Apple's "New" GUI

[osirisX]

This have just made my day

Quick view and cover flow is officially useful (assuming the right plug in from say -cough adobe cough- comes in)

I for one welcome our .INDD Quick Look plugin overlords!

[LTD]

Perhaps you need to read up on Fitts' Law. From a usability standpoint, having the menus in a fixed location is a GOOD THING , especially when those menus are at the edge of the screen. The Dock also adheres to Fitts Law so long as you turn off magnification.

http://www.xvsxp.com/interface/fittslaw.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitts_law#Suc...of_Fitts.27_law

Excellent point, Road. Absolutely correct.

[osirisX]

For all of you bitching about the transparent menubar go and download Menushade now and try out the transparency. After using it for more than a minute you realise why Apple did it. On the right wallpaper it makes it fade-in and puts much more focus on the app windows. I imagine the 3D Dock has much the same effect.

Menushade has a nice effect where you can make the menubar become more opaque as you rollover it, I hope the Leopard menubar has that.

Note: Fitt's Law does NOT work with large screens and multi-monitors. Why? Because the distance the mouse has to travel becomes larger.

[Southern Patriot]

Note: Fitt's Law does NOT work with large screens and multi-monitors. Why? Because the distance the mouse has to travel becomes larger.

Fitts' Law applies no matter how large the monitor is. The point of putting the menu bar at the edge of the screen is that it becomes an infinitely large target (in other words, if you quickly move your mouse in that direction, you can't help but hit it). If the menu bar is attached to a window (as in Windows or most Linux desktops), then you have to be more accurate with where you move your mouse. In fact, at higher resolutions, having the menu bar in a fixed location that cannot be missed is MORE important because the menu bars on windows become smaller at higher resolutions, making them smaller targets.

[Stetson]

It's just that it seems detached from the application. To a first-time user, it would seem more like a system menu than the menu for the current application. At least now in Leopard the active window is more prominent so that part is more obvious. As for menus being smaller, isn't Leopard supposed to have a resolution independent UI so that controls are the same physical size despite the screen resolution?

I'm not being anti-apple, just noting that they seem to have made the menubar - one of OSX's main UI differences when compared to linux/windows - so much less prominent that there might be a greater strategy behind it.

Edited June 13, 2007 by Stetson

[Xtreme $niper]

Not that I don't care, but it is neither kick ass nor is it terrible... I just think it's "meh". I was hoping for something bigger and better.

[.exo.]

I think it's great!

I especially like the translucent taskbar. Now I won't have to use MenuShade.

The dock looks much better too. I think the whole way the system functions via core-animation looks slick, but I still wonder how much system resources these new features will consume...

Overall very nice imho.

[sevastopol]

its nicer than vista, so i like it

[trek]

I think the new look is "meh". Probably because I can't say I like the look of iTunes. Anyone know how well Leopard will run on my aging G4 iMac? Perhaps its time to invest in a new C2D model...

[Jazket]

Damn... Vista made OS X Tiger look old.... and now Leopard makes Vista look old too.... Damn...

:shiftyninja:

[BajiRav]

Fitts' Law applies no matter how large the monitor is. The point of putting the menu bar at the edge of the screen is that it becomes an infinitely large target (in other words, if you quickly move your mouse in that direction, you can't help but hit it). If the menu bar is attached to a window (as in Windows or most Linux desktops), then you have to be more accurate with where you move your mouse. In fact, at higher resolutions, having the menu bar in a fixed location that cannot be missed is MORE important because the menu bars on windows become smaller at higher resolutions, making them smaller targets.

I understand your point (and Fitt's law) but I seriously believe it doesn't "fit" well on high resolution displays (not only "big" displays). The time spent travelling say 1000 pixels can be easily used to locate a finite target.

[micro]

the iTunes interface is HORRIBLE and now that they have incorporated it into the os, it makes me want to puke.

[cosine]

its nicer than vista, so i like it

This is like saying you have no problem eating anchovies because hey, it tastes better than a turd.

[Matt Jay]

What exactly is so good about it? I dunno feels like the same thing as Tiger just a very minor change.

I know. I'm a Windows User, but then sometimes I get this moment where I love Apple, it happens with everything, of course then it goes away, but anyway, I thought they were making this huge new thing, I thought it was going to look like the iPhone's UI. I thought that they would have the iPhone have the same UI as Leopard because if they didn't and it was the tiger UI just like the iPod, then when Leopard comes out, the UI on the iPhone would be outdated and they would probably have to update it 4 months after it came out. But since the iPhone has it's very own UI and Leopard has it's UI, they are both new. But still, I wish Leopard had used the iPhone's UI, black, glossy, and transparent. But no they kept Aqua, they could've removed the menu bar if they made it that ugly, because now it uses the same type of transparency as Linux, no special effects like blur or anything, just normal transparency, nothing like glass. Oh well, maybe 10.6 will have a significant improvement from now specifically about the desktop and the UI.

