10 years ago today: Mac OS X Public Beta released

[gian]

What's with German tanks naming :laugh:

[Southern Patriot]

What Mac shipped with a 16:9 screen in 2004? Also to be fair, I'm not the one who brought the article up.

I didn't say that you brought the article up, I was just pointing out how old it was, since you were talking about high resolutions and the 27" iMac. And quite a few Macs shipped with roughly 16:9 screens in 2004 (and even before that). The 15" and 17" PowerBooks, as well as the iMacs did, and I'm pretty sure most if not all of Apple's Cinema displays were 16:9 by then. Hell, the first iMacs with a wide screen (the 17" G4) shipped two years before that, in 2002, although it wasn't technically 16:9, more like 16:10 (1440x900). The PowerBook G4's shipped with a wide screen in 2001, although they were an odd resolution (1152x768).

A great reference site for things like this is Apple History.

[.Neo]

Double post

[.Neo]

And quite a few Macs shipped with roughly 16:9 screens in 2004 (and even before that). The 15" and 17" PowerBooks, as well as the iMacs did, and I'm pretty sure most if not all of Apple's Cinema displays were 16:9 by then.

None of the Macs or Cinema Displays you are talking about shipped with 16:9 screens. Starting with the 17-inch iMac G4 and 2002 Cinema Displays Apple is using a 16:10 aspect ratio. That also includes the 17-inch PowerBook. The 15,2-inch PowerBook screen has a ratio of 3:2 and some older ones before that too. No Mac or Cinema Display on sale in 2004 had a 16:9 aspect ratio.

The 21,5 / 27-inch iMac and 27-inch LED Cinema Display are the first Apple products to use 16:9. That would suggest the author of the article either made the same mistake as you or updated the article after the release of the new iMacs in 2009 without updating the time stamp.

A great reference site for things like this is Apple History.

A reference you clearly didn't check yourself.

[Southern Patriot]

.Neo, many journalists don't really differentiate between the two, because they are so close to each other. For them, just about any screen wider than 4:3 is referred to as 16:9, even if it isn't actually correct. I pointed out in my comment that the iMac was actually 16:10, but you clearly overlooked that. I didn't look up the resolution on every machine or display produced at that time, but just the first ones that I knew had wide screens. The point the author of the article was trying to make was that the displays were shorter than a 4:3 screen though, which is still true even for 16:10 (although not so much for a 3:2 screen).

edit: archive.org to the rescue here: http://web.archive.org/web/20010405011744/http://www.asktog.com/columns/044top10docksucks.html

The original article published in 2001 said 16:9, so that was the author using the typical "widescreen=16:9" mistake.

[.Neo]

.Neo, many journalists don't really differentiate between the two, because they are so close to each other. For them, just about any screen wider than 4:3 is referred to as 16:9, even if it isn't actually correct. I pointed out in my comment that the iMac was actually 16:10, but you clearly overlooked that.

I didn't overlook it at all, in the first part of your post you talked about the PowerBook and iMac screens being "roughly" 16:9. To me roughly 16:9 would be something like 16.2:9.4. Next to that you did claim/thought that "most if not all" Cinema Displays were 16:9 as well, which is not true. 16:9 ≠ 16:10 simple as that. I could imagine a non-tech journalist to make that mistake but considering this article (or better rant) is directed at a very specific Mac OS X feature one would expect better fact checking. Obviously mistakes are made.

Good you found out about the original article containing the same mistake though. (Y)

[Elliott]

.Neo, many journalists don't really differentiate between the two, because they are so close to each other. For them, just about any screen wider than 4:3 is referred to as 16:9, even if it isn't actually correct. I pointed out in my comment that the iMac was actually 16:10, but you clearly overlooked that. I didn't look up the resolution on every machine or display produced at that time, but just the first ones that I knew had wide screens. The point the author of the article was trying to make was that the displays were shorter than a 4:3 screen though, which is still true even for 16:10 (although not so much for a 3:2 screen).

The difference between 16:9 and 16:10 can actually be pretty impactful.

For instance: 1280x800 is 16:10 while 1280x720 is 16:9. That's 80 pixels of vertical space. Also, 2560x1600 is 16:10 while 2560x1440 is 16:9. That's 160 pixels of vertical space. Close, but enough of a difference when you're thinking about the dock and the menu bar.

[Xtreme $niper]

Putting my 15" 2010 Macbook Pro next to my co-worker's Dell Studio 15 is a staggering example of what a huge difference such a ratio difference can make.

My screen looks like a 17" compared to his laptop simply because my screen has so much more vertical space. It's almost like an optical illusion. When I look at his laptop I feel it's too cramped.

