In fact transparency is provided by W2K in the base Win32 API. Every window has a transparency flag that can be set to enable transparency for that window.
Steve Jobs tells you how it is
- Thread starter Venture
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
resteves, come on, granted, the guy has to talk up the Mac, but he's stretching it....<BR>And someone earlier said Intel did not initially develop USB. Well, sir, SJ himself says they did. SOOOOO there. View image: /infopop/emoticons\icon_wink.gif
It's true, there is a lot of customization under Win 2000. You can show icons as thumbnails. Cool, for folders you have lots of pics in, since a preview won't have to be generated. Of course, you can apply different backgrounds for each folder. You can apply 4 different syles of folder "templates". You can edit these templates and add others.<BR>You can set menus to "appear" 2 different ways, Fade or scroll. And of course the transparency thing....<BR>This is all out of the box, imagine some of the cool stuff that will be available eventually.
Okay, how many times do I have to say that none of the programs in either Win2K or Millennium are using the brushed metal interface?
webslacker
Ars Praefectus
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR><I>Originally posted by Dan:</I><BR>resteves, come on, granted, the guy has to talk up the Mac, but he's stretching it....<BR>And someone earlier said Intel did not initially develop USB. Well, sir, SJ himself says they did. SOOOOO there. View image: /infopop/emoticons\icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Actually, Steve Jobs is wrong. Intel didn't invent USB, and neither did some consortium. Entrega (which was just bought by Xircom) developed it. Intel took up the task of being the main advocate of the technology, and Entrega was very happy about it since they didn't have the muscle to take USB very far by themselves. USB 2.0, however, seems to be Intel's gig.<P>Firewire was not developed by consortium, either. Apple developed it, but since they ran into a brick wall with market acceptance, they dropped their old licensing model and formed a patent pool with a bunch of companies and made a much cheaper licensing model.<BR>
"Apple developed it, but since they ran into a brick wall with market acceptance, they dropped their old licensing model and formed a patent pool with a bunch of companies and made a much cheaper licensing model."<P>Ah, how old age dims the memory.<P>NatSemi did a little work, then Apple did most of the FW development and submitted it to an IEEE committee which made some changes and made it into IEEE 1394. This protocol contained items developed by Apple which they charged a royalty for.<P>IEEE 1394 was adopted by the camcorder companies as a way of connecting digital video to the computer. Apple charged a nominal fee to these people, because acceptance by such a potential market force would hasten its acceptance as the new high-speed interface.<P>It was here that Apple boobed badly. They wanted to charge more to systems builders (read: support chip makers). This would mean that up to 25 percent of the cost of support chips would be for FireWire royalties. Not surprisingly Intel revolted against that decision, especially as Apple was already using USB and would soon be using AGP, both without buying any Intel chipsets.<P>So Intel said they wouldn't implement FW on their chips. That would obviously delay the acceptance of digital video cameras. The camcorder manaufacturers, who had got into bed with Apple with visions of millions of FW-equipped PCs dancing through their heads, basically grabbed Apple, told them to shut up, and announced a much lower rate and a patent pool.<P>It has never been clear what Apple would gain from this - it seems that there weren't many other patents that could be shared. So it must be the camcorder companies strong-arming Apple.<P>Probably the damage has been done. Either Intel will add FW support to their chipsets and quietly shelve USB2, or, more likely, USB2 will become the PC standard and FW will always be an add-on for PCs. FW devices will be fewer and more expensive, just like the relationship between SCSI and IDE.<P>By some quirk of fate, no doubt, all the FW successors to the current version omit any of Apple's patented work. <P>
DoctorGonzo
Ars Tribunus Militum
