itcheroni
Apr 15, 01:57 AM
You're also operating from a false premise. Investors would continue to invest in whatever had the best returns. When you raise taxes across the board, all alternatives have the same tax exposure, which means the previously best option will remain the best option.
Unless you're seriously suggesting that a 35% (or higher) tax rate is really going to cause all billionaires to sit on their money and earn a lower return, just to stick it to Uncle Sam.
Sorry to break it to you but it's not me with the false premise. Money is like water, it flows to where there is least resistance. Money can be invested in anything and anywhere around the world. You can invest on Asian exchanges. Why not create a company in Hong Kong and invest through that? You can even invest in American companies because many of them list on several international exchanges. If you were a billionaire, would you invest with an individual account in the U.S. and be subject to a 35% tax, or invest through a corporation in Hong Kong and pay no taxes. In reality, they probably have many investments spread out. Some in the U.S., some internationally. Such a change in tax rules will simply cause them to make the appropriate changes to maximize how much they make.
The real problem is a lack of growth. There's only so much Silicon Valley can offer in location. If we really start taxing at 35% and eliminated a lot of deductions, then what reason is there to start a business in the U.S. over Shanghai or Hong Kong?
It's a sad state but we are already testing the waters for capital controls, trying to keep money in the U.S. It's a big mistake we're progressing towards. No one will want to put money into a country that makes it hard to take money out.
Unless you're seriously suggesting that a 35% (or higher) tax rate is really going to cause all billionaires to sit on their money and earn a lower return, just to stick it to Uncle Sam.
Sorry to break it to you but it's not me with the false premise. Money is like water, it flows to where there is least resistance. Money can be invested in anything and anywhere around the world. You can invest on Asian exchanges. Why not create a company in Hong Kong and invest through that? You can even invest in American companies because many of them list on several international exchanges. If you were a billionaire, would you invest with an individual account in the U.S. and be subject to a 35% tax, or invest through a corporation in Hong Kong and pay no taxes. In reality, they probably have many investments spread out. Some in the U.S., some internationally. Such a change in tax rules will simply cause them to make the appropriate changes to maximize how much they make.
The real problem is a lack of growth. There's only so much Silicon Valley can offer in location. If we really start taxing at 35% and eliminated a lot of deductions, then what reason is there to start a business in the U.S. over Shanghai or Hong Kong?
It's a sad state but we are already testing the waters for capital controls, trying to keep money in the U.S. It's a big mistake we're progressing towards. No one will want to put money into a country that makes it hard to take money out.
macnews
Jul 21, 02:10 PM
Glad I didn't decide to buy a new MBP in June! I have plans to wait until after WWDC, but I think we might see a change in processor before than. I don't see moving to a newer Intel chip as being a "big" developer issue.
slackintosh
Jul 30, 09:53 PM
As the previous post states, the typeface of that add should have caught anyone, apple undertook a subtle identity change around the time it introduced G4 ibooks, most significant was a change in typeface.....
I think the rumour is nothing but a rumour, wasn't it a similar mysterious source who mentioned to a gas station attendant the pending arrival of 42" Plasmas or some $#!+???
I think the rumour is nothing but a rumour, wasn't it a similar mysterious source who mentioned to a gas station attendant the pending arrival of 42" Plasmas or some $#!+???
theappleguy
Jul 31, 04:27 AM
couldn't they just release it as an UNLOCKED phone, sell it on their site and allow us to use it with who ever?I'm sure they would. If they did choose to only make it available to Verizon/T-Mobile etc then they would either have to sell unlocked versions in other countries where those networks don't operate or loose a large amount of sales.
Peace
Sep 11, 02:20 PM
Man..I can't think of anything that hasn't been mentioned here yet..
I'll add :
Sony HD Blue Ray Optical Drives for Mac Pros and external drives for other Macs.
Airport A/V with Blue Ray Drive and Hard Drive..
and one more thing..
Whirled Peas:D
I'll add :
Sony HD Blue Ray Optical Drives for Mac Pros and external drives for other Macs.
Airport A/V with Blue Ray Drive and Hard Drive..
and one more thing..
Whirled Peas:D
jholzner
Aug 11, 03:04 PM
it doesn't matter if you have a 64-bit processor and OS, you have to have 4Gb of RAM to run in 64-bit.
