wired.com— When Steve Jobs takes the stage Monday at Apple's programmers conference, he's likely to give the world a glimpse of an upgraded Mac operating system that could herald the biggest changes to the machine's interface in 30 years.
Jun 8, 2007View in Crawl 4
How about we wait until Monday to debate all this?Until then, it's hard to argue if this eye-candy will also be useful or not. Personally I think Disco is a very bad example, it is pointless eye-candy. But I think Apple will use Core Animation in useful way, unlike useless additions like "wobbly windows". Maybe some of the effects in Leopard will be so flashy that people may forget their underlying usefulness, but until we have something tangible to argue about, this whole discussion is pretty useless.
Yeah, all the hype about things like multitouch gestures seems like hype to me. There's a reason the mouse and keyboard have survived for so long - they work (as opposed to having a multitouch display which would be a little awkward) and they're consistent.Also, isn't OpenGL the 3d API for OSX? And Beryl still isn't anything like WPF; it's a window manager.
@jstevewhite***What working/useful (emphasis on useful) window manager animations existed on linux long before windows and OSX?***I mainly refer to what came before Mac desktop animations -- I did not address Windows desktop animations.Anyway, as I recall, SCWM began development in the mid-1990s: <a class="user" href="http://scwm.sourceforge.net/">http://scwm.sourceforge.net/</a> You can read about the theory behind the usability of the SCWM animations here: <a class="user" href="http://www.badros.com/greg/papers/scwm-usability-study.pdf">http://www.badros.com/greg/papers/scwm-usability-study.pdf</a> and here: <a class="user" href="http://www.badros.com/greg/papers/scwm-extensible-wm.pdf">http://www.badros.com/greg/papers/scwm-extensible-wm.pdf</a>Also, Looking Glass was originally developed on a Linux box: <a class="user" href="http://www.sun.com/software/looking_glass/">http://www.sun.com/software/looking_glass/</a> It was publicly demoed by Sun in 2003. It works on Linux, Solaris (and 3D development on Windows) -- but not on Mac.The Croquet Project began development in the early 1990s, and, is an open-source, 3D, OS project -- not an Apple project: <a class="user" href="http://www.croquetconsortium.org/index.php/Main_Page">http://www.croquetconsortium.org/index.php/Main_Page</a>ViOS was another 3D, non-Apple, OS that began development in the mid-1990s: <a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ViOS">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ViOS</a>There are/were several Linux window mangers that had animations years ago. On my 2002 Golem window manager, I disabled the window-minimizing animation and enabled the simple, traveling-between-desktops animation -- very useful in knowing which desktop is current without having to look at the pager (virtual desktops).Certainly, the animations in most of these projects were working long before Apple had Expose (I think that there may have been a Windows version of the "rotating cube" a few years ago).Whether or not any of these animation features are worthwhile is definitely a subjective matter. However, projects such as SCWM, Looking Glass, Croquet and Vios spent some significant time and effort developing and experimenting with the usability and usefulness of their features. The popularity (or lack of popularity) of these projects has no bearing on their usability/usefulness. I happen to think that Expose is a nuisance when it is running -- I can't count the times that my FCP editor cursed when she accidentally engaged Expose. When I had to use her FCP, I cursed too when Expose suddenly appeared.***And the specific features of OSX Expose I'm talking about are the f9 (show all windows) and the f10 (show application windows) and f11 - show desktop. Not that you couldn't achieve SOMETHING like this before Tiger, but before Tiger came along I saw nothing nearly as intuitive and fast as Expose.***There is nothing intuitive about using key codes -- they have to be learned on their own. However, keycodes can definitely speed up work.My experiences with Expose are from the POV of someone who is uninitiated to the feature, but who has a lot of computer GUI/CLI experience. I have no idea how Expose appeared on the desktop -- whatever the mouse movement was that triggered it is arbitrary, utterly non-intuitive and has to be learned.***Sure, in windows you can 'tile all windows', then maximize the one you're looking for. But anyone who tries both will discover that the windows way is nigh-unusable, and the OSX way is elegant, fast, and intuitive.