4 ms·

It's also easier to implement non-gamma correct blending, but seeing as it looks terrible and uneven, Apple so far has not done that. More so, most technical p

It's also easier to implement non-gamma correct blending, but seeing as it looks terrible and uneven, Apple so far has not done that. More so, most technical people don't even understand that one, so good look getting a non-Jobs type to see the importance. Non-retina displays are going to stick around for years. Not everyone wants high DPI, I for one much prefer working on a giant non-Retina monitor instead, for more real estate instead of detail. I don't know what they put in the water in the Bay Area, but everyone seems to be moving towards a lowest common denominator approach. This is a terrible decision, and if they don't fix it, it'll be just another reason to abandon the platform.

dahart 8y ago
> It's also easier to implement non-gamma correct blending, Gamma correct blending doesn’t require threading the information through multiple graphics layers, as the parent comment put it. The difficulty of a gamma correct blending implementation isn’t even remotely close to the difficulty of subpixel AA. > so good look getting a non-Jobs type to see the importance. I’m not sure I understand what you mean. Mac was the first major PC platform that had configurable gamma correction and color calibration in the OS. It used to be known as the platform for designers, and more people using Mac cared about color and gamma for display and print than for any other platform. > Not everyone wants high DPI... I prefer more real estate instead of detail You actually don’t want high DPI even if you can have it on a large monitor? Or do you mean you prioritize monitor size over resolution? Low DPI is not going to be a choice in the future... the near future. And once it’s gone, it’s never coming back. > This is a terrible decision Can you elaborate on how it affects you personally? Since you know about gamma, you do know the difference between LCD subpixel AA and regular AA, right? For some people, subpixel AA is blurrier than regular AA. For me, I see slight improvement, but it is by no means some sort of deal breaker. I’m not clear what the outrage is about, can you explain?

dahart 8y ago

> It's also easier to implement non-gamma correct blending, Gamma correct blending doesn’t require threading the information through multiple graphics layers, as the parent comment put it. The difficulty of a gamma correct blending implementation isn’t even remotely close to the difficulty of subpixel AA. > so good look getting a non-Jobs type to see the importance. I’m not sure I understand what you mean. Mac was the first major PC platform that had configurable gamma correction and color calibration in the OS. It used to be known as the platform for designers, and more people using Mac cared about color and gamma for display and print than for any other platform. > Not everyone wants high DPI... I prefer more real estate instead of detail You actually don’t want high DPI even if you can have it on a large monitor? Or do you mean you prioritize monitor size over resolution? Low DPI is not going to be a choice in the future... the near future. And once it’s gone, it’s never coming back. > This is a terrible decision Can you elaborate on how it affects you personally? Since you know about gamma, you do know the difference between LCD subpixel AA and regular AA, right? For some people, subpixel AA is blurrier than regular AA. For me, I see slight improvement, but it is by no means some sort of deal breaker. I’m not clear what the outrage is about, can you explain?