Slashdot Mirror


Fast Alpha-Blending In Your GUI

visnu writes: "I've been waiting for this for 2 years now -- a REAL glass-like windowing system. And yes, it's Microsoft to do it. Ever since W2k came out, and they included alpha-blending in the GDI, I was tempted to write a little tool to turn on any window's transparency, but of course I'm way too lazy to do that. These guys weren't though: glass2k runs in the systray and handles turning on any window's transparency. yes, here's a screenshot. I'm not too sure about the speed in W2k, but in XP w/ the newest Nvidia drivers and a somewhat recent video card, it's hardware accelerated, and yes, you should be drooling." Update: 11/26 19:00 GMT by T : Links updated, so hopefully you'll be able to actually get to the content again :)

402 of 592 comments (clear)

  1. Been There... by Moonshadow · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    I wrote an app that did the same work about 6 months ago. It started out as an app to set any window to permenantly be on top, and shifted to being a translucency editor for Win2K, too. It even has this nifty little pulse thing that will make a window move between 2 transparencies in a set interval, giving a "glowing" feel.

    I submitted it to download.com, but of course, they rejected it. I need to see if I can find a copy somewhere, after 2 hard drive reformats without backing up. Think I'd learn my lesson.

    And why exactly is this news? Any Slashdotter could have done the same in 20 minutes.

    1. Re:Been There... by gazbo · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...any slashdotter who is a Windows developer, and had the idea in the first place. For the rest of us, we need somebody else to do it and then post a link to the download.

      If only there were some site that allowed links like this to be posted to the interested geek masses. It'd really be appropriate on a site like that.

    2. Re:Been There... by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 2, Informative

      MacOS X does this trick natively. The only times I have found it useful is for system monitoring windows that really need to be visible all the time but you which you don't want to kill your deskspace. In OSX, each window has adjustable opacity - the linked JPEG seems to show all windows the same - that would be ultra crap. I'd almost forgotten how pug-ugly Windows is. Shudder.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    3. Re:Been There... by Osty · · Score: 4, Informative

      Windows 2000/XP also does this natively. It simply doesn't expose per-window control of it through the UI. Each window does have its own alpha level, and it's up to the programmer to decide if s/he wants all windows the same or not. For a good example, check out Lucidamp, a Winamp plugin that allows you to set varying levels of alpha transparency on each of the four main Winamp windows, and also works with the Mikroamp Winamp plugin.


      Also, please note that Windows 2000 did this before OS X did this. Not that it matters, but it's true.

    4. Re:Been There... by class_A · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's good to see that transparency is now accelerated through the Windows nVidia drivers. Hopefully this will further improve Mac OS X window performance if similar changes are integrated into the Mac nVidia drivers.

    5. Re:Been There... by uebernewby · · Score: 2

      the linked JPEG seems to show all windows the same

      It does allow you to give each window a different transparency. Whatever good that does ...

      It does have the annoying tendency to break rightclicks though, if it's running and you rightclick (normal Windows behavior, I'd say), the program's shortcut menu pops up instead of the menu you'd expect.

      Also, clicking on the icon it puts in the taskbar yields a shortcut menu that's hidden from sight (at least in Windows XP): only the top edge of the menu appears, the rest hides somewhere below your actual screen area. But then this kind of thing tends to happen a lot in the New! Improved! Windows, so maybe it's not their fault

      Oh well, it's a cute little app, nothing more, so who cares ...

      --

      News and bla for computer musicians: http://lomechanik.net/
    6. Re:Been There... by Megaweapon · · Score: 1

      Or someone is really working overtime whoring for a minor Microsoft UI trick. Transparent windows, W2K first, geez Osty, quit creaming your jeans.

      --
      I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
    7. Re:Been There... by Refrag · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Also, please note that Windows 2000 did this before OS X did this. Not that it matters, but it's true."

      Not really. The system that Mac OS X uses is from the NeXT OS. So, it predates Windows 2000.

      --
      I have a website. It's about Macs.
    8. Re:Been There... by mprinkey · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not to bust your bubble or anything, but the "transparent" terminal hack is old. It is not done with per-window alpha transparency. It just maps the root background to the terminal background with an appropriate offset and darkening. This is obvious if you look at the screenshot. The lower portion of the ./sftp window does not show through into the terminal.

      It is a clever, fast hack and probably more useful than honest-to-goodness alpha transparency. Careful choice of background image and foreground text color can keep the term actually legible, which is not necessarily the case with full transparency. Having said all of that, it has been in rxvt, aterm, and countless others for a long time.

    9. Re:Been There... by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

      NeXTStep didn't have this. The original black cube was a (literally) a 2 bit display. The pizza boxes didn't do it either, even though they had 12 bit color.

    10. Re:Been There... by bnenning · · Score: 3, Interesting
      The system that Mac OS X uses is from the NeXT OS. So, it predates Windows 2000.


      NeXT used Display Postscript for its imaging, which as far as I know had no support for alpha blending. Apple wrote a new graphics layer (Quartz) from scratch for Mac OS X.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    11. Re:Been There... by qubezz · · Score: 1

      The operating system that DID have it first was BeOS.
      It had alpha blending in 3.0, if that's the version I used... (transparency was used in the UI mainly for dragging and droppting objects).

    12. Re:Been There... by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

      "Not to bust your bubble or anything, but the "transparent" terminal hack is old. It is not done with per-window alpha transparency. It just maps the root background to the terminal background with an appropriate offset and darkening."

      Correct me if I'm wrong... But to my knowledge, KDE2 does the "transparent" console by mapping the background. But if I remember correctly, QT3 (which is used in KDE3) enables "real" transparent windows. So, transparent console (or other windows) would not only show the background behind it, but also other windows behind it. And that would be true transparency.

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    13. Re:Been There... by bXTr · · Score: 1

      > MacOS X does this trick natively.

      Mac OS X only runs on Apple hardware. Why should I pay several thousand dollars for new hardware just to run your OS.

      --
      It's a very dark ride.
    14. Re:Been There... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1
      NeXT was never a 2-bit display!
      Greyscale, yes - but 8-bit greyscale!
      In fact, NeXT TIFF images were natively in 16-bit depth format.

      The PostScript rasterizer produced 2-bit output for the NeXT laserprinter and fax output...

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    15. Re:Been There... by Progoth · · Score: 1

      since the site's been down all day, here's a mirror of the program.

    16. Re:Been There... by Bradee-oh! · · Score: 1

      Not to burst YOUR bubble or anything, but Win2k does have native alpha-blending, on a per-window basis - that's how the nifty fade-in menus work - and no, it's not the background hack.

      I just ran glass2k and made 3 different windows transparent and on top of each other - if the alpha-transparency is a mere background hack, it's an AMAZINGLY good one because I could see each of the 3 windows through each other - and an alpha-blended fade-in menu on top of those!

      --
      "This is Zombo Com, and welcome to you who have come to Zombo Com" - www.zombo.com
    17. Re:Been There... by MaxVlast · · Score: 1

      The attentive observer will note that one of the major features of the NeXTDimension was 8 bits of alpha in addition to 24 bit color. That was in 1991 or 1992, IIRC.

      The color NeXTstations had 16bpp color and 4bpp alpha.

      Though that could not be applied through the WindowServer to individual windows (as in OS X), it was there all along.

      --
      There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
      Max V.
      NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
    18. Re:Been There... by MaxVlast · · Score: 1

      Uhh, you might like it better. And it isn't 'my' OS. It's Apple's OS. I read my license agreement =) I just have permission to use it.

      --
      There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
      Max V.
      NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
    19. Re:Been There... by Sparr0 · · Score: 1

      Here is a copy of MSVBVM60.DLL for those of you that dont have it

    20. Re:Been There... by RagManX · · Score: 1

      The original NeXT was indeed 2-bit color. When they were trying to sell to us, that was a feature they pushed - a system with 2-bit greyscale, and a system with 8-bit color. The reason for 2-bit greyscale? Because Jobs found going from 2-bit grey to 8-bit color less design intensive than going from 1-bit to 8-bit color.

      My question is, why would anyone want this annoying feature? I checked out the screen shot, and all I could think was "Crap, I'd hate that after about 10 seconds."

      RagManX

  2. Great for always on top windows by snake_dad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are some apps that I would like to run "always on top", but most of the time they get in the way. This would sure be a nice way to still sorta see them .

    Great stuff, now implement it for NT4 and win98 :P

    --
    karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
    1. Re:Great for always on top windows by DaEvOsH · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The required API's needed to do this in any windows than ME or NT4 is not there. It can be done 'manually', but it is very slow, difficult to do well (I have done it in one of my progs but at the end disabled it when the prog detected the alpha api was not there) and brings problems when running with other programs that alter the way a window is shown.

      It is a pretty esy thing to do. For win32 programmers:

      1. Find the window handle you want to alpha blend. (say, hwnd).
      2. Add the WS_EX_LAYERED extended style to the window with this call:
      SetWindowLong (hwnd, GWL_EXSTYLE, GetWindowLong(hwnd, GWL_EXSTYLE) | WS_EX_LAYERED);
      3. Call SetLayeredWindowAttributes. Look up MSDN for the info.

      Also, this API in Win2k does not seem to work well in some video cards - windows which update themselves a lot will cause problems i.e. an opengl window, etc (my program has a few of them).

    2. Re:Great for always on top windows by mrfiddlehead · · Score: 2, Funny
      It would be even better if one could press one's mouse button really really hard to click on a window underneath the topmost window.

      And the mouse should kind of make a bloop sound as it passes through the layers of windows while leaving a wake in its trail.

      That should be the next change to the desktop idiom, IMHO.

      --
      :wq
    3. Re:Great for always on top windows by Fjord · · Score: 2

      Even better would be to have it so a single click of the wheel would go a level down, doing the bloop. I like the wake idea too. Maybe have a small ripple effect on the window you are going through.

      You can go back up by shaking the mouse or some other gesture.

      --
      -no broken link
    4. Re:Great for always on top windows by _dave_the_one_ · · Score: 1

      If you're using MS Visual C++ this is fine, but other compilers probably don't have the headers that define these values (if they're older than mid-1999 or so). I have this problem, I have to manually find the function in user32.dll and define the WS_EX_LAYERED constant myself. You'll need a bit more detail than is in the parent post to be able to use in your programs.

      The function can also let you create a window with one colour completely transparent. This makes an effect similar to SetWindowRgn() but it's a lot simpler.

      If you want to use this function in your programs and your compiler doesn't know the function exists, it's fairly simple - just do this:

      Define constants:
      WS_EX_LAYERED = $80000; // extended window value
      LWA_COLORKEY = 1; // One colour completely transparent
      LWA_ALPHA = 2; // Or the whole form with 256 shades of transparency.

      The function is of type:
      function(hWnd : HWnd; Color : DWord; Trans : Byte; TransType : DWord) : DWord; stdcall;
      and you need to extract it from user32.dll. Do this however you do in your favorite language.

      Call SetWindowLong(HWnd, GWL_EXSTYLE, GetWindowLong(HWnd, GWL_EXSTYLE) or WS_EX_LAYERED) where HWnd is the handle of the window you want to change. This tells Windows it's a window that can have alpha transparency.

      Once you've got it and assigned it to your own function called SetLayeredWindowAttributes you can call it like this:

      SetLayeredWindowAttributes(HWnd, 0, 128, LWA_ALPHA) which will set it half transparent (0-255, here it's 128) or SetLayeredWindowAttributes(hWnd, clLime, 0, LWA_COLORKEY) which sets all regions of the window (and its subwindows or controls) that are Lime (just use any normal colour variable) to completely transparent.

      Only Win2K, ME and XP support this. Just try getting the function from user32.dll and if it returns null you know it doens't support it :)

      For more info, see www.nowherereal.com (yes, shameless plug :) Sorry.)

    5. Re:Great for always on top windows by DaEvOsH · · Score: 1

      Wow, in all these years of /.'ing this is my first +5! Heh, my window$ programming HAS finally paid off!

      :)

  3. It's nice and all that... by AltGrendel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...but it strikes me as "Not that useful". Most of my users get confused with standard GUI look and feel. I'd hate to think what this would do to their poor little minds.

    --
    The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

    - Douglas Adams

    1. Re:It's nice and all that... by Bakajin · · Score: 2, Funny


      And its almost as annoying as the menu on the linked page.

    2. Re:It's nice and all that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful


      And if it was Linux that did it you'd all be jumping up and down, having a party, and marching in a parade. And of course this post gets a 2 as well. I'd laugh but it's monday.

    3. Re:It's nice and all that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      hmm, looks like my old laptop with its passive dstn screen.... complete with burn in

    4. Re:It's nice and all that... by drsquare · · Score: 1

      No, actually. When there was something like this available for Linux, everyone said it was useless then. Nothing had changed.

    5. Re:It's nice and all that... by fishebulb · · Score: 1

      uuhhhh, linux has generally been less concerned with look and more with usability. hence the prevelance of the CLI, it may be harder to learn, but its definately powerful. lately they have been concerned with look and feel, but also building it on powerful tools. they have been making things look cool, customizable. more power to them for that.

    6. Re:It's nice and all that... by be-fan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When its on Windows, it's not useful. When its on Linux, its the great, awesome, ground-breaking new technology that Packard dreamed up.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    7. Re:It's nice and all that... by MaxVlast · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding!? Linux on the desktop is all about masturbatory visual noise one-upping. When I think of "obsession with appearance to a destructive end" I think if nothing but Linux.

      Don't get me wrong, I like Linux, but I'm always startled by the complete obsession with themes and skins by a community that is supposedly all about slick functionality.

      --
      There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
      Max V.
      NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
    8. Re:It's nice and all that... by SuperRob · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, it's not useful when it's not useful. WindowFX has done alpha in Win2K for a long time.

      The problem is, you need to make certain windows transparent, and only on a selective basis. A clock app, for example, would be a good candidate for alpha. WinAMP is another. Something you want to remain "on top" but still want your whole desktop real estate for.

      Hell, I think having the Windows Taskbar alpha out instead of roll away is better.

      Alpha is cool, but not intrinsically useful. It depends on the app, it depends on the user. But the way it's been implemented so far is just flawed. Not everything should be alpha'd.

      Now what would be really cool is to SCALE windows with the mouse wheel. Roll a window away, and roll it forward. 150% down to 50% (so you can't use them.

