juvenile language. Perhaps it's the one you comprehend the best since you clearly are incapable of understanding anything I say. Go run and hide now.
"Give me a quote that even implies that, rather than offering this feature as a tool for users and developers, they're going to use it to lock people at 100dpi."
No, you are failing to understand. I'm not saying they will lock users into 100 dpi (they've been doing that already), I'm saying that I worry they will lock users into a common physical screen size for UI objects. I've already provided a quote for that right out of yours:
"This will let the user interface maintain the same physical size while gaining resolution and crispness from high dpi displays."
The reason Apple has never offered screen dpi's in excess of 100 dpi is that they want to lock in physical UI sizes and they have not offered scaling. With scaling coming in Leopard, Apple is not saying they will offer users control over scaling and their past history suggests that they won't be inclined to. Apple can read screen dpi out of displays and I believe scaling will be automatic. For me, that would be regrettable. I don't want Apple denying me the ability to use screen resolution as I see fit.
"I claimed Apple was going to offer resolution independence that would keep high resolutions from being unreasonable on small monitors..."
You said nothing of the sort. Here is what you said:
"Yeah, well if the UI is resolution independent and they give you the controls to scale the UI, you can do whatever you want."
You claimed nothing, but you suggested that control would be given to the user. Apple has never suggested that they would give such control to the user and they have a long history of denying users such control. The fact is that you will not be able to "do whatever you want" without that control and you've provided no reason to believe that such control is coming. I called you on that and I quoted you specifically and correctly. You may have misunderstood but that's your problem, not mine.
...and the performance article is suggesting ways to get around such politeness by tricking the browsers into thinking they are connecting to a larger number of servers. If that's not evidence of outdated advice then what do you want?
That quote is somewhat laughable when you consider that screen dpi's well in excess of 100 have been shipping in non-Apple machines for the better part of a decade now. Nevertheless, that quote says nothing about Apple allowing the user to control screen scaling. In fact it supports my position.
"This will let the user interface maintain the same physical size while gaining resolution and crispness from high dpi displays."
I don't want the interface to maintain the same physical size! I want it to be smaller. Finally, get my question right:
"
"...and they give you the controls to scale the UI..."
But who says they will?
"
As in "who says they will give you the controls to scale the UI?" Apple doesn't. All Apple is saying is that Leopard will offer a scalable UI.
"...and they give you the controls to scale the UI..."
But who says they will? If you consider how Apple locks down virtually every aspect of their UI, the same bet would be to assume they won't. Apple clearly won't deviate much from 100dpi today so I personally believe they won't until they have resolution independence AND they control screen dpi automatically. I hope they offer the control but I'm not optimistic.
I feel that 1920x1200 is great for a 15.4" display on a notebook regardless. You sit closer to a notebook display anyway. I find the Apple 100dpi displays very disappointing, particularly the 30" model. They need to run the 30" up to 3840x2400. That would be 150dpi or about the same as a 15.4" WUXGA display. I would buy that monitor but not the current 30" (which I bought but eBay'ed because it was too grainy).
The W900 was the monitor I was referring to. Sony had at least two versions of the monitor, and the earliest reference I found in a quick search was 1997. I had one long before 2000.
While HDTV standards existed in 1997, how many HDTV sets were being sold then? Widescreen DVDs were, and are, typically published in the format they were originally produced and no movie format was ever 16:9. 16:9 was a format dreamed up specifically for HDTV and movie producers weren't fond of it. There is nothing magic about 16:9 and no reason why monitor makes need to avoid 16:10.
16:10 has nothing to do with LCD. It was established as the widescreen monitor format before LCDs were made in that format.
I personally wouldn't want the extra resolution to be thrown away by increasing the screen dpi setting. It would make a nice option but it would be regrettable if you couldn't control it.
I use a 200dpi screen at home and find that 128dpi is a better setting than 200dpi. I prefer the extra resolution to be used for increasing content on the screen. I sit closer to compensate. Hopefully Apple will see fit to offer that level of control. I doubt it.
No, it's not. It's glorious. If configurations had to be limited, 1680x1050 would be OK if they offered full WUXGA on the 17". I find WUXGA on the the 15.4" to be just fine.
