3 ms·
I mean you think it's dumb but I honestly think that mixing with airpods would be the better option. Same with icons where a high resolution pixel graphic can
by zepolen 4y ago
I mean you think it's dumb but I honestly think that mixing with airpods would be the better option.
Same with icons where a high resolution pixel graphic can look horrible when scaled down to icon level vs an icon drawn in the resolution it would be shown at from the get go.
It reflects the problem with software development today as well.
Most of the time developers are using top end machines, massive displays with fast internet and build bloated things that work nice and 'fast enough' for them, but once they run on low/mid level laptop/phones are unusable.
In the 90s programmers didn't have that luxury, all hardware was the same so what they were programming on was what the end user would be on and since hardware was limited anyway every bit and cycle counted. That's why you get games like doom/quake that will run on 75mhz and 8mb of ram and be buttery smooth, whereas today something like flappy bird needs 512mb minimum!
- ehnto 4y agoThis whole comment section is making me think some people aren't being very diligent with their testing. A professional mix absolutely requires testing across multiple grades of devices. Whether or not someone soley produces on airpods is reslly personal preference, so long as they verify their mix with many types of gear before shipping. A good development shop should be testing across screen sizes and performance profiles for the same reasons.
- quicklime 4y agoLack of testing is part of it, most places do less testing than is ideal. But there’s much more to it than that. From the article, the author’s resolution is 1366×768. This was designed and tested for! The problem wasn’t that it was broken at that res, the problem was that it was incorrectly classified as a tablet-only resolution. The issue here is their designers and developers being out of touch with their users, and using constrained hardware helps with that.
- foldr 4y ago>In the 90s programmers didn't have that luxury, all hardware was the same I mostly agree with you. However, the 90s was actually a period where computer hardware became rapidly obsolescent. The 486 to Pentium transition, for example, meant that lots of people had PCs far less powerful than the PCs used by games developers. Quake is a case in point. Quake came out in 1996 and would not have run on a typical PC bought only two or three years earlier. A few years after that, many games would only run acceptably on PCs with 3D graphics cards (which were by no means universal).