2007/06/17

不同的觀點

好久沒寫部落格了, 每當有念頭時, 就會覺得沒什麼好寫的, 要不然就是覺得寫不出什麼特別的東西; 例如我想寫最近看到的幾篇文章, 想摘要一下做個紀錄, 可是找一找就會發現已經有人寫了, 唉.

嗯, 還是寫寫好了, 不然就會像Stevey一樣, 四個月沒新鼕鼕. (不過, 他是因為很忙, 我是因為很懶.)

PS 因為我是把看到的內容擷取部分出來, 所以可能有偏頗武斷之嫌, 欲一窺全豹者, 請按連結自行閱讀全文.

Apple推出了Safari 3 Beta for Windows, 在其網頁內強調著: fast...


可是我一看, "快", 一點也沒有吸引到我, 快? 我覺得IE or Firefox or Avant都很快啊, 看網頁慢是龜在網路, 瀏覽器能怎麼辦? (當然, 寫的爛的瀏覽器其page rendering speed可以弄得很慢.)

Joel也如此認為:
PS I know; the Apple press release about how "fast" Safari is refers to "page rendering speed." Frankly, that is almost completely irrelevant given that the bottleneck in displaying pages is mostly download speed and network throughput.

另外, 同一篇也提到了, 為了讓程式的啟動時間縮短, 很多程式用了一個技巧: 把部分的程式碼移出來, 讓Windows開機時去執行. 哇哩咧, 這不好像嫁禍於人嗎?

難怪Raymond Chen要說說話:
Some applications will put themselves into the Startup group so that they will load faster. This isn't really making the system run any faster; it's just shifting the accounting. By shoving some of the application startup cost into operating system startup, the amount of time between the user double-clicking the application icon and the application being ready to run has been reduced. But the total amount of time hasn't changed.
應用程式總是有著自私的想法, 希望自己(application)越快越好, 不管他人(例如: Windows OS)死活; 甚至還假設使用者每次開機都會用到它, 於是把自己放進"程式集-啟動"裡面去.

哦, 難怪我的啟動裡面有個"Adobe Reader Speed Launch".

接下來是我更感興趣的事情: 把字型畫到電腦LCD上. 要考慮到美感與易讀性等問題.
這兩張圖就很清楚的告訴你有何不同.
Note: 如果太小看不清楚, 請務必點選圖片看大尺寸的原圖.

這是IE 7


這是Safari 3 Beta


看清楚其中的差異了嗎? 為什麼會這樣呢? Joel作出一針見血的解釋:
Apple and Microsoft have always disagreed in how to display fonts on computer displays. Today, both companies are using sub-pixel rendering to coax sharper-looking fonts out of typical low resolution screens. Where they differ is in philosophy.

  • Apple generally believes that the goal of the algorithm should be to preserve the design of the typeface as much as possible, even at the cost of a little bit of blurriness.
  • Microsoft generally believes that the shape of each letter should be hammered into pixel boundaries to prevent blur and improve readability, even at the cost of not being true to the typeface.
簡單講, Apple認為要保留字型的原貌, 即使看起來有點朦朧; Microsoft認為要以清晰易讀為第一考量, 就算字有點變形. 兩家公司保持的觀點不同.

然後, 想當然爾, 很多人都表達自己的意見, 覺得哪個好哪個不好. 不過結果是可想而知的, Windows的使用者選Microsoft, Mac的使用者選Apple.

於是, Joel又有另外一個陳述:
This goes for anything from silverware (people pick out the patterns that match the silverware they had growing up) to typefaces to graphic design: unless people are trained to know what to look for, they're going to pick the one that is most familiar.
大意是說, 當人們在挑選時, 從銀器到字型, 以及各種跟繪圖設計相關的東西時, 除非受過訓練, 要不然大家都會選擇最熟悉的那種.

嗯, 我捫心自問, 第一眼看到上面那兩張圖時, 我的確是偏向清晰易讀那一方.


題外話
1. 我去申請了Google Analytics, 嗯, 用看看.
2. 最近因為想買Apple MacBook, 所以常常注意Apple的相關新聞(iPod, MacBook, iPhone, appleTV等等), 覺得Apple的廣告行銷以及一些搶市場手法, 嗯, 不予置評, 例如一連串的PC&Mac廣告.

1 comment:

  1. M$的作業系統能做大果然不是偶然

    ReplyDelete