Desktops

[Q Classic]

never really had to look in deep directory structures... whenever i work on a mac, i ssh into my desktop and sftp everything i need there.

as far as going into folders anyway... usually, if i can't find something, i just do the search for it; i've found that there's not much point in trying to find the specific folders.

[Drake Tungsten]

whenever i work on a mac, i ssh into my desktop and sftp everything i need there.

Me too. Guess Asher just isn't l33t enough to handle it...

[Asher]

I've been using telnet, ssh, ftp and the like since 91-92, I believe I can handle it. Especially considering SSH is used on a regular basis for me (see Putty on the desktop).

Though I use FTP w/ SSL rather than SFTP.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Two points...

One, I'm glad to see that Aggie has a folder devoted to me on his desktop. I love you, too.

I'm now convinced. more than ever, that if Asher was offered his pick of two houses - say, Fallingwater or some mock tudor kitset townhouse, he'd choose the one with the bigger garage.


Drake is right Asher. That AT article is out of date.

[Asher]

Why would I want or need a massive house?

I'll quietly note that you've still not defended your assertion that MS is ripping the Finder off, so I'm going to take this as you admitting defeat and the ridiculousness of your comment.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

But now that I see his entire case is built on the fact that they're gray with large top halves...I can definitely see how he's not very adept with computers, or at least computer terminology.

I see you are splitting hairs again - semantics being the last refuge of the idiot. I presume that if Apple ripped off the look of Windows (which they would never do, since M$ has no taste) you would be in here whining about it like a stuck pig like you usually do.

e.g. your countless "Apple ripped off M$ technology" threads (like sub pixel rendering - invented by Steve Wozniak for the Apple II, or Expose - which M$ supposedly "invented").

Geez - I don't class myself as a major league computer geek, but at least I'm not a fraud.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
I see you are splitting hairs again - semantics being the last refuge of the idiot. I presume that if Apple ripped off the look of Windows (which they would never do, since M$ has no taste) you would be in here whining about it like a stuck pig like you usually do.

I find myself repeating things.
1) Plex is a placeholder, and will not ship with Longhorn
2) That is not brushed steel
3) Apple is not the only company who can use grey in a theme

I'm not splitting hairs, Agathon. It's patently clear to everyone else, I'm sure, that the Plex UI is NOT a ripoff of MacOS' finder.

e.g. your countless "Apple ripped off M$ technology" threads (like sub pixel rendering - invented by Steve Wozniak for the Apple II

Another red-herring -- MS invented sub-pixel font anti-aliasing, as evidenced by their patents on it, and Apple's undisputed license of said patents. Sub-pixel rendering is not the same as sub-pixel font anti-aliasing, just like supersampling rendering is not the same as other primitive forms of font anti-aliasing.

Further, I expect you're one of the zombies who believed that crap article Steve Gibson put out on this, yes?

Apple's "sub-pixel rendering" and subsequent patents from the Apple II are nothing like the techniques used on modern PCs. Apple used a quirk with the NTSC format (color subcarriers) to effective double the horizontal resolution, "creating" pixels that are not there. As you probably know, modern computer monitors and LCDs do not use NTSC...

or Expose - which M$ supposedly "invented").

I never said MS invented Expose. I said Expose is fundamentally not necessary on Windows due to the taskbar. Do you know how few people actually download and install those Expose ripoffs of the PC? Expose is a frill, a useless gimick on the PC -- I have no doubt it's useful on OS X, but only because the Window management on OS X is incomprehensibily stupid, so Expose reduces the negative effects.

This is not saying MS "invented" Expose.

I am not the fraud here, Agathon.

[Asher]

By the way, for Agathon's convenience:

Microsoft Patents on...
Subpixel rendering: 6,188,385; 6,219,025; 6,239,783; 6,307,566
Complex color filtering: 6,225,973; 6,243,070; 6,393,145
Subpixel font hinting and layout: 6,421,054; 6,282,327

[Asher]

And just for sh*ts and giggles:
http://www.macobserver.com/columns/d...20030523.shtml

Apple's Quartz vs MS' ClearType:

In a larger, pixel-for-pixel accurate screengrab, above, you might be able see that text under ClearType looks markedly clearer. If you're using an LCD (or a CRT with properly aligned sub-pixels) the difference should be relatively striking. Even if you don't have an appropriate monitor, odds are you'll still notice a slightly more fine-tuned rasterization provided by Microsoft's ClearType.

