Dan Knight
- 2007.05.23
Millions of Colors at Reduced Resolution
John M writes in response to Apple Sued: Can 262,144 Colors Be
Considered 'Millions'?:
Hi Dan,
You say:
"By using the pixels above and below, we've got 8
bits of color per channel and the 16 million plus that Apple
claims."
but what if a pixel is used by all its neighbors? All that does
is trade off resolution for color. You can have the claimed
resolution or the claimed colors but not both (unless a lawyer has
redefined "pixel" . . . which is sadly possible.)
Still, I agree the suit is snarky, and indeed only the lawyers
will get rich.
Best Regards,
John
John,
I agree, it's just plain snarky. The question is
whether the LCD can display millions of colors, as Apple claims,
and the simple fact is that it can, albeit not on a strict pixel
basis. (One other trick, which I didn't mention in my article and
which may be behind the "sparkle" some people see, is varying the
level of the R, G, and B elements many times a second, visually
creating an intermediate level and thus producing the equivalent of
21-bit color with some visual distraction.)
It would have made more sense to sue over the
sparkle and over the number of colors being displayed. Even if
Apple doesn't claim a "sparkle free" display, it could be seen as a
product flaw.
If this one does go to court, I'm just waiting to
see the plaintiffs demonstrate the difference between a 'Book's
display and a true 24-bit LCD mirroring the same image. Will the
judge see it?
Dan
MacBook Video Circuitry Supports Millions of
Colors
Chris Kilner says:
Dan:
As a lawyer, it seems silly. All of Apple's notebooks have 8-bit
circuitry and video-out so, at a minimum they all have "support for
millions of colors" - the LCD's themselves "support" millions of
colors through dithering.
Chris Kilner
Millions of Colors Is an Illusion
Steven Hunter writes:
Interestingly, the lawsuit maintains that using dithering to
achieve "millions of colors" is simply an illusion....
Perhaps these lawyers should read a book on human vision; at the
very least they need to read up on Pointillism. All
video displays (LCD, CRT, or otherwise) are an illusion. They are
only capable of showing three colors (red, blue, and green) at
various intensities. These colors combine in our eyes and can be
made to appear as different colors. Dithering is just an extension
of that effect.
Steven Hunter
"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the
precipitate."
Getting a Dell Printer to Work with a Mac
"The Real Mike G" writes:
Dan,
I have a solution for John Hatchett regarding his mailbag entry
titled "A Fallback Plan for Losing
G3 Support". Dell printers are actually rebranded Lexmark
printers. If he wants to attach his printer to his OS X
server, he can find the drivers at:
<
http://www.lexmark.com/lexmark/sequentialem/home/
0,6959,204816596_666691854_682634834_en,00.html>
There is no guarantee that his printer will be on the list, but
it likely is. Please pass this message along to him. Thanks.
- Mike (An avid PC user that thoroughly loves his iBook G3)
Thanks for the tip, Mike. I'm forwarding your
email to John.
Dan
Problem Installing OS 9 on a Beige G3
Pongsak Suvanpong writes:
Hello
I read your article on <http://lowendmac.com/10/02/1021.html>
about installing OS X on a Power Mac G3.
I have a PowerMac G3/233 MHz, 640 MB
RAM. I want to run Tiger on the Mac, so I put in a 10 GB hard disk.
Using an OS 9 CD for my G4 Cube, I
partition the HD into 2 partitions, then installed OS 9 on it
in order to run XPostFacto.
It went fine; I could install and run Tiger without any
problem.
Then I found a new HD which is bigger. It's a 15 GB Quantum HD.
So I did the same process trying to install Tiger on it, but this
time after I partition the HD (7.5 GB and 7.5 GB), I then dragged
System Folder from the OS 9 CD onto the first partition like I did
last time. After that, I reboot the machine to boot into OS 9,
but the Mac won't boot from the HD; it's reporting "error no
bootable HFS partition".
I have tried with many HD - some smaller like 4 GB, 6 GB, and 8
GB - but got the same error. I even tried with the same process
with the 10 GB that used to work but got the same error. I wonder
if you have any ideas what should I try next.
thanks
psksvp
I've never used XPostFacto, so I'm only guessing
here. You might be able to get more help from our Unsupported
OS X group.
First question: Did you "bless" the System Folder
(by double-clicking on the System file) after you copied it over to
the new drive? If you don't bless the System, your Mac can't boot
from it.
Second question: Did you attempt to run the OS 9
installer to install OS 9 on these drives? Sometimes the
System Folder on a CD won't work properly on a hard drive. You have
to run the installer, not just copy files.
