PeterB,<P>One of the reasons that the OS X interface is more attractive is that it supports higher reolution icons. True, you can resize icons in almost every other OS, but you are still limited to the 32x32 pixel, 256-color icons. The MacOS 9 is the same. Technically, you can have 16-bit color icons, but this is only used by about a third of programs out there. With MacOS X and Aqua, you get 128x128 pixel icons that are cleanly and artistically drawn in pleasing colors. Some people deride it as too candy-coated, but I think the whole UI is worlds better than the jarring and generally unpleasant UI of Win9x and NT. Plus the zooming effects are "nifty" according to my brother. I think they look awesome. It is just another step forward by the best people in the GUI business.<P>Jonah
OS X interface is revealed
- Thread starter Perret
- Start date
- Status
Yes Apple is the best in the GUI business... but they earned that reputation through their penchant for <I>high usability</I>... not hi-res icons.<P>They have made the interface similar *and* more usable in many areas... like with the new non-modal dialogs, and visual association between "windows" & "panels", the whole magniying dock thing, etc. <P>I just hope they don't get too caught up in the new look so much they ignore function... like the whole QT4 interface....
"The way that NextStep throws icons on the bottom seems to be ripped most closely by Win3.1 only."<BR>OK, I'm gonna stick to my guns here. In W3.1, the only way to get an icon on the bottom of the screen is to minimize an app. In W95, simply opening an app puts an icon down there for easy switching, and it lands on a light grey 3D tile, just like NeXT. Likewise, minimizing a doc in W3.1 only put an icon in the bottom of the app's parent window. In W95, it goes on a grey tile on the bottom of the screen, neatly lined up from r-l. Of all the myriad GUIs that have been designed, only NeXT and W95etc do this AFAIK. <P>The close box on a NeXT window was a small raised grey square with an "X" in it, on the right-hand end of the title bar. Sound familiar? Except the NeXT would drop the center out of the X if the file needed to be saved, giving a quick visual clue. Nice. (I hope it's in OS X.) Proportional scroll bars were first seen there--flat raised grey rectangles. Except NeXT wouldn't make the scroll thumb too small to use in a big doc. Hmmm. There was a recycler. Hmmm. Radio buttons were recessed circles with beveled edges in the grey panel with a white center. Hmmm. Sections of panels were separated with a 3D 'grooved' line. Hmmm. It's really silly. If I can find a screen shot of a NeXTsetp/OpenStep machine I'll post it here, but it's unlikely.
Ok, Billium, sorry. My only experience was AfterStep which i thought was supposed to be a really close free rip of NextStep.
Aplha-blending, Antialiasing, resizing, all in hardware et etc reminds me about something I heard; someone talked about a 3D accellerated OS, that is, things use gfx cards 3d accellerating to make the desktop more interactive/funky/live/3d etc.<P>Just wondering, is it true that we might see a 3d os that, applications can be boxes floating around little dots known as Dimensional Icons(TM)?
A note about icons in OSX:<P>It seems that you're not stuck with pre-set icon sizes. Icon size is selectable by a slider that you can move left and right to whatever in-between size you want.
I did once see a developmental 3D Finder (screenshots posted by an Apple engineer on a personal website)... it was in th early 90's. mind you, but it didn't look very good. The fact is, a 3D interface is gimmicky if the majority of our documents are still 2D by nature - word processing, the internet (mostly), video, graphics editing... <P>I can't find where I put files often enough in the mac 2d finder... if I could lose files in a third dimension, i'd be really screwed.
<a href=http://129.15.128.208/test.asp>Here</a> are some quicktimes of the interface, and the dock, in action. I hope to God the dock is super customizeable because I don't like the way it works right now.<P>--Edit--<BR>My bad. It works now.<P>[This message has been edited by GoofBall (edited January 06, 2000).]
xwred1 ;-)<P>On another subject...<P>NeXT had those animated icons, too, and they're cool. Note that this isn't just an icon or two that moves. When this happens in MacOS or Win it's really a window with a whole lot of customization going on, so that it looks, superficially, like an icon. In NeXT and OS X, every app can freely animate its actual icon when running. FTP utilities can show progress; minimized docs can be real thumbnails of the current document, even if it's still changing, as with a QT movie or a web page, and so on. Groovy stuff.<P>I just finally got through to the keynote well enough to watch it. The "liquid" minimize and maximize is awfully cool looking. It might tire after a while, I don't know; I think I'd have to use it. With transparancy and quick enough movement it may well be subtle enough to live with from day-to-day. (iMacs look really candy in pictures but those I've seen in person outside computer store's bright lighting look real nice.)