      Hell, make the mouse wheel a BALL. Now you can rotate your windows in 3D. Need more room? Just tilt that window away from you a bit. Add a titlebar to the side so you can tell what's there.

      With 3D chips in nearly every computer these days, this shouldn't be hard.

    9. Re:It's nice and all that... by FFFish · · Score: 2

      Re: scaling -- you mean, like Opera? It scales the size of the page elements by using Ctrl+Scrollwheel. Makes it easy to read pages when sitting back a few feet, or when dealing with moronic web authors who put everything in teeny-tiny (or great big) type.

      Re: alpha is cool -- I agree. But the next step is to also make it possible to "click through" the transparent window. I'd seriously *love* to have some mostly transparent things on my desktop, floating at the top... but they'd interfere with my other application controls. NFG if they block the button bar!

      Re: alpha is cool -- I'm testing an application that is making use of transparency for dialogs and suchlike. That way, they don't block you from seeing what they're overtop, which extends the usable screen realstate. An excellent example is in spellchecking: all too often, the spellchecker dialog hides the misspelled word! Make that dialog mostly xparent, and it is no longer quite so much a problem.

      --

      --
      Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
    10. Re:It's nice and all that... by IpalindromeI · · Score: 1

      I'll admit that this is true, but it's not just Linux. It's more prevalent on Linux because the apps can be tweaked by anyone who wants to. People on Windows are just as obsessed with skins and themes, (think Winamp, Sonique, Neoplanet, not to mention Plus!) they just don't have as many apps that can do it.

      --

      --
      Promoting critical thinking since 1994.
    11. Re:It's nice and all that... by SuperRob · · Score: 2

      No, by scaling I mean scaling THE ENTIRE window. In fact, maybe scaling with a little alpha shading would work too ...

    12. Re:It's nice and all that... by be-fan · · Score: 2

      Actually, you CAN make certain windows transparent on a selective basic. With the app I was using, you could pick a window to make transparent. Or did I misunderstand you?

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
  4. Drool? Hardly. by dirtyhippie · · Score: 2, Flamebait

    Why would I drool over such a thing? Isn't the whole point of a window so that you can put one on top of the other, and not be confused by what's beneath it? It's great for games, but why on earth would you want to use it in your windowing system? So you can open more porn simultaneously? I don't get it.

    -DH

    1. Re:Drool? Hardly. by snake_dad · · Score: 1

      I'd love to see my icq contact list almost transparent, so I wouldn't have to muck with semi-working auto-hide settings to prevent it from obscuring my browser windows, and wouldn't have to move the mouse away just to see who's online.

      But unfortunately they don't seem to be able to do this in nt and win98. Oh well... maybe the boss will pay for an upgrade to W2K :-)

      --
      karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
    2. Re:Drool? Hardly. by fredrik70 · · Score: 2, Funny

      yes, I must admit my productivity increased by several magnitudes since that nifty swadow on the mouse pointer got there....

      --
      if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
    3. Re:Drool? Hardly. by gazbo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Clearly to some extent this is mainly a neat toy rather than a useful tool.
      However, I can think of many times when it would be useful, such as when I have many windows open from different apps, and I need to cross reference the data and enter it into a final window (which always seems to be an ssh client - strange) Currently if there are too many windows, it becomes impractical to shrink them all down so I can see them at once. Hopefully this should allow a lot more text to be seen through overlapping windows; whilst overlapping text would get confusing, it could recover a lot of space lost due to excessive window chrome.

      But to reiterate my first point, it is just really neat.

    4. Re:Drool? Hardly. by Computer+suck! · · Score: 1

      ICQ maybe....
      Its a a little slow on my poor old V3 don't like it all that much, I'll have to wait til I buy a new box, which will be a TiBook ;-)

    5. Re:Drool? Hardly. by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      in that case you should be a Mac user

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    6. Re:Drool? Hardly. by gazbo · · Score: 1
      No offense meant here
      None taken.
      It is the key strokes "Ctrl-c", "Ctrl-v"
      This is usually a wonderful solution, and my left hand fingers are practically glued to those keys. However in my post I wasn't talking about the bulk copying of data. You'll notice I talked about cross-referencing the data - I need to be able to see all of the data to do that. Currently my solution is to scrawl things down on paper, but it would be nicer to skip that step.
    7. Re:Drool? Hardly. by dvandok · · Score: 1

      I see some use combined with focus-follow-mouse like many X WMs. If you move the mouse to a lower (partially invisible) window, the top window would adjust its transparency to allow you to see through it...

      Dennis

      -- what ?! only for w2k ???

    8. Re:Drool? Hardly. by fredrik70 · · Score: 1

      nah, must disagree really. Don't mind working in win2k, but that shadow was the first thing to go. all damn menu animations as well. I can't see any reason for all this eye candy. It just hogs down your machine IMHO.
      mind you, suppose it's all a matter of taste.. ;-)

      --
      if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
    9. Re:Drool? Hardly. by mgblst · · Score: 1

      I find this fantastic. I used to have two small windows, dumeter to measure internet io, and altdesk, a virutal desktop program sitting next to each other. Now i just change altdesk's transparency, and place it over the dumeter. Can still see dumeter, and click on altdesk to change virutal window.

      Almost made me not want to get rid of 2000.

    10. Re:Drool? Hardly. by XMunkki · · Score: 1

      One use that comes to mind, is to have the frontmost window barely transparent (you still can "sense" the windows beneath), and then have a handy way of bringing windows from the back to the front (like pointing over it and middle clicking or something).

    11. Re:Drool? Hardly. by derF024 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >I do not mean to be offensive here, but Windows
      >actually has this one solved really well. I know
      >on the LINUX platform this is an absolute mess and
      >pain in the butt.

      you're not being offensive, just ignorant. you hilight whatever you want to copy and center-click to paste. it's exactly the same across all apps and even in console. i wish that MS would copy this functionality in windows because the way windows is currently is a complete mess.

    12. Re:Drool? Hardly. by petee+moobaa · · Score: 1
      Errrmmm.... Yep. We implemented a SCADA-type system with neat little info windows that followed the mouse around, telling the operator plant-related info. The alpha transparency was useful, cos they could still see the whole SCADA screen "through" the info window.

      Then, of course, the client decided to use NT4 instead of the W2K we thought they were using. That fucked that little idea right up :|

    13. Re:Drool? Hardly. by dodald · · Score: 1

      Thats when you go out and buy a dual head video card. When I bought mine, I did so for bragging rights (Which I am hereby implementing:)) but after I started using it, I am totally addicted, I can have a developer studio open on one monitor and another open on the other, or all my little apps on one (MP3 Play, Instant Messengers. Any combination of applications. Drool...

      --
      101010b 2Ah 52o
    14. Re:Drool? Hardly. by Suidae · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How about something useful like making some dalogs fade in over half a second or so BEFORE they take input focus.

      Nothing is more irritating than typing along and having an AIM window or whatever pop up and take the last 5 characters you typed. I've even had this happen when I was typing passwords. Highly annoying.

      Maybe the WM could count the number of keystrokes made in the previous second or so to decide if it needs to fade in new dialogs before they take focus.

    15. Re:Drool? Hardly. by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      Like the nice shadow on the mouse in win2k

      Oh, you mean that annoying blur was put there deliberately?

      Didn't realize it could be disabled until I saw this thread. Thanks!

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    16. Re:Drool? Hardly. by IronChef · · Score: 2

      Now that I am running Win2k and stability isn't as much of an issue, the focus-stealing behavior of Windows apps has shot back to Gripe #1.

      (The TweakUI control panel has an option for "prevent apps from stealing focus" but it doesn't seem to work worth a damn.)

      Maybe the WM could count the number of keystrokes made in the previous second or so to decide if it needs to fade in new dialogs before they take focus.

      IMHO, nothing should ever steal the focus. Ever. I choose what I am doing at any particular time with the computer... for the computer to override that is aggravating in the extreme. "THIS IS THE VOICE OF WORLD CONTROL. YOU WILL COMMUNICATE WITH AIM NOW."

      There's a taskbar for alerts and new windows to appear on, they can flash there to get your attention.

    17. Re:Drool? Hardly. by jci · · Score: 1

      I use the dumeter too with a large amount of alpha.

      Neat, yes. Useful, 90% of the time, yes. I make use of dumeter to tell when I should stop opening opera sub-windows for forums, heh.

    18. Re:Drool? Hardly. by recursiv · · Score: 1

      get the miranda icq client! supports transparency! I'm using it right now! (unfortunately, still requires win2k for transparency)

      --
      I used to bulls-eye womp-rats in my pants
    19. Re:Drool? Hardly. by Radical+Rad · · Score: 1

      I have to agree. I have occasionally done this with Gnome Terminal just to have a visual effect when showing Linux to new users, but having a bunch of windows open at the same time is "busy" enough without adding the extra confusion. It's like trying to read a book written not on paper but on cellophane pages.

      Though for certain apps like an mp3 player where you do something and then ignore the window it might allow a visually pleasing display, merely as eye candy.

    20. Re:Drool? Hardly. by snake_dad · · Score: 1

      I'd also have to 'get' win2k :)
      anyway, I tested miranda recently, and IIRC it only supports SOCKS 4/5 firewalls/proxies, not squid.

      --
      karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
    21. Re:Drool? Hardly. by mgv · · Score: 1

      You have to love the moderation system here.

      I'm still left wondering why someone thought that my previous post was flamebait? Oh well, them's the breaks.

      Michael

      Previous Post:
      Like alot of things, there is a difference between doing somthing because you can do it, compared with doing something because it should be done.

      Alpha transperancy is a good thing, used wisely. Like the nice shadow on the mouse in win2k

      Makeing whole windows transparent has limited usefulness to my mind.

      Can anyone see a real use for transparent windows?

      --
      There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
    22. Re:Drool? Hardly. by Suidae · · Score: 1

      True, this shows me one of the useful functions of not requiring the topmost window to be the focused window. Nothing should ever move the mouse either.

      Microsoft has made it much more difficult to pop to the top and take focus though, so they are trying to address this problem. AIM still does it for new windows tho.

    23. Re:Drool? Hardly. by SerpentMage · · Score: 1

      Come on... Windows a mess with respect to cut, copy and paste? I think not!!!!

      The way that Windows does it is with a clipboard and I prefer that way because it keeps the formatting information. For example when I copy HTML then I get HTML and not something wierd. On LINUX this simply does not work correctly...

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
  5. Looks neat... by Nachtfalke · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ..but it would drive me nuts after a while.
    Heck, I even reverted to non-transparent xterms, because the background made the text in the xterm partly unreadable, which is kinda bad if you're programming :-)
    But still a cool heck to impress friends with.

  6. Wow! by guusbosman · · Score: 1

    Well... might not be the nr.1 most useful invention ever, but it certainly looks nice. At least you'll always see 'where your windows are'...

  7. Mac by zephc · · Score: 3, Informative

    There is an Extension called PowerWindows that will do that with live dragging of windows in MacOS 8/9. You can adjust the level of transparency too

    --
    "I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
  8. Nothing new by Mwongozi · · Score: 5, Informative
    Stardock have an application called WindowsFX which allows you to turn on transparent windows selectively, for example, just for Notepad windows, which is much less of a CPU hit than turning it on for everything. It also lets you add shadows and various other graphical trickery to windows.

    It's rather cool, but not free, in either sense of the word.

    1. Re:Nothing new by kawaichan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's kidda slow though, this program IMO is better than windowfx If you want just transparent windows, then glassxp thing is good. WindowsFX is good for overall effects. Glass thingy allows individual window customization too. I thought no one is using windows here...

      --

      kawai
    2. Re:Nothing new by Griim · · Score: 3, Informative

      I set up WindowsFX here, and I used it for all of 1/2 hour before scrapping it. I thought that having a couple of 'always on top' windows as transparent would be cool, but it's really quite annoying once you use it. And this was just my shell window.

      I find it more useful to be creative in the layout of your windows, so you can see the important parts of all of them (eg. my irc-shell window resides in the lower left of the screen, and I can only see the bottom three lines, but that's all I need to see).

    3. Re:Nothing new by null_session · · Score: 1

      I agree with you, but this is the point where I prefer X windows. When you're doing that it's really nice to be able to focus a window WITHOUT bringing it to the top. With the resource kit for NT4 (sorry, haven't used 2k much) you could do the "focus follows mouse" but the focus always raised the window. With X you can have your 3 lines of IRC and be able to type in it without obscuring your other windows. Hard to get used to, but indespensible(sp?) once you do.

    4. Re:Nothing new by Segfault+11 · · Score: 1

      You should be able to do the same thing with any version of Windows, starting with Win98. The same UI feature that causes "throbbing" taskbar buttons also produces this effect when coupled with X-Mouse. I happen to dislike both behaviors, but turning them off (if you can) involves making the compromise that any application can steal focus.

      --

      I registered my hate for Jon Katz

    5. Re:Nothing new by EchoMirage · · Score: 1

      I don't recommend using WindowFX and WinXP concurrently...WinFX is not the most well coded utility, and it manages to violate its memory space, causing a BSOD even under NTs protected memory. Microsoft is looking into the problem. Meanwhile, using WinFX is dangerous.

    6. Re:Nothing new by Artichoke · · Score: 2, Informative


      For window shading try FreeShade

      Also includes other nifties such as Always On Top, Vertical/Horizontal maximize, corner/side hugging, sink window, blah, blah, blah...

      On Osty's suggestion I've added translucency to the next beta, due "soon", along with some other more useful additions such as point and shoot move and resize (i.e. hold a hotkey down, and mouse drag will move or resize the window - no more moving to the caption bar).

      --
      __
      Arse
    7. Re:Nothing new by Artichoke · · Score: 1

      So use FreeShade

      Also includes other nifties such as Always On Top, Vertical/Horizontal maximize, corner/side hugging, sink window, blah, blah, blah...

      On Osty's suggestion I've added translucency to the next beta, due "soon", along with some other more useful additions such as point and shoot move and resize (i.e. hold a hotkey down, and mouse drag will resize the window - no more moving to the caption bar).

      --
      __
      Arse
    8. Re:Nothing new by null_session · · Score: 1

      cool tip, thanks. If I happen to load up another Windows box for my use, I'll give that a shot (might have to if the standards folks at work ever catch up with me)

    9. Re:Nothing new by Ctrl-Z · · Score: 1

      So use FreeShade [hmmn.org]

      I would, but when I clicked on the link I was immediately turned off by the "opening curtains" effect that I was presented with. I can't believe that people waste their time doing things like that.

