Max5 == Physical Pain


    May 13 2008 | 2:48 pm
    Dear Sirs,
    I just can't get myself to use this thing.
    I've tried.
    I feel a force pulling me toward the [x] button to close Max5.
    I cannot stand the program for more than 10 minutes.
    Max5 is unusable.
    Why?
    It's god damned unreadable.
    The pathetic text rendering quality causes my astigmatism to act up. I keep trying to focus on the text and I simply can't feel happy, comfortable, or make any intimate connection with the 5th max.
    After any extended use, I get a headache.
    Why?
    Because of JUCE.
    Juce is written by one man, and his text-rendering routines are nowhere near the likes of MSFT, Apple, or Trolltech's code.
    It's not professional.
    It FEELS junky.
    So what now?
    Likely nothing can be done. This is the sort of problem that doesn't get corrected, and follows a toolkit around for years.
    Cycling made a disastrous mistake by going with Juce. We're screwed.
    Juce's vector performance is near to 10 times slower than Qt.
    I am very sad, but you won't be getting my dollars.
    I fail to see how you could even dare to ship something so unreadable at any reasonable font size.
    JUCE == Deal killer
    - Enola

    • May 13 2008 | 3:13 pm
      I have quite bad astigmatism and I honestly have not had a problem with it... and this is on a 13" laptop screen
      "Unusable for me personally" would probably be what you meant to say
    • May 13 2008 | 3:25 pm
      "I'm old and can't read a computer screen" is what I read. But then again, the internet is for whining.
    • May 13 2008 | 3:27 pm
      bullshit,
      stepfrequencer == cycling74
      A guy with 1 post?
      Cycling making a fake post to unspook people.
      Suuuuure, readable on your 13 inch.
      Come on.
      It's blurry as a blind bat.
      Get real
    • May 13 2008 | 3:30 pm
      You can zoom in and out anytime you want, and change the font size to "super big public library computer" size if you want.
    • May 13 2008 | 3:33 pm
      "and change the font size to "super big public library computer" size if you want."
      You make my point for me.
      That's exactly what Max5 requires, and I hate it.
      I like small text.
      Not Max5, super old fart public library computer edition.
      Max isn't a tonka toy.
    • May 13 2008 | 3:38 pm
      Dear Sir,
      Sorry Max5 did not work out for you.
      Good luck with the rest of your life.
      Regards,
      The Max Community
    • May 13 2008 | 3:45 pm
      > It's god damned unreadable.
      > The pathetic text rendering quality causes my astigmatism to act up. I
      > keep trying to focus on the text and I simply can't feel happy,
      > comfortable, or make any intimate connection with the 5th max.
      Try changing the font used to Verdana or another font meant for online
      reading, and increase font size to 10 or larger. Makes a huge difference
      compared to e.g. Geneva nine pt at the Mac.
      Best,
      Trond
    • May 13 2008 | 4:03 pm
      Okay, here's the vastly readable Verdana 10.
      Take a look at the attachment.
      It's absolutely horrendous.
      Is this some kind of bad joke?
    • May 13 2008 | 4:15 pm
      The complaint refers to something called sub-pixel anti-aliasing. If you blow up some text from a typical Mac or Windows application you will see there are actually blue and brown dots mixed in with the gray and black dots. By contrast, Max 5 uses only gray-scale dots. We have been aware of the difference for a long time and plan to incorporate sub-pixel font rendering in the future. However, we felt the text quality was acceptable for our first release, particularly since it was possible to zoom in or switch to a font that might be easier on the eyes. I find that this is the sort of thing that can drive you crazy if you focus on it too much. Even sub-pixel rendered fonts look fuzzy if you really stare at them. For what it's worth, sub-pixel font rendering is a technology completely tied to LCD screens, so if you try to look at sub-pixel rendered text on, say, a plasma display, it looks horrible. That is not to say it isn't a very cool invention.
      I don't expect I can say anything to make Mr. Enola feel better, since he seems invested in his pain, but his characterization of our relationship to JUCE is completely inaccurate. It is not a fixed and closed library that we can't improve. We use the JUCE source code but we are constantly modifying it, and we've already made numerous changes to the font component of the library. So far, we've focused our attention on modifications for better Unicode support and making sure the font size of imported patches was as accurate as possible.
      David Z.
    • May 13 2008 | 4:18 pm
      Quote: Enola wrote on Tue, 13 May 2008 08:27
      ----------------------------------------------------
      > bullshit,
      > stepfrequencer == cycling74
      > A guy with 1 post?
      ----------------------------------------------------
      I can't believe that someone trolling, with four posts to their name, is accusing someone of being a shill because they only have one post.
      -C
    • May 13 2008 | 4:19 pm
      David,
      I understand your logical response, and it does sound nice and make sense, but how can any kind of logic or reason matter when you simply take a look at the .PNG file I posted?
      Seriously, do you guys see the picture? How could I be the only one to notice such a severe problem?
      I don't care what the technology is behind it, or how it's being implemented. I'm just a customer with money, and it's the end-result that counts. The end result is vastly inferior to the other methods you've mentioned.
      - Enola
    • May 13 2008 | 4:42 pm
      I have a 12-inch ibook and I have no problems reading any font or anything. If anything, sometimes the font is too thin on my interface objects, but then I just up them to size 12 and bold them.
    • May 13 2008 | 4:56 pm
      >
      >Come on.
      >It's blurry as a blind bat.
      >
      hi
      so I did not downloaded and tried the max 5 yet, but when i first saw
      it (on a friend's computer) my first reaction was "it's really blurry
      !!!"
      since years I spend hours, daily, on max, and most if not all my
      concerts are played with max, or include max (Yes, I am not the only
      one in this case) - and we should now do it staring at a blurry
      screen?
      I will soon try max5 but have teh feeling the blurry aspect will be
      much harder to overcome than the round corners (!!!!)
      best
      kasper
      --
      Kasper T. Toeplitz
      noise, composition, bass, computer
    • May 13 2008 | 5:34 pm
      If you a pixel magnifier (such as the selection tool in Snapz Pro) you can see that there are other applications that do not use sub-pixel font rendering. I just happened to be looking at another such application just now, called Live. You may have heard of it. The fonts in Live look pretty much the same as they do in Max. I also noticed that below a certain font size, all fonts in Live are bold. If that would help, it is easily configured as a preference in Max.
      David Z.
    • May 13 2008 | 6:26 pm
      I've made a comparison PNG of Verdana 10 between MS and JUCE.
      Note the following:
      - Proper text rendering is consistent. The L's in Microsoft 'lll' are antialiased identically. JUCE L's are blowing in the wind.
      - The emphasis of the center point of JUCE L's is not consistent; JUCE's first 'l' is closer to the b, while the other two l's are further right-centered on a subpixel level.
      - The bridge of MS 'e' is not destroyed. JUCE destroys the e and turns it into gray mud. I can't even make out the bridge, just mush.
      - Microsoft 'l's are indeed not a single pixel, and use padding on each side like JUCE. However, MS does it crisply and cleanly at any size.
