|
Fat Whale posted:What mouse do you guys use on your desktop Mac? Trackpad for browsing Razer Naga for gaming Wacom Tablet for photo editing
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2012 23:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 15:16 |
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:Logitech MX  MX500 hereAll of the original coating has worn off, but I'll be damned if it isn't the best mouse ever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2012 23:36
|
|
|
Fat Whale posted:What mouse do you guys use on your desktop Mac? When my MBA is docked I have the magic trackpad and the bluetooth keyboard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2012 23:51
|
|
|
Fat Whale posted:What mouse do you guys use on your desktop Mac? Logitech MX518 (Wired)
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2012 23:54
|
|
|
Shmoogy posted:You don't need to tell us, and the people who are the type to point out those sorts of things don't care. They will conveniently ignore/downvote it. I appreciated having the myth busted, as I wasn't aware, although I didn't care that much.  Fat Whale posted:What mouse do you guys use on your desktop Mac? http://amzn.com/B002ZIN9DU I like this. Just a reliable, accurate, no bullshit mouse at a good value. I have owned $60 Razer and Logitech gaming mice before and I didn't find them appreciably more durable or usable than this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2012 23:57
|
|
|
Fat Whale posted:I'm confident we'll be seeing at least 2880x1800 on a 15 inch MacBook this year. Enjoy your MacBook that can't run native resolution with integrated GPU and requires that you always use the Radeon. Hope you have a power outlet to go with that 4 hours of battery life you'll get! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 03:51
|
|
|
fat whale posted:I'm confident we'll be seeing at least 2880x1800 on a 15 inch MacBook this year. In theory the HD 4000 would run it, but things would start to get stupid, real fast. Multiple monitors probably wouldn't even be possible, and imagine draggin a window from your ultra-hi-res 15" over to your 21" officemax 1080p special ? Why the hell would they even offer it on a laptop? Sure, the fonts would look insanely great but other than that....It eventually makes sense and Retina displays are going to be ideal for developing Retina apps, but I don't see the 15" MBP to have it this year. Maybe they'll come out with the Sandy Bridge Xeon-based Pros and some sort of Retina 20-22" monitor pushed by the new ATI video chipset. A 27" retina screen would cost $3,000 but you could edit a fullscreen "New iPad" layout on a smaller Retina display. Price it at $799 - you're looking at 4 times the screen area of an iPad for a 19.4" screen. That would get all the developers onto the Mac Pro at $5,000 each. Apple would make (even more of) a killing. Or maybe in a crazy world they could jam a retina display in the 21.5 iMac. To make a 27" retina display you'd have the equivalant of 9 iPad screens, so you'd be looking at $200 * 9 = $1800 In all serious the devs will probably just take an actual iPad and have it next to their machine so they can see their stuff at actual size - or just live with a scaled down version on their monitor. Probably one of the first times developers were lucky enough to have as incredible of a tool as the current iPhone/iPad simulator anyway. Bob Morales fucked around with this message at 04:05 on Mar 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 04:03
|
|
|
Fat Whale posted:What mouse do you guys use on your desktop Mac? A Microsoft Sidewinder gaming mouse I got for free from a vendor years ago 
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 04:04
|
|
|
Fat Whale posted:What mouse do you guys use on your desktop Mac? Logitech G500 Had to plug it is to a PC to reprogram the buttons, but it's cool since.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 05:22
|
|
|
Fat Whale posted:What mouse do you guys use on your desktop Mac?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 09:51
|
|
|
How much faster is a 2010 27 inch iMac than a 2007 20 inch iMac? That's a 2.8 Ghz i5 (760) with a Radeon HD 5750 1 GB vs a 2.4 Ghz Core 2 Duo with a Radeon HD 2600 Pro 256 MB. I'm in the market for a gaming PC, but want to do Mac stuff as well, and don't want two monitors (my iMac and the monitor for the PC). The old 27 inch is the only option, as it can do video input, and it's a swanky monitor. The other option is get a Mac mini, but running the numbers, I'd not really save much money at all, and I think the i5 in the iMac would be faster for video rendering because it's quad core compared to the dual core in the mini. The graphics card is also probably faster, and although I have no illusions about gaming at full resolution, I think I could probably hold off on buying a gaming PC for at least another year if I were to get the 27 inch iMac. Edit: Looking at my post history in this thread, I've been trying to talk myself into getting rid of this iMac for like six months now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 14:38