      --
      www.timcoleman.com is a total waste of your time. Never go there.
    10. Re:Nothing new by Artichoke · · Score: 1


      Evidently you don't realize how little time that takes...

      (Odd criterion for rejecting software too.)

      --
      __
      Arse
  9. I thought by nervlord1 · · Score: 1

    I thought there was an entire damn OS previously on slashdot that could do this, it even had transperant VIDEO windows That to me is alot more amazing, oh well

    --
    Microsoft IIS is to webserving as KFC is to healthy eating
    1. Re:I thought by quannump · · Score: 1

      are you thinking of Berlin.

      --

  10. Under Win2k... by MrSeb · · Score: 2, Informative

    It runs just fine.

    w/ GeForce 2 Ultra, on an overclocked 1.6ghz Athlon CPU.

    No lag or resource drain to mention... :)

  11. Thanks, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now I need to stack *10* maximized windows in front of my porn when mom comes. If I put just one like I'm doing now she would see through.

    1. Re:Thanks, by fredrik70 · · Score: 1

      one could have a sort of boss key, that made the image viewer 100% translucent - = no porn to be seen!!! ;-)
      problem is to find that window again though..

      --
      if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
    2. Re:Thanks, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      The slashdot interface gave me a choice of reply to this or parent. Tempting. }:>

    3. Re:Thanks, by romulus15 · · Score: 1

      Actually...just hit Ctrl+Alt+0 through 9 to change the transparancy. Mind you that this stupid program does take one hell of a hit on the GDI. Slows the thing way the heck down. And that's on my P3 866 with 448MB ram and a GeForce 2 GTS card.

      But it's stil fun, and has it's applications.

    4. Re:Thanks, by scorcherer · · Score: 1
      Now I need to stack *10* maximized windows in front of my porn when mom comes.

      Oh? Usually, when my mom comes, she's the one browsing pr0n.

      --

      --
      The Cap is nigh. Time to get a fresh new account.

  12. Who's going to use this? by Rogerborg · · Score: 2

    Am I the only one thinking that this is a big old mess? I can just about make out what windows appear to be on top of each other (I think), but is it really a big whoop to have your desktop background smeared all over your word processor?

    Suggestions as to who would find this useful will be gratefully received. If this appeared on my desktop, the first thing I'd be looking for is the (translucent) button to turn the damn thing off.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    1. Re:Who's going to use this? by WzDD · · Score: 1

      Certainly the example screenshot looks really, really terrible. I'd like to alpha blend a few things though: winamp comes to mind, perhaps some kind of clock ala osx, etc.

      Unfortunately I'm running Linux atm... :)

    2. Re:Who's going to use this? by Osty · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'd like to alpha blend a few things though: winamp comes to mind, ...

      Lucidamp to the rescue (yes, shameless pimpage. but I don't care!). Lucidamp has been applying alpha blending to Winamp for the better part of a year and a half (okay, so the first version sucked). There are others out there that will do this, both in Winamp plugin form (such as Lucidamp) and one-size-fits-all form like Glass2K, but I believe (and I'm biased here) that Lucidamp is the best when dealing only with Winamp.

    3. Re:Who's going to use this? by Grab · · Score: 2

      Yep. IMO, this is the _worst_ user interface idea ever. Non-intuitive, impossible to read, and basically dumb.

      Suggestions for who'd use it - well, any luser who likes "flashy graphics" over actually doing any work. If you currently have an animated background in Windows, you'll probably love this. The rest of us will keep going with 100% higher productivity.

      It's a classic example of ppl doing something without thinking "is this a good idea?".

      Grab.

    4. Re:Who's going to use this? by Rogerborg · · Score: 2
      • If you currently have an animated background in Windows, you'll probably love this

      You can have animated backgrounds in Windows now? Suddenly I feel relieved that my employer is too cheap to upgrade my WinNT 4.0 box. ;-)

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    5. Re:Who's going to use this? by Rogerborg · · Score: 2
      • I'd like to alpha blend a few things though: winamp comes to mind, perhaps some kind of clock

      That's a good point, and one I hadn't thought of (before it got posted 10,000 times here). The example screenshot really doesn't do the technology any favours. ;-)

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    6. Re:Who's going to use this? by mini+me · · Score: 1

      Heck, I had animated backgrounds on Windows 95!

      At school, someone set the background on one of the computers as one of those pictures that if you turned it up-side-down you would see a different picture. So I wrote a program that would flip it every couple of minutes.

      It wasn't the computer I used so I wasn't too worried about any performance hit.

    7. Re:Who's going to use this? by ahoehn · · Score: 1

      If you really feel like decreaseing your performance you can put interactive flash/shockwave on your desktop, have things explode and so fourth whenever you drag your mouse over them.

      --
      Mod my comments down. It'll be fun.
  13. Is this useful? by Bakajin · · Score: 1


    Neet. Sure. Useful? I don't see how having more visual clutter helps me.

  14. Awful ! by BESTouff · · Score: 1

    Would you really imagine working in such an environment ? Making windows transparent when moving them would be cool, but using a transparent Word-like would kill my eyes.

  15. Seems to lag my 2k workstation.. by dunkan44 · · Score: 1

    But its useful to have a few screens transparent and on top while I read email! No excuse not to keep an eye on stats now.. doh

  16. Old hat - rubbish 'news' story by The+Government · · Score: 2, Redundant

    Why is /. posting this tripe? This has been available for ages on the Mac - with PowerWindows on OS 8.x (i.e. 1996-7 if I remember properly), and on Mac OS X since it came out. OS X users - go and get yourselves a copy of WindowShade X - not only can you combine the old minimise-in-place windowshade feature of OS 9 and before with the Dock minimisation, but you can set any window to your chosen degree of translucency at will. Find it on Versiontracker. Then understand why this news story is a waste of time. Mac OS X's graphics system has a far more powerful compositing architecture to WinXP - let's focus on the real news.

    1. Re:Old hat - rubbish 'news' story by dattaway · · Score: 3, Funny

      Old? It doesn't matter that every precollege teen has tinkered with transparency windowing systems; I'm sure someone has been issued a patent for it and is about to IPO. Someone wants to own this now. Expect lawyers to follow.

    2. Re:Old hat - rubbish 'news' story by Suidae · · Score: 1

      Not only is the idea of transparent windows old, utilities to set windows and menus transparancy settings have been around for at least a year.

    3. Re:Old hat - rubbish 'news' story by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1


      So, in other words, "WINDOZE SUX, MACS R00L!!!"

      This post should get modded "-1 Troll", but so should its parent.

    4. Re:Old hat - rubbish 'news' story by cygnus · · Score: 1
      That's the funniest thing I've read this morning. Especially with the poor support on your OS of choice for ttf panels. XP sucks too in this regard but OS 10.1 is even worse. Then factor in the driver support not being there for the king of graphic card vendors at the consumer level (nvidia for panels true color, colour vibrance whatever) and it's even more funny. I won't even speak about the warf in OS 10.0 compared to win2K speed and functionality wise. Hint it has yours beat there too.

      all of which has jack to do with Quartz, the display engine. what's your point?

      --
      Just raise the taxes on crack.
    5. Re:Old hat - rubbish 'news' story by jester · · Score: 1

      Eterm has had this transparency for years

    6. Re:Old hat - rubbish 'news' story by gig · · Score: 2

      Even a pedestrian look at Mac OS X's graphics will show you that it is a major advance over what has come before. Instead of giving an app a space on the display to write to, apps write into their own windows, and those windows are composited with all other windows in real-time. Windows are totally buffered, so apps don't have to redraw anything, just draw it and leave it. What this means is that if you make the top window translucent, you automatically see what's underneath it, because there really IS something "underneath" it. The window manager is really treating windows as objects that have an "altitude" above the desktop and other windows. The foreground window seems to float above the others, because it has a larger shadow.

      I'm a graphics pro, so this stuff in the GUI makes sense to me. Each app just makes a 32-bit graphic, and the window manager composites them, just like you would do if you were compositing a bunch of graphics in Photoshop or Fireworks. Once a graphic is 24-bit, it has all the colors you can see. Once you add an 8-bit mask (making a 32-bit image), you can easily layer that image with any other image and it just works. The way Mac OS X does things means that drop shadows and things aren't constantly recalculated and redrawn (like in Windows OS), and are not too much harder to do than the one-pixel "shadow" that Mac OS 9 windows have (and Windows OS, too, if I remember correctly).

      This is the future of GUI's, because it is the future of graphics. Mac OS X is ready for someone to write a Finder replacement that looks like a video game. Zooming and transforming and 3D is trivial. Maybe we will see more of this from Apple now that Windows XP is basically feature-frozen for a long while, and Apple is about to actually start pushing and advertising Mac OS X, since we're only a few months away from the 9 to X transition being complete.

      Not sure what you're talking about with drivers. On the Mac, we don't mess around with that. My PowerMac has an NVIDIA adapter with 32MB of RAM, and my PowerBook has an ATI adapter with 16MB of RAM and everything works great on both machines. I've been playing Alice on the PowerBook and it looks and feels great. On the PowerMac especially, the GUI is like butter. It doesn't have quite the snap of Mac OS 9 on the same hardware, but it is very responsive and feels very solid (and doesn't crash), so it feels like working with real objects. Very pleasant way to work. I keep the icons set at 128x128 all the time, and I don't have to open image files to see what they look like. Fabulous. You can lay out all your work in front of you in Finder, and easily see what a whole project looks like.

  17. Evas by vandan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Check out http://www.enlightenment.org/pages/evas.html (sorry I can't figure out linking in Slashdot. I think my account is broken) Evas from the new Enlightenment does this sort of thing (hardware alpha-bending, anti-aliased text, etc). There is a neat little demo included in Evas which shows off the features. I'm not sure about transparency (which I suppose this article is about). I think I remember reading some threads on the E developers list where Rasterman said that there are some very dirty ways of achieving this (transparency) with a BIG performance hit, but he wasn't interested in supporting it seriously until X offered some better tools. Or something. Anyway, if you're interested, check out the mailing list archives.

  18. it's vaguely interesting. by matthayes · · Score: 4, Funny

    Athough I can't really think of any practical reason for it - when I'm working / concentrating I usually minimise all but a couple of windows anyway.

    And I think it could be a little dangerous while surfing at work. You know, the boss comes around and you swiftly alt-tab to your work window...to find that it is 90% transparent.

    Does look nice, though.

    Just a thought,
    Matt.

  19. Re:XFree86 by Jack+Hughes · · Score: 1
    This has been around for at least a year...

    http://www.xfree86.org/~keithp/render/translucent. png .

    And, an alternative to X http://www.directfb.org/screenshots/gimp.png

  20. Wow. Old news. by PsyQ · · Score: 1

    My 7 year old Mac did that already, 7 years ago.

    Yes, it wasn't hardware accelerated and maybe it would stutter when dragging a larger window, but it worked. I don't see why this is such an innovation.

    Slow news day? :)

    1. Re:Wow. Old news. by cbv · · Score: 1

      > My 7 year old Mac did that already, 7 years
      > ago. Yes, it wasn't hardware accelerated and
      > maybe it would stutter when dragging a larger
      > window, but it worked. I don't see why this
      > is such an innovation.

      You should have learned by now, that - whenever
      there is something new on Weendoze, it's a
      revolution.

      It won't matter that it's a re-invention of the
      wheel - as long as it's new to Weendoze - it's
      new to "the world" ... Just think back to the
      time Microsoft introduced Terminal Services and
      a few years before that, a GUI ...

  21. Day Late and a Dollar Short for a Crappy Feature by BlackGriffen · · Score: 1

    OSX could do this easily. So far, the option to turn it on is only presented for the terminal (and on by default for the dock and menus), but it shouldn't be hard to make a hack to do it for anything. But guess what? I tried it on my terminal windows, and immediately switched back. Why? Simple, when I have the terminal in the foreground, I want to be able to see what's in it well, when I don't need to see it, I just let other things cover it. Transparency is like so many other things in this day and age, it just doesn't live up to the hype.

    BlackGriffen

  22. Let me bind this to a toggle key on my keyboard by Sludge · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If this was bound to a key that was togglable on my keyboard, it would be nice. I could hit the key, and see where each window lies. Perhaps making the windows transparent and alt-tabbing through them while putting a red border on each one instead of having them pop up would be nice.

    Whatever the case, it looks kind of hokey. I would like to see something like this where the widget graphics have alpha channels. Right now everything is one level of transparency. One step at a time, right?

    1. Re:Let me bind this to a toggle key on my keyboard by fredrik70 · · Score: 1

      Hmm, that could be something, something like alt-tab (shft-tab?) to toggle the top windows between transparent/solid...
      letting alt-tab make all windows transparent isn't bad either... hmm, might be a fun little proj...

      --
      if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
    2. Re:Let me bind this to a toggle key on my keyboard by x00 · · Score: 2

      Personally, I'd like it so the current window was opaque, and the others were semi-transparent. Now thats a function I could use.

      --
      May contain traces of nut.
    3. Re:Let me bind this to a toggle key on my keyboard by Hedon · · Score: 1

      I already have this bound to a toggle key, using LiteStep.
      Window transparency is delivered through a module called AppTrans.dll.

    4. Re:Let me bind this to a toggle key on my keyboard by JemalCole · · Score: 1

      Sure thing: First, install LiteStep, then get apptrans.dll installed. You can then assign a hotkey (or multiple hotkeys) to turn a window partially transparent. Best of all you can get a number of themes that already feature transparency, in addition to looking pretty cool.

    5. Re:Let me bind this to a toggle key on my keyboard by JatTDB · · Score: 2

      Actually, I'm giving this thing a try right now, and it does have a keyboard shortcut...++number...1 makes it very transparent, 0 makes it solid again.

      Still useless for getting any actual work done, but at least it's got the keyboard shortcut covered.

      --
      "That's Tron. He fights for the Users."
    6. Re:Let me bind this to a toggle key on my keyboard by ShoeHead · · Score: 1

      Maybe even better would be a virtual desktop type feature for windows, where if you switched, the applications became embedded in the desktop--lightly colored/translucent, not able to be activated, but still there to tell you what you had running and where.