      - JUCE has garbage pixels underneath the e's, b's, p's, and d's. JUCE's method doesn't take into consideration that in a font context, certain curve antialiasing creates noise. It just dumbly renders it as if it were graphics.
      - Enola
    • May 13 2008 | 6:37 pm
      Hi Enola,
      Thanks for your thorough investigation of this issue. As David mentioned, we know there is some room for improvement in our font-rendering methods, but it will take a non-trivial amount of development and research to make these improvements. We appreciate all the feedback everyone has given on Max 5, and your patience while we continue to perfect it.
      Best,
      Andrew Benson
    • May 13 2008 | 6:53 pm
      Enola wrote:
      > bullshit,
      > stepfrequencer == cycling74
      > A guy with 1 post?
      >
      > Cycling making a fake post to unspook people.
      Since you just registered today, perhaps you're unaware, but we at
      Cycling most certainly do NOT "sock puppet".
      It's ironic -- you imply that we're somehow engaging in damage control
      to keep people from getting "spooked" by your post, but I can't see
      anyone reading your series of posts (especially when they are the only
      contributions you've made to our discussions) and thinking that you have
      a legitimate point. I'm not saying there isn't validity to what you
      claim (nor am I saying there is, that's not really my dept.) but I can
      hardly think of a less effective way to get your point across.
      I mean, feel free to express yourself in any way you see fit but if you
      actually want results, insults and whining don't strike me as
      particularly effective. You're basically coming off as a bomb-throwing
      troll.
      w
    • May 13 2008 | 6:55 pm
      Enola wrote:
      > I've made a comparison PNG of Verdana 10 between MS and JUCE.
      > Note the following:
      Much more constructive. Thank you.
      w
    • May 13 2008 | 7:48 pm
      >> bullshit,
      >> stepfrequencer == cycling74
      I think that made my day!
      In this marking time for British academics, I see many different sort
      of paranoia comming from students, but thinking Cycling has such
      time, especially with the hyperactivity of the forums since the
      release of v5, is just very, very funny...
      anyway, back to very uneven essays ;-)
      pa
    • May 13 2008 | 8:03 pm
    • May 13 2008 | 8:35 pm
      whatever you do with the font rendering, please make any changes optional because the ms style multi-coloured sub-pixel rendering actually gives me headaches.
      of course in windows you can turn off the 'cleartype' system. also its fortunate that i spend most of the day on linux which has a wealth of font rendering options and looks great.
      also it would be nice if there was an option to have no anti-aliasing and always make fonts pixel aligned like you can do in flash.
    • May 13 2008 | 10:59 pm
      Looks great on my macbook pro 15 inch
    • May 14 2008 | 7:07 am
      Hi Enola,
      I guess I'm less concerned about suboptimal antialasing that you, but I
      see that you have a point.
      Reading the outline by David Z. on some of the core decisions behind the
      development of Max5, it's fairly obvious that Juce is here to stay for
      quite a while:
      So if you want to pick the fights you can win, I would suggest that you
      contact the developer of Juce directly, and point these issues out to
      him. If that leads to improved antialiasing in Juce, it will probably
      eventually make its way into Max as well.
      Best,
      Trond
      Enola wrote:
      > I've made a comparison PNG of Verdana 10 between MS and JUCE.
      > Note the following:
      >
      > - Proper text rendering is consistent. The L's in Microsoft 'lll' are antialiased identically. JUCE L's are blowing in the wind.
      > - The emphasis of the center point of JUCE L's is not consistent; JUCE's first 'l' is closer to the b, while the other two l's are further right-centered on a subpixel level.
      > - The bridge of MS 'e' is not destroyed. JUCE destroys the e and turns it into gray mud. I can't even make out the bridge, just mush.
      > - Microsoft 'l's are indeed not a single pixel, and use padding on each side like JUCE. However, MS does it crisply and cleanly at any size.
      > - JUCE has garbage pixels underneath the e's, b's, p's, and d's. JUCE's method doesn't take into consideration that in a font context, certain curve antialiasing creates noise. It just dumbly renders it as if it were graphics.
      >
      > - Enola
    • May 14 2008 | 7:49 am
      I just want the antialiasing off completely, or below a certain level. At a certain point it "absorbs" the text. This is horrendous if you try to use any color combination except black on white. So, what I'm left with is going through all my old patches and killing my screen real estate by using a larger font... or using Verdana with black text on a white background, and losing any color coding I was attempting to use for organizational purposes. Admittedly, things are a lot less "shocking" if you just start patching using the default setup. However, after deciding to build a patch from scratch, instead of converting my old version, I found that a patch that had taken up about a quarter of the screen now was gobbling up the entire page. I'm enthused by the advantages of truly scaleable UI objects that would allow me to streamline my interface and theoretically make it smaller, but this antialiasing of text issue is causing trouble. What I'm considering is just using the nice ability to output screen captures from max and just building my individual components as pictures so the fonts can be small and crisp. Perhaps a "crisp text" comment UI object is something that can be created in the future. Until then I'll be trying various methods of cheating to get the same effect, though most likely I'll just be squinting a lot at my old patches.
    • May 14 2008 | 8:34 am
      I noticed this before, and my first reaction was to increase font size to 12 which makes everything readable again. But that meant my patches would have to be much smaller than before since less stuff fits on the screen. So i tried Verdana Bold, size 9. I think it's not that bad actually. The blackness makes the contrast much better.
      Isn't it strange in Enola's example, Microsoft's text is bigger than Juce's? Should be same size for a fair comparison imo.
      Anyway, although it'll be another while before we will be upgrading to Max5 (lots of jsui stuff here), it's interesting to see what people's opinion on this is and if anything can or should be done...
    • May 14 2008 | 8:36 am
      Quote: Enola wrote on Tue, 13 May 2008 09:27
      ----------------------------------------------------
      > bullshit,
      > stepfrequencer == cycling74
      > A guy with 1 post?
      >
      > Cycling making a fake post to unspook people.
      >
      > Suuuuure, readable on your 13 inch.
      >
      > Come on.
      > It's blurry as a blind bat.
      >
      > Get real
      ----------------------------------------------------
      No, I'm not from cycling74.
      Yes, I can read it fine on my 13" macbook
    • May 14 2008 | 9:35 am
      David Zicarelli schrieb:
      > If that would help, it is easily configured as a preference in Max.
      I agree completely, but I'd like to see one additional preference for
      importing Max 4 files:
      As I also agree to Enola, that a 9 pt anything is unreadable for my
      eyes, the first action necessary to any imported file is, to select all
      and push the font size to 11 minimum.
      The import function does listen to my font preference, but not to the
      size. Which does have some advantages for certain old patches, but its a
      minority in my case...
      I want any non specific size (usually 9 pt for Max 4 files) to change to
      my preference size. could be a preference "adjust default font size on
      import" or something like that...
      Or maybe a special tab "import" which would also allow to set the size
      of imported standard objects to a specific default. I have to manually
      select all square objects and resize them. (all inlets/outlets, toggles,
      bangs f.e.) If that could be automated the time till I have the complete
      Max 5 compatible St.ools would be much shorter....
