ritsuke Veteran Posted June 12, 2007 Veteran Share Posted June 12, 2007 call me crazy, but i honestly find searching (on the Start Menu at least) for an application and launching it from the results list to be a lot more convenient than hunting down all the apps. i think i'll ever need and then building a stack for them. I also find it more convenient to use opt-space (Quicksilver) and alt-space (Spotlight), but I'm glad Vista has that feature (native), now, as well. Stacks will be really useful for people who use a lot of shared assets and design templates. It will also be very useful for many of us designer's who work in a more chaotic manner. Kinda bunch things together, on a project, then organize, later. It really further drives the idea of the Desktop. I'd rather work surrounded by semi-organized stacks of paper than out of a well-organized file cabinet, which is the metaphor they are going after. Done? Off to the file cabinet. I know many don't see it, but I think it's really a good-minded effort to help with productivity. But, I can see a lot of people who will never use this feature; Especially if they hadn't included the 'Downloads' stack. Though, I think it's a very welcome feature, IMO. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suspiria Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 I was pretty surprised that the scrollbars, buttons, pop-up menus, etc. from iTunes 7 aren't default in Leopard. Why have those UI elements in iTunes (and only iTunes) if it's nowhere else on the system? I love the way iTunes 7 looks, so I'm personally glad to see it throughout the OS. But why not get rid of the old Aqua buttons and such? They're old fashioned nowadays. Though, this seems like one of those minor changes that could easily be made before it ships. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikyouCrow Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 You honestly mean to tell me that a bunch of UI designers from Apple, a multi-billion dollar company, sat down, and the best they could come up with was a transparent menubar and some copy/pasted iTunes 7 resources? Agreed. perhaps i should have elaborated somewhat... the whole UI looks kinda disjointed, maybe it's just me. okay, so they've fallen in love with reflections, but only applied it to a construct you stare at all the time (Dock) and one you'll almost never look at ('coverflow-view in Finder). it really does feel like they copy-pasted the iTunes resource into Finder "just because they could" and not really to add any useful functionality or apparent blending with the rest of the UI. the coverflow scrollbar and standard scrollbars everywhere else in the UI don't match. i've had this gripe with iTunes since Apple bought CoverFlow, but since i don't use iTunes, i don't really care. i just figured for a company that appears to be pretty anal about conforming to UI standards and complimentary controls that this wouldn't have gotten as far as it did. also slightly hypocritical that people bag on Vista for different toolbar backgrounds when this one has been running a muck for as long as it has. it really does look like a gimmick slapped on at the last second. did the menu bar really need to be that transparent? unlike the Vista transparency that was "just for fun", this is transparency with no afterthought. what happens if the user chooses a wallpaper with just the wrong contrast? the text with nothing behind it to make it visible will probably get drowned out by whatever that wallpaper turns out to be. this also looks gimmicky. no more rounded corners? was this done for function or just to differentiate from Vista? not really a big impact change but what ever for? and what's the reasoning behind making the shadows so grossly large? they don't seem to represent z-order anymore; back in Panther, the topmost window had the largest spread on its shadow and the lower a window got in z-order, the smaller the spread was. now there only seems to be two levels of spread (sounds like pr0n :p). it feels like they just did this to create the illusion of the UI being 3D driven (when it really isn't). might be just me but doesn't finder look a hell of a lot more cluttered with all the stuff on the Sidebar now? i hope that's not the default configuration. if it is, why do i need all of that front and centre? it looks very Vista Beta 1 and i suspect most of those links will disappear before launch (as it did with Vista eventually). in all, it looks like they're trying to change the UI completely (making 'metal' windows standard brush) but don't want to let go of the old UI (Aqua bubbles EVAREEWARE). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southern Patriot Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 it feels like they just did this to create the illusion of the UI being 3D driven (when it really isn't). Huh? The UI in OS X has been 3D driven for quite some time now. Read up on Quartz Extreme a little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikyouCrow Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 (edited) Huh? The UI in OS X has been 3D driven for quite some time now. Read up on Quartz Extreme a little. dude, you can't have a 3D based application in a 3D based window in a 3D based environment, can you? for that to happen, all of the above would have to be treated as common geometry in the same scene. look at the demo for Spaces on the website. and Quartz Extreme is hardware based video acceleration. it doesn't say that the UI and associated objects are drawn in 3D. 3D driven and hardware accelerated are two different things. Edited June 12, 2007 by ikyouCrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattmatik Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Oh well, there's nothing wrong with a little UNO for Leopard. I'll upgrade for everything else, forget the UI. I'm not really sold on the iTunes 7 look but I do love how the system will have the sidebar just like iTunes. And there's nothing to say Apple won't refine some things by October. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southern Patriot Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 dude, you can't have a 3D based application in a 3D based window in a 3D based environment, can you?for that to happen, all of the above would have to be treated as common geometry in the same scene. look at the demo for Spaces on the website. and Quartz Extreme is hardware based video acceleration. it doesn't say that the UI and associated objects are drawn in 3D. Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by "3D driven" then. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikyouCrow Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by "3D driven" then. Sorry. no biggie. you are the FUD Buster... :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattmatik Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Should have mentioned... Hopefully, they fix the CoverFlow Intel GMA bug. I can't imagine wanting to use CoverFlow for everyday use when the scrollbars are all out of whack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neufuse Veteran Posted June 12, 2007 Veteran Share Posted June 12, 2007 dude, you can't have a 3D based application in a 3D based window in a 3D based environment, can you?for that to happen, all of the above would have to be treated as common geometry in the same scene. look at the demo for Spaces on the website. and Quartz Extreme is hardware based video acceleration. it doesn't say that the UI and associated objects are drawn in 3D. 3D driven and hardware accelerated are two different things. I thought all of OSX was drawn in 3D space on flat polygons.. the same way vista is now done with DWM... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hell-In-A-Handbasket Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 i think this was done due the cross platform popularity of iTunes, in theory making it easier for switchers, due to a common layout in a sense i hate the look of itunes 7 and seeing the same look on entire OS makes me puke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikyouCrow Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 I thought all of OSX was drawn in 3D space on flat polygons.. the same way vista is now done with DWM... well there is a quick and dirty way to figure out: run 3D game in a window. switch to fullscreen. is there a mode switch, or does it just scale to full screen? if it just scales, chances are it isn't, unless it really is and they just stretch the polygon dimensions to fill the viewport. if they do stretch, shouldn't the performance suffer a bit? i dunno, just guessing here. haven't done any 3D gaming on OS X. will the real Mac gaming expert please stand up! :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menge Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 well there is a quick and dirty way to figure out:run 3D game in a window. switch to fullscreen. is there a mode switch, or does it just scale to full screen? if it just scales, chances are it isn't, unless it really is and they just stretch the polygon dimensions to fill the viewport. if they do stretch, shouldn't the performance suffer a bit? i dunno, just guessing here. haven't done any 3D gaming on OS X. will the real Mac gaming expert please stand up! :p your point is not valid. applications can change the screen resolution, too... there are games that stretch (Mame just stretches to fill the viewport) and there are games that switch resolutions (Quake 3) OS X's UI is hardware accelerated, which means it's kind of an OpenGL viewport. windows are rendered to surfaces and composed using flat polygons on the screen. it's the standard way to do hardware acceleration. and you can have a 3d application in a 3d environment - and it's quite trivial, if you're using the same API (like OS X uses only OpenGL) (look at rendering to surfaces) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FOOOD Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 For I like the look of the dock & stacks. I like the unified interface (but then I use UNO which isn't a million miles away from this UI). I like the look of the new Finder (has anyone seen if it will use tabs?) I like Quick Look. But we already knew about this didn't we? :rolleyes: So it wasn't a secret Against I'm not keen on the menu bar transparency, black apple & spotlight icons at all (but if we can turn off the transparency then that's good). The wallpaper is OK but that along with the menu bar look pretty Vista-ish to me. But if these are all the 'top secret' features that have been in development for almost a year (since the last keynote showing the other features) then I think it's a little underwhelming. I guess if they'd have just showed everything in one go then I'd have been really impressed, but it seemed a little odd sitting through demonstrations of Spaces & Time Machine when they went through them last summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neufuse Veteran Posted June 12, 2007 Veteran Share Posted June 12, 2007 well there is a quick and dirty way to figure out:run 3D game in a window. switch to fullscreen. is there a mode switch, or does it just scale to full screen? if it just