    7. Re:Let me bind this to a toggle key on my keyboard by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      Can't do the alpha stuff on mine, but something I miss from my old Amiga was the ability for an active window to be behind the one to the front. When I'm trying to copy or view something and don't need to see all that transpires in the active window this would be great. Alas, it has nothing to do with the video card and everything to do with Windows. Sorry for being off topic, but felt the need to vent.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  23. XFree86's RENDER extension by BESTouff · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you have Xfree86 4.x, you have the RENDER extention which does the same thing. See http://www.xfree86.org/~keithp/render/ for a description (screenshot at the bottom). Now you just need the guy who'll patch Gtk to use this.

    1. Re:XFree86's RENDER extension by BESTouff · · Score: 1

      OK, for those who can't copy/paste, here it is again: The RENDER extension

    2. Re:XFree86's RENDER extension by hexix · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The problem with that is it's not supported by all the video drivers in XFree86 4.x

      For example it just recenty started to support my Rage Mobility LM chipset, before that I had no RENDER support so stuff like anti-aliased fonts in KDE wouldn't work.

      And I *think* that's the reason why people aren't really using it for transparency and stuff. Cause if it's not supported on a persons computer I'm not sure if there is a nice clean way to handle that. I keep hearing about how they can't add it to stuff like KDE or GNOME because so many people wouldn't be able to use it.

      What I really want to know is why someone hasn't put together a special terminal emulator that uses this. Because then just the people who have the render extension could download it and use it, and the people who can't will just have to hope that at some time they'll get RENDER support too.

      Perhaps I should look into that, but I think it's a little too advanced for me to take on.

    3. Re:XFree86's RENDER extension by spitzak · · Score: 2
      These are not the same. The Render extension is for alpha-based rendering *into* a window. This is vital for producing anti-aliased shapes, which is why it is really really important. It can also be used to make transparent objects, but imho programs that want to do this are also trying to draw far more complex illustrations than XRender can do and would do it in their own memory.

      This system seems to be the server alpha-compositing images of the windows onto the screen and keeping the actual window off-screen. This is the huge deal with OSX's interface, but it also existed in NeXT. This requires a lot of memory and processor time. It also gives you double-buffering, which is far more important to making a nice-looking gui, and (depending on the memory usage) the ability to make programs that only incrementally draw their windows, with no redraw events, which makes simple non-toolkit programs way easier to write.

      It looks like the Win32 thing is a fixed level of transparency for the whole window, which is pretty primitive compared to OSX. Then again this may be the result of adding transparency to programs that don't understand it, though I'm suprised to see the window borders do not seem to understand it either (making the resize edge opaque would make this look a lot better, or copying the OSX transparent-when-inactive effect would be nice).

      As far as I see rendering anti-aliased into the window is a totally different system. This is what XRender does. I don't know of any attempts to make X do this window compositing, there are some nasty back-compatability issues (such as no "flush" in the Xlib data stream to indicate when the back buffer should be copied to the screen, and the damn "visuals") which make it very hard or impossible. It is also unclear why both Win32 and OSX make such a big deal about this when antialiased drawing (which they also both have) is not advertised at all.

  24. Shiny! by fhwang · · Score: 5, Funny
    I think I'll design a desktop theme called "The Bedazzler". And basically what it will do, is it'll show the same windows and widgets that we've all been stuck with for twenty fucking years, only they'll be covered in rhinestones and glitter! You'll be able to customize your own rhinestone patterns, to say things like "Groovy!" and "Fan-tastic!"

    And this is how we'll enter the brave new era of computing: Not by actually designing and using tools to make our lives more productive, convenient, and satisfying, but by slumping in our chairs and staring at useless eye-candy while we touch ourselves. I can't wait for the future.

    1. Re:Shiny! by Raphael · · Score: 2

      Here is a good example of how alpha-blending can improve your productivity: just look as this old screenshot from a few months ago, showing GTK+ running on DirectFB. Aren't you glad that you can see all these windows at the same time? Think about how much desktop space you have saved by stacking them up. ;-)

      --
      -Raphaël
    2. Re:Shiny! by AbsoluteRelativity · · Score: 2, Informative

      I agree desktop transparency is not entirely useful, although as someone showed DirectFB displaying GIMP, its nice to be able to see the image you are working on through any dialogs you have open. What I think may also be interested in general in the hardware accelerated desktop, is to be able to scale and rotate windows around, this way you have more options about having multiple windows open. Or small stuff like, if you are looking at an upside down image on a website you can flip the browser upside down rather then sitting on your head.

      In the visual candy area (not much better then transparency) is to add some type of physics to windows, so if you yank it in a direction it swings, or if you drop it, it bounces, if you try to push it off the desktop it squishes down instead, or some weird stuff like that.

      --
      disclaimer : My views do not represent those of every one else in slashdot.
    3. Re:Shiny! by vscjoe · · Score: 1
      It seems to me like that's the wrong solution. If dialogs are cluttering up the screen, the screen needs to get uncluttered and the dialogs need to get managed. Yes, Gimp dialog are awful.

      For flipping images, I think doing that at the level of the windows is both confusing and wrong. What you need is a good image display widget that is widely used and allows such transformations.

    4. Re:Shiny! by mini+me · · Score: 1

      Yes, Gimp dialog are awful.

      They sure are! Why must they be so big? Look at Photoshop for example, they can fit the same tools, and more in a smaller dialog box! Gimp may be usable at 1600x1200 but that's about it.

      That's one thing I've always found about X, it is very hard to manage at low resolutions. The windows take up too much space. Microsoft Windows does a fairly decent job of handling low-res screens. It's usable (although not desired) at 640x480, most X apps aren't. I think we need to start making them smaller! Small lettering, small borders, don't use any more space than you need! Sure high-res screens are starting to become the norm, but that's no excuse, if things are still small then you'll have even more area to work in.

    5. Re:Shiny! by MisterMo · · Score: 1

      This sounds GREAT! I really, really, hope that you do this; rhinestones are sure great!

      --

      42

    6. Re:Shiny! by JamieF · · Score: 1

      But... will The Bedazzler theme allow sub-themes, written in XML with MPEG-4 animation movies and dts surround sounds when you drag windows?

      Go read asktog.com and ask yourself why in Win2K, a left click at any edge of the screen does nothing, even though that's the easiest part of the screen to hit and the default key. Then ask why all the rebellious Linux GUI developers are just cloning Windows' look and feel. Oh, it's to make Windows users feel more comfortable? Well then by all means, add C:\ and regedit and COM1/2/3/4 and cmd.exe and... oh wait.

      No, we'd be better off adding network plumbing, replacing all the file formats with [slower-parsing, bigger] XML based formats, making more themes, supporting new and even more radical component models, and other shit that only developers care about. After all, why bother with usability testing? That foofy stuff is just for "lusers", and everybody knows Linux has way too many users and not enough developers.

      Q: What is the #1 GUI application category for Linux?
      A: Screenshot maker.

      Q: What are the #2 and #3 application categories for Linux?
      A: Terminal and MP3 player.

      Q: Why don't Linux users just use a serial terminal and an MP3 player, since it would be cheaper and require less configuration effort?
      A: You can't take a screenshot of a serial terminal or an MP3 player, and ASCII porn just doesn't cut it.

      Q: Why won't open source eliminate commercial software developers?
      A: Because open-source developers solve problems faced by open-source developers, while commercial software developers solve problems for everybody else.

      I know, I'm being too harsh, I run a few Linux boxen at home and have for years. This is a bitter rant made in jest. Laugh, but recognize the part that rings true.

    7. Re:Shiny! by AbsoluteRelativity · · Score: 1

      Well there are 2 diffrent managements, automanaged where things snap to each others borders this can be anoying, and manual management. But they both dont account for zooming into an image. Like say if I zoom into an image its still nice to see more of the image rather then the image either disappear behind dialogs or be confined to a small portion of the screen.

      --
      disclaimer : My views do not represent those of every one else in slashdot.
  25. Re:XFree86 by Jack+Hughes · · Score: 1
    I messed that up...

    translucent.png

  26. Not intended to be useful by dda · · Score: 1

    I'm sure the main issue of this tool is only to have a cool desktop, "ala Linux" .. (cfr wterm, Eterm ).
    But it's sure that it's not usefull, as lots of /.ers are complaining.
    It's just a matter of taste and choice.

  27. Targetting specific apps by Osty · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Applying alpha blending to all windows is not really an interesting problem. There are some hoops to jump through, and you have to be realistic about what you expect, but otherwise it's a simple, straightforward process (don't believe me? This article gives you 90% of what you need to write such a tool. The other 10% is bookkeeping.)


    More interesting is applying alpha blending to specific applications. This lets you be much more creative by doing something that complements an application. A translucent Internet Explorer is not interesting or useful (in fact, it's likely a drag on your system, and hard to read). A translucent Winamp, on the other hand, is a match made in heaven. What I'd really like to see is more application developers taking the time to add layered windows to their applications where it's appropriate, rather than taking this one-size-fits-all type of approach. But then, I've been playing with layered windows for a year and a half now, so maybe I'm just not getting the "wow" experience anymore.

    1. Re:Targetting specific apps by Artichoke · · Score: 1

      Hey, I was just thinking about adding regex's for the next release :)

      --
      __
      Arse
  28. How This Could be Made Useful by _Neurotic · · Score: 1

    If all background windows could be made transparent, thus drawing attention to your foreground window.

    Justin

    1. Re:How This Could be Made Useful by khuber · · Score: 1

      Why not just make them darker and blurred out
      of focus? I just covered one of my hands and it didn't become transparent...

      -Kevin

    2. Re:How This Could be Made Useful by jrockway · · Score: 1

      > Why not just make them darker and blurred out
      of focus?

      Then you can really call it focus-follows-mouse (or click-to-focus if you like that kinda thing) :-)

      --
      My other car is first.
  29. Re:JTFTR by gazbo · · Score: 1

    ROFL, I clicked on the link to figure out who she was (interesting choice, btw, I don't really see it myself) and was amused to notice the site is nearly slashdotted. Seems strange to mod somebody down as troll when so many people are clearly interested in the post.

  30. OS X does this too ... by ramseys · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For what it's worth, OS X has the capacity to do this as well (and with WindowShade, you can phase any window on the screen). I haven't found the feature incredibly useful, yet, but it sure does look cool.

  31. Operation Brainfuck by Eloquence · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Overlapping windows were a pretty brain-dead idea to begin with. This is increasingly being realized by developers who add sidebars and "panels" to their applications which can be moved and resized (knode, the KDE newsreader, implements this quite fully, although it's a bit awkward to use). The information below the window you're overlapping is cut in half: A browser window you're overlapping might show you text like

    as not a good idea
    creasingly being interested
    ot to be confused with the

    i.e. noise. The only purpose it serves is to faster identify the window you're dealing with. This has become unnecessary with the invention of the taskbar. Further additions to this concept, like window summarization and application-specific taskbars, make it even easier to use. If you want to view a lot of information simultaneously instead of having everything in full-screen mode, a smart window-manager like ion will rearrange windows automatically in useful tiles. Additional usability can be gained with clever hotkeys for application-switching.

    But while overlapping windows are stupid, transparent windows are really part of a vast right-wing conspiracy to stupidify the masses by making computers incapable of displaying information. The next step will be window-spectific screensavers, which turn on after a specific period of inactivity in a single window. Just you wait. Thanks to transparency:

    • Information becomes unreadable, especially with unfortunate color combinations.
    • Information you think is there is actually part of another window -- have fun editing that picture.
    • When two windows overlap with the wrong alpha-blending setting, you can no longer be sure which one is on top without looking at the taskbar or focus (in this screenshot, thanks to additional braindead color gradients in the title bars, this is especially hard).
    • Even your calculator will use more RAM than Mozilla ..

    If you like eye-candy, you may "drool" over this one and get your brain fucked by the Illuminati. A frontal lobotomy may be a quicker solution though.

    1. Re:Operation Brainfuck by nagora · · Score: 1

      Overlapping windows were a pretty brain-dead idea to begin with. This is increasingly being realized by developers who add sidebars and "panels" to their applications which can be moved and resized (knode [sf.net], the KDE newsreader, implements this quite fully, although it's a bit awkward to use).

      All of which shit I turn off. Overlapping windows are far better than having all your windows cluttered up with that sort of crap.

      I do agree with everything you say about transparent windows, however. The elightenment people (or "wankers") really started this trend off and it's just a big waste of processor and developer time.

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    2. Re:Operation Brainfuck by hattig · · Score: 3, Insightful
      One good reason for the emergence of overlapping windows: low screen resolutions. You didn't have a choice when you were running at 512x384 or 640x480.

      It is the brain-dead operation of the GUI in Windows (active window has to be on top) that necessitates such nasty hacks as this. A desktop that allows the active window to be behind another window removes this necessity altogether (for when you are e.g., copying text from one window into another).

      Other good systems include multiple desktops, as provided by all good X Windows Managers and various windows hackons. Amiga Screens were another great system. Screens and multiple desktops are like having a large desk (plenty of space to spread your pens, paper, notebook, encyclopaedia, etc), whereas Windows by default is like trying to do all your work on a desk the size of a mousepad.

      There are times of course when overlapping windows are not required. Multiple webbrowser windows when a tabbed interface within a single browser is adequate, for example. Need to display 2 web pages at once - explicitly open two windows, or split the current web page view in two horizontally or vertically, a function provided by Konqueror.

    3. Re:Operation Brainfuck by Steve+Cox · · Score: 1

      Amiga screens were great, every app could run in at is native resolution on a seperate screen - additionally the ability to change the screen resolution halfway down the monitor screen and being able to drag screens to show one of a different resolution behind was a neat trick that I have yet to see any other computer perform.

      Steve

    4. Re:Operation Brainfuck by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 2

      I hate panes, and I use many overlapping windows. With overlapping windows, I get to decide what's relevant. With frames/panes, I have to rely on the personal preferences of the developer. With overlapping windows, I can make those decisions for myself.

      I run several applications simultaneously-- debuggers, terminals, a web browser, email. etc. If I were to rely on panes, each pane/tile would be too small to read. Overlapping windows allows me to glimpse at my mailbox while writing this reply...

      BTW, I greatly prefer Meetrowerks's GUI to the excessively paned KDevelop or (Ughh) Visual C++).