The cost difference to the end customer between a Dell 15.4" with the lowest resolution (lower than the MBP) and Dell's WUXGA is $149 so your entire argument about cost is bullshit. You've offered no justifcations for your claims about what customers want and R&D time, and most would disagree with your assertion that "Apple has never really been at the bleeding edge in technology they tend to use Leading edge technology that has proven itself." Most would say that more about Dell that Apple. Pitiful really.
Fact is that Apple has consistently missed the boat on notebook screen resolutions. They want everything to be the same physical size on any display they offer even though that concept is misguided.
"1080i/p HDTV would be letterboxed, so it fits fine just has some leftover space at the top and bottom."
Nonsense.
"Don't ask me why, but for some reason even though HDTVs are 16:9, those building widescreen computer monitors decided 16:10 was better."
Sony introduced the first widescreen monitor for PCs long before HDTV existed and its native resolution was WUXGA. The 16:10 format has carried on since then. On PCs it does allow viewing a 16:9 with a little vertical room for controls or a menu bar, for example, but I doubt that was a deliberate decision at the time.
"Total BS. He's not a threat to anyone. Prison should be for violent criminals only, IMO."
There are plenty of victims of non-violent crimes. Express your opinion to all those that lost their retirement savings to the Enron fraud. Would having your car stolen be considered a violent crime? Your skateboard? I guess we should forget about any of our rights to property.
"He may have set up a system than enabled copyrighted materials to be distibuted, but he didn't actually do the distributing."
He pleaded guilty to conspiracy AND criminal violations of copyright. That means he conspired to commit copyright violations with other(s) AND he committed them himself. You may say otherwise but you are wrong and he says so himself.
"Also, it could have just as easily been used to distribute non-copyrighted materials."
No proof of that was offered, but so what? As I said before, serial killers sometimes have day jobs but that doesn't make them good people.
"In the end, he didn't actual "steal" a damn thing."
Nice try making an inane argument but I never mentioned "steal" or "theft". It must make you feel better arguing semantics rather than facing the real issue and that is that unauthorized distribution is a crime.
Reserving a small amount of free space for a file to grow into is not the same as maximizing the distance between files. It does not guarantee unfragmented files either. This was the claim:
"Files are dispersed across the whole drive in order to give them room to grow without fragmenting them."
Note that the author said "across the whole drive". No filesystem does this and extents are not an example. In order to accomplish what the author claimed, allocation location would be a function of free space available. Extents cannot do this nor would they want to.
He also claimed this:
"Your argument only holds if the filesystem allocates space at the start of the drive and works its way to the end without leaving gaps when it fact it is optimized to do precisely the opposite."
That is also untrue. The filesystem CAN, in fact, leave gaps so long as the gap sizes don't vary with disk capacity (which they will not). Extents, in your example with MacOS, will not change in size with disk capacity so my claim will remain true.
Strategies for reducing fragmentation are common in filesystems, as you link amply demonstrates, but such stategies cannot result in increasingly poor disk performance as capacities grow. Implementing such a thing would quickly result in the loss of work for the programmers responsible. Why worry about fragmentation when your layout guarantees that performance will always suck?
If you look at disk benchmarks that compare identical generations of disk families with differing capacities, you will *always* see that the larger disks outperform the smaller ones. There is a reason for this and, if the claim that files are scattered to optimize defragmentation were indeed true, the opposite result would be seen.
Talk about someone who's not thinking. Jail is a deterrent, and putting someone in jail demonstrates the threat to others who might otherwise consider similar crimes.
"Why would this make sense for a bt operator? Are they a threat to themselves or others? No, it's silly to imply otherwise."
Besides that jail provides a deterrent, the bt operator IS a threat to others because he is likely to continue his criminal activities.
"A fitting punishment to this crime can and should be settled in civil court; They are forced to make restitutions."
If civil penalties are justified he may have to face those as well.
"Taking someone off the streets and stop them from being a productive member of society..."
Who says he is a productive member of society and why is that relevant? He is committing criminal offenses so his productivity is moot. Serial killers sometimes work day jobs.
"...OR, let them continue working and paying off a fine."
Put him in jail, have him serve his time, then have him pay off his fines when he gets out just like everyone else. It's not either/or.