scales, chances are it isn't, unless it really is and they just stretch the polygon dimensions to fill the viewport. if they do stretch, shouldn't the performance suffer a bit? i dunno, just guessing here. haven't done any 3D gaming on OS X. will the real Mac gaming expert please stand up! :p I'm pretty sure that OSX is 3D accellerated by drawing windows as flat polygons and storing their contents in texture memory... because I remember reading how microsoft "copied" it with the DWM in vista which does the same thing... vista runs in what is called "overlay" mode... and I sware OSX does the same thing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azcodemonkey Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 I'm ambivalent. I like the new functionality, i.e. Stacks, Finder, etc., but I don't really care about reflections or transparency. Although, so long as it works well, I don't see the problem. I like so many manageability aspects of OS X that they are the selling points over UI-candy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ritsuke Veteran Posted June 12, 2007 Veteran Share Posted June 12, 2007 I'm sure it's been mentioned, but for anyone wondering - Quartz Extreme introduced in 2002: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartz_Compositor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_Graphics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_Image Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoken Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 I'm pretty sure that OSX is 3D accellerated by drawing windows as flat polygons and storing their contents in texture memory... because I remember reading how microsoft "copied" it with the DWM in vista which does the same thing... vista runs in what is called "overlay" mode... and I sware OSX does the same thing... You guys need to seperate the terms 3d and gpu accelerated. Having a gpu accelerated UI doesn't mean you can apply any 3d effects to your UI elements. It just means that the calculations for the manipulation of UI elements (ie. moving them, resizing them, distorting them) are all done by the GPU thereby freeing your CPU to do other things. Whether or not a UI element like a window can be treated as 3d object is a totally different issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeoXY Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 (edited) Ok...for all that is bitching and moaning about the transparency in the menu bar, it can be turned off. (read a few more page back, someone have confirmed it already) Reflection on dock (which now I hate with a passion mind you) will most likely be able to turned off. JUST like how magnifaction can be turned off, and the dock can be hidden. Cover flow? I won't use it because I hate it... Everything else...I can live with. The new functionality of the Finder and Quick View is welcomed. Although I'm not keen on the new look, shape shifter will make things all better. Thats my resolve. (and should be for a few other users who share my view of the new UI) End of story. But thinking about Leopard. I think we're making too big of a deal on the UI. Time Machine, Spaces, Boot Camp integration and Core Animation are all big steps forward (possibly bigger than spotlight (10.4), and expose (10.3). So I think there will be no contest in if one should upgrade or not. But I wish Apple could have done better with the UI. Edited June 13, 2007 by NeoXY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeoXY Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 This have just made my day A new feature in Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard allows users to preview files without opening them, and the technology even supports plug-ins for document types that aren't initially supported. Quick view and cover flow is officially useful (assuming the right plug in from say -cough adobe cough- comes in) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stetson Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 Having a single menu bar for a multi-application desktop seems like the only bad UI feature of OSX. Especially with a push towards larger monitors and higher resolutions, having menus at the top of the screen for an app running at the bottom of a 30" display seems like the wrong way to go. Maybe they're hoping that by making it so transparent in leopard that it won't be missed so much when they make it an option or axe it completely from a future version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southern Patriot Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 Having a single menu bar for a multi-application desktop seems like the only bad UI feature of OSX. Especially with a push towards larger monitors and higher resolutions, having menus at the top of the screen for an app running at the bottom of a 30" display seems like the wrong way to go. Maybe they're hoping that by making it so transparent in leopard that it won't be missed so much when they make it an option or axe it completely from a future version. 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
batbeef Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 nah looks like doo doo. ive seen custom ubuntu setups that looked nicer than leopard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Kompressor Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillz Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 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. And it only took Apple a few decades and a Linux photocopier to add Spaces to their OS... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts