Two US patent applications assigned to Apple Computer, Inc. have been published today:
• United States Patent Application #20060288053: Apparatus and method for peer-to-peer N-way synchronization in a decentralized environment (Filed: June 21, 2005):
An apparatus and method of synchronizing a datum between a plurality of stores is disclosed. A version history is associated with the datum in each store. The version history has one or more entries, and each entry has an identifier and a value. The identifier identifies a store that has modified the datum, and the value indicates a number of modifications to the datum made by the store. When synchronizing the datum between stores, the version histories of the datum are compared to determine whether one version history is subordinate to another version history. The datum in the store having the subordinate version history is then replaced with the datum having the dominant version history. When compared, a conflict resolution by a user is required if the version histories are not identical, if the version histories do not have all the same identifiers, and if one version history does not contain all of the identifiers with equal or greater values of those in the other version history.
• United States Patent Application #20060284878: Resolution Independent User Interface Design (Filed: July 21, 2006):
Graphical user interface material map objects are specified by a collection of attribute-value pairs, the collection of which comprises a complete description of the material map and may be used by a rendering engine to create a visual representation of the material map at any resolution. That is, material map representations in accordance with the invention are resolution independent. Another benefit of representing material maps in accordance with the invention is that they may be encrypted to prevent unauthorized inspection or use.
More info: http://hrmpf.com/wordpress/104/apple-and-resolution-independent-user-interface-design
Related articles:
Apple confirms ‘resolution independence’ and more coming in Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard – October 23, 2006
Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard to feature ‘resolution independence?’ – May 21, 2006
Sounds like Display Postscript.
It would be nice to be able to switch resolutions on my Macbook Pro and not get interpolated pixels.
I think the Amiga platform has offered resolution independent features since like the late ’80s or something. It’s quite a killer app for that platform.
Probably means 128mb minimum graphics card for best results.
When I ran the above text through Bablefish it told me that the first entry was related to Apple Remote Desktop and that the second entry was related to Leopard’s supposed ability to resize interface elements so that that menu bar type that appears <font size=+3>HUGE</font> on an old 800×600 iBook doesn’t appear <font size=-3>tiny</font> on an Apple 30-inch Cinema HD display.
Of course Babelfish is known for making “interesting” translations.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”tongue rolleye” style=”border:0;” />
I thought UIDs were contraceptives for dyslexics.
I’ve been a computer geek and student of many forms of science and technology for longer than 2/3rds the world have been alive. I barely understood what that was about. Sure, what Nic said. But, I have been able to play Diablo ][ or WoW in a part-screen window or full-screen window – an effective change in resolution – and I’ve been able to change the ‘magnification of files I’m reading in Acrobat … both for years now.
How is this different? It looks to me like they are codifying the process, bringing that ability into the OS, rather than creating something ‘new’. And this could either allow or deter abuse of the process. Allow, if they use it to prevent others from developing along those lines, deterring if they use this to keep others from abusing the process or if they are using the process to prove nobody else can lay legal claim to the process.
DLMeyer – the Voice of G.L.Horton’s Stage Page
Is it too much to (MW) ‘expect’ clarification?
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
“When I ran the above text through Bablefish it told me that the first entry was related to Apple Remote Desktop and that the second entry was related to Leopard’s supposed ability to resize interface elements so that that menu bar type that appears”
Nothing new to see here. Both of these occurred to me without a lookup.
I don’t know why most of these patent filings are found newsworthy. A quick patent search shows thousands of patents assigned to Apple Computer, not even counting those that only name employees, not the company.
I would bet that they’ve patented the special paper Steve has in the executive washroom to wipe his a**.
DudeMac: If you think the Amiga offered resolution independance like what Apple is giving us since the late 80s, all I can conclude is that you have no idea what resolution independance is. I talk as an Amiga owner for the late 80s and early 90s.
@DLMeyer
All interface elements will be vector based. If a button is 2cm wide on 800×600 display, it will also be 2cm on a 30″ 2550×1680 display.
Also you will be able to zoom and all interface elements will be really sharp. No fuzz and blurring.
MW “move”, lets move forward to Leopard
Months old news… news that was posted on Apple’s own website.
http://developer.apple.com/leopard/overview/index.html
aToMac:
I was thinking vectors too. It would make sense as apps like Illustrator, Freehand and fonts have been resolution independant for years because of vectors.
Fantastic.
I really can’t wait.
Also, Core animation is a pretty big deal as we will no doubt see stuff that would be impossible using Windows with the same hardware.
I mean, didn’t they re-do the iPod video with the album covers turning into a city with something like 10% of the original code footprint.
Imagine what sort of Mac games could be written to run well on standard mac hardware with entry level graphics cards.
Roll on Leopard….
And thanks for the link Cpt.Obvious. Looks like an interesting read.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
This is one of those “secret” Leopard features Steve was referring to.
From OS X mobile to kiosks to HDTV and every screen in between…
For years, the computer’s pixel-based graphics looked like shit on the television screen due to down-sampling and now it’s the other way around.
“This is one of those “secret” Leopard features Steve was referring to.”
Yeah, that’s some “secret” feature…
…since resolution independence has long been reported that Apple and Microsoft have both been working on it for years, it is present in Tiger, and it’s been covered by both Apple’s publicly visible developer tech notes and Ars Technica.
