I suppose it was meant as a troll, but if you were a fan of NeXT and Macs, you'd know they replaced DisplayPostscript with DisplayPDF, which is Quartz. It has better color and font management among other things, though not as programmable. It's the graphics engine that Microsoft is trying so hard to emulate in Vista, among other things. The switch was probably because of Adobe's licensing; PDF has a less restrictive copyright stipulation. Apple has no reason to go backward on this, no matter how big your check.
The thing that peeves me a bit about the article is that he quotes me verbatim and paraphrases for other parts without any attribution. Compare my original email I sent him the night before to his article, and spot the similarities. My email's a bit long and relates to what Apple's plans might be to circumvent Microsoft's Office dominance and fill the gaping gap in their iLife strategy, a decent Office package, without losing a lot of users when Microsoft inevitably retaliates by pulling MS Office. The part about Adobe is in there too, although I didn't say they have to buy Adobe outright now, only controlling interest if Adobe ever threatens to pull killer apps like Photoshop:
"Apple is beholden to two software companies above all: Microsoft and Adobe. Microsoft they may be able to get around, but not Adobe. If Apple loses Photoshop, they lose the CS and MX suite (now Adobe owns Macromedia), and they lose the publishing market (not necessarily in that order), one of their mainstay niche markets that have kept them alive all these years. It's a killer app they must have. Their only alternative would be to buy a majority stake in Adobe to force a native version of the CS suite."
The least he could have done is acknowledge his source.
Read the article. He's talking about ways of allowing the user to set a Zoom factor in his browser if he chooses, and for web designers to provide alternate content depending on the detected screen size for people who set Zoom sizes. Including using SVG content which is resolution independent. So for instance they get a higer rez image instead of a blown up pixellated image. But if you want tiny text and images on your 1600x1200 screen, so be it, you don't have to choose a Zoom factor. Modern browsers already have the ability to enlarge text, some even allow Page zoom, but in a way that doesn't get you a sharper/more detailed image.
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose it was meant as a troll, but if you were a fan of NeXT and Macs, you'd know they replaced DisplayPostscript with DisplayPDF, which is Quartz. It has better color and font management among other things, though not as programmable. It's the graphics engine that Microsoft is trying so hard to emulate in Vista, among other things. The switch was probably because of Adobe's licensing; PDF has a less restrictive copyright stipulation. Apple has no reason to go backward on this, no matter how big your check.
The thing that peeves me a bit about the article is that he quotes me verbatim and paraphrases for other parts without any attribution. Compare my original email I sent him the night before to his article, and spot the similarities. My email's a bit long and relates to what Apple's plans might be to circumvent Microsoft's Office dominance and fill the gaping gap in their iLife strategy, a decent Office package, without losing a lot of users when Microsoft inevitably retaliates by pulling MS Office. The part about Adobe is in there too, although I didn't say they have to buy Adobe outright now, only controlling interest if Adobe ever threatens to pull killer apps like Photoshop:
"Apple is beholden to two software companies above all: Microsoft and Adobe. Microsoft they may be able to get around, but not Adobe. If Apple loses Photoshop, they lose the CS and MX suite (now Adobe owns Macromedia), and they lose the publishing market (not necessarily in that order), one of their mainstay niche markets that have kept them alive all these years. It's a killer app they must have. Their only alternative would be to buy a majority stake in Adobe to force a native version of the CS suite."
The least he could have done is acknowledge his source.
Martin Andersen
Read the article. He's talking about ways of allowing the user to set a Zoom factor in his browser if he chooses, and for web designers to provide alternate content depending on the detected screen size for people who set Zoom sizes. Including using SVG content which is resolution independent. So for instance they get a higer rez image instead of a blown up pixellated image.
But if you want tiny text and images on your 1600x1200 screen, so be it, you don't have to choose a Zoom factor. Modern browsers already have the ability to enlarge text, some even allow Page zoom, but in a way that doesn't get you a sharper/more detailed image.