Hope this helps.
Dan
Autofocus Webcam for PCs (and Macs)
Patrick Tufts writes:
In your Low End Mac column from 2005 [
Where Are the Autofocus, Zoom Lens, Low Light Webcams?], you
mentioned that PCs don't have anything close to the iSight.
I too have been waiting since the iSight came out for a PC
webcam with autofocus. There's finally one:
Creative's LiveCam Optia AF. List price is $130, retails for
$110-$120. Here's the product page:
- Pat - <http://ptufts.blogspot.com>
Thanks for the heads up, Patrick.
Best of all, for Mac owners bemoaning the
disappearance of Apple's iSight webcam, Creative's LiveCam Optia AF
is also compatible with Mac OS X 10.4.9 or higher.
Dan
Upgrading an eMac's Hard Drive
Nathan Brubaker says:
Hi Dan,
I've been following the letters about the dangers of working on
CRT based Macs, and I have to say I've been pretty surprised. I
upgraded my 1st generation eMac's
hard drive a few months ago, and although there was a good amount
of disassembly involved, none of it was near the dangerous part of
the CRT. I'm not sure about the iMacs, but I feel pretty confident
in saying that anyone with a reasonably amount of computer repair
experience shouldn't have any problems.
Nathan Brubaker
Nathan,
Right you are - and congratulations on upgrading
your eMac's hard drive. I've done it myself, and it's a
full-fledged pain in the posterior. In fact, that was what
convinced me to start using an external hard drive with my later
eMacs rather than fight to replace the internal one and put
everything back together properly.
Dan
AFP Connection Problem Solved
Randy C says:
I just read your posting, Translucent Gray Box in
OS X, AFP Connection Problem in Classic Stump Mac Daniel
[2006.07.12].
I was getting the same message. Along with other webpages, yours
helped - thanks! Since I fixed it, I thought I'd share it with you,
even though your issue occurred over a year ago.
The AFP Connection Status was not only popping up every 3-4
seconds, my Finder was doing the "I'm busy thinking" spinning wheel
thing so long it was not responding. Usually a simple relaunch and
restart works via the click-holding the Finder icon on the Dock or
via the Force Quit Applications window (Apple-command
key+Option+Esc).
However, upon restart the same turning wheel. Usually one
program is tweaking out; I can still use others. So did a Google
search and found several people receiving the same error. There was
some reasonable advice, but only one out of 4 or 5 solving their
issue. Then I read about pros being stumped and thought "Uh Oh!" I
could be in for a long night.
I tried saving what I read to reference later and then the
thinking wheel consumed Safari. Force Quit Safari > Press Power
button for a sec . . . Do I want to restart? YES! Finder
is still thinking . . . Relaunch Finder again, and
finally it restarts.
I try to do everything to avoid hard forced restarts. I keep my
Dock loaded with apps and files and folders. One utility I have
learned to appreciate is Activity Monitor (located in Applications
> Utility folder). I opened this up and went down the list of
open programs. Anything not responding shows up in red. There it
is: Finder (not responding) with the AFP Client (not responding)
directly underneath it. I scrolled down some more and found the
culprit (for my situation).
Normally I run everything on an external via my laptop or
desktop. Since I've been house sitting, I hooked up my external to
my friend's Mac, since they have a large screen. Then I wirelessly
networked them together via the AirPort wireless router and read my
mail on my laptop and ran processes, while I ran other processes
and surfer the Net on the desktop.
This worked fine until I was finished and disconnected
everything. My comp kept looking for the server. I turned off
AppleShare, disabled the AirPort connect on the laptop, etc. In the
Activity Monitor, I saw the Microsoft Daemon and just below, it's
sub-program, AFP Client (not responding)! Ah HA! It's the
aliasing. I never created an alias, but MS Office Entourage
[did] and runs a little app. I quit them, plugged my external back
into my laptop, and was on to my next problem solve . . .
sleep.
Good luck! I hope this helps!
Randy,
Thanks for sharing your story. I ended up wiping
my OS 9 partition and copying everything over from another Mac that
didn't have the problem. I haven't seen it since.
I hope your discovery will help others.
Dan
G3 Support in Leopard & AirPort in G3
Machines
Dear Dan,
I just thought of a reason why Apple may not have support for G3
chips in the Leopard beta. Apple probably realizes that no one
would use a G3 to develop much with, so there could be some reason
why Apple may not support G3s in the beta.