Not true. From Wikipedia:
A common misconception is that 64-bit architectures are no better than 32-bit architectures unless the computer has more than 4 GB of memory. This is not entirely true:
wiz khalifa amber rose tattoo
West amp; Wiz Khalifa almost
wiz khalifa amber rose face
wiz khalifa amber rose tattoo
wiz khalifa amber rose tattoo
wiz khalifa amber rose tattoo
wiz khalifa amber rose tattoo
wiz khalifa amber rose tattoo
wiz khalifa amber rose tattoo
wiz khalifa amber rose tattoo.
wiz khalifa amber rose tattoo
wiz khalifa amber rose tattoo
wiz khalifa amber rose face
Not true. From Wikipedia:
A common misconception is that 64-bit architectures are no better than 32-bit architectures unless the computer has more than 4 GB of memory. This is not entirely true:
brendu
Apr 26, 02:12 PM
One interesting thing to note. Apple held 25% of recent acquirers with 2 phone models. The iPhone 4 and iPhone 3GS. They are also on only 2 carriers, and have only been with Verizon for part of the time leading up to the march survey. Android however is on dozens of handsets and all four US carriers. I would say apple is doing amazingly well when you consider those specifics.
I am not worried about iOS not having a larger chunk of the market, I am blown away that it has 25%.
I am not worried about iOS not having a larger chunk of the market, I am blown away that it has 25%.
yodaxl7
Apr 18, 04:07 PM
shame really that Apple is resorting to Microsoft-esque tactics. If you can't beat em, just sue em, mentality.
Thats like saying that Coca-Cola should sue Pepsi
Xerox PARC should have aggressively sued Apple when the GUI was becoming commercialized.
NO, Apple did not invent the first GUI Operating System. Xerox made the first GUI in their Alto systems. Xerox only sued (late for that matter) when Apple sued Microsoft for their GUI OS (Windows).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/Xerox_Alto.jpg/240px-Xerox_Alto.jpg
Let's say we had a science test and I sit next to you. I made an A and you made an A. I didn't study and you did. Will u tell on me?
Thats like saying that Coca-Cola should sue Pepsi
Xerox PARC should have aggressively sued Apple when the GUI was becoming commercialized.
NO, Apple did not invent the first GUI Operating System. Xerox made the first GUI in their Alto systems. Xerox only sued (late for that matter) when Apple sued Microsoft for their GUI OS (Windows).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/Xerox_Alto.jpg/240px-Xerox_Alto.jpg
Let's say we had a science test and I sit next to you. I made an A and you made an A. I didn't study and you did. Will u tell on me?
rjohnstone
Apr 18, 04:56 PM
Apple *have* patented the look of icons: http://www.edibleapple.com/apple-granted-eu-patents-on-24-ios-icon-designs/ and Samsung clearly infringes on them.
(I'm not sure if a similar, US patent exists.)
You can't patent the "look" of an icon in the U.S.
You copyright it. :rolleyes:
And I'd seriously doubt many of them would survive a court challenge.
(I'm not sure if a similar, US patent exists.)
You can't patent the "look" of an icon in the U.S.
You copyright it. :rolleyes:
And I'd seriously doubt many of them would survive a court challenge.
vniow
Aug 7, 02:00 PM
Upping the baseline of the MacPro to $2500, what is that.
The baseline is actually somewhere around $2100, you can lower some of the options when configuring.
The baseline is actually somewhere around $2100, you can lower some of the options when configuring.
pmz
Mar 28, 11:48 AM
My problem isn't necessarily with Apple, my grief is with carriers who have tied most of us in to 2 year fixed contracts. Whether this is due to Apple's insistence, or whether carriers have signed up to the 'yearly cycle' idea, there are thousands of us stuck in the middle here.
Any 3GS user who bought new and has a 2 year contract (usually because it was the most economical) now has a huge dilemma. Do we switch phones and get new contracts on different phones, or do we go Pay As You Go to cover those 3/4 (potentially more) months?
Ultimately, if happens, I'll end up going for the new BlackBerry Bold Touch (Dakota), just because I don't want to be strung along for a few months, racking up minutes/text/data costs. It'll be sad, but ultimately, its just a phone I guess...
NB: ALL OF THE ABOVE IS PREFACED BY AN 'IF THE RUMOUR HAPPENS'!