    5. Re:Operation Brainfuck by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 2


      Or, perhaps, Project Builder on Mac OS X?

      Exactly-- the panes just get in the way. MacOSX also has things called "drawers", but they don't bother me as much, primarily because the resulting window is irregular (and thus, small apps, or the edges of underlying windows can be tucked into into the unused space. (I'm neglecting the posssibility that the User Interface Guidelines suggest that panes and drawers are seperate idioms, intended for different types of data)

  32. Wow...something I've been doing for 18 months by pelorus · · Score: 1
    Since using Mac OS X DP4, I've been using properly transparent terminals...


    and now someone hacks it for Win2K. Gee...make it work on Windows XP.


    *snore*

    1. Re:Wow...something I've been doing for 18 months by Osty · · Score: 1

      and now someone hacks it for Win2K. Gee...make it work on Windows XP.

      There's no "hack" going on here. True alpha blending has been available since the Windows 2000 betas (well, at the very least RC1. I don't recall if it was in NT5 Beta 2, but that was a long time ago). This is just a matter of bookkeeping, really, as the interesting part is trivial.

    2. Re:Wow...something I've been doing for 18 months by 1+(smarterThanYou) · · Score: 1

      Actually the point is that the app uses hardware acceleration instead of the included APIs that already came with Windows 2000 that supported transparency. So now instead of the processor doing the workload for the transparency...the GPU does it. This concept being new is why this is news. I dont believe there are any transparency apps for OS X that have hardware acceleration, but I could be wrong, especially since I dont use non x86.

    3. Re:Wow...something I've been doing for 18 months by gig · · Score: 2

      The reason that Mac OS X users will call the Windows 2000 method a hack is that we've used both. Almost every Mac user bumps into Windows from time to time, and many of us run a copy in Virtual PC because it's easy and cheap (VirtualPC is like $50).

      What you see on the screen in Mac OS X is a proper composite of multiple 32-bit images (a 32-bit image is a 24-bit image with an 8-bit mask that specifies 256 levels of transparency), just like an artist would make. The composite that you see on the display is made in real-time by the window manager and is totally buffered. It is just as easy for an app to be 50% opaque (a 50% gray mask) as it is to be 100% opaque (a black mask). There are no "tricks". On Mac OS X, the drop shadows are not constantly recalculated and redrawn ... they're just a feature of a buffered window ... part of a 32-bit bitmap.

      The difference is like comparing lighting effects from Photoshop with lighting effects in Maya. In Photoshop, you can take a 2D image and play with a filter until your 2D image looks like it's got a sun shining on it (typically you do this to get a little extra texture). In Maya, you put a sun in the sky and everything just gets lit up correctly.

  33. OS X Does this too by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 3, Informative

    Apps like WindowShade X will allow one to drop the opacity of windows in the OS X. It's quite cool to have an MP3 player rendering visuals at 30 percent opacity behind BBEdit or something ;).

    I'm fairly sure WindowShade X beat Glass 2k to the consumer opacity punch...but who really cares.

    Unfortunatly, the whole GUI in OS X is not hardware acellerated due to the fact that it is vector based. No current video cards support this... but they are going to have to eventually. PostScript is the obvisouse evolution of the 2d GUI.

    However, transparent windows still seem to work at a very respectable speed as long as they are not huuuuge with lots of animation. It's quite impressive actually... considering the graphics card does nothing really ;).

    And yes zephc, PowerWindows has been doing this kind of neet'o stuff for a million and 5 years. However it tends to be quite slow on older machines. But then again, the old OS 9 GUI was not designed for stuff like this. No one at apple cared to dump window buffering into the damn OS ;).

    --
    "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
    1. Re:OS X Does this too by mr3038 · · Score: 2
      the whole GUI in OS X is not hardware acellerated due to the fact that it is vector based. No current video cards support this...

      I won't argue about whether or not OS X renders stuff as vectors but... Do you really think that 3D graphics are rendered as bitmaps instead of vectors? Have you heard about DRI? How about T&L acceleration? Why should displaying 2D graphics with 3D API be any harder than displaying full 3D view like games do? In fact, it's much simpler because you never need to move camera and all the stuff is rendered in plane... though cool effects could be easily achieved with some z-buffer fun.

      3D APIs has not been used for full UIs simply because current 2D displays are good enough for the work you want. It's not like you would *really* want to see your desktop through the image you're trying to manipulate ("Damn, scratch... oh, it's my desktop. Never mind"). Yeah, there are some things I would want tranparency for but none of them would be interactive - just some informational stuff overlayed on top of my screen.

      I still want good anti-aliasing with good fonts.

      --
      _________________________
      Spelling and grammar mistakes left as an exercise for the reader.
    2. Re:OS X Does this too by 11223 · · Score: 2

      Actually, Aqua is (barely) accelerated in 10.1. It isn't very hard to make stuff like alpha composting accelerated with a good enough video card.

    3. Re:OS X Does this too by gig · · Score: 2

      Mac OS X's GUI is definitely accelerated by the graphics adapter, on almost all supported machines. The 10.1.1 update enabled hardware acceleration for the second display on my new PowerBook G4 (which was released just before 10.1.1), and you can see the difference. What you're thinking of is that there are some functions that the GUI does regularly that are not accelerated, because they're ahead of what the hardware can presently do. In the future, they'll gain further acceleration as the people who make the graphics hardware (NVIDIA and ATI) add those kinds of functions to their products.

      As far as I know, the major use of "vectors" in Mac OS X is transforming the edges of bitmaps. So you have a window that is stored by Mac OS X as a bitmap (which is why apps don't have to redraw them), and when you minimize it, its shape is transformed in real-time using 3D stuff. In Office X (version 10, like Mac OS X), when you open or close the formatting palette, it "genies" out of the menu item so that you get the picture that it is something you can toggle open or closed with that menu item. That's the kind of stuff Apple has riddled Mac OS X with, and developers are only just starting to get their heads around it.

      As for the performance issues, these effects in Mac OS X are done like movies, so that a transformation that's supposed to take .5 seconds takes .5 seconds on pretty much any machine. Faster machines might show 12 individual transforms in that time, while an older machine might show 3 or 4, but it makes sense either way. This applies to windows being minimized, and things like dialogs fading in and out. In Mac OS X's Mail application, when you switch to a new message, the contents of the preview pane fade out and then back in quickly with the new message, so you see the computer responding to your action.

      Yeah, transparent windows are old news on the Mac, but what's nice with Mac OS X is that they've raised the bar system-wide to 32-bit images (24-bits of every color we can see, plus an 8-bit mask for pro-level compositing). Similarly, "native audio" is 32-bit floating point, which is then "next" pro standard, which is also easily composited without any headroom or distortion considerations ... instead of clipping, the decimal point is just moved to hold the higher number, so you don't have to "mix down" every time you make a new audio file. Setting the bar up high like this elevates all of the platform's apps. Very enjoyable stuff. As a user, you can also commit yourself to storing your graphics and audio in full 32-bit and know that you're going to have a lot of flexibility in the future.

  34. Slashdot hypocrisy by The_Messenger · · Score: 4, Troll
    Slashdot likes Enlightment and the whole mess of other useless XFree86 GUI toys. Slasdot also likes MacOS X. Plenty of absolutely useless graphical gimmicks (i.e. fully transparent terminals with anti-aliased text shadows), but we rejoiced when it was released.

    But when some Windows-weenie slaps together a VB control in five minutes to do the same thing in Win2k, the readers get all bitchy and start complaining about how "useless" it all is. Well, duh. But why didn't you complain about MacOS X's uselessness too?

    I object to this story, too, but for a completely different reason: this isn't news. Windows 2000 has always had the ability to display transparent and translucent forms. Windows 2000 can do a whole load of other useless things with forms, too. Ask any Delphi developer -- I can't stand Delphi myself, but a lot of my friends use it -- and he'll show you dynamic desktop magnification and a bunch of other demos that the development suite comes with. It's not news. It may be news to Slashdot's "We only use Windows for games, and Quicktime, and word processing, and financial apps, and graphics work, and email, and web surfing -- but we use Linux for writing Perl scripts, so we're hackers, right?" loser crew, but it's not news to anyone else.

    --

    --
    I like to watch.

    1. Re:Slashdot hypocrisy by hexix · · Score: 2

      I think people are bitching about it because it's an idiotic way to use transparency. To set the WHOLE window translucent makes no sense, especially w hen the window is the one you're working on.

      MacOSX uses alpha blending in a smart way so that it's not confusing, and just plain looks nice.

      I agree with your comment on the average slashdot reader though. It's funny how most of them spend so much time denying or making up excuses that they use windows but when a story like this comes along all of a sudden everyone talks about their windows box. I don't have a problem with people using windows, but why pretend you don't when you do?

    2. Re:Slashdot hypocrisy by big.ears · · Score: 2

      Your error comes in thinking that there is an average ./ reader. By averaging all the diverse opinions and experiences into a single person, you might find hypocrisy, because hypocrisy is when a single person feigns to be something they are not, or says one thing and does another. This doesn't apply to groups where one subset of people believes one thing and a second believes another. Its like saying congress is hypocritical because some representatives are conservative and others are liberal.

      It is no great feat to observe that in any sufficiently large and diverse group of people (e.g., the slashdot readership), there will be different experiences, opinions, and stories. Isn't it possible that in the /. readership, there are enlightenment fans, there are OSX fans, there are XP fans, and there are those who think flashy gimmicky interfaces are stupid? No hypocrisy there.

    3. Re:Slashdot hypocrisy by mortalic · · Score: 1

      I hate to tell you, but I use linux for games, quicktime, word processing, finiancial apps, graphics, work, email and web surfing, I use windows to play formula 1 2001, because I'm to lazy to try to make it work in wine.

    4. Re:Slashdot hypocrisy by Malcontent · · Score: 2

      Hey hold on there buster you are asking someone to think for a second. There is no call for that kind of crap on /. why not let the bozo cruise on autopilot for a while longer.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    5. Re:Slashdot hypocrisy by Courageous · · Score: 2


      Nah. MacOSX's use of alpha blending is as personally annoying as any other alphablending I've ever seen. I think that blended desktop windows won't turn out to be super popular in the long run. Seeing faint text behind your current text and so forth either makes you think you're seeing double or that your monitor is tweaked.

      Well, I exaggerate.

      But there's a fair to midlun chance that a whole flurry of folks agree with me.

      C//

  35. Re:Day Late and a Dollar Short for a Crappy Featur by Osty · · Score: 1

    OSX could do this easily.

    Sure, but Windows 2000 beat OS X to the punch by nearly a year. Not that it really matters or anything, but if you want a "my OS is better than your OS argument", there you go.

  36. Works in VMware too by Adnans · · Score: 1

    but it's hella slow. Not sure what good it is though. Only usefull for "always on top" folders, like the taskbar or some monitoring tool.

    -adnans

    --
    "In short: just say NO TO DRUGS, and maybe you won't end up like the Hurd people." --Linus Torvalds
  37. OS bloat by resprung · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Three words for you:

    Operating System Bloat.

    Apart from fueling the market for >1 GHz machines to run office applications (!!!), I see no benefit from this eye candy.

    For once, Apple got it wrong in OS X. You ought to experience how sluggishly it performs your UI tasks.

    We all know that Microsoft will release a butt-ugly and more or less broken copy of whatever Apple does. And XP already demands ~90 Mb of System RAM just to tick over.

    Anybody apart from me believe that the UI should be lean and fast as hell?

    --
    Now is the winter of our disco tent
    1. Re:OS bloat by Osty · · Score: 1, Informative

      First off, Windows 2000 had this before OS X, so your claim that Microsoft only rips off from Apple is off-base. Second, this is more GUI bloat than OS bloat, if it's bloat at all. Windows 2000 and XP tastefully use this alpha blending in subtle ways, such as a barely-noticeable shadow under your mouse pointer, or fading out menu selections (giving you some subtle feedback on what you actually selected, while being tuneable in that you can change the menu speed or simply turn off fading effects). Yes, large windows employing this effect are a bit sluggish, but recent video hardware has 2D acceleration for alpha blending so it's not so bad, and is actually very useful for small windows like Winamp.


      As far as a UI being "lean and fast as hell", you'll notice that Microsoft made little use of this effect, and in most places made it optional. I say "most places", because layered windows (Microsoft's term for windows that do some form of alpha blending) are now used instead of the old window regions, and are used with such things as Microsoft Agent (the technology behind the annoying Office Assistants) to bring them "outside the box" of a normal window. Whether or not you choose to use this utility to add alpha blending to all or some of your windows should not reflect at all on Microsoft, who simply chose to add this functionality (which is actually a very nice addition).

    2. Re:OS bloat by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      W2K did come out first, it's just that MS doesn't seem to actually USE the feature. Seeing as they couldn't design a nice GUI to save their lives, it's not really that surprising...

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    3. Re:OS bloat by dhopton · · Score: 3, Interesting

      B1 (or maybe one of the interims between this a b2) of Win2K had this. B1 was released in september 1999. It's been sitting under the hood in GDI for bloody ages. I remember somone wrote an app during the beta that allowed you to do JUST was glass 2k does. So even that app is old.

      Yes, maybe XFree has it a year ago, but that puts it to mid-2000ish. Still after Win2K.

      Who cares which came first? What matters is how it's used. And on one or two windows, and in other places, it works VERY well. But for your whole desktop... no way.

    4. Re:OS bloat by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      ah no, you must be mistaking me for a Windows jockey. Audio effects? WTF are those when they're at home? We don't have them on MacOSX. As to using "every single Photoshop filter", Christ! I've got bloody MILLIONS of PS plug-ins - that'd take me forever! Truly, a feature IS bloat if you include it but don't use it...

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    5. Re:OS bloat by spongman · · Score: 2
      actually they do use this feature, look for any example of transparency in the UI, for example:
      - menus fading in/out
      - explorer drag-drop

      transparent windows are cool, but to most users i'm sure they're confusing as hell - probably why MS didn't go overboard on the effect.

    6. Re:OS bloat by styrotech · · Score: 1

      Wasn't NT5 beta 1 more like september 97? By sept 99 W2K was RC3 if I remember right.

    7. Re:OS bloat by fitten · · Score: 1

      Heh... What GUI do you use then? Sounds like you should be using a VT100 terminal emulator to me.