      When looking at Verdana which is supposed to be made for screens, I
      don't understand why the distance between letters isn't an integer pixel
      distance. The result is that the same letter looks different, as in the
      example of Enola. Though I do not consider 10 pt as usable. But on 12 pt
      the blurriness of identical letters is still different.
      Enola said, that with qt it would look better. I just wonder how this
      looks like, as a font is a system wide entity, and should look the same
      in all applications...
      Stefan
      --
      Stefan Tiedje------------x-------
      --_____-----------|--------------
      --(_|_ ----|-----|-----()-------
      -- _|_)----|-----()--------------
      ----------()--------www.ccmix.com
    • May 14 2008 | 10:24 am
      Enola schrieb:
      > I've made a comparison PNG of Verdana 10 between MS and JUCE.
      Thanks for the clear example. I hope you'll find enough ways around your
      pain with bigger fonts till all this will be improved. There is so much
      more valuable stuff in Max 5 compared to Max 4...
      I also have to wait for some enhancement in the vst area, but it doesn't
      prevent me of using and working with Max 5...
      As even the big mastermind answered in this thread I guess you don't
      assume Stefan == cycling74, a guy with > 4000 posts?
      No matter how many posts, your assumption tells more about you, than
      about anything else... (but don't worry, you're more than welcome...)
      Even the way cycling is answering posts on this list has been improved a
      lot (though it was way above the standard already in the past). We get
      incredible fast feedback now. This is much appreciated...
      Even if we have to learn it will take a while, or that it won't happen,
      I feel that somebody is listening and can easily find my own strategy to
      deal with it... Much less (likely faulty) assumptions necessary...
      Stefan
      --
      Stefan Tiedje------------x-------
      --_____-----------|--------------
      --(_|_ ----|-----|-----()-------
      -- _|_)----|-----()--------------
      ----------()--------www.ccmix.com
    • May 14 2008 | 10:46 am
      Hi,
      I have been spending a lot of time in Max 3.6 to optimise screen use in many
      patches and I would second any improvement that would allow me to find in
      Max 5 the same readability on a similar screen space as in Max 3.6.
      This momentarily keeps me off Max 5 though I would love to benefit from the
      new features.
      I Haven't seen a Max 5 SDK on the web site. Is it available?
      I was wondering if there would be a possibility to include the code of the
      graphical objects where readability matters most in terms of user interface
      once the patch is finished (comment, num box, float numbox, ubumenu), so
      that we could make custom objects as we like them, without any overhead for
      the cycling team. I think that it should be possible to remove a lot of
      wasted space by drawing the borders closer to the text, allowing bigger font
      size on the same space.
      That coupled with Stephan Tiedje proposal of more importing rules (including
      replacement of some GUI objects) would allow us to open Max 3.6 patches
      without too much pain.
      Best,
      Todor
      >
      > I just want the antialiasing off completely, or below a certain level. At a
      > certain point it "absorbs" the text. This is horrendous if you try to use any
      > color combination except black on white. So, what I'm left with is going
      > through all my old patches and killing my screen real estate by using a larger
      > font... or using Verdana with black text on a white background, and losing any
      > color coding I was attempting to use for color coding purposes. Admittedly,
      > things are a lot less "shocking" if you just start patching using the default
      > setup. However, after deciding to build a patch from scratch, instead of
      > converting my old version, I found that a patch that had taken up about a
      > quarter of the screen now was gobbling up the entire page. I'm enthused by
      > the advantages of truly scaleable UI objects that would allow me to streamline
      > my interface and theoretically make it smaller, but this antialiasing of text
      > issue is causing trouble. What I'm considering is just using the!
      > nice ability to output screen captures from max and just building my
      > individual components as pictures so the fonts can be small and crisp.
      > Perhaps a "crisp text" comment UI object is something that can be created in
      > the future. Until then I'll be trying various methods of cheating to get the
      > same effect, though most likely I'll just be squinting a lot at my old
      > patches.
    • May 14 2008 | 11:24 am
      On 14 mai 08, at 12:46, Todor Todoroff wrote:
      > Hi,
      > I have been spending a lot of time in Max 3.6 to optimise screen use
      > in many
      > patches and I would second any improvement that would allow me to
      > find in
      > Max 5 the same readability on a similar screen space as in Max 3.6.
      > This momentarily keeps me off Max 5 though I would love to benefit
      > from the
      > new features.
      You might have a look to Scale and Scale spaces features in the Edit
      menu. I use it all the time as well as the zoom feature.
      > I Haven't seen a Max 5 SDK on the web site. Is it available?
      > I was wondering if there would be a possibility to include the code
      > of the
      > graphical objects where readability matters most in terms of user
      > interface
      > once the patch is finished (comment, num box, float numbox,
      > ubumenu), so
      > that we could make custom objects as we like them, without any
      > overhead for
      > the cycling team. I think that it should be possible to remove a lot
      > of
      > wasted space by drawing the borders closer to the text, allowing
      > bigger font
      > size on the same space.
      The SDK is not yet available. Although the SDK will allow you to
      create objects, not to customize existing ones.
      ej
    • May 14 2008 | 7:15 pm
      Just to let those who are questioning Max5 do to the blur, I haven't had any blur related problems whatsoever. In fact I would say that I have found Max5 to be much, much easier on the eyes, and I've only opened Max4 a handful of times since upgrading. I haven't seen any letters look the way Enola's upload does yet and I've spent all my free time on 5 since it was released.
    • May 14 2008 | 10:09 pm
      Quote: Enola wrote on Tue, 13 May 2008 18:19
      ----------------------------------------------------
      > Seriously, do you guys see the picture? How could I be the only one to notice such a severe problem?
      ----------------------------------------------------
      Enola, you are simply over-reacting. We can of course see your picture. But not all here know how to interprete a closeup of a rendered font. And some people do simply not care because they are happy with the display of Max5. Furthermore, you might have noticed that most people in this forum avoid too harsh criticism, maybe as an act of politness and respect to the developers because this was a huge update after a very long time.
      You are not going to change this by shouting as loud as you can. The only thing you will achieve is that some of the guys who are able to help you with problems rather tend not to read your future posts because they expect some aggressive behavior again. However, Cycling cannot instantly change the look of the program but if the majority of users find the readability of Max text as bad as you, the issue will not be hidden forever.
      But let me come to your example that should serve as a proof and - to my surprise - got accepted as a good and valuable example. Sorry, but it is no example at all. I see this kind of rendering several times a week, when I work with graphic applications. There are different levels and algorithms of antialiasing and you cannot tell their quality from an enlargement. All what counts is the display in original size on a given background. And this is bad in Max5, I fully agree with you. But you would be surprised how easily readable a font can be while it looks overall damaged at an extreme enlargement. You yourself don't look very good if one uses a microscope to look at you, right?
      Some time in the future we will get screens which are fine enough to show every detail, maybe without pixels at all. In the meantime what you (and many others) want for technical applications is a font that renders pixel-dependent. Means, the font does not look the same at all zoom levels but tries to adopt to the screen resolution with full priority given to the clearness and not to the font face. This is the opposite of what computer- and software developers currently do.