"Which makes more sense for soceity ( remember, over crowded prisons )? "
So we're making qualitative judgements here? I'd vote that he take the place of a pot smoker in jail. If none of those, then any porn possessor or sodomite. What's he's done is enable distribution of content without payment to the content owners. What has the pot smoker done? There are plenty of criminal acts that clearly have no victim. This is not an example.
"Which makes more sense for those wronged"
I am wronged by the crime and I'd like jail time. It is the members of society that are harmed by a criminal act and you seem to be constantly confused by that. Criminal prosecution does not preclude civil lawsuit.
"what benefit does the RIAA get out of him being in prison aside from evil pleasure"
Jail time is not for the benefit of the RIAA. They can pursue civil action still.
"And finally, what makes more sense for the convicted?"
You've proven yourself entirely unworthy of making that judgement yourself since you are convinced no criminal act has been committed. Perhaps the judge should decide.
Without knowing everything offered at the site, you can't assume there was any "information free from copyright" and that may well have an impact on the case. Curious that you would assume there was.
Slashdot Mirror
"There is absolutely no information in the article about mac owner's loyalty to their computers."
/. after all. Just where is all the evidence that the Zune is a "much maligned brown device"? /. authors have no integrity.
..."
That's true but it is from
"It essentially shows that:
* among people who are looking to buy new mp3 players 58% own ipods.
Wrong. One would think that if you planned on stating something as fact in multiple posts that you'd make the effort to understand it first.
"The respondents were not even able to see the Microsoft player, just a picture of it. And who knows what the description said."
/. posts?
Imagine a best case example of what the description might have said then explain how that might have negatively impacted the results particularly in light of the stated results showing that there was no significant difference in loyalty between iPod owners and non-iPod owners. The survey may not have been accurate but there's nothing in the description that suggests that it was not.
Since the Zune player hasn't shipped yet, no one here has seen one either yet it doesn't stop the rampant speculation on how bad it is. I wonder if Apple pays for these negative
"If I were a loyal, satisfied ipod owner, I would be completely discounted from this survey."
/.'ers can't read either.
Not true. Only if you didn't intend to buy another player in the next 12 months. Existing mp3 player owners DO buy new ones even if they're satisfied with their existing ones, just as existing mac owners buy new macs from time to time. The loyalty of owners out of the market is 100%.
"...and the remaining 500 could be raving lunatic apple fanatics, for all we know."
We know nothing about those people except that they don't plan to buy a new player in the next 12 months. They made that clear.
"...they say 58% of the users they surveyed WHO ARE GOING TO BUY A NEW MP3 PLAYER IN THE NEXT YEAR currently own ipods."
No, they didn't. 58% of current iPod owners that will be considering a new player in the next 12 months "said they would be "somewhat likely" or "extremely likely" to choose a Microsoft Zune player over an iPod or another brand of MP3 player." Your reading comprehesion sucks as do your conclusions.
"You see how sneaky this is?"
I would if it were true.
"The next step is even more of a non-sequitur. They state that 59% of the people who own other brand mp3 players say they are at least "somewhat likely" to buy a zune."
Not at all. In contrasting owners of iPods to owners of other players, you see that there is no significant difference in their loyalty to their existing brand. The language is plain. Funny how you can't understand it.
"1) 58% of the people in the market for a new mp3 player own an ipod."
Wrong.
"2) 59% of the people in the market for a new mp3 player who bought something other than an ipod are at least "somewhat likely" to buy a zune."
Yes, versus 58% of iPod owners in a similar situation.
"To simplify, if you bought an mp3 player and didn't pick the ipod last time and are buying a new one you're looking at offerings that aren't the ipod (i.e. the zune). No shit?"
To simplify, if you bought an mp3 player and DID pick the ipod last time and are buying a new one you're looking at offerings that aren't the ipod (i.e. the zune). Oh shit!
"Anyways, I'm not at all impressed by this survey, the methodology seems weak and I don't think there's really any useful information here."
That's because you can't read. Doesn't stop your nonsense ramblings for getting modded "+5 Insightful" since other fanboy
I feel that having user controllable scaling would be a very compelling feature but it would be only half complete without higher dpi screens. For a HTPC, the scaling feature would be a tremendous asset in compensating for varying viewing distances. I'm just pessimistic that Apple will allow that considering their history. Perhaps I will be pleasantly surprised or, as the other poster said, maybe at the very least a 3rd party could expose the control. Nevertheless, my argument was that Apple never stated an intention to provide such control as was previously claimed. We all agree that it would be useful.
