61–68 of 68 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand, consider PowerBook--a strong brand since the early 90's that was still phased out.
Having been named after the PowerPC architecture probably accounts for that one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd guess using something like http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=inflation+rate+in+US+fr... to establish a mean rate and then using "compound interest" formula?
It's far simpler than that: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=9,995+1983+dollars
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having been named after the PowerPC architecture probably accounts for that one.
No, that's the Power Mac. The PowerBook predates the PowerPC by years--the first PowerBook was in 1991, and the first PowerPC-based PowerBook was in 1995, while the first Power Mac was in 1994.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM_alliance
Looks to me like they were just establishing the brand in advance of the first chip.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, that's the Power Mac. The PowerBook predates the PowerPC by years--the first PowerBook was in 1991, and the first PowerPC-based PowerBook was in 1995, while the first Power Mac was in 1994.
You're right, the first was released in October of 1991. But look at what else Apple joined in the same month: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM_alliance Looks to me like they were just establishing the brand in advance of the first chip.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meanwhile, the xerox lisa had a DPI of 90, while a regular macbook has a DPI of 110. http://www.mprove.de/diplom/text/3.1.8_lisa.html http://members.ping.de/~sven/dpi.html
Desktop monitor resolution is still at ~100dpi because no desktop OS has solved the scalable UI problem satisfactorily. The OSes have some attempts at support for UI scaling, but none works well enough to run all of the popular software decently at 200dpi. Contrast that with iOS. I only have a handful of non-built-in apps, but they all work perfectly on my iPhone 4, none look worse, and all but the graphics-intensive…
I'm under the impression this isn't a problem. Scaling is a problem when you have bitmap images and try to scale from - say - an iPhone to an iPad. But on desktops, monitors aren't growing in size by a factor of ~2.77.
If you leave the screen size the same but increase the DPI, bitmaps will look exactly the same. They might seem visually out-of-place next to crisper UI elements. Is that what you mean?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're right, the first was released in October of 1991. But look at what else Apple joined in the same month: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM_alliance Looks to me like they were just establishing the brand in advance of the first chip.
That makes absolutely no sense--the "Power Macintosh" wasn't unveiled until the PowerPC chips were actually shipping, because the brand denoted the presence of the new processor. Why would you name a computer brand after a processor it doesn't have? It's like calling a 386-based 486-era laptop a "Penta" because you anticipate that future versions of it years in the future will have Pentium processors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand_management#Functions_of_b...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Desktop monitor resolution is still at ~100dpi because no desktop OS has solved the scalable UI problem satisfactorily. The OSes have some attempts at support for UI scaling, but none works well enough to run all of the popular software decently at 200dpi. Contrast that with iOS. I only have a handful of non-built-in apps, but they all work perfectly on my iPhone 4, none look worse, and all but the graphics-intensive…
Desktop monitor resolution is still at ~100dpi because no desktop OS has solved the scalable UI problem satisfactorily. I'm under the impression this isn't a problem. Scaling is a problem when you have bitmap images and try to scale from - say - an iPhone to an iPad. But on desktops, monitors aren't growing in size by a factor of ~2.77. If you leave the screen size the same but increase the DPI, bitmaps will look exa…
For example, every app that used a standard Mac toolbar draws it incorrectly. Address Book's split views do not resize correctly. iCal's colored checkboxes are incorrect, and the popout from double-clicking a calendar item is very broken. In Safari, the busy icon on tabs isn't drawn correctly, the Top Sites search box is clipped, and the Bookmarks bottom toolbar is drawn incorrectly. The Dock puts right-click menus in the wrong place and draws them wrong, and handles drag and drop incorrectly. Finder doesn't scale the desktop icons. Preview's notion of "Actual Size" doesn't honor the UI Resolution scale factor.
Outside of Apple apps, I find that Photoshop ignores clicks on the menu bar entirely. OmniGraffle's toolbar is extra-broken, the disclosure triangles in its palettes don't work, and it draws the contents of documents incorrectly.
World of Warcraft scales up more than 2x. I can't even get to the username/password boxes. (This could be a feature.) Sketchup draws my document in the lower-left quarter of the window and random junk from the WoW login screen on the other three quarters.
Contrast this to the iPhone 4 experience. Every app I've tried looks at least as good on iPhone 4 as on iPhone 3GS, and none has had any drawing or behavior defects.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Smaller than you could ever experience with your finger (about a 90-pixel square area on the iPhone 4), and better than any other phones on the market, apparently.
Not quite. Apple's HIG recommends allotting 44pts for hit targets (about 90px on the new screen) for usability's sake, but you can hit much smaller targets if you're careful about it.