  38. Mirror of the screen shot by Turmio · · Score: 3, Informative

    In case the server can't handle the /. effect, here's a mirror of the screen shot: http://shakti.tky.hut.fi/slashdot/glass2k-screensh ot/

  39. 'What's wrong?' by DABANSHEE · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You load that up on the average bloke's computer & they'd be complain about their buggy Windows desktop till the cows come home.

    1. Re:'What's wrong?' by Scooby+Snacks · · Score: 1
      --

      --
      Runnin' around, robbin' banks all whacked on the Scooby Snacks...
    2. Re:'What's wrong?' by Artichoke · · Score: 1

      You load that [...]
      But UI tweaks are not the sort of thing you load on someone else's box. They're for people who know what is itching and more or less know what will scratch their particular itch.

      Leaving windows transluced (?) won't be useful for 99.99999% of people. But occaisionally flicking a window translucent to see what's going on behind it, or having dialogue boxes slightly translucent or having the foreground window ever so slightly translucent so you see when that browser which is next in the Z-order has finally rendered the page...

      Blatant plug: FreeShade has all this in the forth-coming beta (due "soon"). Plenty of nice stuff in the current beta of course :)
      --
      __
      Arse
  40. I'm not drooling by Ford+Fulkerson · · Score: 1
    It looks like the ghost of Windows past.

    For a look on how alpha blending should be used in a window manager check out OS X instead.

    --

    Somewhere in the heavens... they are waiting.
    1. Re:I'm not drooling by gig · · Score: 2

      All this talk about Mac OS X "not having hardware acceleration for transparency" is plain wrong. It comes from an Apple engineer talking about Aqua in mid-2000 or so and saying that there are some functions that currently can't be accelerated BECAUSE THE GRAPHICS PROCESSORS DON'T ACCELERATE THEM YET. The NVIDIA or ATI chips just don't do those calculations. However, on the Mac, the G4 chip has an Altivec co-processor that DOES do these kinds of calculations, because these calculations are the very things that legions of artists and video editors do everyday all day with Mac software. In other words, Mac OS X is designed to meet the needs of its users, and its GUI also takes advantage of that graphics power. Same hardware that can finish a whole day of work in Photoshop in half the time it takes a P4 to do the same is being put to work in the Mac OS X GUI.

      I recently got a new PowerBook G4, and when I hooked it up to a second display under Mac OS X 10.1, the second display was clearly not hardware accelerated and was much slower. In Mac OS X 10.1.1, which came out just after this notebook, the acceleration for the second display was added, and it is an obvious improvement. I mean, if an NVIDIA card can accelerate Quake, don't you think it can accelerate Aqua? Aqua is full of the same kinds of OpenGL calls and methods.

      So, to sum it up: current graphics hardware accelerates the functions it is designed to accelerate on both platforms (it's the same hardware, after all), while on Windows, the CPU picks up the rest, and on Mac OS X, Altivec and then the core CPU picks up the rest. Combined with the efficient, modern design of the Mac OS X window manager, it's trivial to have real drop shadows on windows in Mac OS X, not tricks or hacks necessary. Especially with the great multitasking, the user is not being robbed of CPU cycles on a modern machine. I don't know that I've ever felt CPU hungry in Mac OS X, running on a PowerBook G4 and PowerMac G4. The other day I had something rendering in ArtMatic in the background, another thing rendering in Bryce in the background, with both apps hidden, and I was working in the Finder and forgot that both those things were going on, and this is on a notebook. If I stopped what I was doing, my renders would finish a little faster, but who cares? I just want to keep working and let the computer use the cycles I'm not using to do those renders. Mac OS X's GUI is not quite as snappy as Mac OS 9's on the same hardware, but Mac OS X's GUI doesn't stop for anybody ... you get the responsiveness no matter what you're doing in the background.

      A side note: don't believe anything you hear about Macs from anyone who hasn't used them to do real work. Every other Windows user has a strong opinion on the Mac and absolutely nothing relevant to say. You can try a Mac all day long at the Apple Store (that's what they're for), so there really is no excuse for just contributing ignorant noise to the conversation. (I'm not speaking of any specific post in this thread, just in general about the level of actual information contained in any conversation about Macs amongst people who haven't used them.)

  41. WooHoo by Perdo · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Excite personals classifieds adult slide show running under a transparent slashdot... Life is so good!

    --

    If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.

  42. Ho Hum, Already Done by under_score · · Score: 5, Informative

    Over a decade ago in the NeXT computers. Transparency (alpha-channel) was part of their graphics system (including their windowing system built using Display Postscript), pretty much from day one. I wrote software which depended on it - some funky drag-n-drop stuff which used transparency in icons. It was fast back then on a 25MHz 68040 - eighty times slower clock speed than todays high end processors!!!

    1. Re:Ho Hum, Already Done by Refrag · · Score: 2

      And now this same system is now in use in Mac OS X. It's pretty neat. The title (and tool, I think) bar of each window in the background is transparent. You can make your CLI transparent. The clock app they ship can reside on your desktop at different levels of user-configurable transparency. The dock background is transparent.

      It's pretty neat.

      --
      I have a website. It's about Macs.
    2. Re:Ho Hum, Already Done by mrpotato · · Score: 1
      I know you probably intented it as a troll, but sincerly it isn't really a clever one nor is it true.

      I think reasons behind MS OSes bloat is more like something related to marketing, and keeping backward compatibility, etc.

      --

      cheers
    3. Re:Ho Hum, Already Done by ScoobysSlut · · Score: 1
      The NeXT DPS server actually didn't support transparent windows as such -- but you could fake it, and as long as the content of windows obscured by your window didn't change, you'd be fine.

      Mac OS X's window server supports true window transparency.

    4. Re:Ho Hum, Already Done by spitzak · · Score: 3, Informative
      Fairly true, however there are two "alpha compositing" systems of interest.

      One is rendering with alpha, into a window. The result is an image that shows the result of the rendering. You can set your "paint" to transparent, and fill a shape, and the resulting image shows a mix of your paint and what was there before. But you cannot then seperate it and recover the image that was there before you painted it. This is what NeXTSTep's PostScript rendering interface provided (though it was more complex than it should be).

      The system being shown here is dynamic compositing of window images to the screen. You can recover the behind image (move the front window away and it reappears without the application having to redraw it). NeXTStep did have the main portion of this, which is a off-screen backing store (or double buffer, or pixmap, or whatever you want to call it). However they always composited it as though the window was opaque. They could have added this alpha fairly easily. One obvious effect was that NeXt could do opaque window drags on hardware that was MUCH too slow to do it under X or Windows.

      As far as I can tell, alpha-based rendering and this alpha windowing are completely different and unrelated systems. You can have either one without the other.

      Also another common mistake: NeXT did not use "Display PostScript". NeXT used a much superior system (though I liked NeWS better) where the creation of windows and management of them was done with PostScript as well.

    5. Re:Ho Hum, Already Done by gig · · Score: 2

      Yes, it's done in hardware. The GPU and Altivec are both contributing to the calculations that are necessary to put Aqua on the display. Altivec was designed from the beginning to do these kinds of calculations. Before they were GUI features, they were features of users' documents, in Photoshop and Final Cut Pro and others. Final Cut Pro runs something like twice as fast on a G4 (with Altivec) as on a G3 (without Altivec). Pro video editors routinely work on PowerBooks.

  43. !!! YUCK !!! by bani · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The whole transparency thing screams of "1337 euro-democoders" crap, it's a complete waste of effort and time.

    A GUI is supposed to enhance and make things easier -- this app just makes things a complete nightmare. You can barely make out the mess of the ruler on the left side of Word, and the transparent buttons of Calculator are a complete mess.

    Can you imagine trying to read a book where all the pages were transparent celluloid? How about the desktop in your workplace where every paper you had was transparent? Can you imagine what a nightmare that would be?

    Why in the world would you want to do that to your windowing system then?

    And why is this a "newsworthy" item anyway?

    Moderators: Please mod this post down, and demonstrate the complete and utter failure of the /. moderation system.

    1. Re:!!! YUCK !!! by snake_dad · · Score: 2

      Don't judge the usefulness of transparancy by one single image that just shows how it could be used if you were an utter ididot.

      Transparancy in some small floating windows would be quite nice, but I doubt I would use it for windows like wordprocessors, browsers, and such. Transparancy in all windows would indeed not be useful at all, at least IMHO.

      eg. I would love to have a bit larger clock, always visible, but never obscuring underlying (non-transparant) windows. Or a IM contactlist, or winamp, or a (quake-)server monitoring app, or ... anything you would like to keep half an eye on.

      --
      karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
    2. Re:!!! YUCK !!! by RFC959 · · Score: 1
      Can you imagine trying to read a book where all the pages were transparent celluloid?
      Been there, read that. Look for "Circus in the Mist", by Bruno Munari, a book where most of the pages are translucent plastic. It actually works really well - although it /is/ a book about approaching a circus through mist, so it makes sense. For a math textbook, I'd probably have a different opinion. I'd post a link, but I can't find anything useful through Google.
    3. Re:!!! YUCK !!! by gpinzone · · Score: 1

      Hmmmm...here's an idea: semi-transparent adverts in the corner of your desktop. *shudder*

    4. Re:!!! YUCK !!! by snake_dad · · Score: 1

      Quick! Patent it! :-)

      --
      karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
  44. glass2k? blah... by pinkysqueaks · · Score: 1

    i haven't tried it, but from what i can tell from the site it's written in vb? hrm...i've been using this for a couple months... http://www.veridicus.com/tummy/programming/powerme nu/ (it's called PowerMenu) personally the whole transparency thing is really annoying to me and no matter how good your vid card is, it slows things down.. but hey...whatever makes your eyes happy

  45. Transperizer by Keelor · · Score: 2

    There has been a program out since one of the betas of Win2K called Transperizer--it no longer seems to have an official homepage (as in development has apparently stopped), but there's a review here. It allows you to set certain windows as transparent based on their window titles.

    In other words, this seems kind of like old news--though I'll probably try it out, since I haven't tested WinXP's transparent window code.

    ~=Keelor

  46. PowerMenu by TummyX · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's not a big deal. I don't see why this story is on the front page.

    I wrote a small free app called PowerMenu which does the same thing and more. It extends every window's system/controlbox menu with new options like always on top and transparency.

    1. Re:PowerMenu by Fjord · · Score: 1

      It doesn't add the options to Yahoo Messenger, which is the only window I actully want to do this to. Otherwise, it's cool.

      --
      -no broken link
    2. Re:PowerMenu by 1+(smarterThanYou) · · Score: 1

      The reason this story made it to the frontpage is that the app has support for hardware acceleration...meaning that the GPU which is otherwise underworked during normal desktop operation takes the transparency workload instead of using the APIs which would use the CPU to do the transparency work. The concept of using the GPU for the work in transparency is new. Its in plain English on the main page. You might try reading the post fully and comprehending what it says before ranting about it.

    3. Re:PowerMenu by TummyX · · Score: 1

      Maybe YOU should do a bit more investigating. The app only works on 2000/XP. Why? Because the app does anothing more than use Windows 2000/XP's built in alpha-blending. Windows' built in alpha-blending is the thing that uses hardware acceleration. The app is nothing special.

      nVidia drivers 12.x supports hardware alphablending. The concept is NOT new.

  47. Transparency effect... by frleong · · Score: 5, Informative
    It's very easy, suppose that hwnd is your window handle:

    SetWindowLong(hwnd, GWL_EXSTYLE, GetWindowLong(hwnd, GWL_EXSTYLE) | WS_EX_LAYERED); SetLayeredWindowAttributes (hwnd, 0, 180, LWA_ALPHA);

    GUI programming in Windows is quite snappy.

    --
    ¦ ©® ±
    1. Re:Transparency effect... by frleong · · Score: 2

      You have to get the latest Windows PSDK headers from Microsoft. The ones bundled with VC++ are already outdated and are for Windows NT 4, not Windows 2000.

      --
      ¦ ©® ±
    2. Re:Transparency effect... by bnenning · · Score: 2

      And in Mac OS X (using Cocoa):

      [window setAlphaValue:alpha];

      where window is an NSWindow and alpha is a float between 0 (fully transparent) and 1 (opaque).

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    3. Re:Transparency effect... by Malcontent · · Score: 2

      Christ another fucking reboot.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

  48. Overlapping windows rule by GregWebb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sorry, no.

    What if I want a large workspace, but I'm working on multiple applications? I create two or more windows with a total surface area greater than the desktop size and overlap them. I can switch more easily than via a taskbar (not so far to move the mouse), I can still drag items between windows, I can see what's going on in different windows. Say I'm comparing two lists of contents. Each window may well contain rather more than the list, but that's all I need at that point. So, I lay it out so I can see both lists and compare away, without losing the larger workspace in the primary application.
    Or maybe one is performing a task - by just displaying a portion of its GUI, I can monitor that task without losing a potentially large portion of my desktop for its full UI.
    The day a desktop GUI bans me from overlapping windows is the day I look for new GUIs.

    --

    Greg

    (Inside a nuclear plant)
    Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!

    1. Re:Overlapping windows rule by Eloquence · · Score: 1
      I can switch more easily than via a taskbar

      That is only a matter of implementation (clever use of mouse buttons / scroll wheel, decent keybindings).

      I can still drag items between windows

      If you want to run separate windows, then open them and tile them a la ion. If you just want to drag for a single operation, drag on the taskbar and the window will pop up.

      I can see what's going on in different windows

      That's a myth. You can't really see what's going on, first, because your eyes can only see high-res on a very small amount of screenspace, second, because the information is not meaningful.

      Say I'm comparing two lists of contents.

      Tile them (or rather, let your WM do it). Scrollable workspaces are somewhat useful in certain cases and do not contradict the non-overlapping paradigm.

      Or maybe one is performing a task - by just displaying a portion of its GUI, I can monitor that task without losing a potentially large portion of my desktop for its full UI.

      If you have to carefully position the window in such a way that only a small part of its information is visible, because the application doesn't allow you to show only the relevant parts, then the application is badly designed.

    2. Re:Overlapping windows rule by MadHobbit · · Score: 1
      If you have to carefully position the window in such a way that only a small part of its information is visible, because the application doesn't allow you to show only the relevant parts, then the application is badly designed.

      In which case, my OS is doing me a service by providing a mechanism to work around a design flaw of the application I'm using.