I believe that making things larger is just as valuable as making things smaller BTW. What I want is more screen space along with more options on how to use it. I'd also want Apple to fix support for the IBM T221. It was supported at one time but it no longer works. A 9MP, 200 dpi desktop monitor would be a beautiful thing with an OS that can actually scale. That monitor, and Photoshop, are the only reasons that Windows still owns my desktop.
"Without any context, a DPI number is meaningless."
Yes, but I've given thorough context. It is indisputable that screen dpis higher than 100 are usable at viewing distances that computer users typically have. Instead, you offer complaints that ultimately arise from the total lack of control Mac OS gives you over scaling in the UI. No other GUI is so sorely lacking in that capability.
"...I'm pretty sure that around 2 mm is a much better size than 1 mm..."
See, you're the one lacking context. Without knowing viewing distance, no physical size can be considered "much better". That is the inherent problem with OS X that mac users are oblivious to due the that "reality distortion field" you claim to be uneffected by.
"I don't; go back and read my posts."
I did the first time. For someone so in favor of high screen resolutions I find this comment interesting:
"Maybe another 10% smaller would be workable for someone who has a 10% shorter eyes-to-lap distance than me, but I'll stick with my Powerbook until resolution independence is here."
Later you justified it by describing you typical usage pattern as having wildly varying distances. I believe I totally nailed your argument.
"Apple had a page up talking about how 100 DPI is the ideal resolution"
Yes, and I agree that it's a lame apology for their lack of fundamental tech. At typical monitor distances 150 is completely usable. All platforms suck with regard to scaling but OS X sucks the worst and Apple lies about it.
"Sad but true, although changing the default in Windows XP isn't entirely problem free."
No, in fact Windows is terrible. The dpi setting is broken and scaling font sizes is cumbersome and not effective.
"Hopefully this type of discussion will be history after the introduction of Leopard and a slew of ultra-high resolution Apple laptops."
I sure hope so. This disussion isn't about scaling which we all know Apple is promising. The discussion is about allowing user control over scaling. I would find that feature compelling but I doubt Apple will offer it. That was my entire point and the one I took exception to the original poster for claiming.
"I suggest that you consider the possibility that just like computers, people have widely different hard- and software attributes so what works for you doesn't necessarily work for everyone else."
I do; it's mac people who don't get that. Because of the RDF, mac lovers are convinced that 100 dpi really is the magic number and there's no greater proponent of that than you in your original post. I own a MBP and I use it despite its low resolution screen. Fixing that would make the MBP even better and allowing people with varying eyesight the ability to control scaling just makes sense. It is Apple that demonstrates time and again that they have no respect for people's widely varying attributes as you say. If they did there would be more configurability to the UI.
"Tell me again _who_ is the biased one here? Read its name closely again: Windows MEDIA PLAYER 11, in case you've got trouble (with something I don't want to hear about). Please don't try any lame "but Apple does it too" excuse. MS is not Apple. If others do something stupid, it doesn't mean that you can do the same. Did your mom never tell you this?"
I'd be curious to see your diatribes on iTunes then considering that everything you criticised WMP for has already existed in iTunes for some time. Apparently the world doesn't agree with you.
No media player plays all media formats so why don't you light into all the other failed media players as well? WMP is simply a recent "me-too" of the some of the issues you criticise.
You want to know what bias is? It's offering unfair criticism of one media player while ignoring others with similar faults. That a more apt description of your post than the parent.
I'm not advocating that anyone sit further away. In fact, I feel the opposite but I was pointing out what the maximum viewable distance is at a given dpi and how much further away that is than common usage. For a notebook 150 dpi is perfectly reasonable and only mac people (who don't have the option) argue that it isn't. Arguing with them is meaningless since the only thing that will change their mind is Apple introducing it (sure PCs did it first but Apple made it easy to use!).
Curious that your computer usage specifically creates a problem that can't be solved without a user-controllable global scaling option which (a) doesn't exist and (b) there is no promise that it will exist in the future, then you use that problem of your own creation to argue against the value of display resolutions greater than 100 dpi. Perhaps what you need is a more ergonomic setup for computer usage, as once you learn how to use a computer well you will realize that screens with greater than 100 dpi are indeed valuable.