      I bet the users would not care about fixed zoom levels if the readability is much much better. We had a time where only certain font sizes of each font were suitable for zooming and there were few of them, sometimes only 4 or 5 sizes per font face. Then the pixel based fonts vanished, the consumers where happy, the technicians were disappointed and the graphical oriented users somewhere between. The consumers won because they prefer a nice look and turn their eyes away when they are not longer interested. Now we have to live with the overal blurry image on all computers. I believe you are on Windows and the fonts there were always bigger and a bit rough but there is not much difference today. The Mac is no longer the ultimate graphic computer. We got the blurryness too if not earlier.
      So let us make peace, don't shout at developers who have a really great product, just because they did what everyone else does. We have to complain of course, otherwise the makers of the machines and programs would think that everything is ok, which is not true. But constructive criticism ist much better than saying a program is unusable because it doesn't have the text you like. It isn't. It is phantastic. And blurry ;-)
    • May 15 2008 | 1:30 am
      Jesus, is this still going on?
      You guys know what a troll is? It's all about winning and losing with people who are trolling.
    • May 15 2008 | 8:49 am
      Eli Stine schrieb:
      > Jesus, is this still going on?
      >
      > You guys know what a troll is? It's all about winning and losing with
      > people who are trolling.
      Some people come in as trolls, and magically our community converts them
      into valuable members... Never give up...
      Its hard work, and some remain as trolls (in other communities), but
      others not.
      I am sometimes a troll as well, insisting on country independent key
      outlets, or more than 9 arguments to bpatchers, or for working 3.6
      pluggos in Max 5...
      It is an expression of a personal importance. That Enola tries to throw
      his upgrade $ into the equation seems lame, only because his concern
      seems more individual than others. If he is the only one, it won't pay
      for the work necessary to make it into a change in the future...
      If he insists trolllike, he might miss the change, as it had been
      clearly recognized as a request. I am sure anybody can get used to the
      new blurry look and I hope Enola will stay with us...
      Stefan
      --
      Stefan Tiedje------------x-------
      --_____-----------|--------------
      --(_|_ ----|-----|-----()-------
      -- _|_)----|-----()--------------
      ----------()--------www.ccmix.com
    • May 15 2008 | 9:47 am
      On May 15, 2008, at 1:18 AM, f.e wrote:
      > Enola is pissed off and he's right.
      He has a right to be pissed off, I guess, but that doesn't make him
      correct.
      > This tool was not flawless but we were comfortable with it. It's
      > still far to be flawless but know it is objectively ugly, unreadable
      > and (subjectively) toyish.
      Surely you mean subjectively ugly, subjectively unreadable, and
      subjectively "toyish."
      Does objectively ugly even exist?
      > The font IS blurry on max 5. It's a fact. And max is nothing but
      > text. Enjoy.
      Well, it may be more blurry than turning off anti-aliasing, but the
      actual anti-aliasing used seems in the ballpark of what other
      applications do:
      > Let's talk about how disrespectfull is Greg Taylor when he laughs at
      > the "no rounded corners" request, among other things, while it's not
      > even consistent. Take a bunch of messages, see how rounded they are,
      > so rounded you'll build panels if you need some, then let's tell me
      > what to do with waveform~, jit.cellblock and so on ? At least, make
      > then rounded before betting beers about the time we'll waste
      > building squared boxes when the API will come.
      >
      > Just because of the squared nature of the old UI objects, you should
      > have brought a roudness option for the new interface. Tell me i'm
      > wrong.
      You're at least wrong in the way you're going about addressing your
      issues with Max 5. You mention a "no rounded corners" request, but
      what I read was much closer to a "no rounded corners" DEMAND. I think
      the way you've been expressing your opinion is detrimental to your
      cause. I think that with each successive rant, the desire to do
      anything to accommodate your wishes goes down, at least I know it
      would have if the rants had been directed at me.
      Because of all the things you hate about Max 5, you've threatened to
      use something else, like PD. Maybe at this point maybe you should get
      serious about that. I feel bad about suggesting that because you've
      been helpful to people here in the past, but your "sad and angry
      choir" has gotten tedious. Either find a way to come to terms with Max
      5, or move on. Everyone on the list probably knows what changes you
      would like to see in Max, by now, but I don't think the "sad and angry
      choir" approach is getting you any closer to them.
      -C
      >
      Chris Muir
      cbm@well.com
    • May 15 2008 | 2:55 pm
      Hello,
      I 've read all the message of this thread, because
      I use and explore Max 5 now since about 3 weeks
      and find everything more fluid, and discover almost everyday
      a lot of very very smarts improvements.
      Except this problem that Enola point (and I'm sorry I don't see
      where he is agressif or uncorrect),
      IT IS blurry and like f.e sayd, max is mostly letters. So we have to deal with text, not only simple words, like in Live which is graphic, but whith a network of words that a max patch imply.
      That's why some (including me) are so sensible to this thing.
      But I think we have also to give time to the C74 team.
      I remember when Finale 2000 came out, that was also (the blury characters) a big problem, and how everybody complain about it.
      I remenber also that things has gone better and better with the versions.
      best
      Eryck
    • May 15 2008 | 3:55 pm
      If this is about nine point type, I see what you mean. but new patches look great.
      With the new text format, I could volunteer to try and write a little ditty that searched for fontsize, patch cable coordinates and object rects and multiplied the values by 19 over 17 (typical object heights for 11 and 9 point respectively) That would zoom in without all the lines getting thicker etc. kindof a old max look to new max look converter
      I'm busy, but I like making people happy. Would anyone be interested in that?
    • May 15 2008 | 4:04 pm
      On 15 mai 08, at 17:55, Matthew Aidekman wrote:
      >
      > If this is about nine point type, I see what you mean. but new
      > patches look great.
      >
      > With the new text format, I could volunteer to try and write a
      > little ditty that searched for fontsize, patch coordinates and
      > object rects and multiplied the values by 19 over 17 (typical object
      > heights for 11 and 9 point respectively) That would zoom in without
      > all the lines getting thicker etc. kindof a old max look to new max
      > look converter
      Don't forget the "Scale" feature from the Edit menu.
      ej
    • May 15 2008 | 5:02 pm
      8-0
      HOLY CRAZYNESS!!!!!!!!
    • May 16 2008 | 10:40 am
    • May 16 2008 | 11:52 am
      Hello,
      First of all, thanks for this new version of max, it seems a big step and I am as excited as many others to delve into it.
      Now, I read this thread with interest,
      I am not old yet, but my eyesight is getting worse every year.
      Since I started to try Max 5., I noticed it was time to pay a bisit to the occulist again, especially since this thread has convinced me that the blurryness comes from my eyes and not from max.
      Now, while I wait for my new glasses to arrive, are there any suggestion about the following :
      - Best font to be used in max5, maximum 11pt and without using Bold (Usually used to call your attention, but too much bold on one patch is something I don't like)
      - Thanks to this thread I discovered the zoom function. It is great! But I couldn't find much information about it (probably looking in the wrong place). Can anyone tell me if there is a keyboard or keyboard + mouse shortcup to zoom in directly on a part of the patch ?
      Thanks
      Alain
    • May 16 2008 | 2:38 pm
      f.e schrieb:
      > Max is one of the only software i know that IS your final product. I
      > mean, you use any other software to do something with (photoshop, msvc.
