Apple's "New" GUI  

725 members have voted

  1. 1. Yay or Nay?

    • Kicks Ass!
      294
    • Meh, Who Cares?
      249
    • Utter Piece of Garbage
      182


Recommended Posts

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.

thats why we have scalable interfaces :rolleyes:

Why do people say that the menu bar looks exactly like Vista?? Because it is transparent??

untitled1vl5.png

They look pretty different to me...

From the image you compared...

You are comparing Mac os x leopard with Vista beta screenshot...In Vista RTM the taskbar has little more transparency & the IE icons changed!

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)

Apple has a pretty good relationship with Adobe so it's likely that most mayor CS3 standards are supported. PDF and PSD for sure.

I'm happy with it.... they refined OS X and added a some much needed features....

Still oozes sexy. ;) Clean, simple look that Apple is known for.

I mean not even Vista's team thought of adding virtual desktops to their OS. I guess that will come in a Service Pack or Powertoy.

Its already available by lots of 3rd party softwares (Even in XP) :-)

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.

regardless of screen resolution and desktop size, the Apple menu bar is still very "Fittzy". according to Fittz's Law of UI Design, the corners and screen edges are the fastest accessible points on the screen because the user can simply 'throw' the mouse and hit their targets. that's why the Apple menu is in the top-left corner and the Application Switcher was in the top-right corner, and even the Start button is in a corner (and also why you can pretty much click in that little 1px space and get the Start Menu to come up; it's just Fittzy!).

it's pretty much the same reason why they don't put application switchers (taskbars, Dock, TaskShelf) in the centre of the screen, even though (according to Fittz's law) the current cursor position is always the fastest point accessible (which is why contextual menus are so popular; beats running to the top of the screen any day).

also, does anyone else remember during the original Public Preview (when they moved the Apple menu back to the leftmost position), there was an option to show the application's icon rather than the full name in the menu bar? i thought it was a super smart move and would've gone a long way to making the position of menu items predictable (which i think is also covered in the 'Fittz manual'). i miss this. a lot. seriously.

Edited by ikyouCrow
Yeah. Apple, unlike Microsoft, has the luxury of being able to implement (decent) built-in things withouit getting sued...

I seriously doubt Microsoft will get (successfully) sued over a build-in Virtual Desktop manager tight into Explorer or whatever service.

I seriously doubt Microsoft will get (successfully) sued over a build-in Virtual Desktop manager tight into Explorer or whatever service.

They have been sued over there IM client inside Windows (OSX has iChat) They have been sued over WMP (OSX has Quicktime/iTunes) And now they are being sued by Google over built in Desktop Search (OSX has Spotlight). It is entirely possible for them to be sued over a built in Virtual Desktop manager.

Im just saying that the itunes file structure and interface are garbage, i never have liked them and never will. It is a huge hassle to get songs on my shuffle. I infact have uninstalled itunes and now use vPod a freeware software. WHY couldnt apple make a normal mp3 player, why did it have to be complicated, why cant i simply open my ipod as if it were a jump drive and delete the songs i dont want and drag and drop the songs i do want.

Apple moving the itunes interface to the core os is a bad decision in my opinion.

Im just saying that the itunes file structure and interface are garbage, i never have liked them and never will. It is a huge hassle to get songs on my shuffle. I infact have uninstalled itunes and now use vPod a freeware software. WHY couldnt apple make a normal mp3 player, why did it have to be complicated, why cant i simply open my ipod as if it were a jump drive and delete the songs i dont want and drag and drop the songs i do want.

Apple moving the itunes interface to the core os is a bad decision in my opinion.

iTunes on windows is quite horrid--slow and laggy compared to OS X.

From the image you compared...

You are comparing Mac os x leopard with Vista beta screenshot...In Vista RTM the taskbar has little more transparency & the IE icons changed!

which Vista Beta are you talking about?

whether it is a beta version or the latest one, those two bars are way too different buddy.

I never liked the brushed metal look, and since this is basically it (without the brushed metal, lol :p), I don't really like it either.

It might appeal to the minimalists though, because this UI barely has any personality left IMHO. All flat grey panels and buttons, and the rest is mostly the traditional Aqua style, which conflicts harshly with the new theme IMHO. Like scroll bars and column views. What's with the blue heavy emphasized jelly when the rest of the UI is flat and grey? Maybe it's to spice it up, but it looks like a relic from a theme they introduced in 2001.

Edited by Jugalator

I'm looking forward to some of the new features not mentionned (in the Keynote, I think ... didn't watch) like Automator 2.0 and new widget system. I was really looking forward to a new finder. Not revolutionary. Pathfinder 4 just sucks though - clunky and slow. I should be able to run a Finder equivalent on my G5 without my system bogging down. Which leads me to wonder how fast the Covertunes type interface in the new Finder will run - the iTunes one is slow on my machine.

I think just "looking" at the new interface doesn't do much. Nor seeing someone else use it. I thinnk we'll each have to try it out. We all have our own habits and modes of use. I found using Tiger, I was more impressed with OS X after trying it out for 6 weeks then demoing in a store. Glad I 'switched' two years ago. I'm hoping for more features in Leopard though.

I'm disappointed about the "Top secret feautres"... was it plural because there were only 2 or 3; or less then 10? Were these features really worth keeping out of the developer builds to stop Microsoft? Didn't see anything shattering. I'm thinking it was a way to get attention and it will bite Apple's behind as it has as of late if they keep doing this. See how many positive:negative comments there are on the MacRumors site right now. ;)

I want the new systems.... Mac mini-tower! (not mini) Please!!!

Im just saying that the itunes file structure and interface are garbage, i never have liked them and never will. It is a huge hassle to get songs on my shuffle.

But that is NOT what you said earlier, you said that adding songs to iTunes was difficult (to paraphrase you). I just pointed out that you were wrong about that.

But that is NOT what you said earlier, you said that adding songs to iTunes was difficult (to paraphrase you). I just pointed out that you were wrong about that.

The problem with iTunes is that it doesn't monitor folders. That's just dumb! (Usual IMO applies)

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Dude, im talking about simply disable it from settings app. Because of the eu regulation, you could disable it here for years.
    • One big question about Mars was answered thanks to Einstein's 100 year old theory by Sayan Sen Image via DepositPhotos Scientists at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have calculated how time passes on Mars compared with Earth, adding detail to how timekeeping would need to work beyond Earth’s orbit. The study, published in The Astronomical Journal, found that clocks on Mars run an average of 477 microseconds, or millionths of a second, faster per day than clocks on Earth. A microsecond is one millionth of a second, a very small unit used in precise scientific timing systems such as atomic clocks, which measure time using consistent atomic behavior. This difference is not constant. Because Mars moves around the Sun in a non-circular path (an eccentric orbit, meaning its distance from the Sun changes over time instead of staying fixed) and is affected by gravity from other bodies, the daily difference can vary by as much as 226 microseconds over a Martian year. The study also identifies smaller repeating changes of about 40 microseconds per day linked to synodic cycles (repeating periods that describe how planets line up with each other as they orbit the Sun from different positions). These longer patterns affect how time differences slowly rise and fall. To make these estimates, researchers compared Mars with Earth and the Moon. The work looks at relativistic proper time (the time actually measured by a clock depending on its speed and the strength of gravity where it is located, as described in Einstein’s relativity). This shows that each world has its own slightly different “rate” of time. This becomes more important as space missions expand into cislunar space (the region between Earth and the Moon) and toward Mars. On Earth, time systems rely on atomic clocks and satellites, which stay closely synchronized for navigation and communication. The study is based on Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, which shows that time is affected by gravity and motion. Stronger gravity makes clocks run slower, while weaker gravity makes them run faster. “The time is just right for the Moon and Mars,” said NIST physicist Bijunath Patla. “This is the closest we have been to realizing the science fiction vision of expanding across the solar system.” A day on Mars is about 40 minutes longer than on Earth, and a Martian year lasts 687 Earth days. But the main question is not just about days and years, but how fast time itself passes. An atomic clock placed on Mars would function normally, but compared with one on Earth, the two would slowly drift apart due to differences in gravity and motion. This requires careful calculation of what is similar to a time-zone difference across planets. Researchers modeled Mars using a reference surface and included gravitational effects from the Sun, Earth, the Moon, and other planets. This includes a multi-body gravitational system (often described as a three-body or four-body problem, where predicting motion becomes difficult because multiple large objects all pull on each other at the same time through gravity). Mars also follows a Keplerian orbit (an idealized elliptical orbit based on simple gravitational laws that assume smooth motion, before adding real-world disturbances from other bodies). In addition, the researchers accounted for solar tides (small changes in gravitational force caused by the Sun that slightly distort planetary motion and timing, especially in systems involving Earth and the Moon). These combined effects are described as relativistic proper-time offsets (small but measurable differences in elapsed time between locations caused by gravity and motion), which must be included when comparing clocks across planets. “But for Mars, that’s not the case. Its distance from the Sun and its eccentric orbit make the variations in time larger. A three-body problem is extremely complicated. Now we’re dealing with four: the Sun, Earth, the Moon and Mars,” Patla explained. “The heavy lifting was more challenging than I initially thought.” Although the differences are extremely small, they matter for navigation and communication systems that depend on precise timing. Even modern networks on Earth, such as mobile systems, rely on timing accuracy at very small fractions of a second. Communication between Earth and Mars currently takes about four to 24 minutes or more depending on planetary positions, meaning signals are not real-time. A shared and accurate time system could help future missions reduce confusion in navigation and data exchange. “If you get synchronization, it will be almost like real-time communication without any loss of information. You don’t have to wait to see what happens,” Patla said. Researchers note that fully developed interplanetary communication networks are still far in the future. However, understanding how time behaves across planets helps prepare for those systems. “It may be decades before the surface of Mars is covered by the tracks of wandering rovers, but it is useful now to study the issues involved in establishing navigation systems on other planets and moons,” said Neil Ashby. “Like current global navigation systems like GPS, these systems will depend on accurate clocks, and the effects on clock rates can be analyzed with the help of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” Patla added that the results also help improve understanding of time itself under relativity. “It's good to know for the first time what is happening on Mars timewise. Nobody knew that before. It improves our knowledge of the theory itself, the theory of how clocks tick and relativity,” he said. Source: NIST, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 by Razvan Serea TeraCopy is a compact program designed to copy and move files at the maximum possible speed, also providing you with a lot of features. Copy files faster. TeraCopy uses dynamically adjusted buffers to reduce seek times. Asynchronous copy speeds up file transfer between two physical hard drives. Pause and resume transfers. Pause copy process at any time to free up system resources and continue with a single click. Error recovery. In case of copy error, TeraCopy will try several times and in the worse case just skips the file, not terminating the entire transfer. Interactive file list. TeraCopy shows failed file transfers and lets you fix the problem and recopy only problem files. Shell integration. TeraCopy can completely replace Explorer copy and move functions, allowing you work with files as usual. TeraCopy is free for non-commercial use only. For commercial use you need to buy a license. The paid version of the program includes the following features: Copy/move to your favorite folders. Save reports as HTML and CSV files. Select files with the same extension/folder. Remove the selected files from the copy queue. TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 changelog: Added support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. Improved exception handling and automated bug report upload. Fixed several minor bugs and small memory leaks. Build 26 (June 24) Fixed a rare exception when a transfer completed. Features added since version 3.17: Enhanced speed graph. New multi-threaded copy engine. Support for copying to multiple targets. Queue system for managing multiple copy operations. Support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. TeraCopy entry in the modern Windows Explorer context menu. Integrated toolbar in the title bar. Why receive LocalSend transfers with TeraCopy? Handle file conflicts: Skip, overwrite, or rename files when a file with the same name already exists. LocalSend always creates another copy, which can waste time and disk space, especially when resuming an interrupted transfer. Filter unwanted files: Apply ignore lists or remove files manually before accepting a transfer, so unnecessary files are not downloaded. Better performance on fast networks: In tests over a 10 Gbps connection, TeraCopy received files several times faster than the standard LocalSend app on Windows. Download: TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 | 14.5 MB (Freeware, paid upgrade available) View: TeraCopy Website | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Briefly used Turbo Pascal (and Turbo C++) in 97 and soon after that I bought PC magazine that included a full version of Delphi 2. I still use Delphi today, some 29 years later.
    • Age of Empires Mobile comes to PC, here's how to carry over progress from your phone by Ivan Jenic Image: YouTube/Microsoft Microsoft just released Age of Empires Mobile for PC. The game, officially called Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, is available for free on Steam and Microsoft Store, almost two years after its initial release for handheld devices. Age of Empires is one of those franchises that entire generations grew up with. The original came out in 1997, and immediately got people hooked to building civilizations and crushing their enemies on the battlefield. However, the franchise today is a far cry from its roots, as Age of Empires Mobile is, well, a game optimized for handheld devices, and not a classic RTS title we’ve all loved for years. And, of course, it includes in-game purchases. The PC version is still a mobile game at its core, but it’s been optimized for desktop play. There’s mouse control, full keyboard compatibility, and a refined UI. Microsoft also refreshed the visuals with some 4k textures, so the game should look better on larger screens. The game supports Crossplay, so you can switch between your phone, tablet, and PC without losing anything. But linked progress doesn’t come out of the box, as you have to enable it first. Here’s how to link your progress: On your mobile device, open Age of Empires Mobile. Go to Settings (Gear icon) > Account. Select Bind Account and choose a sign-in option. Once you enable account binding, sign in on PC using the same method, and your progress will be accessible across all your devices. Xbox Game Pass subscribers also get a bonus reward pack on PC, which includes: 1 Monthly Pass Token 1 Custom Resource Chest 10 Universal 60-Minute Speed-Ups 1,000 Empire Coins Exclusive Player Portrait Frame You can find more info about Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, as well as download links, on the Age of Empires official website.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Rookie
      +ChiefOfNeo went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      459
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      79
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!