There is no need for screens to have crappy resolution just so you can continue to read them from a meter away using an OS that provides absolutely no control over viewing sizes. Even Windows does better than that.
How far from your notebook screen do you sit and how far from your desktop screen do you sit? Is it the same? Notebooks are typically closer yet Apple thinks they should have the same dpi. Stupid.
10% or 15% sure isn't enough difference for me to worry about in this context but to each his own. I still don't accept that "a lot of Apple users" are complaining about the screen having too much resolution. Frankly I think it's ridiculous.
The resolving power of the eye at 24" is about 150 dpi for good vision. That means your Powerbook could be 36" away and the MBP only 32". Chances are you use it closer than that so, unless you have poor vision, you don't really have a problem with the MBP at 110 dpi. I use a 204 dpi desktop monitor at 20" and it's a bit too small. 150 dpi is perfect for laptop distances and that's what a 15.4" WUXGA display is. Perhaps all these complaining MBP owners just need glasses.
On a related topic, I've read comments that the Zune is inferior to the iPod because its screen is larger but has no greater resolution. Curiously, iPod screens are 160dpi yet I don't hear anyone complaining about too much resolution there. Perhaps Apple should offer 100 dpi iPod versions for you guys that are complaining that everything is too small.
"Follow the damn thread"
What makes you think I didn't? You were the one with the comprehension problem. I fully understood your post and called attention to the fact that Apple has never stated they would provide the control you suggested.
"Hell, a lot of Apple users complain already about the MacBook Pros for everything being too tiny."
I don't believe that for a second. MBP screens are only 100 dpi and everything is big. It is the single worst problem with the MBP IMO.
"Will they "lock users out" from this functionality? It'd be stupid to do that, and you have no reason to think they will."
I have every reason to think they will and, unlike you, I've expressed those reasons specifically. Good to see you've finally caught on to the discussion that you, yourself, started.
"If nothing else, they're opening some control to developers, which means that at a bare minimum, you should be able to tweak the setting somewhere."
Really? That doesn't follow either. The bare minimum is no control at all. You started out assuming we'd get the control. Now you're claiming that the control is available to developers and they could expose it if they wished. Again, I ask you for a reference to back up your claim.
"But what, this whole inane discussion is for you to brag that you like tiny UI controls, running a 17" display at 1600x1200?"
No, that's bullshit as well as being incorrect. 100 dpi is totally uncompetitive and the PC world hasn't been tied to it for many years now. Apple needs to get with the program and not only allow better displays but also let it's users choose how to use them. That's the point.
"Great, pat yourself on the back for being a 733t h4x0r. I'm out."
Odd that you would describe me, a man in my mid 40's, using such juvenile language. Perhaps it's the one you comprehend the best since you clearly are incapable of understanding anything I say. Go run and hide now.
"Give me a quote that even implies that, rather than offering this feature as a tool for users and developers, they're going to use it to lock people at 100dpi."
No, you are failing to understand. I'm not saying they will lock users into 100 dpi (they've been doing that already), I'm saying that I worry they will lock users into a common physical screen size for UI objects. I've already provided a quote for that right out of yours:
"This will let the user interface maintain the same physical size while gaining resolution and crispness from high dpi displays."
The reason Apple has never offered screen dpi's in excess of 100 dpi is that they want to lock in physical UI sizes and they have not offered scaling. With scaling coming in Leopard, Apple is not saying they will offer users control over scaling and their past history suggests that they won't be inclined to. Apple can read screen dpi out of displays and I believe scaling will be automatic. For me, that would be regrettable. I don't want Apple denying me the ability to use screen resolution as I see fit.
"I claimed Apple was going to offer resolution independence that would keep high resolutions from being unreasonable on small monitors..."
You said nothing of the sort. Here is what you said:
"Yeah, well if the UI is resolution independent and they give you the controls to scale the UI, you can do whatever you want."
You claimed nothing, but you suggested that control would be given to the user. Apple has never suggested that they would give such control to the user and they have a long history of denying users such control. The fact is that you will not be able to "do whatever you want" without that control and you've provided no reason to believe that such control is coming. I called you on that and I quoted you specifically and correctly. You may have misunderstood but that's your problem, not mine.
...and the performance article is suggesting ways to get around such politeness by tricking the browsers into thinking they are connecting to a larger number of servers. If that's not evidence of outdated advice then what do you want?
That quote is somewhat laughable when you consider that screen dpi's well in excess of 100 have been shipping in non-Apple machines for the better part of a decade now. Nevertheless, that quote says nothing about Apple allowing the user to control screen scaling. In fact it supports my position.
"This will let the user interface maintain the same physical size while gaining resolution and crispness from high dpi displays."
I don't want the interface to maintain the same physical size! I want it to be smaller. Finally, get my question right:
"
"...and they give you the controls to scale the UI..."
But who says they will?
"
As in "who says they will give you the controls to scale the UI?" Apple doesn't. All Apple is saying is that Leopard will offer a scalable UI.
"...and they give you the controls to scale the UI..."
But who says they will? If you consider how Apple locks down virtually every aspect of their UI, the same bet would be to assume they won't. Apple clearly won't deviate much from 100dpi today so I personally believe they won't until they have resolution independence AND they control screen dpi automatically. I hope they offer the control but I'm not optimistic.
I feel that 1920x1200 is great for a 15.4" display on a notebook regardless. You sit closer to a notebook display anyway. I find the Apple 100dpi displays very disappointing, particularly the 30" model. They need to run the 30" up to 3840x2400. That would be 150dpi or about the same as a 15.4" WUXGA display. I would buy that monitor but not the current 30" (which I bought but eBay'ed because it was too grainy).
The W900 was the monitor I was referring to. Sony had at least two versions of the monitor, and the earliest reference I found in a quick search was 1997. I had one long before 2000.
s _199706/ai_hibm1G119360432
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb197/i
While HDTV standards existed in 1997, how many HDTV sets were being sold then? Widescreen DVDs were, and are, typically published in the format they were originally produced and no movie format was ever 16:9. 16:9 was a format dreamed up specifically for HDTV and movie producers weren't fond of it. There is nothing magic about 16:9 and no reason why monitor makes need to avoid 16:10.
16:10 has nothing to do with LCD. It was established as the widescreen monitor format before LCDs were made in that format.
I personally wouldn't want the extra resolution to be thrown away by increasing the screen dpi setting. It would make a nice option but it would be regrettable if you couldn't control it.
I use a 200dpi screen at home and find that 128dpi is a better setting than 200dpi. I prefer the extra resolution to be used for increasing content on the screen. I sit closer to compensate. Hopefully Apple will see fit to offer that level of control. I doubt it.
"1920x1200 would just be too much on 15.4"
No, it's not. It's glorious. If configurations had to be limited, 1680x1050 would be OK if they offered full WUXGA on the 17". I find WUXGA on the the 15.4" to be just fine.
The cost difference to the end customer between a Dell 15.4" with the lowest resolution (lower than the MBP) and Dell's WUXGA is $149 so your entire argument about cost is bullshit. You've offered no justifcations for your claims about what customers want and R&D time, and most would disagree with your assertion that "Apple has never really been at the bleeding edge in technology they tend to use Leading edge technology that has proven itself." Most would say that more about Dell that Apple. Pitiful really.
x ?c=us&cs=04&kc=6W300&l=en&oc=d820sapp&s=bsd
http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.asp
Fact is that Apple has consistently missed the boat on notebook screen resolutions. They want everything to be the same physical size on any display they offer even though that concept is misguided.
"1080i/p HDTV would be letterboxed, so it fits fine just has some leftover space at the top and bottom."
Nonsense.
"Don't ask me why, but for some reason even though HDTVs are 16:9, those building widescreen computer monitors decided 16:10 was better."
Sony introduced the first widescreen monitor for PCs long before HDTV existed and its native resolution was WUXGA. The 16:10 format has carried on since then. On PCs it does allow viewing a 16:9 with a little vertical room for controls or a menu bar, for example, but I doubt that was a deliberate decision at the time.
No, neither of the MBP screens is WUXGA. WUXGA is 1920x1200 and Apple doesn't offer that.
"(btw, what's a "restauant"?)"
What's a "GORILLA ORANGUTAN"?