I don't see how anyone has a huge dilemma. If you're saying those that bought a 3GS on launch, didn't upgrade last year, and now are at the end of a 2 year have a "problem", that doesn't sound like much of a problem to me.
Call up AT&T and say your contract is up, you'd like to renew and buy a new iPhone which you qualify for, but you're not buying a new iPhone until iPhone 5 comes out. If they don't allow you a grace period until iPhone 5 is available, tell them you're gone, and that Verizon seems like a good option since AT&T doesn't want you for another 2 years.
The difference between public policy and what they can/will do for you when you're "threatening" to switch, is very different. The only time you have any leverage to get something you want out of AT&T is a once every two years opportunity when you're contract is up and you have the option of switching.
Any 3GS user who bought new and has a 2 year contract (usually because it was the most economical) now has a huge dilemma. Do we switch phones and get new contracts on different phones, or do we go Pay As You Go to cover those 3/4 (potentially more) months?
Ultimately, if happens, I'll end up going for the new BlackBerry Bold Touch (Dakota), just because I don't want to be strung along for a few months, racking up minutes/text/data costs. It'll be sad, but ultimately, its just a phone I guess...
NB: ALL OF THE ABOVE IS PREFACED BY AN 'IF THE RUMOUR HAPPENS'!
I don't see how anyone has a huge dilemma. If you're saying those that bought a 3GS on launch, didn't upgrade last year, and now are at the end of a 2 year have a "problem", that doesn't sound like much of a problem to me.
Call up AT&T and say your contract is up, you'd like to renew and buy a new iPhone which you qualify for, but you're not buying a new iPhone until iPhone 5 comes out. If they don't allow you a grace period until iPhone 5 is available, tell them you're gone, and that Verizon seems like a good option since AT&T doesn't want you for another 2 years.
The difference between public policy and what they can/will do for you when you're "threatening" to switch, is very different. The only time you have any leverage to get something you want out of AT&T is a once every two years opportunity when you're contract is up and you have the option of switching.
LagunaSol
Apr 18, 05:02 PM
WRONG.
The LG Prada was announced in September 6 months ahead of iPhone1 announcement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada_%28KE850%29).
Odd, the link you included in your argument states the Prada was "announced" on December 12, 2006.
The iPhone was announced on January 9, less than one month later.
And the Prada looks more like a BlackBerry than an iPhone to me. The Prada and iPhone are almost nothing alike, aside from the size and shape of the earhole.
The LG Prada was announced in September 6 months ahead of iPhone1 announcement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada_%28KE850%29).
Odd, the link you included in your argument states the Prada was "announced" on December 12, 2006.
The iPhone was announced on January 9, less than one month later.
And the Prada looks more like a BlackBerry than an iPhone to me. The Prada and iPhone are almost nothing alike, aside from the size and shape of the earhole.
NebulaClash
Apr 25, 09:31 AM
Nothing to see here...just the unabashed evilness of Apple shining through. I'm sure Apple will 'flash the wad' to the right people and make this issue go away...sad :( We are nothing more than chattel to Apple Consumer Electronics, where we are tracked and monitored like open range livestock. This is how they view us, as THEIR herd to do with as they please.
Welcome to the future guys. :mad:
You do realize everything you said is untrue, right?
Welcome to the future guys. :mad:
You do realize everything you said is untrue, right?
Full of Win
Mar 30, 05:42 PM
So I guess that Gold Master rumor was wrong.
tribalogical
May 6, 01:27 AM
My first reaction to the headline was, "Oh no, not again..." (having already weathered both the OS9 -> OSX and PowerPC -> Intel x86 transitions)...
But after that initial groan, a few other (more positive?) considerations came to mind.
First, Apple really did do a great job of transitioning from PPC to Ix86... it was far less painful than it could have been. Not perfect, but incredibly well-managed.
Now, OSX Lion is coming, and it appears to contain the beginnings of a convergence and consolidation between iOS and OSX. If we try to imagine where those OS's will be, say, 3 years out (and the hardware as well), by THAT time, it may be as simple as flipping a switch and hey-presto, you're on an ARM device without missing a beat...