I do know about llamastyle, and that is probably the way for me
to go, if I want to add AirPort support for my mom's iMac G3. (Now
the other problem is getting an AirPort cage for the iMac). You
said that some USB products are not Mac compatible, and that it is
a hit and miss. Actually, Ralink offers a driver and a utility
program for wireless cards with Ralink chips in them. Even that is
a hit and miss sometimes.
Some people have written that Apple is most likely to drop
support for the G3 in Leopard. We all must remember that most of
the OS X code is written mostly for the G3. That may not be
the case anymore, but the kernel is.
Alexander "Sasha" Ivanoff
Core Image on G4s
Isaac Smith
Dan,
Great site! I read it daily, and whenever I'm wondering
something about an old Mac, or how much a computer is worth, I just
click on the "LEM" bookmark in my Safari toolbar.
On to business, though. I think it would be a shame if Leopard
required Core Image. I have a 1.25
GHz 2004 eMac, which is just getting to be 3 years old (it was
purchased in the fall of '04), and it is not Core Image supported.
While I realize that the computer that I have is not brand new, it
would be terrible to see Apple drop support for a computer that's
not even on their "vintage" list. As Jeff Wiseman pointed out, even the last
G4 Mac mini would lose support in
Leopard, because it shares the 32 MB ATI Radeon 9200. This card, as
both Apple's website and my System Profiler tell me, does not
support Core Image.
While Leopard needs to be supported on these "older" Macs, I
would really hate for Apple to "pull a Microsoft", and do what
Microsoft did with Vista. One of Apple's main arguing points
against Vista is that there is only one version of Mac OS X,
and that you get all of the features of it on any compatible
computer. With Vista, you've got Home Basic, Home Premium,
Business, Ultimate - and it's really just too confusing for the
average consumer. Which system to get? Which has the right
features? To upgrade or not to upgrade?
Apple has repeatedly made fun of Vista in their commercials and
the "Get A Mac" section of their website. They're talking about all
the different versions and how you need to upgrade your computer to
get everything to work well. I would find it hypocritical of them
to essentially do the same thing with Leopard. If they want Leopard
to run on all Macs, and what everyone says about requiring Core
Image is true, Apple is essentially just offering two different
versions of the OS. Yes, this is easier than what Microsoft is
doing with Vista. However, many of the older systems would need the
new graphics card and more RAM.
There is yet another sad thing about this. While a recently
discontinued Mac mini or an eMac would not be able to run Leopard,
were it to require Core Image, an upgraded Sawtooth would. You can put in lots of RAM,
a compatible graphics card, perhaps a processor upgrade, and you're
good to go. You've got a computer that's much older than your Mac
mini, even on the "vintage" list, and it can run Leopard. This
essentially makes the age of a computer worthless. It means that
all that matters is expandability. And if consumers realize this,
they're going to be driven away from the baseline Macs, which
aren't exactly expandable.
I'm not able to put a new graphics card in my eMac. But someone
who bought a bottom-line PC is able to upgrade their graphics card.
New computer sales would suffer. Why buy a new, un-expandable
computer if it could essentially be obsolete the next time Apple
releases a new version of OS X? Why not buy an expandable PC
or an expandable older Mac?
I can understand not keeping support for a G3. The G3s are
getting old. But making it such that the G3s would not be supported
because of their lack of compatibility with Core Image would just
make so many more computers unable to run the new version of
OS X. I was even planning on buying a webcam, just to try out
the new features in iChat. All those new features just look so
cool. I can say that I would be far from happy if I couldn't use
them on my fairly new computer.
Isaac Smith
Isaac,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. You make a good
argument for the value of G4 Power Macs with AGP video, and they're
getting cheaper and cheaper. (I found a 500 MHz Sawtooth for $150
this morning!)
Thankfully you don't need a graphics processor
that supports Core Image; the G4 CPU itself will handle it if there
isn't a supported card present. No word on how much of a
performance hit you'll see, but when Bare Feats compared Core Image
benchmarks for the old G4 Mac mini with its unsupported video
and the new Intel Mac mini, the newer mini ran the iMaginator test
almost 15x as fast!
Still, the fact remains that while Core Image is
already part of Tiger, the OS doesn't depend on it. If the hardware
supports Core Image, the OS uses it. If not, there are other tools
for displaying images that are compatible with G3 Macs.
Dan
Dan Knight has been publishing Low
End Mac since April 1997. Mailbag columns come from email responses to his Mac Musings, Mac Daniel, Online Tech Journal, and other columns on the site.