      > etc.) and you can forget it because your result will be something else.
      > But max stays in your result. The way it looks is not really something
      > to take funny.
      In the past you had been much more bound to the look than with Max 5.
      For one simple reason. pre 5 Max didn't know anything about
      transparency, but you liked the look. There where more people
      complaining about the old look, than those who actually liked it. And
      another bunch (the majority I guess) that didn't care...
      Now you can easily create the look you like, though it does take more
      effort for your taste (make all borders and backgrounds transparent, and
      use a panel to get a new border...). Maybe the gain in usability of Max
      5 is completely eaten up by that, but at least you have more options not
      less...
      I would also argue that all UI objects should be customizable for
      roundness and border size, maybe restricted to presentation mode, but
      David has a philosophical point with that, which is arguable, but might
      be valid. I don't want to judge...
      After some time of patching I am used to the new look and feel, I don't
      need the extra effort of these examples to make Max 5 look like Max 4...
      (switch to presentation mode and lock...)
      --
      Stefan Tiedje------------x-------
      --_____-----------|--------------
      --(_|_ ----|-----|-----()-------
      -- _|_)----|-----()--------------
      ----------()--------www.ccmix.com
    • May 16 2008 | 3:36 pm
      The mistake which is made by those who claim we are trolls, is in the misinterpretation of intent. We are highly critical of the things we dearly care for because we want to see them improve. We see troubles and we wish for better; we make it clear and cutting how to perfect. It's not aggression or opposition. It's love.
      All the anti-trolls are noise. Those defensive comments serve no purpose but the posters own desire to react; Max would be better served if every pitchfork post was instead a found flaw.
    • May 16 2008 | 4:32 pm
      Enola, I'm willing to take your post in good faith regarding your intent, but you should understand that your mode of expression sounds very troll-like. You really made it sound like this font issue was going to drive you to suicide. Feedback is great, but if you want to be taken seriously, you need to consider how you make your point.
      I mean this friendly-like. All the best.
    • May 16 2008 | 4:33 pm
      In most cases, the roundness can be eliminated through the use of the more configurable UI objects such as textbutton, pictctrl, etc. My philosophical point with preserving the shape of the basic objects is that it is used as a kind of syntax. At the point where you are using the more advanced UI objects, this syntax (the difference between object boxes and message boxes for example) is less important, because typically you are making things that look like photorealistic buttons etc.
      Now you could argue that you are a super-genius advanced user and do not need David Z. to remind you of which of your boxes are objects and which are messages. Fine, I am thrilled that you've spent enough time with the software to get to that point. But part of having a "language" is a common level of understanding, and my concern is that roundness $1 and further customization of the basic objects into something unrecognizable will make understanding patches more difficult for the entire community. And frankly, I'm more concerned with making the model train club more accessible to more people than I am with making it possible for a few people to hide the means by which they create their work. As if using Max is somehow something you need to hide? If you are afraid that people won't respect you because you didn't write your application in x86 assembly code, I cannot solve your issues!
      David Z.
    • May 16 2008 | 5:14 pm
      Quote: David Zicarelli wrote on Fri, 16 May 2008 18:33
      ----------------------------------------------------
      > ... typically you are making things that look like photorealistic buttons etc...
      ----------------------------------------------------
      Yeah, I guess we will indeed see more custom GUIs from now on ...
      But sarcasm aside, I personally do not care because I make the custom surfaces anyway. I had never the idea to use a Max GUI for anyone else but myself and I like the application also for the ability to make custom GUIs. That's why I would have preferred a less fancy outfit to work with.
      However, the "old" Max looked old fashioned, some might say ugly, now it looks like a toy and wastes a lot of space in a patch. But it works better than before and it is still a tool. I don't remember one good technical application that got refused by serious users because they didn't like the look of it.
    • May 16 2008 | 7:01 pm
      Got a 17" Macbook Pro a couple of days ago, after using a 15" for years. I can understand the frustration in this thread, although I haven't worked enough with Max 5 to have a qualified opinion on the blurryness of the fonts. Eye strain really gives physical pain, and physical pain leads to frustration, which again leads to not so strategical, or diplomatic means to deal with problems.
      The "scale" feature in the edit-menu of Max 5 is awesome. I use it everytime I open a Max4 patch. I have been looking at every way, in every application to make text bigger, icons larger, and to keep it that way next time I open the application. In some applications (Ableton Live i.e) this is impossible, and I find myself squinting at the display all the time. I've configured easy shortcuts to zooming on my mouse now, but I don't like to use zooming just to read something I should be able to read anyway, - since my eyes work allright. I may have missed something to fix this, but I don't think it's a pleasure to read the documentation in max now, since the font is so small.
      I was glad to see Andrew Benson's answer in this thread, which shows that the developers is acknowledging this to be something that can be improved. I'd never considered this to be a problem on my 15" Macbook Pro, but now I'm reading this thread with great interest.
      The stupid remark about cycling making a fake post, shouldn't overshadow that there's also been a lot of constructive arguments in this thread.
    • May 16 2008 | 7:24 pm
      Quote: lut lei wrote on Fri, 16 May 2008 13:01
      ----------------------------------------------------
      > The stupid remark about cycling making a fake post, shouldn't overshadow that there's also been a lot of constructive arguments in this thread.
      My knee-jerk reaction in disbelief that somebody could find Max5's text to be unblurry, when I find it to be factually blurry in the way that grass is green.
      - E
    • May 16 2008 | 8:11 pm
      I think that if you've excused your reaction, all this silly mentions about trolling could've been avoided, because your point seems valid enough, even though I didn't understand what you were trying to say when using a 15". But that's just a consequence of everything getting smaller on a 17", I guess, and maybe not related to your initial request for better font rendering.
    • May 17 2008 | 10:34 am
      Rounded corners for object boxes seems to be a Grundsatzentscheidung... a fundamental decision. One might want to call it a religious decision or, in less loaded terms, a philosophical decision.
      I have gathered, from some comments David Z. made, that one of his concerns was the basic problems beginners have in grasping the distinction between object and message. From many years of teaching, I can only say the man has a point. This is definitely one of the big hurdles for beginners, and the most common mistake I see are messages written inside object boxes & vice versa. You can explain the difference until you're blue in the face, but people just need time to absorb it. For some people it takes a _lot_ of time.
      So, Max5 is aiming to optically underscore the distinction by giving object boxes and message boxes clearly different looks. Not a bad idea at all. The distinctive characteristics are also immutable... which is what the experienced users are complaining about.
      I dunno... I just can't get het up about the change in the look. And I wonder if people would be anywhere near as upset if Max had always had rounded corners on object boxes. No one is complaining about the change from two thin lines top/bottom to a colored 3-pixel frame all around.
      Anyway, it seems that the resolve at C74 for a "pure" object-box-has-rounded-corners design is hard as granite. Zen teaches that attacking granite with a sword of steel only breaks the steel. On the other hand, running water over the granite will, eventually, wear a hole through the stone. It just takes a while. A word to the wise.
      -- P.