***As someone who has experience both Windows 3.1 tiling and Expose, I disagree that tiling "nigh-unusable," and I maintain that Expose is basically one step away from Windows 3.1 tiling, in regards to innovation.I don't recall the default keycodes that engaged/disengaged Windows tiling, but if the keycodes were awkward, they could probably be converted to a simpler Windows 3.1 macro. Given this ability, tiling and Expose differ only in how the windows are displayed.Also, there are probably around seven tiling window managers for Linux/Unix with extremely loyal users who would strongly argue that tiling works more elegantly and quickly than any typical desktop. I would wager that most users experienced with tiling window managers would trounce experienced OSX/Expose users in a race to navigate between applications.And another thing: a displayed taskbar is faster and more intuitive than Expose. With a displayed taskbar, one merely clicks on the representation/icon of the desired application, which is in plain sight -- there is no need to learn keycodes nor arbitrary, non-intuitive ways of moving the mouse, nor is there a need to take the extra time/steps mouse-click or keycode the showing and hiding of all running applications.In the window navigation speed race, I would bet: the tiling WMs to win; the taskbar WMs/desktops to place; and Expose to show.***And no, I didn't see that feature implemented like that on linux until OSX did it.***So what? I know only two users of Expose and both curse it. It would be interesting to see a survey of how many OSX users have Expose enabled. It would also be interesting to see how many Linux users with plug-ins for an Expose knock-off enable it in their desktops/WMs. I'm betting on a low percentage, especially in the Linux world. Expose may be great for you, but not for most of us.***Nice straw man.***Not a "straw man" -- I just noted a common, mac-zealot ploy, which I predicted in an earlier post in this thread (to which you responded with that very ploy). Then, I followed by directly addressing your points.***I make no such claim.***I disagree, but let's not descend into an argument about what you or I said/implied.***I do, however, point to the fact that no major linux shipped with a hardware accelerated window manager and these kinds of animation features until AFTER Tiger.***I am not sure that what you claim (nor that the chronology that you claim) are facts. I am not familiar with the inner workings of the zillions of WMs that preceded Tiger, nor do I have a firm grasp of how Xwindows uses hardware.However, hardware acceleration in the WM/desktop is a mere technicality compared to innovation in how the content of WM/desktop animation can advance usability.***I have no idea how long development on Compiz and Beryl has been going on, but they didn't show up on /. or digg or (insert linux media here) until after Tiger made them real.***I am not a Compiz/Beryl fan, but, again, I fail to see the connection between Tiger/Expose and Compiz/Beryl. It would be interesting to ask the Beryl/Compiz developers if they see the same connection that you see.Furthermore, the lack of a posting on /. or digg does not constitute non-existence, and, as shown above, there were other animated WM/desktops/OSs (Linux and non-Linux) long before Tiger/Expose.***This shows how much you know about Expose. Expose doesn't do spinning cube desktops OR wiggly windows.***My reference to the spinning cube and wiggly windows did not refer to Expose - it referred to the existence of the Beryl/Compiz features prior to Expose. Expose did not inspire those features.However, I admit that my familiarity with Beryl/Compiz is not up-to-date, so there might be other worthwhile features now, other than cube spins and window wiggles.***Check out an apple. Open lots of apps. Hit f9. Learn.***Learn? I have to learn? I have to open a lot of apps and study keycodes to realize how things work? I thought Macs were intuitive.Seriously, I have used various Macs over the past couple of decades, and I have used many non-Apple computers in the same period. I don't see any huge advantage of one over the other in regards to the way they operate, and I don't think that Steve Jobs is a genius.***Another claim I didn't make starts this paragraph, and it finishes with a statement of such absurdity I can only imagine you've never actually used either windows 3.1's tiling feature, or haven't used Expose's "show all apps" feature, or perhaps both. or maybe you're just being disingenuous in support of a position you know is absurd?***I will not argue what you meant/said, but I have used both Expose and Windows 3.1 tiling. As explained above, Expose is only one innovation step away from Windows 3.1 tiling.
delmonteJun 8, 2007
How about we wait until Monday to debate all this?Until then, it's hard to argue if this eye-candy will also be useful or not. Personally I think Disco is a very bad example, it is pointless eye-candy. But I think Apple will use Core Animation in useful way, unlike useless additions like "wobbly windows". Maybe some of the effects in Leopard will be so flashy that people may forget their underlying usefulness, but until we have something tangible to argue about, this whole discussion is pretty useless.