|
|
|
Dont expect to play any reasonably new games on high settings with any mac due to the gpus they use. I found building a gaming rig for my games worked well, but you probably don't want two computers so not sure what you can do regarding that. Comparing the two it is more powerful, although the 2011 with Sandy Bridge smokes them both. If you're ok playing games on low quality then go for it otherwise I'd think twice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 14:41
|
|
|
I don't think anyone is likely to be able to answer this question, but is there any chance that we'll see Mac Minis that can be configured with more than 8GB RAM? I'd love to get a Mini to use here at the office but 8GB is going to be stretching it with all the VMs I run. Is the 8gb a limitation of the chipset or more likely the physical restrictions of putting more banks of RAM in a tiny enclosure? I mean I'd love to be able to throw two 8GB 1333 DDR3s into that box and go to town.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 14:47
|
|
|
Momonari kun posted:How much faster is a 2010 27 inch iMac than a 2007 20 inch iMac? That's a 2.8 Ghz i5 (760) with a Radeon HD 5750 1 GB vs a 2.4 Ghz Core 2 Duo with a Radeon HD 2600 Pro 256 MB. I'm in the market for a gaming PC, but want to do Mac stuff as well, and don't want two monitors (my iMac and the monitor for the PC). The old 27 inch is the only option, as it can do video input, and it's a swanky monitor. Here's an i7 2010 27" up against a 3GHz C2D:  
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 14:52
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:I don't think anyone is likely to be able to answer this question, but is there any chance that we'll see Mac Minis that can be configured with more than 8GB RAM? I'd love to get a Mini to use here at the office but 8GB is going to be stretching it with all the VMs I run. Is the 8gb a limitation of the chipset or more likely the physical restrictions of putting more banks of RAM in a tiny enclosure? According to OWC you can do that with a 2011 Mini http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Apple_Mac_mini/DDR3_1333
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 14:53
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:According to OWC you can do that with a 2011 Mini Oh wow! I was bummed because the Apple Store only lets you configure it with 8 max, but I guess maybe that's just the most they'll support? I'm definitely going to bring this up with purchasing then. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 14:57
|
|
|
flyboi posted:Dont expect to play any reasonably new games on high settings with any mac due to the gpus they use. I found building a gaming rig for my games worked well, but you probably don't want two computers so not sure what you can do regarding that. Comparing the two it is more powerful, although the 2011 with Sandy Bridge smokes them both. Well, I kind of want to play the games I play now, just faster. If I could play games at 1680x1050 or even 1920x1080 faster than my computer does now, I might hold off on getting a gaming PC until next year. I don't really play new/demanding games all that much. My rule is under $10 on Steam, so it works pretty well on my current machine, but I'm hitting a few walls, and the inevitable upgrades got me thinking. Edit: New Vegas is about as new as I'm hoping, and it runs acceptably well on my current machine. Momonari kun fucked around with this message at 15:29 on Mar 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 15:26
|
|
|
Momonari kun posted:The other option is get a Mac mini, but running the numbers, I'd not really save much money at all... The only way the Mini makes sense is if you already have a nice monitor, and if the difference in how easy it is to crack the Mini open to add a second hard drive matters to you. I think performance between the i7 Mini and anything but the highest iMac will be negligible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 15:52
|
|
|
DEUCE SLUICE posted:The only way the Mini makes sense is if you already have a nice monitor, and if the difference in how easy it is to crack the Mini open to add a second hard drive matters to you. You can't get a quad-core Mini without going for the server 
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 15:58
|
|
|
In day-to-day use and anything outside of pro apps or rendering you won't know the difference. I have the 2.5 i5 Mini with an OWC SSD and Holy poo poo is it fast.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 16:27