I hope Intel does just as good a job promoting USB 2 as they did with USB 1. View image: /infopop/emoticons\icon_wink.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR><I>Originally posted by DoctorGonzo:</I><BR>I hope Intel does just as good a job promoting USB 2 as they did with USB 1. View image: /infopop/emoticons\icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>The problem wasn't with Intel. It was with MS's slipstream release of Windows 95 OSR 2. It made labelling boxes nigh-on impossible for vendors of USB peripherals.<P>There was no official upgrade path from orginal Windows 95 to OSR 2 (though it could be done) and OSR 2 was only available as an OEM product (obviously, as the 'O' stands for 'OEM').<P>This left manufacturers incapable of selling USB products -- they couldn't put 'Requires Windows 95' or anything like that, because only certain versions of Windows 95 worked. They couldn't easily specify which version because most users wouldn't know and would get confused.<P>That's why the manufacturers waited, not until the iMac's relase, but Windows 98's release. They could then just slap "Requires Windows 98" on the box and be done with it. A great many devices that "require" Windows 98 will also run on the correct versions of Windows 95.<P>Intel could have promoted USB 'til they were blue in the face -- it wasn't going to change the fact that manufacturers would have huge support headaches (hence, would display a general unwillingness to ship USB products) until MS sorted themselves out.<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR><BR>Our QuickTime streaming video player has this sleek,<BR>brushed-metal look on the screen, <BR>...<BR>Well, a<BR>month ago Bill Gates announced that<BR>Microsoft's next Windows multimedia<BR>player was going to feature a<BR>brushed-metal interface,<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>God, I will fscking commit suicide if every app copied the new QuickTime player's interface. I hate that fscking little thing! I hate how you have to pull that little tray out of its ass to look at your bookmarks. I hate the way the number of ass^H^H^Hbookmarks you can display is limited by the player's screen position. I hate the way you have to use this "thumwheel" widget to controll the fscking volume! I use a fscking mouse dammit, not my fscking thumb!!<P>See http://www.iarchitect.com/mshame.htm for some details.<P>[This message has been edited by craven (edited January 22, 2000).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR><I>Originally posted by resteves:</I><BR>Windows has dialog boxes tied to the window it came from ?<BR>Windows has icons that can change with the window/program it represents?<BR>Windows can use transclucency throrought the OS?<P>ETC.<P><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P><BR>No but enlightenment can! View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <P>[This message has been edited by craven (edited January 22, 2000).]
My, my, my. You PC people are somewhat bitter, aren't you? I am new to this forum and as a Mac user (primarily) you will probably automatically discount anything I have to say. So be it. But to spew venom towards Steve Jobs for doing his job (marketing) is ridiculous. <P>Apple, over the years, has been very innovative but has, of course, incorporated useful and cost saving 'standards' already in place in the computer industry, and vice versa. I really doubt USB would be in as many machines today if it had not been popuarlized by the iMac.<P>And why do you (Windows users) even care about what is happening in the Apple/Macintosh world? Do you see us a some sort of threat? We should be able to say we invented the Computer and you, as a group, should not even hear us...after all we are only ten percent of the market, right? Why do we have so much influence with you? Why do you care? I think it is because you grudgingly have to acknowledge the creative and innovative nature of Apple and Steve Jobs and you don't like that.<P>Is it not human nature to want to believe that decisions/choices we have made are the best ones possible? Many of us spend a lot of time on our computers and as a result we tend to become attached to these machines and their Operating Systems and I for one, who uses both, am quite attached to the MacOS, warts and all. If all you want to do is argue the technical innards of the OS and how one is more modern than another, well that is fine, but I for one, want a totally customizeable interface that I can have work for me just the way I want, and that is what the MacOS gives me.
If you don't like QT use Windows Media Player instead. It's much much better.