Apple's version is more primitive, so to get rid of "jaggies" as effectively as ClearType they resort to slightly blurring the text, resulting in "halos" and an unintentional bolding effect...

[Paul Hanson]

The Apple version looks far clearer in that picture, if you ask me.

[Cruddy]

I wouldn't say FAR clearer - but the MS one does look a bit fuzzy to me.

Maybe all this sub pixel nonsense isn't worth having anyway?

[Drake Tungsten]

The Apple version looks far clearer in that picture, if you ask me.

You're not the only one. Good example, Glonkie!

[Agathon]

So MS took someone else's idea and used it for fonts. Of course there was no patent dispute as the Apple patent had expired.

You're a joke Asher. Of course you are a fraud. One need only remind oneself of your Fitts' Law flip flops among other things. I'm guessing you still believe it's a mathematical law?

And you ****ing did say that M$ invented Expose, or at least that Expose was a "ripoff" of M$ technology. You started a thread on it, in which it was pointed out to you that your "evidence" wasn't sufficient to justify your claim.

NB: that pic of Apple's font antialiasing is of a Carbon app (Word) - true native OS X apps (Cocoa) seem slightly better than that to me. In any case, the Apple font smoothing is clearly superior in your example.

+ M$'s font smoothing when it does work well tends to distort the fonts so as to fail to provide true WYSIWYG when it comes to printing.

[Q Classic]

RGB font smoothing in KDE is better than both.

[Q Classic]

and i'm not quite sure what company you're referring to when you say M$.

as far as font smoothing in windows distorting wysiwyg printing? never seen it happen.

[Q Classic]

in order, how it looks in:
windows xp/office 2003 + cleartype
mac osx 10.3/office 2001 + quartz
kde 3.2.1/abiword 2.0.5 + sub-pixel hinting anti-aliasing for fonts.

[Q Classic]

forgot to attach it.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
So MS took someone else's idea and used it for fonts.

It is not somebody else's idea. Sub-pixel rendering was not mentioned anywhere in Apple's patent, nor is it in any way similar to the RGB techniques used in ClearType.

This whole "Apple did it first" crap comes from Steve Gibson, the notorious moron and attention whore. What Apple did was **** with a specific NTSC quirk to effectively double horizontal resolution, and that's IT. Are you saying that any time somebody creates an optical illusion on a PC monitor they stole the idea from Apple...?

You're a joke Asher. Of course you are a fraud. One need only remind oneself of your Fitts' Law flip flops among other things. I'm guessing you still believe it's a mathematical law?

Fitts' law is undeniably a mathematical law, given that it is a formula...

And you ****ing did say that M$ invented Expose, or at least that Expose was a "ripoff" of M$ technology. You started a thread on it, in which it was pointed out to you that your "evidence" wasn't sufficient to justify your claim.

I certainly did not -- though I did mention some of the functionality introduced in Expose existed since Windows 95 (namely, minimize all windows). And similar "zoomable windows" and whatnot have existed since the late 90s at research.microsoft.com

NB: that pic of Apple's font antialiasing is of a Carbon app (Word) - true native OS X apps (Cocoa) seem slightly better than that to me. In any case, the Apple font smoothing is clearly superior in your example.

Carbon and Cocoa have nothing to do with font anti-aliasing. This is clear example of psychology affecting your perception.

I would definitely disagree that Apple's seems clearer -- they've bolded the fonts to make the font edges larger, and they've blurred it adding an upper "halo" to the font which annoys me. MS' technique doesn't bold it, nor does it blur it, which makes it superior IMO.

Font anti-aliasing is about accurately reproducing the original font, minus the jaggies. Apple changes it to a bolder font and adds a halo.

