3 ms·

> Rosetta 1 had a ticking time bomb. Apple was licensing it from a 3rd party. Yes, I'm sure Apple had no way of extending the license. > Cook is more than hap

> Rosetta 1 had a ticking time bomb. Apple was licensing it from a 3rd party. Yes, I'm sure Apple had no way of extending the license. > Cook is more than happy to sell what people will buy. I think Rosetta 2 will last. There's no "buy" here. Rosetta is complexity to maintain, and an easy cut. It's not even part of the base system. And “what people will buy” certainly didn’t prevent essentially removing support for non-hidpi displays from MacOS. Which is a lot more impactful than Rosetta as far as I’m concerned.

NavinF 4y ago
> removing support for non-hidpi displays from MacOS Did that really reduce sales? Consider that the wide availability of crappy low end hardware gave Windows laptops a terrible reputation. Eg https://www.reddit.com/r/LinusTechTips/comments/yof7va/friends_dont_let_friends_run_win10_with_4gb_of/ https://www.reddit.com/r/LinusTechTips/comments/yof7va/frien...
- masklinn 4y ago
  > Consider that the wide availability of crappy low end hardware gave Windows laptops a terrible reputation. Standard DPI displays are not "crappy low-end hardware"? I don't think there's a single widescreen display which qualifies as hiDPI out there, that more or less doesn't exist: a 5K 34" is around 160 DPI (to say nothing of the downright pedestrian 5K 49" like the G9 or the AOC Agon).
  - adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
    dpi isn't the right metric. you don't keep a phone the same distance as a 49" monitor.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      DPI works fine as long as the type of device is in the context. The context here is desktop/laptop.
    - masklinn 4y ago
      DPI is absolutely the right metric, the target goal just depends on the usage. A hidpi computer display is north of 200 (iMacs are a bit below 220, MacBooks a bit above). A phone is north of 300 (iPhones have ranged from 324 to 476).
  - NavinF 4y ago
    Ehh I had a 2013 MacBook pro back in 2013 with a 2560x1600 display. That's 227 dpi. A decade later, I think it's safe to say that anything smaller than that is extremely low-end in 2022. I agree it's kinda sad how few desktop monitors are high dpi. It gets even worse if you limit yourself to low latency monitors. Anyway I haven't used macos in a while so I'm not sure what you mean by Apple not supporting non-hidpi
    - bigDinosaur 4y ago
      The actual screen dimensions make a huge difference to whether or not a given DPI value is low or high end. My current monitor is 157 DPI and I can assure you it is not an extremely low end monitor at all. Unless your frame of reference is anything below $5k is low end or something.
      - NavinF 4y ago
        Right, what I meant to say is that anything under 1600p is low end because it was already widely available in 2013.
fredoralive 4y ago
What do you mean non HiDPI display support being removed from Mac OS? I’ve been using a pair of 1920x1080 monitors with my Mac Mini M1 just fine? Have they somehow broken something in Mac OS 13 / Ventura? (I haven’t clicked the upgrade button yet, I prefer to let others leap boldly first).

NavinF 4y ago

> removing support for non-hidpi displays from MacOS Did that really reduce sales? Consider that the wide availability of crappy low end hardware gave Windows laptops a terrible reputation. Eg https://www.reddit.com/r/LinusTechTips/comments/yof7va/friends_dont_let_friends_run_win10_with_4gb_of/ https://www.reddit.com/r/LinusTechTips/comments/yof7va/frien...

masklinn 4y ago
> Consider that the wide availability of crappy low end hardware gave Windows laptops a terrible reputation. Standard DPI displays are not "crappy low-end hardware"? I don't think there's a single widescreen display which qualifies as hiDPI out there, that more or less doesn't exist: a 5K 34" is around 160 DPI (to say nothing of the downright pedestrian 5K 49" like the G9 or the AOC Agon).
- adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
  dpi isn't the right metric. you don't keep a phone the same distance as a 49" monitor.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    DPI works fine as long as the type of device is in the context. The context here is desktop/laptop.
  - masklinn 4y ago
    DPI is absolutely the right metric, the target goal just depends on the usage. A hidpi computer display is north of 200 (iMacs are a bit below 220, MacBooks a bit above). A phone is north of 300 (iPhones have ranged from 324 to 476).
- NavinF 4y ago
  Ehh I had a 2013 MacBook pro back in 2013 with a 2560x1600 display. That's 227 dpi. A decade later, I think it's safe to say that anything smaller than that is extremely low-end in 2022. I agree it's kinda sad how few desktop monitors are high dpi. It gets even worse if you limit yourself to low latency monitors. Anyway I haven't used macos in a while so I'm not sure what you mean by Apple not supporting non-hidpi
  - bigDinosaur 4y ago
    The actual screen dimensions make a huge difference to whether or not a given DPI value is low or high end. My current monitor is 157 DPI and I can assure you it is not an extremely low end monitor at all. Unless your frame of reference is anything below $5k is low end or something.
    - NavinF 4y ago
      Right, what I meant to say is that anything under 1600p is low end because it was already widely available in 2013.

fredoralive 4y ago

What do you mean non HiDPI display support being removed from Mac OS? I’ve been using a pair of 1920x1080 monitors with my Mac Mini M1 just fine? Have they somehow broken something in Mac OS 13 / Ventura? (I haven’t clicked the upgrade button yet, I prefer to let others leap boldly first).