"You PC people are somewhat bitter, aren't you?"<P>No.<P>Happy, happy, happy.<P>"I am new to this forum and as a Mac user (primarily) you will probably automatically discount anything I have to say."<P>Hey, I was primarily a Mac user for the three years ending August 1999, so don't mind me either.<P>"But to spew venom towards Steve Jobs for doing his job (marketing) is ridiculous."<P>So is Steve's confusion with marketing and lying.<BR> <BR>"Apple, over the years, has been very innovative but has, of course, incorporated useful and cost saving 'standards' already in place in the computer industry, and vice versa. I really doubt USB would be in as many machines today if it had not been popuarlized by the iMac."<P>And Windows 98, but then compared to the iMac, who uses *that*?<P>"And why do you (Windows users) even care about what is happening in the Apple/Macintosh world? Do you see us a some sort of threat?"<P>Yeah, sort of like survivalists, and people who hear voices in their head.<P>"We should be able to say we invented the Computer and you, as a group, should not even hear us...after all we are only ten percent of the market, right?"<P>Wrong. More like three and half percent.<P>"Why do we have so much influence with you? Why do you care? I think it is because you grudgingly have to acknowledge the creative and innovative nature of Apple and Steve Jobs and you don't like that."<P>QT interface! G4 "performance"! BS by the ton! Monkeys doin' it! Woo Hoo!<P>"Is it not human nature to want to believe that decisions/choices we have made are the best ones possible?"<P>Yes. It moves out of the realms of human nature when you need to set up over 40 web sites devoted to Apple advocacy. I have made quite a few decisions and choices I thought weren't bad, but I don't feel the urge to tell the world about them and denigrate everything else. <P>"Many of us spend a lot of time on our computers and as a result we tend to become attached to these machines and their Operating Systems" <P>I hate my computer. I want it to work flawlessly, and being a computer, it doesn't. I built it, but to be honest I now see building computers as a chore - I guess I needed to build one just to know I could do it, so I built five. It's nice to know I can add bits and not pay vast amounts. As to the OS, it doesn't do everything I want. Like all OSs, it's way way away from perfection.<P>And I like the Mac and the Mac OS even less. How anyone could become attached to any computer makes me wonder for the sanity of mankind.<P>"If all you want to do is argue the technical innards of the OS and how one is more modern than another, well that is fine, but I for one, want a totally customizeable interface that I can have work for me just the way I want, and that is what the MacOS gives me."<P>Good for you. I've used the Mac OS enough to know that it doesn't work for me as well as Windows does. But I (and just about every other PC user) don't go looking for trouble. Remember the first post in this thread? Just one of those Mac users spouting off about how important the Mac is, and how all the rest of the industry is following Apple. That's what starts off so many of these threads.<P>
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Windows has dialog boxes tied to the window it came from ?<BR>Windows has icons that can change with the window/program it represents?<BR>Windows can use transclucency throrought the OS?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>The first one? Potentially. It would mean sacrificing the common dialogue box, but it's possible. It might be possible even with the common dialogue box and hooking something or other. I don't know. But it's certainly possible if you have a custom box.<P>The second one? Yes, since Windows 3.x.<P>The third one? Yes, GDI+ in Windows 2000. Or WindowBlinds (to an extent) in Windows 9x/NT.
Happy_Aardvark
Ars Tribunus Militum
LOL...Media Player better??????? Now that is something I rarely hear. PeterB you are the Win zealot of the year, anything that company puts out you will scream and yell about, praising them. Mediaplayer might be fine for you shit quality stuff, but give me QT over MP any day for quality.<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And why do you (Windows users) even care about what is happening in the Apple/Macintosh world? Do you see us a some sort of threat? We should be able to say we invented the Computer and you, as a group, should not even hear us...after all we are only ten percent of the market, right? Why do we have so much influence with you? Why do you care? I think it is because you grudgingly have to acknowledge the creative and innovative nature of Apple and Steve Jobs and you don't like that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>The question that never seems to get answered is: "What creative and innovative things have Apple done lately?" Since you Mac zealots can't seem to answer it, I'll give my own answer: Pretty Cases. Is the iMac innovative, other than the pretty case? What, besides the pretty case is so innovative about the G4 systems. What, other than a pretty case, can you get for a Mac that I can't get cheaper with more choices for a Wintel box? <P>Think different, as long as different is exactly what High Priest Steve says it is.<P>
Happy_Aardvark: I have QT installed, so I have access to the QT codecs. But I use the interface of WMP, because it's much much better.<P>I'm sure the QT codecs are wonderful (but they're fucking awful at streaming, tho' apparently QT 4.1 is better in that resepct), but I hate the QT interface and so don't use it.