I say this because, as devices like iPad evolve over the next few years, the applications written for them will also, and by the time 'higher end devices' like desktops and laptops are lining up for a platform change, those "mobile" app versions will already be 'full featured', and already written for ARM-based devices (I'll use the current Garageband pair - with cross-compatible OSX/iOS versions - as a very early-market example of that future). So, the painful prospect of rewriting/recompiling all your code won't be nearly as bad as it was for the OS9->X transition.
Another consideration is that tomorrow's mobile devices will be far more powerful than even today's desktop/laptops are. It's harder to imagine the future of the desktop/laptop as we know them today.
In fact, now would probably be a good time to remember that what Jobs is creating here isn't just "magical devices"... he's embarked on defining the "Post PC Era"...
It'll be interesting to see where all this leads, but my take on it is that it might not even feel much like a "platform switch" by the time we arrive there...
But after that initial groan, a few other (more positive?) considerations came to mind.
First, Apple really did do a great job of transitioning from PPC to Ix86... it was far less painful than it could have been. Not perfect, but incredibly well-managed.
Now, OSX Lion is coming, and it appears to contain the beginnings of a convergence and consolidation between iOS and OSX. If we try to imagine where those OS's will be, say, 3 years out (and the hardware as well), by THAT time, it may be as simple as flipping a switch and hey-presto, you're on an ARM device without missing a beat...
I say this because, as devices like iPad evolve over the next few years, the applications written for them will also, and by the time 'higher end devices' like desktops and laptops are lining up for a platform change, those "mobile" app versions will already be 'full featured', and already written for ARM-based devices (I'll use the current Garageband pair - with cross-compatible OSX/iOS versions - as a very early-market example of that future). So, the painful prospect of rewriting/recompiling all your code won't be nearly as bad as it was for the OS9->X transition.
Another consideration is that tomorrow's mobile devices will be far more powerful than even today's desktop/laptops are. It's harder to imagine the future of the desktop/laptop as we know them today.
In fact, now would probably be a good time to remember that what Jobs is creating here isn't just "magical devices"... he's embarked on defining the "Post PC Era"...
It'll be interesting to see where all this leads, but my take on it is that it might not even feel much like a "platform switch" by the time we arrive there...
ufkdo
Apr 24, 03:38 AM
Very cool! But I hope it will not come until late 2012 :D
InsanelyApple
May 4, 04:28 PM
2) Same idea as above.... "If you have a tank filled with 450 cubic yards of water, and it is flowing out at a rate of 3 gallons a minute, how long does it take to empty?"
But to illustrate my earlier point, 1 cubic yard = 27 cubic feet, 1 cubic foot = 7.48 gallons. Simple math.
Seriously snberk103. Let us Americans use what we want. We find the imperial easier than the scientific metric. Tomorrow put up a good point, we can use conversion factors too. ;)
But to illustrate my earlier point, 1 cubic yard = 27 cubic feet, 1 cubic foot = 7.48 gallons. Simple math.
Seriously snberk103. Let us Americans use what we want. We find the imperial easier than the scientific metric. Tomorrow put up a good point, we can use conversion factors too. ;)
Christina1971
May 7, 10:27 AM
Huh? If they aren't making any money for it now (with relatively few people paying for the service) how would it make sense to give it away for free (with many many more people not paying for it?)
I for one use it ALL the time. When you have more than one device (multiple macs, iphone), it's SO nice to have them sync wirelessly, immediately, and without having to login every time, on the native apps. iCal, Contacts, Safari links: I am a very frequent user of the mobileme syncing on all of these.
Maybe as marketing? Like you said, it works well and seamlessly if you have several Apple devices. People might be thinking of buying more than one Apple product, but wondering how they can keep everything synced.
Apple could promote Mobile Me as a "value add" and perhaps get more buyers of other devices that way?
I for one use it ALL the time. When you have more than one device (multiple macs, iphone), it's SO nice to have them sync wirelessly, immediately, and without having to login every time, on the native apps. iCal, Contacts, Safari links: I am a very frequent user of the mobileme syncing on all of these.
Maybe as marketing? Like you said, it works well and seamlessly if you have several Apple devices. People might be thinking of buying more than one Apple product, but wondering how they can keep everything synced.
Apple could promote Mobile Me as a "value add" and perhaps get more buyers of other devices that way?
Cinch
Jul 30, 10:26 AM
Yeah tell me about it.
How much does it take to break a Verizon contract again...?