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:In theory the HD 4000 would run it, but things would start to get stupid, real fast. Multiple monitors probably wouldn't even be possible, and imagine draggin a window from your ultra-hi-res 15" over to your 21" officemax 1080p special ? Somebody did the maths and it seems like a lot of Apple displays are already close to or better than 'Retina' anyway: http://www.tuaw.com/2012/03/01/retina-display-macs-ipads-and-hidpi-doing-the-math/
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 18:51
|
|
|
Neurophonic posted:Somebody did the maths and it seems like a lot of Apple displays are already close to or better than 'Retina' anyway: http://www.tuaw.com/2012/03/01/retina-display-macs-ipads-and-hidpi-doing-the-math/ His math is wonky. Look at an iPhone 4/4S and then look at your Mac's display and tell me the Mac isn't pixely as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 19:02
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:His math is wonky. Look at an iPhone 4/4S and then look at your Mac's display and tell me the Mac isn't pixely as gently caress. It's times like this that I'm fairly happy that I have lovely vision, even while corrected. I can't see pixels on my 23 inch 1080p monitor until I'm like 7 inches away. Large televisions piss me off, I can see those fairly well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 19:06
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:His math is wonky. Look at an iPhone 4/4S and then look at your Mac's display and tell me the Mac isn't pixely as gently caress. I'm running the MBP 15" high-res display and it looks perfectly fine to me at arm's length away from my face. If I focus hard I can definitely see individual pixels but not in general use.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 19:34
|
|
|
I just want a retina 11-inch MBA.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 19:37
|
|
|
Neurophonic posted:I'm running the MBP 15" high-res display and it looks perfectly fine to me at arm's length away from my face. If I focus hard I can definitely see individual pixels but not in general use. But you can't at all on the iPhone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 19:42
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:But you can't at all on the iPhone. The DPI on the new iPad is not as high, and the argument is the distance you hold it is greater so the DPI has to be lower. Honestly on the 27" display everything seems sharp to me and not pixelated. The HiDPI mode is a novel idea but honestly I think it will make things "uglier" in the long run, because 99.99% of all images on the internet are at such low DPI they will look like pixelated rear end and the internet is not going to upgrade their assets overnight.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 20:29
|
|
|
There's no denying your on-screen fonts would look much, much better with a display double (squared?) the resolution of current stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 20:37
|
|
|
flyboi posted:The DPI on the new iPad is not as high, and the argument is the distance you hold it is greater so the DPI has to be lower. Honestly on the 27" display everything seems sharp to me and not pixelated. The HiDPI mode is a novel idea but honestly I think it will make things "uglier" in the long run, because 99.99% of all images on the internet are at such low DPI they will look like pixelated rear end and the internet is not going to upgrade their assets overnight.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 20:48
|
|
|
flyboi posted:The HiDPI mode is a novel idea but honestly I think it will make things "uglier" in the long run, because 99.99% of all images on the internet are at such low DPI they will look like pixelated rear end and the internet is not going to upgrade their assets overnight. I don't see how this happens unless the image is upsampled to a size that doesn't have the original size as a factor. And even then I imagine people would be hard pressed to find it ugly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 20:52
|
|
|
There is always the possibility that Apple will increase the sizes of their displays in certain products, making the HiDPI improvement more noticeable. The original 15-inch Powerbook started at 1152×768, and now you have the option of going 1680x1050. We get more screen real estate, but the widgets and text keep getting smaller and smaller. I would love it if the 21-inch 1920x1080 iMac became a ~24-inch HiDPI 3840x2160 iMac.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 21:26
|
|
|
This might be a stupid question but could someone explain screen resolution to me? How does the iPad (and iPhone for that matter) double in resolution and still show everything at the same "size?" If I change my monitor's resolution then everything gets bigger/smaller, and I can't imagine everything on my 13" MBP doubling down in size if the resolution get's doubled cause then I can't read anything. On the other hand if everything just looks "better" but keep the same sizes like how the iPad/iPhone did it then I don't really see how that would be great either unless I'm editing pictures or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 21:52