"Total BS. He's not a threat to anyone. Prison should be for violent criminals only, IMO."
There are plenty of victims of non-violent crimes. Express your opinion to all those that lost their retirement savings to the Enron fraud. Would having your car stolen be considered a violent crime? Your skateboard? I guess we should forget about any of our rights to property.
"He may have set up a system than enabled copyrighted materials to be distibuted, but he didn't actually do the distributing."
He pleaded guilty to conspiracy AND criminal violations of copyright. That means he conspired to commit copyright violations with other(s) AND he committed them himself. You may say otherwise but you are wrong and he says so himself.
"Also, it could have just as easily been used to distribute non-copyrighted materials."
No proof of that was offered, but so what? As I said before, serial killers sometimes have day jobs but that doesn't make them good people.
"In the end, he didn't actual "steal" a damn thing."
Nice try making an inane argument but I never mentioned "steal" or "theft". It must make you feel better arguing semantics rather than facing the real issue and that is that unauthorized distribution is a crime.
Reserving a small amount of free space for a file to grow into is not the same as maximizing the distance between files. It does not guarantee unfragmented files either. This was the claim:
"Files are dispersed across the whole drive in order to give them room to grow without fragmenting them."
Note that the author said "across the whole drive". No filesystem does this and extents are not an example. In order to accomplish what the author claimed, allocation location would be a function of free space available. Extents cannot do this nor would they want to.
He also claimed this:
"Your argument only holds if the filesystem allocates space at the start of the drive and works its way to the end without leaving gaps when it fact it is optimized to do precisely the opposite."
That is also untrue. The filesystem CAN, in fact, leave gaps so long as the gap sizes don't vary with disk capacity (which they will not). Extents, in your example with MacOS, will not change in size with disk capacity so my claim will remain true.
Strategies for reducing fragmentation are common in filesystems, as you link amply demonstrates, but such stategies cannot result in increasingly poor disk performance as capacities grow. Implementing such a thing would quickly result in the loss of work for the programmers responsible. Why worry about fragmentation when your layout guarantees that performance will always suck?
If you look at disk benchmarks that compare identical generations of disk families with differing capacities, you will *always* see that the larger disks outperform the smaller ones. There is a reason for this and, if the claim that files are scattered to optimize defragmentation were indeed true, the opposite result would be seen.
Talk about someone who's not thinking. Jail is a deterrent, and putting someone in jail demonstrates the threat to others who might otherwise consider similar crimes.
"Why would this make sense for a bt operator? Are they a threat to themselves or others? No, it's silly to imply otherwise."
Besides that jail provides a deterrent, the bt operator IS a threat to others because he is likely to continue his criminal activities.
"A fitting punishment to this crime can and should be settled in civil court; They are forced to make restitutions."
If civil penalties are justified he may have to face those as well.
"Taking someone off the streets and stop them from being a productive member of society..."
Who says he is a productive member of society and why is that relevant? He is committing criminal offenses so his productivity is moot. Serial killers sometimes work day jobs.
"...OR, let them continue working and paying off a fine."
Put him in jail, have him serve his time, then have him pay off his fines when he gets out just like everyone else. It's not either/or.
"Which makes more sense for soceity ( remember, over crowded prisons )? "
So we're making qualitative judgements here? I'd vote that he take the place of a pot smoker in jail. If none of those, then any porn possessor or sodomite. What's he's done is enable distribution of content without payment to the content owners. What has the pot smoker done? There are plenty of criminal acts that clearly have no victim. This is not an example.
"Which makes more sense for those wronged"
I am wronged by the crime and I'd like jail time. It is the members of society that are harmed by a criminal act and you seem to be constantly confused by that. Criminal prosecution does not preclude civil lawsuit.
"what benefit does the RIAA get out of him being in prison aside from evil pleasure"
Jail time is not for the benefit of the RIAA. They can pursue civil action still.
"And finally, what makes more sense for the convicted?"
You've proven yourself entirely unworthy of making that judgement yourself since you are convinced no criminal act has been committed. Perhaps the judge should decide.
Without knowing everything offered at the site, you can't assume there was any "information free from copyright" and that may well have an impact on the case. Curious that you would assume there was.
"Someone hosting a bittorent site is NOT violating copyright."
They may be conspiring to violate copyright though.