Hacker News Reader

Comment by stusmith1977 | Hacker News Reader

stusmith1977

Does anyone else think it weird that the first mainstream hi-res displays weren't pushed by Microsoft? Let me explain...

Back when WPF was still called Avalon, Microsoft were pushing the technology as a solution for the soon-to-be-arriving high-dpi displays (which, we were assured, were right around the corner). As an example, see a contemporary blog post: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/marcelolr/archive/2004/12/03/274213....

Given that Microsoft were (are?) deseperately trying to hold back the tide of web-based applications, wouldn't displays like this, combined with tchnology such as WPF, have been a killer feature of a desktop OS? And hence, shouldn't they have been a high-priority for Microsoft?

So why did Apple get there first? Why didn't Microsoft research/fund/introduce these high-dpi displays?

Edit: More links from a Coding Horror post from the same year: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2004/11/trapped-in-a-bitmap...

View on HN

> Back when WPF was still called Avalon, Microsoft were pushing the technology as a solution for the soon-to-be-arriving high-dpi displays

Although they were quieter about it, it has been quite clear that Apple was interested in resolution independence since at least 10.4, when such features started to show up.

Remember that very few third-party Windows applications use WPF. Most first-party stuff, even, doesn't use WPF. We're seeing on the retina Macbook that, while most Cocoa apps work well enough, most non-Cocoa apps are at least somewhat broken; imagine how much worse this effect would be on Windows, where so few apps use the current UI toolkits.

It's a chicken-and-egg situation, agreed, It just seems really strange to me that they spent so much effort pushing and developing the software side, without putting any effort into the hardware, when the two clearly have to go hand-in-hand.

Microsoft had the software stack ready - imagine if they had released (via partners) high-dpi laptops and screens shortly afterwards? That actually might have made a Windows machine a compelling and desirable product, instead of just an expensive way to run a browser.

Apple had a rather similar software stack ready, though; both worked on the basis of a point being a fractional number of pixels. The trouble with this is that while it tended to more or less work for simple things, for complex things, particularly where the programmer was drawing stuff, it was (a) somewhat inefficient and (b) very hard to get right. Apple used to periodically have talks at WWDC about how to get ready for independence back in 2006 or so, but it was clear that few developers were doing so successfully.

This new approach, where you have a point be an integer number of pixels, possibly with scaling after the fact (as with the non-standard resolutions available on the retina MacBook) is far simpler for developers, so more likely to work out okay.

The "first" main stream hi-res display? I have some Sony Trinitron CRTs in my basement that would like to talk to you.

Sorry, didn't really clarify what I meant by mainstream: easily available to purchase, by non-techie consumers, from a high-street shop.

Sony multiscan trinitrons weren't exotic - you could purchase them in any reasonable electronics store. I have several that go up to 2048x1536 @ 75hz. Viewsonic had monitors that did the same. While I look forward to higher resolution LCDs becoming a standard option, LCD's set us back resolution wise for quite a long time. LCD does have other advantages over CRT of course.

I had and loved a similar NEC CRT. But 2048x1536 on a 22" display is ~116ppi. Apple's non-retina laptops have been higher than that for years (with the MacBook Air being highest, at ~135ppi), and Sony, at least, has offered configurable 1080p displays in 13" laptops (~165ppi) for some time.

It was pretty nice a decade ago, when everyone was moving to LCD monitors that were vastly inferior in every measure beyond size or weight, but, at least in terms of ppi (and on consumer grade equipment), display technology eclipsed the CRT quite a while ago.

edit: I'd forgotten that CRTs were measured with the bezel included, so at 20" viewable, the display is 128ppi. So closer, but still pretty far behind.

Viewsonic had a 19" display (with 18" viewable) that did 2048x1536. I think that was the smallest size that the 2048x1536 CRT's came in.

Thousand times this. I still own a 22'' Trinitron (20'' working area) that beats any `FullHD' hands down, by resolution and by any other measure as well -- from lag to colorspace -- and it wasn't even top of the line back then. Heck, it even starts up faster than many LCDs.

I refused to let go of it for so long exactly because there was no LCD that would be an upgrade, with the sole exception of the expensive T221. Guess now's the time :-)

Microsoft isn't a hardware company. Apple's supply chain dominance is what brought this to market.

Microsoft sells some rebranded hardware products (manufactured and designed by Samsung, Acer, IBM, ATI, Nvidia and Asus)... but it makes PROFIT by selling software.

Apples makes software, but it makes its PROFIT by selling hardware.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Surface

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Natural_keyboard

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LifeCam

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_SideWinder

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox

All whitelabel products.

The X-Box is a whitelabel product?

Depends how you define it. But, X-Box (the original) was a PIII + Nvidia + Other PC Hardware... none of it made by Microsoft.

The 360 I give them more credit with, because they worked closer with partners and got off the WinTel brand... opting for PowerPC chips with ATI ... again, not manufacturing the hardware.

"again, not manufacturing the hardware" -- well, you noticed all Macs have nvidia or amd/ati GPUs and Intel processors, and are assembled by Foxconn?

"That's because Apple isn't a real hardware company, it's all white-labelled." I guess?

I define companies by WHAT MAKES THEM MONEY. I can't tell if people are pedantic or dense.

Apple makes money by selling hardware. Microsoft makes money by selling software. Google makes money by selling ads. Amazon makes money by selling goods.

Graphic for the insanely dense: http://visualign.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/applemicrosoftg...

You aren't "defining" companies, you are /classifying/ them and you're classifying them into arbitrary boxes based on your strange, subjective and clearly disputed perceptions.

Let's move on from your inability to admit the silliness of classifying a large company with many different divisions as a "software company" and go back to your original contention: that Microsoft were unable to bring a new hardware device to market because they did not have a enough "supply chain dominance". Whatever "supply chain dominance means", you're wrong --- Microsoft have, in the past, released hardware products. The Xbox is an obvious example. So is Microsoft Surface. There is nothing more "whitelabel" about these products than there is about the MacBookPro.

It is different, "Microsoft Surface" is a damn Samsung product you can see on Samsung's site. http://www.samsunglfd.com/product/feature.do?modelCd=SUR40 ... and how many models do you think will ever ship, over its entire lifetime?

Apple designs its own hardware, even does some FAB work now in regards to its chips.

Microsoft doesn't move enough hardware to have anywhere near the supply chain power of Apple. Microsoft is a pathetic flee in the hardware world compared to apple. Hardware (manufactured and DESIGNED by others) makes up less than 20% of Microsoft's business.

Apple is first and foremost a hardware company. Apple is known for its incredibly well run supply chain and operations which give them amazing power to lean on manufacturers.

Apple will guarantee and lock in massive purchases removing the vast majority of risk from the hardware vendors, allowing hardware vendors to take risks on stuff like the Retina Display.

Nearly all of Microsoft's non-trivial plays have failed pushing and partnering with people. They promised to market and move tablets for years... FAIL. Windows Phone was going to change the world... FAIL. Zune... FAIL. Hardware vendors or rightfully terrified of Microsoft as a partner, even when they fully commit -- you know why? MICROSOFT IS NOT A HARDWARE COMPANY.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/apples-supplychain-secr... ... and google "Apple Supply Chain" to find literally dozens of more stories about how good they are at this.

It's also worth noting that Apple acquired Intrinsity a few years ago, a semiconductor company. They actually design ARM chips. Samsung is a customer.

That's the product that used to be called "Microsoft Surface", which was a table-sized touchscreen computer, not the new Microsoft Surface.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com