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:This might be a stupid question but could someone explain screen resolution to me? How does the iPad (and iPhone for that matter) double in resolution and still show everything at the same "size?" If I change my monitor's resolution then everything gets bigger/smaller, and I can't imagine everything on my 13" MBP doubling down in size if the resolution get's doubled cause then I can't read anything. The assets are four times are large. So even though you have four times as many pixels, the images/icons that you see are also four times are large. They remain to look the same this way. However when you increase to that many pixels, you allow for greater detail.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 21:54
|
|
|
To expand the obvious, if the assets didn't get larger and you made this jump in resolution, everything would get smaller.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 21:57
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:This might be a stupid question but could someone explain screen resolution to me? How does the iPad (and iPhone for that matter) double in resolution and still show everything at the same "size?" You can still make something 320 units wide or 480 units tall on the iPhone, but you can also do half pixels. It (the higher resolution of the iPhone 4/New iPad) was designed that way. Desktop OS's generally are not. With the Display Postscript of Mac OS X it's not as bad as it sounds.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 22:04
|
|
|
Resolution should mean the size of the pixels. It is usually used to refer to the number of pixels though, like 1920x1080 or 1024x768. Obviously you also need to know the size of the display before you can tell whether the quoted resolution is any good. Hardware makers love this because they can hide how crappy their displays are in a cloud of numbers. The problem is that many details of program UIs are written using dimensions of pixels, and a button that is 100 pixels wide and looks ok on a three-year-old 21" display will appear far too small on a retina display and not everything is designed in a way that makes it easy to scale for a display with very small pixels. withak fucked around with this message at 23:04 on Mar 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 22:59
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:On the other hand if everything just looks "better" but keep the same sizes like how the iPad/iPhone did it then I don't really see how that would be great either unless I'm editing pictures or something. Text. while screen text is readable now it could be so much more readable and crisper at high DPI. As is we already use trickery by having fonts use sub pixel rendering(every "pixel" on your screen is made of 3 individual pixels, on red one blue and one green), higher resolutions would make current fonts so much more readable on regular displays. The goal for a lot of people is for things to become resolution independent though, so that the user can actively choose their desktop space independently of resolution. HiDPI modes are really just a fix until we can go fully independent imo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 03:41
|
|
|
So it looks like USB 3.0 will be an integrated part of the Ivy Bridge chipset, and Intel's chips were benched as being better than most other solutions. Now this USB 3.0 enclosure I bought for $15 bucks can finally prove itself.. in two months maybe. But I can see Apple pulling a dick move like only offering USB 2.0 drivers because of their NIH policy, but hopefully they'll cave and Intel's USB programmers are better than their graphics driver programmers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 17:02
|
|
|
Binary Badger posted:So it looks like USB 3.0 will be an integrated part of the Ivy Bridge chipset, and Intel's chips were benched as being better than most other solutions. Now this USB 3.0 enclosure I bought for $15 bucks can finally prove itself.. in two months maybe. Yeah apparently according to http://www.applelaunchtimer.com/?imac and macbuyer's guide the iMac is the next up in just under two months. I'd love to see USB3.0
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 17:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 15:16 |
|
|
Binary Badger posted:So it looks like USB 3.0 will be an integrated part of the Ivy Bridge chipset, and Intel's chips were benched as being better than most other solutions. Now this USB 3.0 enclosure I bought for $15 bucks can finally prove itself.. in two months maybe. It would also kill any consumer Thunderbolt drive purchases, and a bunch of the business ones. Do they make RAID boxes you can connect via USB?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 17:07
|
|