Also, people need to be careful about these kinds of things when buying monitors. My office had bought a few 19" LCDs last year, and when it came time to buy more this year, they went ahead and bought more without consulting the techies first and they ended up with 18.5" screens that have barely any usable vertical space to use at all. It's pathetic that such a ratio even exists.

[.Neo]

Putting the new 16:9 iMacs next to the older 16:10 ones almost make the latter look like non-widescreen. It's a pretty big difference really.

[Southern Patriot]

The difference between 16:9 and 16:10 can actually be pretty impactful.

For instance: 1280x800 is 16:10 while 1280x720 is 16:9. That's 80 pixels of vertical space. Also, 2560x1600 is 16:10 while 2560x1440 is 16:9. That's 160 pixels of vertical space. Close, but enough of a difference when you're thinking about the dock and the menu bar.

Very true. However, the article in question was talking about Apple going from 4:3 screens to 16:9 screens (although we know that what they really meant was 16:10). Either way, proportionally, either one is a much shorter (in terms of vertical size, not necessarily pixels) screen, which was the point they were trying to make. Don't get me wrong here, the complaint in the article was essentially groundless, considering that the dock could be resized (or even moved to the side of the screen, which was an option the author didn't even consider).

[Southern Patriot]

It's pathetic that such a ratio even exists.

16:9 exists because that is what HDTV is (either 720p or 1080p). Since more and more people are wanting to watch TV and movie content on their computers, more and more companies are likely to go with 16:9 screens instead of 16:10, in order to have less wasted space on screen when watching movies or TV shows.

[.Neo]

considering that the dock could be resized (or even moved to the side of the screen, which was an option the author didn't even consider).

Couldn't agree more. You know what's actually funny? The fact you can't resize the Windows taskbar beyond the fixed sizes of either 16 x 16 or 32 x 32 pixels can be a huge disadvantage. I've been using Windows 7 on this 27-inch iMac and the taskbar simply looks way too small.

I know you can set Windows to a higher DPI setting, but then the advantage of having this screen is more or less lost.

[Xtreme $niper]

16:9 exists because that is what HDTV is (either 720p or 1080p). Since more and more people are wanting to watch TV and movie content on their computers, more and more companies are likely to go with 16:9 screens instead of 16:10, in order to have less wasted space on screen when watching movies or TV shows.

Right, but IMO if computers should be about computer usability first, and then movie "watchability" second. If I'm using my computer 80% of the time to do work or surf the web and 20% of the time to watch movies, then I probably would like more screen real estate that would actually be useful rather than some cramped thing that is way too short vertically just so I can say I don't get black bars when watching movies.

[Southern Patriot]

Right, but IMO if computers should be about computer usability first, and then movie "watchability" second. If I'm using my computer 80% of the time to do work or surf the web and 20% of the time to watch movies, then I probably would like more screen real estate that would actually be useful rather than some cramped thing that is way too short vertically just so I can say I don't get black bars when watching movies.

My display is a 22" LCD at 1920x1080 (in other words, 16:9 1080p) and I really don't consider it cramped at all. Now, if we were talking about 720p, that's a different matter since many programs these days assume a minimum vertical resolution of 768 pixels.

[.Neo]

Right, but IMO if computers should be about computer usability first, and then movie "watchability" second. If I'm using my computer 80% of the time to do work or surf the web and 20% of the time to watch movies, then I probably would like more screen real estate that would actually be useful rather than some cramped thing that is way too short vertically just so I can say I don't get black bars when watching movies.

Can't say the 16:9 ratio is an issue on my 27-inch iMac at 2560 x 1440 pixels... :p

[Quillz]

Couldn't agree more. You know what's actually funny? The fact you can't resize the Windows taskbar beyond the fixed sizes of either 16 x 16 or 32 x 32 pixels can be a huge disadvantage. I've been using Windows 7 on this 27-inch iMac and the taskbar simply looks way too small.

I know you can set Windows to a higher DPI setting, but then the advantage of having this screen is more or less lost.

For as long as I can remember you've always been able to "unlock the taskbar" and make it take up nearly half the screen. In fact, the taskbar was unlocked by default until WinXP.

[Xtreme $niper]

My display is a 22" LCD at 1920x1080 (in other words, 16:9 1080p) and I really don't consider it cramped at all. Now, if we were talking about 720p, that's a different matter since many programs these days assume a minimum vertical resolution of 768 pixels.