Closed AccountJun 9, 2007
He sitting at his desk, pushing the buttons every 108 minutes. If he doesn't...
crazybritJun 9, 2007
Yeah, all the hype about things like multitouch gestures seems like hype to me. There's a reason the mouse and keyboard have survived for so long - they work (as opposed to having a multitouch display which would be a little awkward) and they're consistent.Also, isn't OpenGL the 3d API for OSX? And Beryl still isn't anything like WPF; it's a window manager.
daffyduckJun 9, 2007
Way to not read the article and gloss over the whole subject with a stupid and uninformed comment!
crazybritJun 9, 2007
Flip 3d was retar-misguided.
kerouac906Jun 9, 2007
Lame. I go to movies, the beach, and anywhere else for eye-candy, I use my computer for work.
tupperbacharachJun 10, 2007
@jstevewhite***What working/useful (emphasis on useful) window manager animations existed on linux long before windows and OSX?***I mainly refer to what came before Mac desktop animations -- I did not address Windows desktop animations.Anyway, as I recall, SCWM began development in the mid-1990s: <a class="user" href="http://scwm.sourceforge.net/">http://scwm.sourceforge.net/</a> You can read about the theory behind the usability of the SCWM animations here: <a class="user" href="http://www.badros.com/greg/papers/scwm-usability-study.pdf">http://www.badros.com/greg/papers/scwm-usability-study.pdf</a> and here: <a class="user" href="http://www.badros.com/greg/papers/scwm-extensible-wm.pdf">http://www.badros.com/greg/papers/scwm-extensible-wm.pdf</a>Also, Looking Glass was originally developed on a Linux box: <a class="user" href="http://www.sun.com/software/looking_glass/">http://www.sun.com/software/looking_glass/</a> It was publicly demoed by Sun in 2003. It works on Linux, Solaris (and 3D development on Windows) -- but not on Mac.The Croquet Project began development in the early 1990s, and, is an open-source, 3D, OS project -- not an Apple project: <a class="user" href="http://www.croquetconsortium.org/index.php/Main_Page">http://www.croquetconsortium.org/index.php/Main_Page</a>ViOS was another 3D, non-Apple, OS that began development in the mid-1990s: <a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ViOS">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ViOS</a>There are/were several Linux window mangers that had animations years ago. On my 2002 Golem window manager, I disabled the window-minimizing animation and enabled the simple, traveling-between-desktops animation -- very useful in knowing which desktop is current without having to look at the pager (virtual desktops).Certainly, the animations in most of these projects were working long before Apple had Expose (I think that there may have been a Windows version of the "rotating cube" a few years ago).Whether or not any of these animation features are worthwhile is definitely a subjective matter. However, projects such as SCWM, Looking Glass, Croquet and Vios spent some significant time and effort developing and experimenting with the usability and usefulness of their features. The popularity (or lack of popularity) of these projects has no bearing on their usability/usefulness. I happen to think that Expose is a nuisance when it is running -- I can't count the times that my FCP editor cursed when she accidentally engaged Expose. When I had to use her FCP, I cursed too when Expose suddenly appeared.***And the specific features of OSX Expose I'm talking about are the f9 (show all windows) and the f10 (show application windows) and f11 - show desktop. Not that you couldn't achieve SOMETHING like this before Tiger, but before Tiger came along I saw nothing nearly as intuitive and fast as Expose.***There is nothing intuitive about using key codes -- they have to be learned on their own. However, keycodes can definitely speed up work.My experiences with Expose are from the POV of someone who is uninitiated to the feature, but who has a lot of computer GUI/CLI experience. I have no idea how Expose appeared on the desktop -- whatever the mouse movement was that triggered it is arbitrary, utterly non-intuitive and has to be learned.***Sure, in windows you can 'tile all windows', then maximize the one you're looking for. But anyone who tries both will discover that the windows way is nigh-unusable, and the OSX way is elegant, fast, and intuitive.