Laner@Home
Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR><I>Originally posted by resteves:</I><P>But you doubted they would want to copy the iMac, and they did that. I bet you were one of the people that said the iMac and iBook would flop.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Now *there's* an informed response. How the hell would you know what I thought about the iMac? Last time I checked I wasn't registered at Ars Open Forum until mid/late 99.<P>[This message has been edited by Laner@Home (edited January 22, 2000).]
Laner@Home
Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR><I>Originally posted by craven:</I><BR> God, I will fscking commit suicide if every app copied the new QuickTime player's interface. I hate that fscking little thing! I hate how you have to pull that little tray out of its ass to look at your bookmarks. I hate the way the number of ass^H^H^Hbookmarks you can display is limited by the player's screen position. I hate the way you have to use this "thumwheel" widget to controll the fscking volume! I use a fscking mouse dammit, not my fscking thumb!!<P><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>That's a good point - I seem to remember all the Macheads ranting about how Quicktime 4 broke their "elegant" interface standards... yet when Jobs says it's a 'good thing', the disciples fall in line. RDF, indeed.<BR><P>[This message has been edited by Laner@Home (edited January 22, 2000).]
QT4 did not break any interface standards. The QT4 <I>player</I> did. They're really two separate things that just happen to be bundled. There's no reason (on the Mac, at least) you can't go on using the QT player from QT3. That's kind of the point of QT: apps don't have to be rewritten every time a new version of QT comes out. For example, Office 98 could suddenly play Flash movies inside documents when QT4 was released. Again, YMMV on Windows.<P>The only caveat here is that I'm not sure if older QT players can deal with streaming, since there probably isn't any place to enter a URL. If you had a QT streaming redirect file containing SMIL data or a URL and dragged it onto an old QT player, it might still work though.
John, it works the exact same on Windows. That's why I suggested using WMP (which at least has an unobtrusive interface) instead of QT player, only to receive abuse from Happy_Aardvark.<P>The confusion between QT and QT Player is understandable, as the codecs don't appear to be separately downloadable, and installing the Player+codecs associates those kind of files with the player, IIRC.
Laner@Home
Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR><I>Originally posted by John:</I><BR>QT4 did not break any interface standards. The QT4 <I>player</I> did. They're really two separate things that just happen to be bundled. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Yes, I'm aware of that. You (and everyone else) know what I meant - we're talking about the player interface.<P>
So, someone here knows how to make Windows Media PLayer use the Apple codecs to play QT4 movies?<P>Please, clue me in - cuz I never got it to work.
Uh, install QT4, install WMP, go to the WMP options screen and set it such that it's associated with QT files (not essential, but it means that they'll default to WMP instead of QT) and that's about it.
Overclocking Geekboy
Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
So this is the sermon of the iGod to his followers <BR>about the evils of the PC world. View image: http://forum.arstechnica.com/forum/ubb/rolleyes.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"I don't want to toot our own horn too much, because it sounds arrogant,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>"So I'll just toot our own horn, because frankly, I'm a fuck".<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>but the rest of the industry is trying to copy our every move again, just like in the '80s," says Jobs. "Every PC manufacturer is trying to copy the iMac in one way or another.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>"One way of another" == producing AIO computers that look nothing like the iMac and are fast, cheap, and (relatively) expandable, just like PC manufacturers have done for many years? Very few manufacturers have tried to make blatant rip-offs of the iMac. Most PC manufacturers have done something a little better. And there were plenty of coloured, plenty of AIO, PCs available before the iMac anyway.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And you can bet they'll be cloning iBook next year.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Really? They'll have tiny screens, an oversized case, and crap performance, at a high price? Why would they do that? They wouldn't sell any. They might make coloured laptops -- oh, but they already do, and did far before the iBook was released.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The same goes for our software. Our QuickTime streaming video player has this sleek, brushed-metal look on the screen,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>"Sleek" == "universally detested, difficult to use, ugly"? I would imagine that MS will retain a degree of functionality in their interface. Isn't it a little presumptuous to assume that QT is the 'father' of 'brused metal' interfaces? They're nothing new, nothing special, nothing important. And at least ASF files can stream worth a damn.