<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR><BR>Just wondering, is it true that we might see a 3d os that, applications can be boxes floating around little dots known as Dimensional Icons(TM)?<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I believe that part of the idea with Altivec is to have it deal with a lot (all?) of the screen draws etc. That should definetely speed things up, and allow the rest of the CPU to worry about other stuff.<P>
Some corrections:<P>jonah writes:<P><BLOCKQUOTE><I>True, you can resize icons in almost every other OS, but you are still limited to the 32x32 pixel, 256-color icons. The MacOS 9 is the same. Technically, you can have 16-bit color icons, but this is only used by about a third of programs out there.</I></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Mac OS 8.5 and later have icons that range in resolution from 1-bit to 32-bit (with an 8-bit alpha channel), and sizes from 16x16 to 64x64. Most post 8.5 Mac OS apps (and the OS itself) include 32-bit icons.<P>resteves writes:<P><BLOCKQUOTE><I>They keep mentioning that you can have the finder revert back to "classic" look (OS8/9) I don't know how completely, but we will see.</I></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I didn't hear this at all in the keynote. Jobs mentioned that you can use the new Finder just like the old one if you want (i.e. ignore the "browser" thing and just open many windows as usual). He also demonstrated that "classic" Mac OS apps retain the Mac OS 9 appearance. All other apps (Carbon, Cocoa, and presumably Java) get the Aqua appearance. No "themes" of any kind were mentioned.<P>xwred1 writes:<P><BLOCKQUOTE><I> I hope that some of this stuff is revertible. The icons at the bottom looks kinda pretty (Res is definatly better than windows), but take up WAY too much real-estate in my book.<P>...<P>Lastly, in finder, those freaking icons a humongous. If i were using that system, it would feel like an arrow in my leg or something. I can't stand huge icons. Icons are icons, they're supposed to be small. </I></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Both the dock icons and the desktop icons are dynamically scalable from what looked like 16x16 to 128x128. This was demonstrated in the keynote. The dock is also hide-able much like the Win95 taskbar (and I'm sure you can turn it off entirely, even if it means killing the process or something). And I expect that the dock itself will be replaceable by 3rd parties.
Hey,<P>Thought I'd add a few snapshots of Next to illustrate the similarities between it and OS X.<P>As a Mac user I got to say I'm thrilled about some of the developments - but I'm also anxious to see if all the good bits of the Mac OS (Drag&drop etc) will also make the transition.<P> http://www-users.rwth-aachen.de/Martin.Klocke/TwoNEXTIMEs2.gif <P> http://www-users.rwth-aachen.de/Martin.Klocke/Grabscreen2.gif <P>(My apoligies for the huge pictures - I'll try to remember in the future...<BR><P>[This message has been edited by Roman A'Clef (edited January 06, 2000).]
roman: please, don't ever do that again, you f'd up this whole page of posts...please put links, not huge pics..now, to read the posts on this page, you have to scroll left and right even at 1152x864<P>kraquen
Ummm, Window Shade was NOT anywhere NEAR adequate for the job. Period. All you need to do is watch an _average_ Mac user for a while (NOT a genius, like yersalf) to KNOW what I MEAN.<P>All this does is give us fodder for discussion anyway, as someone earlier said, the thing isn't even in Beta yet. I am glad they are striving for an excellent product, it will be good for all of us ultimately. <BR>There, how's that for positive.<BR>I think we've got the medication JUST about right now, don't choo?
Just thought I'd add my $.02 because I haven't seen anybody mention this...<P>First of all, I'm a little worried about the apparent demise of the resize box as a window control. In the current OS it sits in right side of the title bar, and it will automatically size a window so that it's just large enough to view all of the items it contains. Why axe it? It's very useful.<P>Another thing related to window controls: why is the close widget positioned so close to the minimize and maximize widgets? This is a problem I have with Windows. They need to stick the minimize and maximize widgets on the right hand side next to that new-fangled "one window" thingy. Stop-light metaphor be damned.<P>Another minor note: are icons specified as 128x128 bitmaps, or as full PDF files? If you think about Quartz for a second, the latter doesn't seem too unlikely. What about the current Mac icon behavior (masking) so that icons can be any shape, not just square? Hopefully this has been retained. I, for one, have been frustrated at the stupidly inconsistent behavior of Windows when selecting icons, especially using the drag-select method. Try it, you'll be surprised at how ugly it is.
As a resident Apple Idiot (TM), I must say that the I like the Aqua GUI. However, my main quibble is clearly demonstrated on the NeXT shots above:<P>THE FREAKING TASKBAR/DOCK/TRAY/WHATEVER SHOULD BE ON THE FREAKING SIDE!!!!!!!!!!<P>Thank you, and God Bless.<P>Dajjal
<BLOCKQUOTE><I>First of all, I'm a little worried about the apparent demise of the resize box as a window control. In the current OS it sits in right side of the title bar, and it will automatically size a window so that it's just large enough to view all of the items it contains. Why axe it? It's very useful.</I></BLOCKQUOTE><P>The zoom button is the green button. I'm guessing it behaves exactly like the current zoom button in the Finder: shrink-to-fit, and option-click for full zoom.<P><BLOCKQUOTE><I>Another minor note: are icons specified as 128x128 bitmaps, or as full PDF files?</I></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I'm pretty sure it uses standard "icns" resources, but with a new 128x128 size. That means 32-bit bitmaps with an 8-bit mask.<P>P.S. Could someone at least set the height and width on those screenshots to scale them to a reasonable width? Admins? Moderators? Anyone?
