What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
113 Comments
- thebusdriver, on 10/12/2007, -6/+121You answered your own question, then seemingly refuted your own answer... wtf?
- caliform, on 10/12/2007, -6/+47Vector files bigger than pixel data? You are really talking *****.
- MrTranscendence, on 10/12/2007, -2/+39"I bet you're one of the kiddies on here who thinks the GIMP isn't even in the same league as Photoshop."
That's neither here nor there, of course. But - yeah - the GIMP is in the same league as Photoshop, in the same sense that *POKING YOURSELF IN THE EYE WITH A STEAKNIFE WHILE USING PHOTOSHOP* is in the same league as Photoshop. - Topher06, on 10/12/2007, -5/+42Take my advice with Apple and their products. Its vapourware until you can buy it in the stores, so don't worry about the "news" that people report about Apple products, they don't know anything more then you do.
If you live life this way, then when Apple releases something good, you're pleasantly surprised because you never expected it, when they do something bad, then you don't feel like commiting suicide after getting so excited reading all the rumour mills reports about something amazing that was never going to be.
It just could be that Stevie wants bigger pixels because running OSX on an Apple 30" display with 2560 x 1600 resolution is getting harder for older people with poor eyesight to see the boucing dock icons clearly.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. - McMultiverse, on 10/12/2007, -2/+33"512x512 is a bit excessive for Finder icons."
Not when you're running a 30-inch Cinema Display. - mike_douglas, on 10/12/2007, -9/+38Digg isn't managed by a bunch of elves trapped in Kevin Rose's server, there is a complex promotion algorithm that relies on more than just the number of diggs.
Sorry conspiracy theorists. - DollaDollaBill, on 10/12/2007, -12/+34Well, what do you expect. Digg isn't exactly 100% democratic. People have pulled back the curtain before. Only to get it shut quickly and quietly.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+27DollaDollaBill's corpse will be found floating at some small city's creek tomorrow...
- mario8bit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22May 22, 2006
- McMultiverse, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21Oh, oops. Didn't look too closely at the dates. Not only is the article a rehash, it's waaaaay out of date. Pre-WWDC out of date. No digg, marked as lame.
- threemagic, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18That's what EVERY GUI is!!! It's supposed to be eye candy for the computer illiterate. If you want a true stable OS then just use a CLI.. you don't have to run a GUI unless you have OS X or WIndows.
But if you like GUI's... why not have it the best eye candy you can get!? - stealthboy, on 10/12/2007, -8/+20Vector representations of icons would be ideal. See SGI Irix circa 1993. Great idea.
- fowleryo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12The icons were probably vector illustrations, which allows them to print them at any size as well as being prepared for any sort of vector scaling icons OSX may use in the future.
Probably. - chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -8/+19digg users seem to think there on first name basis with him.
wait 2 months and it will just be "S" or "SJ" or my fav "Stevey Jo" - flag564, on 10/12/2007, -14/+24Ugh.
And based on this little bit of information we get a new GUI for OSX?
I wish these sites actually reported real news. - versionist, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14It is not the nuber of diggs, but the amount of diggs per period of time. Velocity of diggs, if you will.
- Photar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Maybe they work with large source icons and add alot of detail. Then scale it down for production.
Thats how they make hotwheels. They make a 1 or 2 foot model of the actual car, then they miniturize it. - weareglass, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12You know, if you're so convinced Digg is biased, no one is making you read this. I'm sure they would welcome you with open arms over at Netscape.com. Meanwhile the rest of us will continue, having figured out that when articles we're not interested in appear on the main page, it's because Digg is filled with a variety of viewpoints. We'll then scroll downward slightly, thus effectively compensating for the crippling heartache associated with seeing unwanted stories on the homepage.
- McMultiverse, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Oh, it looks like Ars is poaching itself: http://arstechnica.com/staff/fatbits.ars/2006/4/23/3720
One month old news, recycled. - RaistlinMajere, on 10/12/2007, -10/+18Steve who?
- jackmaninov, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8And display DPI will only continue to go up; might as well make the icons last a few years while you're redoing them.
- KyleMistry, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1220 gigs? Try 5, 6 at most.
- danielxmorris, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10I assumed the designs were done in-house? I would have also presumed that the original files would have been larger than 512 x 512?
This is based on the idea that the icons are created for print purposes also, for example - the banner that was on display at WWDC displayed many of the icons in use on OSX, surely these would have originally been at 300dpi as opposed to the 72dpi used screen media, meaning that they were probably designed at about A3 size, CMYK and converted to RGB and a smaller size / lower resolution afterward, otherwise it means they would have had to draw everything twice, which seems very innefficient for Apple. - PathDaemon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8WinXP looks a lot more like fischer-price than OS X...
- trendspotter, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7This was announced a wayy long time ago, file that under "Leopard's GUI will be RESOLUTION INDEPENDANT." Tiger has some of this support: http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=610
But Leopard's resolution independence was announced earlier this year at Macworld in January. Basically you can scale icons or applications up or down without messing with your screen resolution.
See Apple's notes on Resolution Independent UI: http://developer.apple.com/releasenotes/GraphicsImaging/ResolutionIndependentUI.html - idonthack, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8With today's processors and memory, the overhead required by vectors is becoming a non-issue. And if they wanted to, they could just convert to a raster on load and use that the way they do now, thus using the same memory although load times would be a bit longer.
- fernwood, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Look at Front Row... those are some huge icons. :)
- brentzilla, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8And you don't have to run the GUI on OS X either...
- Quactaur, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6crees: You're right.