Resolution independent graphics on a computer screen is radically different from vector graphics or PostScript or Display PostScript.
Mac OS X has been using vector graphics since day one. The NeXT box used Display PostScript. Both are *NOT* resolution independent. They are methods to display scalable graphics on fixed resolution displays.
All three of these are dependent upon knowing the number of pixels per inch on the screen. The Mac has always assumed 72 dots per inch.
Ever blow up a vector graphic on the screen going from 100% to 400% and see how it got larger on the screen AND it did not get the 4x “jaggies” a bit map gives you? That’s vector graphics at work. An example is Apple has tried to get all developers to use vector graphics for all icons since Mac OS X Beta was announced.
Ever notice that when you do a graphic on your display in OS X at say 1280 x 1024 then you switch the display to 1600 x 1200 that the graphic now takes up a much smaller area on the screen? That is due to the dependence of the OS on the assumption of a fixed size for each physical pixel on the screen.
Ever notice how in your word processor (even using PostScript, TrueType or OpenType fonts) that when you have a very high resolution set on your monitor that 72 point type is no where near one in high? That’s because the Mac OS assumes the screen is at 72 pixels per inch.
This is exactly what’s happening with Apple’s current monitors. Almost all of them are approximately 100 pixels per inch thus everything is smaller by about a third than it should be. An 8.5 x 11 inch document is really showing at about 6 x 8 inches.
With resolution independence everything will always be displayed at 100% size (unless you tell the application otherwise). An 8.5 x 11 inch document will be 8.5 x 11 inches on the screen no matter what the pixels per inch on the screen is. If you are using an Apple monitor with 100 pixels per inch 72 point type will be one inch tall. If you use an old AciUS monitor at 124 pixels per inch they will still be one inch tall. If you set up an old 21 inch Multi-sync monitor at 800 x 600 dpi giving you less than 70 pixels per inch then the 72 point type will still be one inch tall.
With resolution independendence Apple could come out with super high resolution monitors (200 pixels per inch anyone?) say even a 30″ monitor with 5040 x 3200 resolution and still have things show up on screen at the proper size. 10 point type would be the proper size for 10 point type — just with four times as many pixels showing it. Hell, you could probably even show 4 point type at the proper size and still be able to read it with that kind of screen resolution.
The bottom line is that screen resolution independence is a completely different thing from vector graphics or any form of PostScript.
I’ve been wanting screen resolution independence since about 1990. Hopefully in less than six months I’ll finally have it!
@Dave
Screen resolution independence in *any* form has not been available in *any* version of Mac OS X to date.
Unfortunately, it seems like very few posters here actually understand the difference between vector graphics and device (in this case screen) resolution. They are completely independent things.
@British Mac Head and others…
This is NOT about vector graphics.
This is about screen resolution independence.
You can (and Mac OS X does up through 10.4) use vector graphics to display things on the screen but they are still dependent upon the assumptions the Mac OS uses for the pixels per inch on the screen. Ever since the original 128k Mac, the Mac has assumed 72 pixels per inch on the screen.
No more. Either the user will be able to input the exact, actual screen pixels per inch or the Mac OS will get that directly from the monitor through some new monitor interface.
DudeMac: If you think the Amiga offered resolution independance like what Apple is giving us since the late 80s, all I can conclude is that you have no idea what resolution independance is. I talk as an Amiga owner for the late 80s and early 90s.
I’m talking about resolution independence in regards to screen resolutions without a manual refresh, which is something Amiga has been able to do for some time coming. Screen resolution was very dynamic and flexible in Workbench.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AmigaOS
http://os4.hyperion-entertainment.biz/
DudeMac: Its not the same thing at all I’m afraid, even though that was a cool feature of the Amiga.
“Screen resolution independence in *any* form has not been available in *any* version of Mac OS X to date.”
Shadowself: What Dave is referring to is the feature that allows you to change the DPI setting on Mac OS X Tiger, so new Windows will appear smaller or larger depending on what you set the DPI to. This is the cornerstone of how resolution independance will work. It was an experimental feature in Tiger only available through the Quartz Debug program.
@Shadowself
http://developer.apple.com/releasenotes/GraphicsImaging/ResolutionIndependentUI.html
http://www.interact-sw.co.uk/iangblog/2005/05/20/tigerresolution
http://arstechnica.com/staff/fatbits.ars/2006/4/23/3720
@ pog and Dave,
Yes, resolution independence has been available recently in the Quartz debugger. I overstated when I said it has not been available in *any* form. That was clearly in error. (In reality screen resolution independence has been available as far back as System 6.0.3 with certain add on user interface mods; and I was not thinking of unique situations such as inside a debugger environment; but I digress.) I prefer to have the right information out there even if it does not come from me.
The reality is that even 99% of power users have no knowledge of the Quartz debugger or anything similar. I should have said, that at the *user* level (not the debug level) there is no access to screen resolution independence.
The bottom line for me is it’s about damn time screen resolution became a pervasive part of Mac OS X, and thanks for pointing out/clarifying my error.
So what (if anything) does the future of resolution independence mean for Web design? Should font heights in .html and CSS be specified in pixels, percentages, ems?