    • May 17 2008 | 11:40 am
    • May 17 2008 | 1:16 pm
      Peter Castine schrieb:
      > Zen teaches that attacking granite with a sword of steel only breaks
      > the steel. On the other hand, running water over the granite will,
      > eventually, wear a hole through the stone. It just takes a while. A
      > word to the wise.
      My water would be the suggestion to limit certain customisability to the
      presentation mode. As it would keep the main point of the ability to
      distinguish objects intact.
      But that would require that more than the position rectangle attributes
      have to be distinguished and probably requires quite a change in the
      inspector (f.e. to show only the attributes which apply to the
      patching/presentation mode...)
      If this idea is acceptable I wouldn't expect it before 5.2. By that time
      we might have just got used to it and forget to complain over and over
      again... ;-)
      I am quite happy with the look of Max 5 as it is. Even if the text is
      blurry, and everything looks like a toy in case I don't put too much
      effort into creating a personal look and feel...
      To create a personal look and feel will always require some extra
      effort, and the possibilities to do so are much better than ever...
      Those who actually liked the old style have more pain than those who
      disliked it, and they cry louder by design...
      Stefan
      --
      Stefan Tiedje------------x-------
      --_____-----------|--------------
      --(_|_ ----|-----|-----()-------
      -- _|_)----|-----()--------------
      ----------()--------www.ccmix.com
    • May 17 2008 | 2:54 pm
      For me in OSX, the fonts are no blurrier than they are in other cocoa
      programs. Is this a Windows-only issue?
      You can see a comparison between Max5 and TextEdit here:
      The only difference I can see is that TextEdit renders with 'colored'
      font rendering and Max uses grayscale, but this is unnoticeable at
      normal resolution.
    • May 17 2008 | 3:01 pm
      hello
      I would like to comment shortly on all the max5 blurry pain in the ass thing...
      I think max 5 is really exciting for all the new features, and this
      is really an awesome new step for all.
      But i felt really kind of trapped with this new blurry design, simply
      because Max is my daily tool since years, and in a way i gave my
      confidence to the authors (and i also pay for this tool).
      I felt this new design as a very hard-to-swallow-imposed-one,
      and..sorry, it reminded me of an Erwin Wurm art work, with the weird
      feeling that max/msp ate really too much hamburgers. : )
      Don't get me wrong, i already love max 5 for a lot of reasons. But
      the blurry thing almost took me out of the community. We always have
      the choice to leave or not, but going into PD after years of maxing
      would be another hard to swallow thing, not because it's not good but
      because we already made a choice...
      As Peter Castine said, water is a good option for attacking granite
      instead of a sword of steel.
      So, please, could you, please include an option for deblurring all
      this in the future, if this is possible.
      Otherwise i guess i'll miss the two thin lines top/bottom for the
      next 20 years.
      It may take a while, but maxers are patient, doh ?
      thanks for your attention
      jm
      >>Because of all the things you hate about Max 5, you've threatened
      >>to use something else, like PD. Maybe at this point maybe you
      >>should get serious about that. I feel bad about suggesting that
      >>because you've been helpful to people here in the past, but your
      >>"sad and angry choir" has gotten tedious. Either find a way to come
      >>to terms with Max 5, or move on. Everyone on the list probably
      >>knows what changes you would like to see in Max, by now, but I
      >>don't think the "sad and angry choir" approach is getting you any
      >>closer to them.
      >>
      >>-C
      >
      >That's not fair and you already know that. I won't stop using Max
      >because i simply cannot. It has no competitors and i'm stuck with
      >it. Just picture my "sad and angry choir" if i went using pD :-) So
      >it's not right to say take it or leave it because there's no way to
      >leave it.
      >
      >I hope to like max 5 the other way than a 12 years old indian girl
      >does to love the husband she's forced to get married with.
      >
      >I made peace with max 5 as i already told you.
      >
      >Best wishes
      >
      >f.e
      >
      >
      --
      joachim montessuis
      http://www.myspace.com/montessuis
      http://www.autopoiese.org
    • May 18 2008 | 9:37 am
    • May 18 2008 | 10:52 pm
      Quote: f.e wrote on Sun, 18 May 2008 04:37
      ----------------------------------------------------
      >
      > Notice i quit writing assembly code when i was 14 and pot when i was 23.
      >
      > f.e
      ----------------------------------------------------
      Maybe you should start back up. It might take your mind off the rounded corners.
    • May 19 2008 | 7:10 am
      hi
      ok, it's all very nice to love the new max5, but i am quite surprised
      how some of you simply do not agree with teh fact that the fonts ARE
      blurry
      it is not about how big your screen is or which country you live in
      (beside, whatever the country, there is no accents in "cycle~" and
      will never be) it's just that, yes, it is blurry.
      david Z explained why - ok, nice. But it still is.
      and most certainly when we decide to buy a bigger screen, it's not to
      see exactly the same amount of things.........
      best
      kasper
    • May 19 2008 | 8:45 am
    • May 19 2008 | 10:54 am
      Kasper T Toeplitz schrieb:
      > ok, it's all very nice to love the new max5, but i am quite surprised
      > how some of you simply do not agree with teh fact that the fonts ARE blurry
      I haven't found a single reply that didn't agree in principle, only big
      differences in its importance. Even the elves at cycling agreed that
      they are blurry and that they do care about it even if its not their
      highest priority at the moment, and that we don't know if it will ever
      change due to the complexity of the issue...
      Personally my solution is, to use Verdana 11 pt...
      I'd rather like to see enhancements in the way how old patches are
      imported directly to a different font size, or getting more flexibility
      for the look and feel than putting too much energy into good looking 9
      pt fonts, they are too small anyway, even if they stop being blurry I
      wouldn't want them anymore...
      We are a big community with very different priorities, it's impossible
      to please everybody, but the loud cries do have an impact on the way the
      priorities are sorted. Only if everybody just raises the level to be
      heard, we would run into a problem...
      It seems to me, that the cries are still proportional to the personal
      pain, and that is ok...
      Stefan
      --
      Stefan Tiedje------------x-------
      --_____-----------|--------------
      --(_|_ ----|-----|-----()-------
      -- _|_)----|-----()--------------
      ----------()--------www.ccmix.com
    • May 19 2008 | 11:55 am
      Quote: Stefan Tiedje wrote on Mon, 19 May 2008 12:54
      ----------------------------------------------------
      > ... Even the elves at cycling agreed that they are blurry ...
      Blurry elves.
      I like this picture :-)
    • May 19 2008 | 1:04 pm
      Quote:Peter Ostry
      >Quote: Stefan Tiedje wrote on Mon, 19 May 2008 12:54
      >----------------------------------------------------
      >> ... Even the elves at cycling agreed that they are blurry ...
      >
      >
      >Blurry elves.
      >I like this picture :-)
      must be the famous san francisco lifestyle:
      movin' so fast dey vib-brate!! lawdyhavmercy!
      :-)
      l&k
      j2k, aka cfb
    • May 19 2008 | 10:28 pm
      Nobody has replied to my question.
      Is this is a Windows only issue? On my Macbook the font rendering in
      Max5 is indistinguishable from the font rendering in any other cocoa
      program.