[.exo.]

the iTunes interface is HORRIBLE and now that they have incorporated it into the os, it makes me want to puke.

I never thought the interface was bad at all. I just STRONGLY dislike the way iTunes organizes the actual iTunes files [the files in your music folder - not in the iTunes app itself]. Very sloppy / disorganized. That's why I still use Winamp on the PC. Each Album gets its own folder in which the albums' artwork and playlists go. Clean and simple. It's also easier to get around when you have to use a "non-apple/iPod" device to transfer media to. I have a mac mini that I rarely use. I didn't think integrating it into the OS was so bad. I just wish the way it manages files was cleaner. I feel the same about iPhoto too. For a company that thrives on simplicity, they sure make a sloppy mess with apps organizing actual files. :/ just my opinion though....

[Southern Patriot]

I never thought the interface was bad at all. I just STRONGLY dislike the way iTunes organizes the actual iTunes files [the files in your music folder - not in the iTunes app itself]. Very sloppy / disorganized. That's why I still use Winamp on the PC. Each Album gets its own folder in which the albums' artwork and playlists go. Clean and simple.

This is disorganized? Each artist gets a folder, with subfolders for each album, how is that so different from what you just described?

[micro]

itunes is the biggest joke ever, you have no idea how Infuriating it is to try to add music onto it, couldnt you SIMPLY just add single mp3's on, NO you have to put them into a special folder and all sorts of gay things happen, why couldnt you simply drag and drop.

[Southern Patriot]

itunes is the biggest joke ever, you have no idea how Infuriating it is to try to add music onto it, couldnt you SIMPLY just add single mp3's on, NO you have to put them into a special folder and all sorts of gay things happen, why couldnt you simply drag and drop.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. In the OS X version, File -> Add to Library and select the file or folder you want to add to the library. In the Windows version there are separate "Add to Library" commands for single files or for folders, but the concept is the same. Depending on your settings in iTunes' preferences, the file is either copied to the iTunes Music folder or left where it is.

[.exo.]

This is disorganized? Each artist gets a folder, with subfolders for each album, how is that so different from what you just described?

Mainly with compilations / mixed CDs, of which I own a lot of. It tends to drop files in artist folders rather than a folder for the album. It would also be nice if/when downloading album artwork, the app would drop the image file/s directly in the artist\album folder. I don't hate iTunes, I just think the way it organizes the actual files could be a bit more neat/tidy. I may switch back at some point, but for now I'm happy with what I'm currently using. I've always thought that Apple makes great products. I just thought I'd post what I would like to see improved in some of their apps.

Edited June 13, 2007 by EXO242

[SolidSapphire]

I think that it is okay, I'm not amazed by it like i was when i saw Vista but it still is innovative.

[Southern Patriot]

Mainly with compilations / mixed CDs, of which I own a lot of. It tends to drop files in artist folders rather than a folder for the album. It would also be nice if/when downloading album artwork, the app would drop the image file/s directly in the artist\album folder. I don't hate iTunes, I just think the way it organizes could be a bit more neat/tidy.

OK, I can see how it would be a little annoying if you have mostly compilations. However, in my mind, keeping the artwork separate from the music is actually MORE neat and tidy than lumping them all in the same folder.

[reactionary007]

I stopped by the Apple store and used a Tiger machine while there. I can see why they are making the changes that they are in Panther. After using Vista for awhile now - Tiger does seem slightly dated. Not as bad as XP - but Vista seems a step forward from Tiger.

[Southern Patriot]

I stopped by the Apple store and used a Tiger machine while there. I can see why they are making the changes that they are in Panther. After using Vista for awhile now - Tiger does seem slightly dated. Not as bad as XP - but Vista seems a step forward from Tiger.

Panther was 10.3, I think you mean Leopard, which is 10.5.

[devish]

Panther was 10.3, I think you mean Leopard, which is 10.5.

I think he meant what he meant. I'm not so sure Apple Stores have Leopard beta running on the demo machine as i's a "developer preview" version

[Southern Patriot]

I think he meant what he meant. I'm not so sure Apple Stores have Leopard beta running on the demo machine as i's a "developer preview" version

I think your reading comprehension is a little off today. He said he used Tiger in the store.