John:<P>DIY job. 'Edit' your post. Take out the image tags, and change 'em to link tabs. That should fix the problem.<P>Your welcome.<P>Dajjal
Pros:<BR>The sparkly buttons are real pretty, and should go nice with the new Macs.<P>The transparent menus are neat, much nicer than the pseudo-transparency Eterms do. <P>Cons:<BR>That dock is the tackiest thing I've seen on a desktop in ages.<P>The controls on the title bars don't appear to have any markings on them that indicate their purpose. They appear, in fact, to be differentiated solely by color.<P>It's not obvious which window has focus... maybe it would be clearer if I could interact with it. I assume it's the "Autumn" window because it's in front. Going on that theory, it looks like the buttons go from colored to clear when the window loses focus. That's just dumb, seeing as how the color is the only thing that differentiates the buttons. <P>For that matter, it appears to be only the coloration of the buttons that indicates focus... which site was it that was criticizing Windows because all it did to indicate focus was change the color of the whole fscking title bar?<P><STRONG>They kept that fscking single menu bar!</STRONG> I <STRONG>hate</STRONG> that thing!<P>All in all, it looks like a big victory for form over function. Have fun selling your colored plastic, Steve... you blew your chance to change the world.
<I>Another minor note: are icons specified as 128x128 bitmaps, or as full PDF files? </I><P>NeXTSTEP used TIFF files for it's 48x48 pixel icons. I'd imagine that they remain TIFFs or they'll be just straight PDFs. I doubt the old icns icons will be used though. But, I could be wrong.<P>I don't understand what everyone's problem is with the dock. What makes it tacky or ugly? It looks great to me. It auto-hides, size is adjustable and the magnification thingy is incredible... what's the deal?<P>The Close/Minimize/Zoom boxes aren't that big of an issue either. Even if the X - + indicators weren't mouse over activated, a new user still wouldn't know what the hell they mean until the clicked them once.<P>I'm sure the colors will be fully customizable and there'll probably be a subtle, graphite theme for the stylish G4 user that'll rid the whole interface of color. I sometimes have my Mac OS 9 scroll bars neon green, and sometimes they're grey. I doubt they'll step backwards with the customization.<P>The source of my fear though is: what happened to the Application menu!?! How do I move between apps? The dock stores your minimized windows, yes, but what about the open ones? Personally, I dislike the way the taskbar shows you every open window, so I don't want all of my windows to appear in the dock. There was supposed to be a new Application Menu that gave you a heirarchical menu for open windows in each seperate app. Or is that what that apple logo in the middle of the menubar is?<P>Overall, this demo was extremely fluffy, but still very impressive. In no way should you judge the OS based on this little glimpse of the interface. I'm sure there's a lot more meat to Mac OS X than what we've seen. I'm just relieved that they aren't going to stick us with that Mac/NeXT frankenstein interface that shipped with DP2.<P>And do you blame the Q3A failure on Apple or id? View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<P>cranio
I hope they decide to keep windowshade as an option. In the linux world I couldn't survive without it. Not just for "minimizing" apps, but to just roll up the one on top to see if something underneath finished. Say, a big webpage that was taking forever to download. As for the eterm transparency issue, it could probably be possible to do without rewriting parts of X, but it'd be a huge ugly job, and probably only work with specific programs. (imlib2 does some alpha, but it's inside the application only afaik). Perhaps with Xfree86 4.0, it will be easier to write X extensions to handle this kinda stuff. <P>As a side note, are you guys worried at all about apples apparent lack of concern for UI consistency? The Quicktime4 interface made it into the interface hall of shame. I hope they don't continue to follow that trend with applications that have no consistency between other ones, all to make it look pretty. That was one of the things I always had to give the Mac credit for, but these days it seems to be falling apart, and *really* could be bad with a large interface change like this.
Roman: Not trying to sound rude, but fuck, those pictures could have come from anywhere. I guess it's testament to how well Afterstep/WindowMaker do their jobs, (even Litestep + WindowBlinds can almost get there, except for the menus -- and it'd be possible to implement a custom menu handler for Windows anyway, like that Mac-a-like front-end for Windows that implements single menu bar), but seriously, that could come from anywhere.<P>Isn't there a nice chess thing that you can show on NeXTstep to prove the source of the pictures?<P> View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And do you blame the Q3A failure on Apple or id? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I don't know who's fault it was, but I think it was stupid of Steve Jobs not to take that opportunity to show how a crashed app could not bring the system down, if in fact it didn't bring the system down. Had he just killed Q3 and made a big deal of it, it would have been a lot more effective than that stupid bomb program.
Q3A proly killed the whole OS. I mean, this is an unreleased port of Q3A on an OS that hasn't even gotten the letter "d" out of its version number yet. It prolly hosed it, or at least left the user with no way to fix it short of telnetting in from another machine (assuming telnetd was even running).
Cranioclast:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR><BR>I don't understand what everyone's problem is with the dock. What makes it tacky or ugly? It looks great to me. It auto-hides, size is adjustable and the magnification thingy is incredible... what's the deal?<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well, it's personal preference, of course. I personally think that it's too busy and colorful for no good reason. It looks to me more like a damn banner ad than a GUI widget...<BR>
- Status