For any of you who've seen the 512x icons, they're beautiful, and extremely detailed, with almost readeable text on the pages icon, andlots of subtle details. For a vector to be that detailed, it would have to be designed with that in mind, and would therefore be very complex, and probably bigger than a 512x raster, which would scale faster too. - crimson117, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7>>512x512 is a bit excessive for Finder icons.
>Not when you're running a 30-inch Cinema Display.
30-inch cinema display
- viewable width: ~24.49 inches, 2560 pixels
- viewable height: ~17.14 inches, 1600 pixels
512 is almost a third of 1600, and a fifth or 2560.
Would you really need icons that are 5 inches tall = a third of the height of the screen?
...maybe if it's being used from an 8 foot interface (media center?) - titlesaysitall, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Stevie Wonder
- macattacks10, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5And they are actually useful things that come with the OS, not special "Dell" toolbars or anything obtrusive. Just some apps that you can use if you want to, and if not, you can easily drag them to the trash, and there won't be any problems with it.
- MisterKen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Why 512?
Because Vista's icons are only 128 and Apple is 4 times better.
(tongue firmly planted in cheek) - McMultiverse, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Q: How can a duplicate, months-old story concerning a RUMOR that has already been more or less CONFIRMED by APPLE ITSELF not only REMAIN on the front page but CLIMB it?
A: CLIFFosakaJAPAN is one of those Digg dudes who, miraculously, has all his stories dugg to the front page even when they're as obviously out-of-date, out-of-sync and otherwise unworthy. If it were ANYONE else outside of the select group of diggers, especially a new Digger, this story would be buried into OBLIVION.
Nice standard we're setting here, folks. It's stuff like this that forces community-based aggregation to take one step back. - cosmovi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Yeah, it's incredibly aged. :/
- weareglass, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The article from April you post here is mostly speculation with little to back it up. The Digg article is a summarization of the history of the rumor with more concrete information backing it up. The speculation is nothing new, but mounting evidence points to the suggestion that it may likely find its way into Leopard. That's still newsworthy in my and several hundred other diggers' minds.
- jackmaninov, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4OSX comes with applications installed; I don't think anyone is denying this...
- crees!, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8@caliform: "Vector files bigger than pixel data? You are really talking *****."
Then you obviously don't know much about graphics. Depending on the photo/graphic and its complexity vector graphics CAN be bigger than raster. Just bring a detailed photo into Illustrator, vectorize it, and watch the size of your file shoot way up. - newbill123, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Apple has been saying this since 2004 that all developers should be making 512x512 icons.
While speculation is that this may be for resolution independence, the call originally came because of those effects like "Dock Magnification" where the icons would be enlarged beyond what the designer intended looked kind of pixelated and choppy with huge icons.
I hope this is "something big" coming down the pipeline, but the call from Apple to put big icons in your app's bundle is NOT new. - superterran, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@tmcc
No. You're wrong. The GIMP isn't even usable for half the things people use Photoshop for. As a professional web developer, I spend a good chuck of my day in Photoshop and other than Crop, Slices and color changes, I don't do any image editing at all.
The GIMP, first off, is a ***** Mac app. You have to install X11 to get it to work, and that chugs the system down. So does Photoshop CS2 - but at least it doesn't crash as often as the GIMP does. The GIMP doesn't open PSD files correctly, so you lose layer infomation... which is especially important to me because every template i've ever recieved from a client has been a PSD file with a layer representing a page layout. As a matter of fact, they tend to just send me a PSD, complete with most of the text copies inside with the layout and images.
So, as you can imagine - in my humble point of view, the GIMP isn't even in the same ballpark as Photoshop. Not everybody uses Photoshop to create, a lot of us use it to view.
I'm not saying the GIMP doesn't have it's uses - hell, I don't even like photoshop that much, but just because the GIMP can do one thing like photoshop can, doesn't mean it's just as good. - WiseWeasel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5512x512 is a bit excessive for Finder icons. My guess is this is more useful for an app-switcher or virtual desktop interface, to quickly identify apps visually without eating up screen real estate under normal working conditions.
- WiseWeasel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yeah, Front Row is a good example. I bet the only place they use large icons like this are in secondary interfaces like Front Row, or app switcher, or other stuff like that that won't impact the Finder. It'll be a while before we have screen resolutions large enough to make 512x512 usable in your regular file manager (Finder or Explorer). I guess it wouldn't hurt to give developers the option of including larger resolutions in their icon resources, but I doubt they would make them accessible in the Finder for the immediate future. It is entirely possible that they could find uses in other areas, such as Front Row, however.
- tuartboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2512 at a standard print dpi of 300 works out to less than 2" big. I seriously doubt this is the reason. Besides, I'm sure they have vector files sitting around somewhere just for this purpose.
- thomashallock, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The article predates WWDC '06 and speculates about the posibility of resolution independance... a feature as real as the developer release handed out at WWDC.
- daofma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I have 25 GB of preinstalled software on my ThinkPad. 5 or 6 is not much at all anymore.
- McMultiverse, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"I guarantee you it'll hit 1,000 and people will just blame Macintosh fanboys, remaining oblivious to the fact that this submission was fixed from the get-go."
Hey, thanks for proving me right, lemmings. - carpespasm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i don't agree with you since 512 isn't too big, but that's a good insight to the way these things are done. digg+
- 42PhoeniX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2 Apple wouldn't need large icons for Universal Access? Would they visual impairment and large icons, hmmmm.
- Kazrog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1True, but it really doesn't work as elegantly as it could. I'm eager to see Apple's implementation, a lot of Mac owners I know would appreciate it!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I found an article about this last week, looks like this guy's blog is just getting started, but its off to a good start... http://leopardthoughts.livejournal.com
-
Show 51 - 100 of 113 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is