For me it is $175 which is no big deal if you are a early adopter of tech. A more likely scenario that a lot of people here ellude to is for Cingular, T-mobile, Verizon etc. to adopt the phone, in which case we'll only have to pay for the phone. Of course expect premium price, which for a stock holder is not a bad scenario!
Cinch
How much does it take to break a Verizon contract again...?
For me it is $175 which is no big deal if you are a early adopter of tech. A more likely scenario that a lot of people here ellude to is for Cingular, T-mobile, Verizon etc. to adopt the phone, in which case we'll only have to pay for the phone. Of course expect premium price, which for a stock holder is not a bad scenario!
Cinch
Multimedia
Aug 7, 08:59 PM
It is quite a hight price, but when looking into hard drives keep in mind how loud they are. Apple tends to choose quiet drives and Maxtor tends to make really loud drives. Would be a shame to buy such a lovely machine only to put a bunch of loud and whinig drives in it. Quietpcreview.com is a good place to go to see which drives are the best.
Seagate tends to do a good job of keeping the noise down.That URL is no good. Would you please go to the site and COPY the URL and then PASTE it here with the LINK tool?
Did you mean SILENT PC REVIEW (http://www.silentpcreview.com/)?
Seagate tends to do a good job of keeping the noise down.That URL is no good. Would you please go to the site and COPY the URL and then PASTE it here with the LINK tool?
Did you mean SILENT PC REVIEW (http://www.silentpcreview.com/)?
itcheroni
Apr 21, 12:50 AM
I'd love it if you could point out where you addressed this, because as a tax accountant, I'm having a hard time thinking of a time when a realized capital gain isn't income - if you have a realized net gain (ie amount realized is greater than your basis in the capital asset), you certainly have income. Certainly you could reinvest that net gain, but that doesn't mean you don't have income, that just means you realized a gain and reinvested the old basis and the gain (income). You're only taxed on realized gains that are recognized by the code (and you can net against realized losses) - sure, I could have an unrealized capital gain that isn't income, but I wouldn't be taxed on it either. Not that I don't agree with some of your points, but I'd really love the same clarification on this that most other posters have been asking for.
I suppose what you are getting at as a trader is that you buy a capital asset for $1000 and sell two days latter for $1100, then reinvest the $1100 into another capital asset. You'd be taxed on the $100 of capital gain even though you effectively have no cash in your hands to pay the tax. Unfortunately for traders, income doesn't mean cash. But a person who was in the trade or business of being a professional trader wouldn't qualify for capital gains treatment anyways, it would all be ordinary income.
Okay, but just for you, dude (when you disagree with me, we both can at least understand what we're disagreeing on. Other people here, well, it's just a waste of time. They start responding before even understanding my point). I guess I didn't make it clear earlier but my perspective on capital gains is in relation to inflation. If there were 100 widgets and 100 dollars, let's say the value of one widget was 1 dollar. If the central bank in charge of dollars decides to do some quantitative easing and increases the money supply to 200 dollars. This will lead to inflation with one widget valued at approximately 2 dollars. Now, why should one pay capital gains on this when, most likely, everything else costs more too. You didn't really receive any gain; the measurement of value (dollars) decreased.
For example, let's say there was a tax for getting taller. If the measurement of an inch or foot keeps decreasing, you will have to keep paying even though you're not getting taller.
Earlier I gave an example of the time between buying an apple and biting into it, likening it to cost basis and realized gain. We would find it ridiculous to pay a tax for any capital gain in the apple, but if I choose to save my money in gold until I use it, most people think I'm actually gaining something. If I were holding stock in a company that paid dividends, that might be different.
So from my perspective, the inflation (capital gain) itself is a tax, and we have to pay a tax for that tax. Right now, I don't believe the economy is really improving; the Fed is just creating enough inflation to improve the numbers. Stocks may be going up, but I think food prices are going up even faster. So what is the point of a capital gains on stocks if the proceeds from the sale nets you even less groceries than at the time of your cost basis? If a 1 ounce gold coin a hundred years ago buys you roughly the same today, what is the point of charging a capital gains? In this case, the coin would have gone from $20 to $1500, adding up to a capital gain of $1480. Sure, you could have save the $20 in cash instead of gold, but then you're "taxed" by inflation. Instead of paying your rent for several months, $20 will now buy you a haircut. Forget the "tax the rich" aspect of this; this makes it really difficult for poor people to save money because they are the ones most likely to save cash.