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>and our iMovie digital video editing software on the new iMacs lets you make your home movies actually viewable. Well, a month ago Bill Gates announced that Microsoft's next Windows multimedia player was going to feature a brushed-metal interface, and that they're coming out with Windows Movie Maker. So now we've got Microsoft copying us again too.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Copying you? No. If WMP has a non-standard interface, that's just like Winamp, that's just like Sonique, that's just like practically every media playing program I've ever used. It's like MS's Deluxe CD player. It's nothing new, and certainly not anything that Apple started.<BR>MS are making a video editor? Wow. Are Apple the only company who makes video editors? No, I don't believe that they are. Nor were they the first company to make video editors. So, MS are copying Adobe and everyone else who makes such software. Not Apple.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And I don't mind. I don't mind."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>"... since every one of our 'innovative' ideas has been ripped off someone else.".<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Jobs, as usual, has a vivid metaphor ready to explain why Apple geeks will be able to improve OS X faster than Microsoft geeks can improve Windows:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Vivid... and completely meaningless.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"Think of Windows and our older Mac OS's as houses built with two-by-fours. You can build that kind of house only so high before it collapses from its own weight. So as you start to build it higher, you<BR>have to spend 90% of your time going back down to shore up the lower floors<BR>with more two-by-fours before you can go on to build the next floor. That leaves you with only 10% of your engineering budget to spend on actually<BR>innovating--it's why new versions of Windows always come out way late.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> View image: http://forum.arstechnica.com/forum/ubb/rolleyes.gif And what evidence do you have for this assertion? Or are you just saying it because it sounds cool.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>On the other hand, OS X is like a software space frame made out of titanium. It is so strong and light and well designed that it lets us spend all of our resources innovating, not reinforcing the foundations."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>This is just complete bullshit. It's marketing bollocks, but he's trying to use it to demonstrate technical superiority. That's crap. Do people get taken in by this kind of thing?
<BR> "<I>This is just complete bullshit. It's marketing bollocks, but he's trying to use it to demonstrate technical superiority. That's crap. Do people get taken in by this kind of thing?</I>"<P> This is a rhetorical question, right?<BR>
Steve Jobs is a very good sales man and he knows the industry. He is also a very good business leader with visions and creativity. <P>Steven Jobs is becoming a valuable trademark as the Father of Personal Computers, and he is doing a great job building Apples. <P>People like Apple and hates Microsoft. Bill Gates was very smart and lucky and when You fu-k too many people too many times, they fu-k you too and now the US Government wants to fu-k him too.<P>Mac OS X is hopefully very good and to be really succesfull it should run on any plattform configuration and every application, but it does not and until then Apple has to sell what it has to as many as possible to expand its market.<P>
"The big deal with Apple is not that is does what no one else does/can, but rather that it makes it easier."<P>Well said. <P>That is the core in the Apple concept and You see that in booth hardware and software and Internet services. iTool is a good example of this, simple up and downloading files to the Internet is one feature, it is every were on the net, but Apple makes it easier to use. <P>There is certainly a need for easy to use and reliable computersystem.<P>
Laner@Home
Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR><I>Originally posted by POP66:</I><P>There is certainly a need for easy to use and reliable computersystem.<P><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>There certainly is. My win98 system is both easy to use and reliable.<P>
"Steve Jobs is a very good sales man and he knows the industry. He is also a very good business leader with visions and creativity. <BR>Steven Jobs is becoming a valuable trademark as the Father of Personal Computers, and he is doing a great job building Apples."<P>So *that's* where I've seen you before - that bulge in the back of Steve's pants. <P>"People like Apple and hates Microsoft."<P>People hates (sic) Microsoft so much they buy 25 Windows OSs to every one of Apple's.<P>"Bill Gates was very smart and lucky and when You fu-k too many people too many times, they fu-k you too and now the US Government wants to fu-k him too."<P>It's spelled "fuck," actually. Think about the Mac clone manufacturers, the people who ordered G4/500s and then got downgraded, or the people who tried to build a business plan around Rhapsody or OS X appearing on time - don't you think they want to be able to "fu-k" Steve Jobs?<P>
- Status
- Not open for further replies.