  49. Does anyone here get the point? by Dynedain · · Score: 5, Informative

    Sure, this stuff has been done before on other operating systems. Sure, Win2k has had it hidden in the API. THE POINT IS that this is being done by your GRAPHICS CARD....nothing on the processor end. Oh, and its a 54K yes 54K download, and is easy to use. Calm down people. Why start flaming someone without ever checking out what it is?

    --
    I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
    1. Re:Does anyone here get the point? by kraf · · Score: 1

      > Oh, and its a 54K yes 54K download

      umm, I needed to download 3.25 megs of VB runtime stuff that I don't use for anything else

    2. Re:Does anyone here get the point? by Ozwald · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, the point is that it's completely useless. Just like a shadow under the mouse cursor, semi-transparent windows do nothing but make the computer a little slower. I turned all that fluff off and you wouldn't believe how much faster everything runs.

      Second, about the graphics card, it depends on drivers and hardware acceleration. Windows 2K always support this feature whether the graphics card supports it or not.

      Ozwald

    3. Re:Does anyone here get the point? by SmittyTheBold · · Score: 1

      As was said, it's accelerated by *some* drivers, but not all. have a 3dfx card? you're screwed. Furthermore, it's only accelerated by nVidia cards to a point. If you take a 1024x768x32 transparent window and drag it around on your 1280x960 screen, it will be DOG SLOW. Your little ICQ window, on the other hand, will feel quite snappy.

      Finally, this is old news. I had a freeware app - that DIDN'T require VB runtimes - do this a year ago. Stardock had a program to benchmark this last summer even. (www.xpbench.com) It's not news, it's not even that interesting. The poster makes it seem like this has never been done before, when all this is is a little utility for 2000/XP that increases functionality a bit.

      It's not like Mac OS X hasn't had transparency for over a year now (counting the betas.)

      --
      ± 29 dB
    4. Re:Does anyone here get the point? by doug363 · · Score: 1

      Actually, whether it's done by the graphics card depends on what your graphics card is. I wrote some code to do some alpha blending, and the routines in Win2K are slooow (and I have a GeForce 2, which I'd hope does alpha blending on the video card). I then implemented it "manually", i.e. blending each pixel in a loop, and it was about the same speed. With some profiling, I found that the bottleneck was a Windows GDI function, which could be avoided. So the upshot is that you can do it at least 10 times faster using the processor and a bit of optimisation than you can using the Win2K alpha routines. And it works on other versions of Windows as well.

  50. Glass and icing by viktor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There might be a very good reason it's taken two years for the glass-like windowing system. And that would be that it isn't a good idea.

    Sure it looks pretty. It's technically cool. It's very nice eyecandy. But useful? Hardly.

    If our desktops were three-dimensional, there would be a point - in that case you could refocus on a window below your current. When refocusing, the frontmost window would be so blurry to you that it didn't interfere with your view of what was behind it.

    But desktops aren't 3D (and "fake" 3D doesn't work, refocusing requires that your desktop is not displayed on a single plane, as that plane only has one focus), and you can't refocus. What you get is just a blur of all windows that happen to be ontop of one another (and the background if you have a background/wallpaper image).

    I would guess that the only time that transparent windows help is if you have an OS/wm that does not offer workspaces or similar. The transparency might help cram an extra three windows onto the screen. Using workspaces you can just put those extra three on another workspace instead.

    I have yet to see anybody argue how great it would be if all books were printed on plastic rather than paper, so that we could see through them.

    1. Re:Glass and icing by CaseyB · · Score: 2
      What you get is just a blur of all windows that happen to be ontop of one another (and the background if you have a background/wallpaper image).

      Yeah, and it's bad to have a display that supports "color", because it's hard to edit text that is constantly flashing in rainbow colors while you're working.

      I wonder if there is any possibility that there are cases where not all the windows have to be transparent all the time? Consider an application-switching mechanism that lets you hold a key to fade all windows, at which point you can select a window to bring to front. It then becomes opaque, and you continue working.

    2. Re:Glass and icing by MrFredBloggs · · Score: 1

      "Sure it looks pretty. It's technically cool. It's very nice eyecandy. But useful? Hardly."

      you could say the same about Quake though, couldnt you?

      Useful? Yes. Put multiple windows on top of each other (slightly offset), and see them all at the same time.

    3. Re:Glass and icing by viktor · · Score: 2

      Yeah, and it's bad to have a display that supports "color", because it's hard to edit text that is constantly flashing in rainbow colors while you're working.

      The main difference there would perhaps be that examples and screenshots for the color displays generally do not include flashing rainbow text, whereas just about every example use and screenshot of transparent windows I've seen this far has text that cannot be read because the contents of the window below interferes.

      That might of course be an error of the "screenshotters" rather than the functionality in itself. It could also be a strong sign that there really aren't all that many good things you can do with it.

      Consider an application-switching mechanism that lets you hold a key to fade all windows, at which point you can select a window to bring to front.

      This is honestly the first example use of alpha-blending windows I have ever seen anybody mention. I would still prefer workspaces, which IMO unnecessitates (sp?) this functionality, but I can see that somebody definately could find that useful.

      I would still choose to implement workspaces before alpha-blendable windows. But there is of course the additional effect that alpha-blendning is a lot cooler than workspaces, and therefore more fun to implement.

      Unfortunately, everybody is raving on about transparency and how cool it is, apparently without even thinking about how it would make anything better. So perhaps I should just ask for more examples of how alpha-blending in the Windowing System improves usability.

    4. Re:Glass and icing by mccalli · · Score: 1

      Sure it looks pretty. It's technically cool. It's very nice eyecandy. But useful? Hardly.

      I could do with it right now, reading your post. Underneath I'm running a long process that prints out at the end - I would like to see when it's printed without constantly switching windows between the xterm and web browser.

      Cheers,
      Ian

    5. Re:Glass and icing by Buck2 · · Score: 1

      ... which IMO unnecessitates (sp?) ...

      unnecessitates is spelled like "obviates"

      HTH, HAND

      --

      As my father lik@(munch munch)... ....
    6. Re:Glass and icing by jrockway · · Score: 1

      How about running:
      longprocess && echo -e "\a"

      Your process will run then beep at the end. Doesn't even take your eyes off your real work.

      --
      My other car is first.
    7. Re:Glass and icing by Velex · · Score: 2

      That's not the point. Have you ever tried to get some moron who just got done complaining about a bluescreen to even try linux? Either they don't know that X exists, or they say something like, "Meh \/\/i/\/d0wz r 7r4nzp4r3n7, f00." Having eye candy is important -- if people really didn't like jacking off to interfaces, we'd all be using command line.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
    8. Re:Glass and icing by Buck2 · · Score: 1

      You need to put some xset commands in there to distinguish it from email or talk beeps.

      --

      As my father lik@(munch munch)... ....
  51. ok ok ok by posmon · · Score: 1
    it's shit. it's slow as hell and makes stuff hard to read.

    a far better gimmick would be to be able to drag windows around *behind* other windows with the right mouse button, something riscos has had from the start.

    --

    update comments set karma=-1, reason='offtopic' where sid=26315

    1. Re:ok ok ok by HerrNewton · · Score: 1

      a far better gimmick would be to be able to drag windows around *behind* other windows with the right mouse button, something riscos has had from the start.

      going horridly offtopic, but MacOS Classic (at least the 9.x series) can do that as well. Just command+drag the titlebar to move an inactive window in the Finder.

      --

      ----
      Am I the only one who thinks Microsoft is a misnomer? Perhaps Macrosoft would be a better fit?
    2. Re:ok ok ok by gig · · Score: 2

      On the Mac, Command+clicking a window enables you to drag it around, no matter what its stacking order (Mac OS 9 or X). Also, clicking a window widget works no matter what the window's stacking order, on Mac OS X.

  52. Been there done that by Old+Wolf · · Score: 2

    PowerMenu has given this for months (years?) on the corner menu of each window, as well as the option to set OS priority, and windows Always On Top. Essential stuff to have around.

    1. Re:Been there done that by phord · · Score: 1

      I wrote a quick hack like this (GlassyWindows) a few months ago. I do use it occasionally for transparent notepads, calculators, and download windows, but I haven't released it publicly for lack of usefulness. Got a few more things to add, too.

    2. Re:Been there done that by Artichoke · · Score: 1

      Try FreeShade. In my totally unbiased *ahem* opinion, it's far sweeter :)

      --
      __
      Arse
  53. Can we see through ? by nsebban · · Score: 1

    I've always been wondering what kind of stuff was inside my screen...Perhaps the fact of setting my win2k desktop to transparent would answer this question ? :)

    --
    ____
    nico
    Nico-Live
  54. A Sash weblication to do the same thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    There's a Sash weblication called Layered Window Manager that does the same thing. Once you get Sash, the source code is available for free and only takes up 17kb.

  55. Re:Day Late and a Dollar Short for a Crappy Featur by Gnea · · Score: 1

    *cough* X11 has had this for over a year now. feel the beatdown. (and get your facts straight: it was open sourced before it hit the m$ and apple alike. yeah, it's a nice feature, but it's not a necessity. nothing more than useless eyecandy. but since longetivity is your forte, I will gladly lay this smack down upon thee. :-) )

  56. Disappointed... by mosburger · · Score: 1

    You know, I'm a real sucker for eye-candy, so I was really looking forward to this too... then I saw the screenshot. Holy crap, is that ugly or what? I think the reality is that it's darned hard to read text when you can see through the window. Kinda like reading pages in a book made of celluloid. It's one thing when a transparent window is overlapping your wallpaper... it's quite different to have your windows overlapping each other.

    1. Re:Disappointed... by 1+(smarterThanYou) · · Score: 1

      Im pretty sure you can customize what you want transparent and how transparent...for each individual window...so it doesn't have to look like the screenshot. It can look however the user wants it to look. The main hype about this app is the hardware acceleration included...meaning the GPU does the work load, instead of the cpu...since the gpu wasn't really doing anything anyways...assuming its a modern gpu.

  57. Real use of a transparent terminal by tarkin · · Score: 1

    I recently moved from the GNOME desktop to MacosX. I was used to having several terminal files open so I could edit in one term, and copy data of another one. Or comparing some data between terminals.
    Since MacosX has no always-on-top feature, and I had to run it at a lower (1024x768) resolution, I really had some problems getting used to switching between terminals.
    Until I set some terminals transparant. Now I could read through the window ! Obviously this only works when the top terminal isn't cluttered with text itself, but it works great enough for me. And because the fonts in MacosX have really great AA the text always remains legible. And transparant windows only make sense to me if they're transparant to the layer beneath them , and not for instance the desktop background. That's why i never used them in linux
    I guess it's a question of taste and the abillity to use your choice of desktop efficiently for YOUR needs.

    By the way, I'm running MacosX on a iMac g3/233/128ram and it still feels snappier than windows on an comparable system, so choose your bloat statements carefully ;-)

    --
    blaah !
    1. Re:Real use of a transparent terminal by tarkin · · Score: 1

      Hehe , I have to admit I wouldn't know how to compare the 233/66mhz bus imac to any pentium class machine.I really meant "of the same age : 1998" (, which is pretty old in current standards).
      I'm only a recent convert , so I'll leave that kind of holy war to more experienced mac users/addicts ;-) Ask me again when my powerbook arrives LOL

      --
      blaah !
  58. Yup, 'tis an easy thing to do by Bothari · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Basically all you have to do is make a dll to hook the WM_CREATE message. Then you just have to check which type of window (or even which window).
    Easy-peasy, done in an hour or so, back when w2k came out.

    It *is* bloody useless, though, I only use it ... well, for the look of the thing ;)

  59. Re:Day Late and a Dollar Short for a Crappy Featur by deaddrunk · · Score: 1

    Presumably, though, OS X doesn't require anyone to write a program before it can be used.

    --
    Does a Christian soccer team even need a goalkeeper?
  60. Whoa!!! by 1stflight · · Score: 1

    Personally I'm appreciative of any hackers work, so dude thank you so much for putting this out in the public arena!! Keep up the good work!

  61. Screensaver by pacc · · Score: 3, Funny

    If you don't use a screensaver, eventually your windows desktop will be burnt into your monitor with disastrous results

  62. Why should I drool? by barneyfoo · · Score: 1

    It's ugly. I wouldn't want alpha blended windows at all. It's of even questionable utility inside an OpenGL game, where alpha blending is practically free.

    Yet more pointless eyecandy. I'm sure there are worthwhile applications of this, but I cant think of anything important right now.

    1. Re:Why should I drool? by gig · · Score: 2

      > In MacOSX, this feature has been usefully
      > implemented once to my knowledge.

      What about the rounded corners of windows, the translucent volume and brightness adjustment meters, the translucency of dragged icons so you can see your drop target?

      It's gimmicky to make an entire window partially transparent, but it's not gimmicky to use 32-bit graphics, or masks. Without a mask, a graphic is just a plain rectangle.

  63. Wow... by gmplague · · Score: 1

    Wow, that's what I'm talkin bout. I don't care if it's done before, it's something I'd always wanted, but never bothered to look for/write. This is great

    --
    __________________________________________
    Take comfort in your ignorance.
    Grandmaster Plague
  64. Nice exercise, but how about a real tool? by jelling · · Score: 1

    This looks nice, but it's not going to do anything for my productivity.

    How about a utility that switches the CAPS LOCK key based on the window that has focus? For those of us still programming in legacy CAPS LOCK systems (Represent, Informix Universe, PICK Mode!), it would really save some time.

    Does this already exist somewhere? I couldn't find it.

    .jelling

    --
    Opinions were like kittens / I was giving them away
  65. MS have been trying to... by yatest5 · · Score: 1

    MS have been trying to write Windows for 15-odd years and only *now* have they made them see-through - surely that was on an early spec? My gran's had see-through windows for *years*!!

    --
    • Mod parent up! [a] by Anonymous Coward (Score:5) Thurs, June 31, @13:37
  66. classic by staeci · · Score: 1

    R&D department is told to solve the problem of too many windows and you can't use 'pager/workspaces' because they aren't cool enough.

    --
    'Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson...'
  67. old idea, and then some by vscjoe · · Score: 2
    Transparency in user interfaces is a pretty old idea. The only thing that is "new" about it is that Windows now has it. Using pure transparency by itself can be a bit confusing. But there, too, people have thought of lots of useful additional visual cues: you can blur contents of the window behind the top window, you can desaturate it, and/or you can reduce its intensity range.