+ M$'s font smoothing when it does work well tends to distort the fonts so as to fail to provide true WYSIWYG when it comes to printing.

This doesn't even make sense? All font anti-aliasing using sub-pixel rendering has no bearing on printed quality. Further, since Apple uses a slight blurring and bolding technique, I'd imagine it's the other way around if anything -- that Apple's fonts appear more bold on the screen than when printed.

[Asher]

Zoomed in images of Apple's bluring (left) vs ClearType (right):

Generally, Quartz seems to raster fonts unnecessarily thick so it can apply what looks like a pseudo-sloppy, Gaussian blur filter resulting in fuzzy "halo" looking text. Now at larger sizes, this may make some sense, but on the smaller fonts (14 Point and smaller) it seems to decrease legibility. Fonts at small sizes particularly benefit from increased resolution, and ClearType seems to excel beyond Quartz in "creating" usable sub-pixel resolution by applying anti-aliasing more discriminately and not over-blurring the results. Perhaps a pseudo MultipleMaster's approach to sub-pixel rastering might be more optimal, where the "halo" effect is reduced for fonts at smaller sizes and increased at larger sizes.

So why did Apple implement a "halo" anti-aliasing model (when ClearType and Adobe's Acrobat text anti-aliasing seem more exacting)? The answer may lie in patents over the technology. If Apple cannot obtain a license on Microsoft's low resolution (i.e., small font size) sub-pixel rendering techniques, then we may simply have to wait until April 10, 2020 (when Microsoft's patent runs out).

[Q Classic]

or apple could go open source and ask to import kde's methods, whose clarity can be seen in the third sample shown above.

[Spiffor]

In Q^3's pic, it's KDE I prefer the most, and Mac I prefer the least. I like it when my chars are very clear, even if that must mean some pixels are visible. Blurry chars are really not a treat for my eyes.

[Asher]

Just because we're all already gathered together here.

http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5173...l?tag=nefd_top

Apple Computer said Monday that it has sold 50 million songs through its iTunes Music Store--a substantial number but far below its goal of selling 100 million songs by April.

I remember certain people here laughing at me being skeptical that they could hit 100M by April. I was told it was guaranteed, if not substantially more than 100M.

Welcome to the real world.

[BustaMike]

That's because ordering a 99 cent mp3 over the internet is retarded. I'd much rather just go buy the CD and get a physical copy with case and booklet at a higher quality.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

Fitts' law is undeniably a mathematical law, given that it is a formula...

Obviously you have a bizarre understanding of what a mathematical law is. Any proposition which is dependent on empirical evidence for its truth is for that reason not a mathematical law.

[Agathon]

The kde one looks best in your pic Q3. The Windows one the worst, in my view.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Obviously you have a bizarre understanding of what a mathematical law is. Any proposition which is dependent on empirical evidence for its truth is for that reason not a mathematical law.

This is Fitts' Law:

MT = a + b log₂(2A/W)

where:
MT = movement time
a,b = regression coefficients
A = distance of movement from start to target center
W = width of target

You know damn well what I mean when I said it was a mathematical law. Obviously it is not a law that governs mathematics, but is a law that IS a mathematical formula.

The original point was it in no way says that, say, having a single title bar at the top is more efficient than having them attached to each window they control, which was your ridiculous assertion. You got this crazy idea from a website which made an incorrect corollary from this, and kept prancing around citing "Fitts' law says it's better..."

[Method]

/me coughs

desktops

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
The kde one looks best in your pic Q3. The Windows one the worst, in my view.

Of course you think it looks worse, you've clearly no sense of anything we're talking about here. Hell, you think Plex and the Finder UI look so similar to the point of accusing MS of ripping it off.

You're out to lunch, man.

[Drake Tungsten]

I agree with Aggie. KDE > Mac > Windows.

[Q Classic]

i suppose this merely emboldens the claims of linux superiority over windows and mac.

but seriously, arguing about font smoothing? all three of them do a good enough job for me, and i don't really care to spend too much time trying to notice the differences.

all of them are pretty smooth, and that's just dandy by me.