      People in this thread are saying that it's objectively blurry when on
      my computer it's clear as day (which means slightly blurry just like
      every other Mac font. Read more about that here:
      http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/06/12.html or here:
    • May 20 2008 | 2:33 am
      Quote: morgan wrote on Mon, 19 May 2008 16:28
      > Is this is a Windows only issue? On my Macbook the font rendering in
      > Max5 is indistinguishable from the font rendering in any other cocoa
      > program.
      Im a bit loath to get involved with a (mostly) non-constructive thread and subjective issue, however, I do think the font looks a bit blurry on OS X, and ive just done some tests with native cocoa rendering and the fonts look *basically* the same, but the lack of the sub pixel antialiasing coloring does make it seem subtly different to my eye. When blown up large, you can see that the actual pixel placement is basically the same, so I guess I'm sensitive enough to notice the coloring differences, however its just not a huge deal for me, at least on my system. I cant speak about Max 5 on windows XP because I have not really played with it. *shrug*
      As for rounded corners, I think David Z is correct about the graphical 'grammar/syntax' of Max 5 being consistent. After teaching for a bit, the object/message differentiation is SUCH a huge gap for many people, that obfuscating it even more by adding additional differentiation (rounded $1) is, at this point, a loosing strategy that hurts 99% of cyclings current user base, and 100% of their potential user base by making things that much more complex. (Dont get me started about presentation locked, presentation edit, regular locked and regular edit modes..)
      However, aesthetically, I still really hate the rounded corners, but at this point, im (somewhat) learning to deal with them.
      I guess I dont have much to add... I think the dialog is good to have however. *shrug*
    • May 20 2008 | 3:47 am
      Quote: morgan wrote on Tue, 20 May 2008 00:28
      ----------------------------------------------------
      > Is this is a Windows only issue? On my Macbook the font rendering in
      > Max5 is indistinguishable from the font rendering in any other cocoa
      > program.
      ----------------------------------------------------
      It is not a Windows only issue but Mac users know this fonts and the whole look very well in the meantime. We are prepared, for us it is more or less "another blurry program". Like the other low-contrast applications that made our screens grey. Nothing to cry about or kill ourselves but still annoying. Might take years to get rid of this style and technique. In the meantime we can blame the operating system or the common taste or invent a Mr. Blur and beat him.
    • May 20 2008 | 7:11 am
      Here's a little comparison to point out the problems. See the attached JPEG (note: make sure you view the JPEG at 100% to avoid scaling in your viewer)
      I've already switched to Verdana as the default text in 5.0.. so that is a little better in some ways than the default. IT should be noted that other fonts at small sizes are atrocious, so your font choice at a small point size becomes extremely limited.
      Pro's: Sliders, knobs, panels, Leds, and Toggles look clean, and have much richer configureability. New method of opening folders is less "slippy" than the old method of having to keep the mouse button depressed.
      Cons: Buttons, vs. Toggles, Vs. Leds aren't as immediately distinguishable without further customization. Directory hierarchies are no longer distinguished in UBUmenus, making it difficult to differentiate between folders and files.
      Pro's: Text looks less "bitmappy" and is smoother/more professional.
      Con's: Black text on a light background looks washed out, white text on black looks blurry darker than it should. Compare "hex1" which is white on black. Note that white on black (hex1, hex2 etc.) in 5.0 looks about like grey on black (see sources, dimmap, sdelay) in 4.6. Lean back and compare where your head needs to be to read the "Preview" and "None" next to it.
      I think Max 5.0 is quite readable when using black text on a white background at a font size larger than the one in this example. This means that tsince the interface is primarily textual data, that everything needs to eat up about 20% more screen real estate. Even then, many of the interface elements would need to be dark text on a light background, and most colorcoding would need to be taken care of external to the text, instead of by coloring text backgrounds.
    • May 20 2008 | 7:58 am
      Hello.
      I started working with MAX in 1993 and I am not posting here so much anymore since I just use MAX as a tool nowadays, within the limits of my knowledge, and it works quite well for that job.
      However, this thread makes me angry enough to post something:
      MAX is not a finished application, it is a tool to create your own little or big things. As such a tool, it is important that it provides ways to work fast. How long does it take from an idea to a solution? How quick works debugging? How do I find things? How
      How can I make a patch more readable? How easy is it to change the appearance of an interface? How can I create more complex interfaces if I need to?
      In all those disciplinces MAX 5 is a *DRAMATIC* step forward.
      I would never ever want to go back to MAX 4.
      In the last example pic posted, I can actually read the dithered font much better then the chooser entries in the MAX 4 example.
      If an interface made in MAX does not fit on a screen in 2008 without using 9. fonts, it might be that something is wrong with the interface concept or the number of parameters.
      Cheers, Robert
    • May 20 2008 | 10:03 am
      > If an interface made in MAX does not fit on a screen in 2008 without using 9. fonts, it might be that something is wrong with the interface concept or the number of parameters.
      >
      Is there a rule on this forum that you can't post a response to a criticism of Max without implying that the poster is some sort of naif that just doesn't get it?
      I'm very happy with how my patches from Max4 have migrated to Max5, with the single and glaring exception that because of font readability, I've been spending hours updating the text elements. Better anti-aliasing, or none at all would have eliminated that entire process. Clearly this is my fault for not having realized that 9. fonts (the default in max4) were so 2007. Since this isn't going to get solved any time soon, and the JUCE guy seems ambivalent or even hostile about this issue, I'm just going to go ahead and give in and make everything black on white, verdana, and bigger than it really needs to be.
      As a feature request, I'd like the option to turn off anti-aliasing on font rendering altogether, or to have it turn off below a certain size. If that translates into some sort of size in relation to the "view" then even better.
      I'm done posting on this subject since the debate seems to have degenerated to:
      "These 9 point fonts look blurry to me."
      "No they don't, and you're doing it wrong!"
    • May 20 2008 | 10:05 am
    • May 20 2008 | 10:24 am
      Quote: f.e wrote on Tue, 20 May 2008 11:56
      ----------------------------------------------------
      > Here is a picture (attached) to illustrate the problem on Windows (haven't tried on OSX). The roundness is not a critical problem because it's still a subjective feeling. At least more than the blurry font and the fact that the objects borders are much larger than in Max 4.
      ----------------------------------------------------
      i have to agree that the 4 version is way easier to read.
      i'll vote for font display configuration options.
      i kind of said before, but to be more precise about my opinion / experience with this issue is that the combination of a persons monitor and eyes makes for a disparate set of UI sweet spots.
      i took a long time configuring my main OS (ubuntu) so that I could read text all day without headaches.
      on xp, i have to turn off 'cleartype' because it hurts after about 5 minutes.
      for me vista is the opposite, it looks awful without the (new) cleartype switched on, but still nowhere near as good as my linux setup.
      if i could plug my ibook into the monitor without buying some extra mac-specific hardware, i would be able to compare that. but i cant.
      anyway, i think the point is, no-one is wrong, just some are more satisfied than others. i also understand that adding more and more options to a piece of software isnt always the best solution, but in this case i think it is.
    • May 20 2008 | 10:38 am
      No one here disagrees that the fonts _are_ blurry.