***As someone who has experience both Windows 3.1 tiling and Expose, I disagree that tiling "nigh-unusable," and I maintain that Expose is basically one step away from Windows 3.1 tiling, in regards to innovation.I don't recall the default keycodes that engaged/disengaged Windows tiling, but if the keycodes were awkward, they could probably be converted to a simpler Windows 3.1 macro. Given this ability, tiling and Expose differ only in how the windows are displayed.Also, there are probably around seven tiling window managers for Linux/Unix with extremely loyal users who would strongly argue that tiling works more elegantly and quickly than any typical desktop. I would wager that most users experienced with tiling window managers would trounce experienced OSX/Expose users in a race to navigate between applications.And another thing: a displayed taskbar is faster and more intuitive than Expose. With a displayed taskbar, one merely clicks on the representation/icon of the desired application, which is in plain sight -- there is no need to learn keycodes nor arbitrary, non-intuitive ways of moving the mouse, nor is there a need to take the extra time/steps mouse-click or keycode the showing and hiding of all running applications.In the window navigation speed race, I would bet: the tiling WMs to win; the taskbar WMs/desktops to place; and Expose to show.***And no, I didn't see that feature implemented like that on linux until OSX did it.***So what? I know only two users of Expose and both curse it. It would be interesting to see a survey of how many OSX users have Expose enabled. It would also be interesting to see how many Linux users with plug-ins for an Expose knock-off enable it in their desktops/WMs. I'm betting on a low percentage, especially in the Linux world. Expose may be great for you, but not for most of us.***Nice straw man.***Not a "straw man" -- I just noted a common, mac-zealot ploy, which I predicted in an earlier post in this thread (to which you responded with that very ploy). Then, I followed by directly addressing your points.***I make no such claim.***I disagree, but let's not descend into an argument about what you or I said/implied.***I do, however, point to the fact that no major linux shipped with a hardware accelerated window manager and these kinds of animation features until AFTER Tiger.***I am not sure that what you claim (nor that the chronology that you claim) are facts. I am not familiar with the inner workings of the zillions of WMs that preceded Tiger, nor do I have a firm grasp of how Xwindows uses hardware.However, hardware acceleration in the WM/desktop is a mere technicality compared to innovation in how the content of WM/desktop animation can advance usability.***I have no idea how long development on Compiz and Beryl has been going on, but they didn't show up on /. or digg or (insert linux media here) until after Tiger made them real.***I am not a Compiz/Beryl fan, but, again, I fail to see the connection between Tiger/Expose and Compiz/Beryl. It would be interesting to ask the Beryl/Compiz developers if they see the same connection that you see.Furthermore, the lack of a posting on /. or digg does not constitute non-existence, and, as shown above, there were other animated WM/desktops/OSs (Linux and non-Linux) long before Tiger/Expose.***This shows how much you know about Expose. Expose doesn't do spinning cube desktops OR wiggly windows.***My reference to the spinning cube and wiggly windows did not refer to Expose - it referred to the existence of the Beryl/Compiz features prior to Expose. Expose did not inspire those features.However, I admit that my familiarity with Beryl/Compiz is not up-to-date, so there might be other worthwhile features now, other than cube spins and window wiggles.***Check out an apple. Open lots of apps. Hit f9. Learn.***Learn? I have to learn? I have to open a lot of apps and study keycodes to realize how things work? I thought Macs were intuitive.Seriously, I have used various Macs over the past couple of decades, and I have used many non-Apple computers in the same period. I don't see any huge advantage of one over the other in regards to the way they operate, and I don't think that Steve Jobs is a genius.***Another claim I didn't make starts this paragraph, and it finishes with a statement of such absurdity I can only imagine you've never actually used either windows 3.1's tiling feature, or haven't used Expose's "show all apps" feature, or perhaps both. or maybe you're just being disingenuous in support of a position you know is absurd?***I will not argue what you meant/said, but I have used both Expose and Windows 3.1 tiling. As explained above, Expose is only one innovation step away from Windows 3.1 tiling.
kaffieneJun 10, 2007
This is lame beyond belief.
iamdexterAug 13, 2007
Apple is expensive, get Windows. and its much better.<a class="user" href="http://www.naturalizer-shoes.org/">http://www.naturalizer-shoes.org/</a>