Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 56

Thread: Linux On The 2012 MacBook Air, MacBook Pro?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    464

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aleve Sicofante View Post
    Now go ahead and start a series of benchmarks to see how fast the MBP screen is filled on Linux. Like that matters at all.
    You are totally, unconditionally, and absolutely right about this.

    I still think Mike should get the MBP though. It really is something special, and I think that having a good baseline for reference might change his disposition and perspective as a reviewer.

    I had an opportunity to play with one for a bit, and it comes within 1GB of VRAM from matching my ideal laptop. Since the only CAD work I do is to build my fantasy dream house, and the only game I play is Eve, it would suit me well enough. Unfortunately, I only have an iMac budgeted right now, and I'm holding out for the Ivy Bridge refresh.

    F

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,687

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aleve Sicofante View Post
    I find it amazing nobody sees the elephant in the room: Linux desktops lack any sensible approach to resolution independence. The problem is not if graphics drivers will be able to cope with Macbook Pro's millions of pixels (of course they will), but if the framework will understand it's a 220 ppi display and behave accordingly, i.e., not display microscopic fonts and icons, but scale them correctly so they use all those extra pixels to show more detail.
    I was under the impression that the linux desktop environments are resolution independent.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    221

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 89c51 View Post
    I was under the impression that the linux desktop environments are resolution independent.
    Think it depends on the desktop, though I'd like to know for sure. KDE allows forcing/overriding the font DPI and has some higher resolution icon sets. Unity doesn't have much configurability (at least, nothing I found in the 15 minutes I looked), but does have an "accessibility" mode making lots of things big (at some fixed size).

    This post may be of interest to those wondering about UEFI support: Matthew Garrett: Fedora 17 and Mac support.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    714

    Default

    Gnome desktop is more 'dpi independant' then OS X or Microsoft Windows is.

    All Apple does is just have two resolution modes that they use: 1x and 2x. So instead of tailoring the UI to one set of DPIs they just taylor it to 2 and then shoehorn in whatever looks better into their display.

    If people thinks that OS X can scale seemlessly between all sorts of different DPI monitors easier then Linux desktop can, they are drinking too much Apple flavored kool-aide.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyborg16 View Post
    Think it depends on the desktop, though I'd like to know for sure. KDE allows forcing/overriding the font DPI and has some higher resolution icon sets. Unity doesn't have much configurability (at least, nothing I found in the 15 minutes I looked), but does have an "accessibility" mode making lots of things big (at some fixed size).
    X Server keeps track of DPI. It tries to figure it out naturally based on information given to it by the monitor, which is usually incorrect since monitor-supplied information is universally shit. Nothing X or KDE or GTK or whatever can do about that. You can override the settings of it if you like. DPI font changing is a common feature for Gnome, too. '

    This post may be of interest to those wondering about UEFI support: Matthew Garrett: Fedora 17 and Mac support.
    Again, if you are buying Apple hardware with the intention of primarily running Linux on it you are making a big mistake. This link just goes to illustrate one part of why it's a terrible combination.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,687

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by drag View Post
    Again, if you are buying Apple hardware with the intention of primarily running Linux on it you are making a big mistake. This link just goes to illustrate one part of why it's a terrible combination.
    And that goes to show that there is lack of really high end (and beautiful) HW that will run linux without a hitch. Or even something designed for it. Even thought i wouldn't touch their products with a stick they make pretty good computers.


    Also after running a UEFI system i don't think its quite the abomination that its supposed to be. Ok it might be for different uses but so far it runs without a problem in my case.It even eliminated the need for a bootloader.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,062

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 89c51 View Post
    Since the announcement yesterday i am really curious to find out how the FOSS desktop environments perform in high resolution displays.
    At least now a days we use some SVG icons I think.


    Quote Originally Posted by drag View Post
    Linux + Apple Hardware == Huge Waste of money.
    I wouldn't mind somebody trying it to see what happens, but really it's a terrible idea to purchase a Macbook with the expectation that you are going to run Linux on it.
    Dual boot, fine. But get a Mac to primarily run OS X.
    Linus Torvalds run Linux on his MacBook Air.