      No one here says: Hurray !!! Now my old patches look different now.
      MAX 5 has a scaleable GUI. And this is a very important step towards building screen resolution independent user interfaces.
      The price for this is aliased fonts. You cannot have one without the other.
      A software is never finished. Each development cycle has its own set of priorities. If the alternatives are: waiting much longer for MAX 5, having no scaleable GUI, spending less time for all the other improvements but having a slightly better font renderer, I would still vote for the other improvements.
      This thread started with crying out loud SHIT. And this is a bad start for a serious discussion. Some people here do sound like C74 deliberately creates horrible unusable products. And they certainly do not, just like any other company which tries to deliver the best solution they can. Because a) they love their product and b) they want to sell it.
      Everyone at C74 now knows that the fonts are a problem for some of you. So, why continue posting again and again images to prove something which is known? To keep David from doing more important tasks than reading this?
      Robert
    • May 20 2008 | 11:13 am
      I guess this blurriness question is only a question of perception and taste.
      What this has to do with a wrong "interface concept" ?
      Some priorities are clear in the last release of Max, and David Z
      said it will evolve.
      So.. no drama, no pain, no insults, just patience
      ouarrg
      >Hello.
      >
      >I started working with MAX in 1993 and I am not posting here so much
      >anymore since I just use MAX as a tool nowadays, within the limits
      >of my knowledge, and it works quite well for that job.
      >
      >However, this thread makes me angry enough to post something:
      >
      >
      >MAX is not a finished application, it is a tool to create your own
      >little or big things. As such a tool, it is important that it
      >provides ways to work fast. How long does it take from an idea to a
      >solution? How quick works debugging? How do I find things? How
      >How can I make a patch more readable? How easy is it to change the
      >appearance of an interface? How can I create more complex interfaces
      >if I need to?
      >
      >In all those disciplinces MAX 5 is a *DRAMATIC* step forward.
      >I would never ever want to go back to MAX 4.
      >
      >In the last example pic posted, I can actually read the dithered
      >font much better then the chooser entries in the MAX 4 example.
      >
      >If an interface made in MAX does not fit on a screen in 2008 without
      >using 9. fonts, it might be that something is wrong with the
      >interface concept or the number of parameters.
      >
      >Cheers, Robert
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • May 20 2008 | 11:56 am
      >f.e. wrote:
      >In the real life, i should just have answered "fuck you".
      hmmm...and where is the profanity in my message that gave you the right to spew yours forth in a public forum?
      My opinion of your repeated aggressive posts RE: screen anti-aliasing was stated in as clear and a direct manner as I could.
      At least i did not curse you, or say that "In real life" I would.
      (and this is some sort of 'unreal life'?)
      Please, with this post I get even more convinced that you are letting your ego into this argument: we are all in this together. Period.
      I do not curse you, but I do find the argument trivial and overstated.
      Yes almost ALL modern software needs to address the anti-aliasing of small fonts.
      No solution OF ANY SORT is perfect.
      Max 5 rocks.
      That's what I have to say.
      Dr Baker
      PS:
      Happy to be out of the fight for recognition and performance space...it made most of my friends in comp a**h**es...myself not the least. I sense this everywhere in "serious" music. It is so sad. I feel much better now my music is made for myself and close acquaintances..
      Oh, by the way, juce is cool, but needs further work on text anti-aliasing, eh?
      glad u agree.....:-)
    • May 20 2008 | 3:13 pm
      I have to agree, even though I love the new look, it would be awesome to have a consistent roundness attribute for every object and gui widget. this would allow for all this personal taste to be resolved. maybe there could be an overall preference for anti aliasing text.
    • May 20 2008 | 4:42 pm
      The original discussion for this topic had to do with font rendering.
      I agree we can do a better job of rendering fonts, and I acknowledged this immediately when the first complaint was made. I also said that solving this problem is not easy, which is why it hasn't already been solved. It's not that we don't care about the problem, or that blurry fonts are somehow tied in with our design aesthetic.
      We are currently working on one possible solution. It is too early to say whether the approach we are trying will ultimately work, but I hope to have some more news later this week.
      David Z.
    • May 21 2008 | 9:04 am
    • May 21 2008 | 2:04 pm
      Yes, Brad, thank you...very much:
      and combined with your point about the social pressures/milieu of the "cancert art" opps.."concert art" scene, there was in my original intent (so easily lost and misread) a desire to say that this act of producing art music is not as "big" and "important" as all that: let's all be happy we even get to participate in these (occassional) wonderful moments that have dominated my life , even as I earn my living in another field.
      When the performance in Turkey "MEANS MY CAREER!!!!" we loose all perspective. Life goes on without our art, and even has parts that are quite simply more important than 99% of our artistic practice. Prob. more like 100%.
      It seems we all take these issues so seriously, and: yeah, MSoft's clearcase annoys me @ times, what with my bad eyes and the fact that i spend my work all day @ a terminal in a IDE and SQL browser. But i don't complain about it. I know others will, and hopefully they do it in a civilized manner. Thanks to all for letting us all know those small fonts hurt your eyes.
      Oh, please go on: but life is not the big concert hall: that is a way of 'being' caused by lack of communication technology, and supported by a way of thinking that looked for universals and mass actions and behaviors : inheriting from this 19th century world of afternoon long concerts, opera pilgramage temples, and overweening ego (Ein Heldenleben, indeed) has served electro-acoustic music poorly, especially feeding it's love of excessive decibel levels.
      I do hope the art community can begin to accept other venues and modes of musical expresssion as being just as valid as these giant "mark of approval" festivals. I suspect that in the future the self published internet composer is going to be more important in the evolution of music than the InternationalComputerMusicConference.
      please, just my tuppence, i mean no insult or put down!
      l&k
      j2k
    • May 21 2008 | 9:40 pm
    • May 22 2008 | 11:25 am
      Charles Baker schrieb:
      > Yes, Brad, thank you...very much: and combined with your point about
      > the social pressures/milieu of the "cancert art"
      Yes, but it seems to be a specific problem of academic "educated"
      people. The music I do, would simply not work as a recording, it doesn't
      fit into categories of a piece (work) of art which can be understood out
      of the context. (That's why its also hardly recognized at all in this
      area...).
      I recently visited a concert with my kids. One band specifically was
      pretty amazing in how they made the whole hall just jump into another...
      Nobody listened so much to the music (punk). But this was energy which
      fed a mind boggling pogo dance...
      Can't imagine any academic jumping into something like that... Its just
      a different world. If we don't like our world we should start travelling
      to find better places...
      > I do hope the art community can begin to accept other venues and
      > modes of musical expresssion as being just as valid as these giant
      > "mark of approval" festivals.
      There are a lot of communities which are completely unnoticed by the
      academic world, they are much more lively, but its much less of buzz and
      money involved. Its solely driven by labour of love... Which is usually
      a more driving force than money ever can be. But its so damn hard to
      simply and physically survive... (and its not as loud as economics..)
      Stefan
      --
      Stefan Tiedje------------x-------
      --_____-----------|--------------
      --(_|_ ----|-----|-----()-------
      -- _|_)----|-----()--------------
      ----------()--------www.ccmix.com