Can't say the 16:9 ratio is an issue on my 27-inch iMac at 2560 x 1440 pixels... :p

Oh wow, I had no idea the iMac was 16:9. I guess I just assumed that since the MacBook Pro was 16:10 that they'd keep it consistent across products.

In any case, I agree. At that kind of resolution, it barely matters. But at the resolutions I'm talking about (my co-worker's Dell is 720p) it's pretty bad... at least for me.

[Andre S. Veteran]

But at the resolutions I'm talking about (my co-worker's Dell is 720p) it's pretty bad... at least for me.

Considering I was using 768p back in 1996 (1024x768), the recent marketing of 720p as "HD" is just ridiculous. It's a low resolution for computer users.

[Xtreme $niper]

Considering I was using 768p back in 1996 (1024x768), the recent marketing of 720p as "HD" is just ridiculous. It's a low resolution for computer users.

Agreed... How did we let this happen? :unsure:

[Southern Patriot]

For as long as I can remember you've always been able to "unlock the taskbar" and make it take up nearly half the screen. In fact, the taskbar was unlocked by default until WinXP.

Did you read what he wrote? The Windows taskbar itself can be resized (vertically at least), but the icons on it are only ever one of two sizes, 16x16 or 32x32.

Considering I was using 768p back in 1996 (1024x768), the recent marketing of 720p as "HD" is just ridiculous. It's a low resolution for computer users.

"HD" is in relation to TV broadcast, where the standard was much lower (closer to a 640x480 VGA resolution, but varying somewhat by country). Although, I do agree that the term is greatly abused lately. I see some video sites that sell 720x480 videos, claiming they are HD.

[.Neo]

For as long as I can remember you've always been able to "unlock the taskbar" and make it take up nearly half the screen. In fact, the taskbar was unlocked by default until WinXP.

Does that make the icons go beyond 32 x 32 pixels? Let's think for a second... No. Reading my post helps.

Oh wow, I had no idea the iMac was 16:9. I guess I just assumed that since the MacBook Pro was 16:10 that they'd keep it consistent across products.

In any case, I agree. At that kind of resolution, it barely matters. But at the resolutions I'm talking about (my co-worker's Dell is 720p) it's pretty bad... at least for me.

Yeah, it's true. The next-generation iMac (21,5 and 27-inch) and 27-inch LED Cinema Display are the first Apple products to incorporate a 16:9 screen. I fully agree with you that at smaller sizes (and lower res) 16:10 is preferable when it comes to computers screens.

[Quillz]

Does that make the icons go beyond 32 x 32 pixels? Let's think for a second... No. Reading my post helps.

Your post asked if the taskbar can be resized beyond two sizes, not the individual application, shortcut and system tray icons themselves.

[instant.human]

Your post asked if the taskbar can be resized beyond two sizes, not the individual application, shortcut and system tray icons themselves.

But talking about high resolutions and usability, what difference in usability would it make then, to resize the TaskBar i mean, if the icons stay 32x32? But you are right, of course, you can make the TaskBar take up almost half your screen. But other than taking up space and looking ugly, it doesn't affect usability at all.

[Quillz]

But talking about high resolutions and usability, what difference in usability would it make then, to resize the TaskBar i mean, if the icons stay 32x32?

That I don't know, because I doubt most people rarely need to resize the taskbar.

But one thing that the taskbar has generally been better at than the Dock is adhering to Fitt's Law. That's because the taskbar, except for in Windows 95, has always taken advantage of both screen edges and corners, which are said to have an infinite height. The Start button, for example, can be activated just by clicking in the lower left corner (by default). The actual icon itself doesn't even have to be touched. And with Windows 7, Aero Peek (again, by default) can be activated by moving the cursor to the lower right corner. The Dock can't do this by default because it's always centered, although by using third-party tools such as Cocktail it's possible to lock it to a corner and achieve the same thing.

This is something I felt Mac OS 9 did better. It took advantage of screen corners. From what I recall of the classic System, the upper left corner activated the Apple menu, allowing for quick access to various OS fuctions, while the upper right corner activated what was then known as MultiFinder. That, along with application tabs that were always at a screen corner, I feel provide better usability than the Dock, although the Dock has always improved with every Mac OS X release.

[Southern Patriot]

This is something I felt Mac OS 9 did better. It took advantage of screen corners. From what I recall of the classic System, the upper left corner activated the Apple menu, allowing for quick access to various OS fuctions, while the upper right corner activated what was then known as MultiFinder. That, along with application tabs that were always at a screen corner, I feel provide better usability than the Dock, although the Dock has always improved with every Mac OS X release.

The screen corners in OS X (at least since 10.4) have a different use, they are used to activate Expose.