    Quote Originally Posted by drag View Post
    Apple doesn't actually manufacture these things. Including the display. It's all contracted out to other companies which produce laptops and components to many other companies. Just wait until somebody starts advertising a Linux compatible device with similar resolution and you will get pretty much the same thing.
    But other companies maybe doesn't have a unibody design, hi-ppi / high-resolution screen, Thunderbolt, etc.
    Other companies have laptops with a dozen stickers.
    Other companies have plastic low-quality laptops.


    Quote Originally Posted by Aleve Sicofante View Post
    I find it amazing nobody sees the elephant in the room: Linux desktops lack any sensible approach to resolution independence. The problem is not if graphics drivers will be able to cope with Macbook Pro's millions of pixels (of course they will), but if the framework will understand it's a 220 ppi display and behave accordingly, i.e., not display microscopic fonts and icons, but scale them correctly so they use all those extra pixels to show more detail.
    I think we use some SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics) icons these days.
    Sadly we don't use SVG for the mouse pointer.
    Maybe with Wayland? I don't know. At least not with X.org though.


    Quote Originally Posted by 89c51 View Post
    I was under the impression that the linux desktop environments are resolution independent.
    Not the X.org mouse pointer.


    Quote Originally Posted by drag View Post
    Gnome desktop is more 'dpi independant' then OS X or Microsoft Windows is.

    All Apple does is just have two resolution modes that they use: 1x and 2x. So instead of tailoring the UI to one set of DPIs they just taylor it to 2 and then shoehorn in whatever looks better into their display.

    If people thinks that OS X can scale seemlessly between all sorts of different DPI monitors easier then Linux desktop can, they are drinking too much Apple flavored kool-aide.
    Doesn't OS X use a PostScript-based rendering system inherited from NeXTSTEP that is fully scalable?

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    221

    Default

    One more point: many websites aren't really scalable (many use pixel measurements rather than DPI or "m"-widths). Most mobile browsers already use ugly hacks to make layouts look normal on small screens; I imagine Apple use more of the same for their Retina displays.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 89c51 View Post
    And that goes to show that there is lack of really high end (and beautiful) HW that will run linux without a hitch.
    No. It means that if you buy Apple computer you buy it to run OS X.

    The people that make Apple laptops make laptops for more companies then just Apple.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    Linus Torvalds run Linux on his MacBook Air.
    If you are a kernel hacker then mucking around with your system to get it to work isn't going to be a big deal.

    How many patches are you going to write to get Linux to work half-way well on the new MacBook Pro? How many days of improving wifi drivers are you going to spend to get 5ghz wireless working?

    But other companies maybe doesn't have a unibody design, hi-ppi / high-resolution screen, Thunderbolt, etc.
    Wait a few months and other companies will come out with high density displays, too. It's the same thing as with Android vs iPhone.

    Apple just comes out first on these things because they have users that are willing to drop $2000 dollars on a 15 inch laptop.

    Other companies have laptops with a dozen stickers.
    Other companies have plastic low-quality laptops.
    And.. none of this means that Apple hardware will work better with Linux.

    Everything you said so far is pretty much completely irrelevant to anything I said.

    If you are going to go out and by a 600 dollar laptop from Dell expect it to actually BE plasticity and whatnot. If you want some brushed aluminium finish then be prepared to pay about the same price as a Apple system.

    Personally I don't want to go and drop 2500 dollars on a fast laptop that is going to cook my crotch or bake my arm just because I want a cool looking system.

    Doesn't OS X use a PostScript-based rendering system inherited from NeXTSTEP that is fully scalable?
    postscript-based = yes
    fully scalable = no.
    Not any more then Linux is.

    Compared to Windows XP it is very scalable, but that's isn't saying much since XP was hard coded to a single DPI. Windows Visa and 7 are scalable, too, but it still doesn't work very well because application designers don't typically take DPI changes into account.
    Last edited by drag; 06-13-2012 at 07:00 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •