Apple's "New" GUI

[neufuse Veteran]

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:

[guruparan]

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

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!

[.Neo]

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.

[guruparan]

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) :-)

[.Neo]

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

Same story on Mac OS X. But nothing beats it when Apple implements a build-in version.

[Argote]

Same story on Mac OS X. But nothing beats it when Apple implements a build-in version.

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

[acies]

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!

True, but they're still quite different.

[.exo.]

nevermind.

Edited June 13, 2007 by EXO242

[ikyouCrow]

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 June 13, 2007 by ikyouCrow

[ikyouCrow]

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

rofl :laugh:

[.Neo]

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.

[Vice]

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.

[micro]

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.

[giga Veteran]

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.

[Jazket]

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.

[ccuk]

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 think what guruparan was referring to is the fact that apple made their Menu bar transparent like the taskbar in Vista...

[Malisk]

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 June 13, 2007 by Jugalator

[RadishTM Veteran]

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

It's actually quite fast and nippy on my PC, don't speak for everyone (Y)

Radish?

[Rob2687]

The only thing slow about iTunes on Windows is the resizing.

[DrunkenMaster]

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!!!

[giga Veteran]

It's actually quite fast and nippy on my PC, don't speak for everyon(Y)Y)

Radish?

Library size?

[RadishTM Veteran]

Library size?

Just over 8GB.

Radish?

[Southern Patriot]

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.

[giga Veteran]

Just over 8GB.

Radish?

It gets unbearable at 60:p. :p (for me at least, foobar <3)

(dandy on Tiger though)

[BajiRav]

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)