My concern is, how will we save our purchasing power? The government is actively decreasing the value of our money and anything we do to try and save our purchasing power is stripped away by taxes.
I suppose what you are getting at as a trader is that you buy a capital asset for $1000 and sell two days latter for $1100, then reinvest the $1100 into another capital asset. You'd be taxed on the $100 of capital gain even though you effectively have no cash in your hands to pay the tax. Unfortunately for traders, income doesn't mean cash. But a person who was in the trade or business of being a professional trader wouldn't qualify for capital gains treatment anyways, it would all be ordinary income.
Okay, but just for you, dude (when you disagree with me, we both can at least understand what we're disagreeing on. Other people here, well, it's just a waste of time. They start responding before even understanding my point). I guess I didn't make it clear earlier but my perspective on capital gains is in relation to inflation. If there were 100 widgets and 100 dollars, let's say the value of one widget was 1 dollar. If the central bank in charge of dollars decides to do some quantitative easing and increases the money supply to 200 dollars. This will lead to inflation with one widget valued at approximately 2 dollars. Now, why should one pay capital gains on this when, most likely, everything else costs more too. You didn't really receive any gain; the measurement of value (dollars) decreased.
For example, let's say there was a tax for getting taller. If the measurement of an inch or foot keeps decreasing, you will have to keep paying even though you're not getting taller.
Earlier I gave an example of the time between buying an apple and biting into it, likening it to cost basis and realized gain. We would find it ridiculous to pay a tax for any capital gain in the apple, but if I choose to save my money in gold until I use it, most people think I'm actually gaining something. If I were holding stock in a company that paid dividends, that might be different.
So from my perspective, the inflation (capital gain) itself is a tax, and we have to pay a tax for that tax. Right now, I don't believe the economy is really improving; the Fed is just creating enough inflation to improve the numbers. Stocks may be going up, but I think food prices are going up even faster. So what is the point of a capital gains on stocks if the proceeds from the sale nets you even less groceries than at the time of your cost basis? If a 1 ounce gold coin a hundred years ago buys you roughly the same today, what is the point of charging a capital gains? In this case, the coin would have gone from $20 to $1500, adding up to a capital gain of $1480. Sure, you could have save the $20 in cash instead of gold, but then you're "taxed" by inflation. Instead of paying your rent for several months, $20 will now buy you a haircut. Forget the "tax the rich" aspect of this; this makes it really difficult for poor people to save money because they are the ones most likely to save cash.
My concern is, how will we save our purchasing power? The government is actively decreasing the value of our money and anything we do to try and save our purchasing power is stripped away by taxes.
ravenvii
May 4, 05:13 PM
OP updated with re-written rules by Don't panic (with minor modifications).
shaolindave
May 4, 06:32 PM
One thing that concerns me is educational pricing.
That's something about the App Store I've been keeping an eye on since the beginning. I'm developing some educational games that I want to distribute freely to schools, and only charge for the home version. It'd be nice if the App Store could distinguish between different types of customers.
That's something about the App Store I've been keeping an eye on since the beginning. I'm developing some educational games that I want to distribute freely to schools, and only charge for the home version. It'd be nice if the App Store could distinguish between different types of customers.
Piggie
Apr 23, 06:29 PM
What was the point in bringing retina display to the iPhone? :)
Same thing I guess...
For one I want it, it is very kind on the eyes...
Yes, because the iPhone was low res for a device you hold up to your nose and a typical consumer, which is what Apple design for, could easily see the pixels.
I am wondering how many typical consumers, when viewing at the distance you would view, say a 24" monitor, can make out individual pixels.
I do know Apple's font smoothing is a little, ummmm, shall we say, different to what Microsoft do, so perhaps typefaces do look more jaggy on a Mac than they do on a PC ?
Same thing I guess...
For one I want it, it is very kind on the eyes...
Yes, because the iPhone was low res for a device you hold up to your nose and a typical consumer, which is what Apple design for, could easily see the pixels.
I am wondering how many typical consumers, when viewing at the distance you would view, say a 24" monitor, can make out individual pixels.
I do know Apple's font smoothing is a little, ummmm, shall we say, different to what Microsoft do, so perhaps typefaces do look more jaggy on a Mac than they do on a PC ?
No comments:
Post a Comment