    Some X11 environments have faked various forms of transparency. Now, X11 supports alpha channels, but I'm not sure whether it actually allows partially transparent windows (does anybody know?). In general, the feature seems to be more eye candy than useful. Transparency is primarily useful for 2D and 3D graphics within an application, not for windows and other user interface components.

  68. kill x11... kill x11... by TheM0cktor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    and why exactly should we be drooling? Oh yes, because our venerable X11 can't. A few windowmanagers have hacks to enable something like it (enlightenment with Eterm for example) but its just painting a shaded section of the current wallpaper a window's background, not real, actual transparency.

    And until we all get supercomputers on our desks, rewrite X or ditch it entirely for something that isn't old and bloated we're going to carry on losing on the eye candy front.

    1. Re:kill x11... kill x11... by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      we HAVE all got supercompters on our desks - if you beleive Apple's "1GFLOPS makes it a supercomputer" rule, anyway. And what do we do with them? Surf porn and play Quake. Crap, eh?

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    2. Re:kill x11... kill x11... by TheM0cktor · · Score: 1

      true, by 1990 standards... the point i'm making is that we could hack x11 around to do this sort of thing but ultimately its an ugly mess. The only really valuable thing about it is the network transparency and only ~5% of people ever seriously use it anyway. I think its time the unix world moved on, threw X out and went for something that doesn't take the performance hit imposed by such a level of abstraction.

    3. Re:kill x11... kill x11... by jonabbey · · Score: 2

      Which performance hit is that? The performance hit where each process doesn't get to draw directly on the screen without any multiuser permissions checking? The performance hit where programs have to use a strictly defined API? The performance hit where the kernel isn't handling the GUI, so that video driver problems don't lock the whole system?

      The only performance hit I've ever seen in X is from either a) using X over a network, or b) from the user-level context switch required to execute the API requests. a) is inevitable if you want that feature, and b) is inevitable if you want a stable system that enforces permissions.

    4. Re:kill x11... kill x11... by JKR · · Score: 1
      The performance hit where programs have to use a strictly defined API?


      Ahem, DirectX?


      The performance hit where the kernel isn't handling the GUI, so that video driver problems don't lock the whole system?


      But it STILL does happen - I've had it happen to me personally (cheap S3 chipsets) and I've seen it happen to others. The performace hit wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for the fact that you're not actually gaining anything for it! Context switches are slow. On some architectures, pathologically so.

    5. Re:kill x11... kill x11... by jonabbey · · Score: 2

      Context switches are slow. On some architectures, pathologically so.

      But what's the alternative? Things like DGA work fine for programs that need direct video mapping, but in a multi-user system you can't really have arbitrary (i.e., non-root) user programs mucking around with the video display directly. You'd have to either do like Berlin or Display Postscript/Quartz do and push more complex rendering requests to the graphics server (which could be done through X11 extensions), or you have to drastically complicate the kernel, undermining overall system stability.

      But it STILL does happen - I've had it happen to me personally (cheap S3 chipsets) and I've seen it happen to others.

      I've never had it happen.. my X display locks up with distressing frequency (about once per week), but I can always ssh into my box and kill of the X display to get things unstuck.

  69. you vs. the UI professionals of the world by streetlawyer · · Score: 2
    It is the brain-dead operation of the GUI in Windows (active window has to be on top) that necessitates such nasty hacks as this. A desktop that allows the active window to be behind another window removes this necessity altogether (for when you are e.g., copying text from one window into another).



    I'm guessing that Microsoft has more time and money to spend on UI research than you do, which is the context for your off-the-cuff judgement that they are "brain-dead". The desktop tricks that you describe are all very nice, but they disrupt the continuity of the desktop metaphor. In other words, they stop it from being the case that what you see on the screen is an accurate representation of your workspace. And it turns out that preserving the metaphor is more important for usability than occasionally requiring a few annoying switches between windows.

    The principle is called "designing for the common case". Sure, it can be useful to have active windows not on top when you're copying text from one window to another, but what about when you're not? Usually, when you want to activate a window, you want to bring it to the front at the same time, and you want to be able to do so with a single click anywhere in the window. Microsoft sets itself up this way because they've done actual work to find out whether it's better or not, rather than ad hoc theorising.

    Go on then, is it quicker to use keyboard shortcuts or the mouse?

    1. Re:you vs. the UI professionals of the world by hattig · · Score: 1
      The point is that Microsoft do not even give you the choice of moving the active window back through the desktop window layers should you want to do that.

      Yes, I agree that the default behaviour upon clicking on a Window should be to bring it to the top (surely in a perfect desktop metaphor, you should have to move all the other windows off of it completely to access it :)), but that does not preclude having extra functionality should you require it, accessed by perhaps "alt-clicking" the minimise gadget, or whatever.

      Anyway, my main point is that the Windows desktop is like working on a desk that can barely hold a notepad and a pen, whereas a decent desktop metaphor will give you a desk large enough to hold all of the material that you are working with.

    2. Re:you vs. the UI professionals of the world by khuber · · Score: 1
      Which "UI professionals" are you talking about? I read criticism of the Windows interface all the time from Tognazzini and others.

      take a look here:
      A Quiz Designed to Give You Fitts

      And there are many research efforts underway to replace the inadequate "desktop metaphor" (Lifestreams is one interesting idea).

      -Kevin

    3. Re:you vs. the UI professionals of the world by tfb · · Score: 1
      The principle is called "designing for the common case". Sure, it can be useful to have active windows not on top when you're copying text from one window to another, but what about when you're not? Usually, when you want to activate a window, you want to bring it to the front at the same time, and you want to be able to do so with a single click anywhere in the window. Microsoft sets itself up this way because they've done actual work to find out whether it's better or not, rather than ad hoc theorising.

      I think it's actually called designing for the lowest common denominator. People who are not really used to doing complicated things with computers find it confusing to be able to have the non-topmost window active. They also find it confusing if just moving the mouse over a window makes it active rather than having to click in it. Microsoft sell to this market.

      But, you know, some people do very complicated things with computers and spend a lot of time using them. Some people may have two or more editor windows on their screen with just enough text in them so they can keep track of what they are doing, and another partly shaded window with, say a shell, or the buttons that crank up the compiler. It is a real pain to those people that moving the focus to one of these partly shaded windows so they can type C-P RET or whatever mucks around with the stacking order, because they do this every few seconds.

      This whole `designing for the common case' story is a myth that UI `professionals' like to spread, because they can't quite understand that people use computers in different ways. Do you think racing cars are designed the same way as the thing you drive to work? Why not? Maybe the people who use racing cars do different things with them and have different requirements, and they are also a lot more competent at making a car go along. Well, now maybe people who program a lot do different things with their computers than people who just surf the web all day, and myabe they are more confident at driving the machine too, and don't need some bogus `desktop metaphor' to help them along.
    4. Re:you vs. the UI professionals of the world by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      > The principle is called "designing for the common case". Sure, it can be useful to have active windows not on top when you're copying text from one window to another, but what about when you're not?

      I dunno, to me, this breaks the desktop metaphor.

      What the hell kind of a desktop is it where you can't scribble notes on one sheet of paper, because some of that paper is "beneath" the thing you're copying from?

      The MS default of "window must be on top to have focus" is like having a typewriter which won't allow you to type unless you're looking at the typing paper, not the notes you're trying to transcribe from.

      As for "designing for the common case", if your office is anything like mine, everyone (except me!) uses all windows maximized to fullscreen in every application. So having activation-follows-mouse wouldn't hurt lusers anyways, but it would greatly help those of us with clue.

    5. Re:you vs. the UI professionals of the world by spitzak · · Score: 2
      Have you even tried a system where clicking on a window does not raise it? If you had you would know that the way MicroSoft does it is not user-friendly and is in fact an enormous hinderance to working with mulitple windows, just as the original poster said!

      The "they can't raise the active app" argument is BULLSHIT and indicates that you are either a MicroSoft apologist or completely ignorant. The user can easily raise a window by clicking on the title bar or the resize border, or using alt+tab. In addition an application can raise itself in response to a click (for instance if you click on the otherwise dead area where there is no button or text field).

      Also dig up the release notes for X10 from 1982, dammit. Early versions of X raised the windows on clicks because it seemed to be sensible. They removed this, despite the back compatability problems, because they realized, TWENTY F**KING YEARS AGO, that this was BAD!! And you wonder why there is hostility toward MicroSoft and accusations that they are holding stuff back.

      Like the original poster said, this raise-on-click behavior has made overlapping windows almost useless and has resulted in many strange workarounds such as those tiled windows and "MDI" and always-on-top windows, (and "layers" under Gnome and NeXtStep, just to indicate that ugly workarounds are not just coming out of MicroSoft).

      The "desktop metaphor" is not dead, but it has been seriously maimed by this brain-dead behavior.

  70. Its buggy... by glenebob · · Score: 3, Informative

    Well, it is nifty, I'll give it that.

    But, I can't find a use for it so far. Maybe if it could make *all* of those 'about' boxes semi-transparent, but there's no way it could know what's an about box and what isn't. Nothing else I tried looks useful in a transparency.

    And, it's buggy, or apparently so. After about 10 seconds' thought, I think it's Windows that's buggy. Big surprise there. The Windows console window won't do transparency at all, and sometimes it even draws incorrectly when it's behind a transparent window. It doesn't work with Media Player; in transparency mode, the movie window goes black, and sometimes bringing it out of transparency mode doesn't fix it. Quake3 won't show transparent. Ultima Online flickers badly and slows waaaay down in transparency. Hmmm, DirectX/OpenGL interfering perhaps? Buggy video drivers? So typical.

    Wouldn't it be cool if it could make all the menus fade in and out? *rolls eyes*

    1. Re:Its buggy... by Ardax · · Score: 2

      The "bugginess" is mostly Windows' fault. All the program does (simply put) is grab a window handle and make a handful of API calls.

      Yeah, console windows don't work right. They don't really play nice with the rest of the desktop. I'm not totally sure why (other than "console windows are some sort of bad OS hack"). Ever notice that a console window doesn't get the new style border and icons like every other window in WinXP? (If you don't have XP, then trust me on that one.)

      With Media Player, it's probably something to do with the fact that they're probably using an overlay surface. Besides, could you imagine trying to real-time alpha blend a movie? Ouch.

      DirectX and OpenGL probably expect to have full control of the video subsystem, at least in their little playground. Hijack that and I can't imagine that they'd want to be real nice about it.

      By the by, why would you want to play a game on a translucent window anyway? It seems kinda silly to me. Not as much for UO than Q3, but still... While it's useful at some level (HUDs and the like), I wouldn't want my action screen to be translucent. ("Why won't this creature die?!" 'Dude, that's an icon.')

      While the usefulness of the program is still limited, it not as bad as you think.

      --
      Pax, Ardax
  71. also HW acc on win2k + Radeon + 3276drv by Otis_INF · · Score: 5, Informative

    I just installed it on my Win2k box with ATi Radeon 32MB DDR and v3276 drivers and it runs very smooth, the windows are draggable with content at full speed on 1600x1200x32bpp. A year ago, some registry hacking tool did this too, but then all drivers were software rendering the alphablended windows and it was dogslow. However making Internet Explorer semi transparent isn't that fast. I guess (but do not know for sure) IE is redrawing the complete page every time something changes in the window (like typing in an edit box).

    --
    Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
  72. Useful? by Skuggan · · Score: 1

    "and yes, you should be drooling." - NOT.

    Actually how useful is this? It's better to get drunk, take LSD or something.

    Please don't implement this in KDE.

    --
    http://www.millnet.se/ GO/U d- s+:+ a C++ UL++++ P- L+++ E W+++ N+ w++ M-- PE+ t+ X++
  73. Re:i don't think this is real by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 2, Funny

    no, but you should be able to see anyone who's sitting on the other side of your monitor.

    --
    That was classic intercourse!
  74. You got a problem with euro democoders ? by kazzuya · · Score: 2, Funny

    Come out of the bar and fight like a nerd !

    bau

  75. Amiga Screens (was Re:Operation Brainfuck) by hattig · · Score: 1
    It was a hack really, the resolution changing thing. It only worked properly if you changed resolutions with another one that was of the same family (PAL, NTSC, Double-PAL, etc), otherwise you got really strange effects.

    However, the ability to open a screen at a lower resolution (or higher resolution with less colours, etc) was great. It is less pertinent now when you have a large desktop by default with 32-bit colour, and TFT displays which have a default operational resolution which you should use unless you like jagged interfaces.

    The Amiga got a lot of the desktop metaphor completely correct, amazingly. It just worked correctly, even if the default interface now looks like a dog. Operationally it was great.

  76. Indian pimp ? by kazzuya · · Score: 1

    Who's that babe in the picture ?
    I really hope the pic comes with the utility !!

    bau

  77. Translucency can be useful by ZigMonty · · Score: 1
    While I agree that having entire windows transparent is pointless, translucency can have a use. In MacOSX, anything that is transient is slightly translucent: dragged icons, menus, sheets (dialog boxes attached to a window), etc.

    Some other things that are otherwise featureless are translucent. This is for eye candy value. Example: the background of the dock is translucent. But for things that you have to be able to read or complex toolbars, translucency is a pain. It looks cool but is impossible to use unless the transparency is very, very low. Example: my terminal window is black and set at 90% opaque. Still readable.

    Here is someone elses screenshot (sorry, I couldn't find a bigger one). Note that in the Terminal the translucency is done well. Only the background is translucent, the actual letters, scroll bars, title bar, etc are opaque.

    Basically, I'm not impressed with this glass2k thing. It doesn't really compare to the fine grained control native to MacOSX.

    Note: I'm not trying to be a Mac zealot, I use Windows too. But in this case I think the Mac does transparency better and uses it well to improve the interface.

  78. Transparency by DarkEdgeX · · Score: 2

    Great ideas, especially about limiting transparency to only windows beneath the app, not the entire background/desktop. An ability to limit transparency to just X windows deep would also be helpful. Finally, if transparency were able to be limited to the applications workspace (and exluded from say, the title bar and menu bar areas, as well as the borders) it would LOOK better as well.

    Of course Windows would probably be tons better in this department if it was just a configuration option, and not something you had to have some people write a specialized app for, but all the same... I agree about terminal windows though, IMHO that's about all I'd make transparent given the chance..

    --
    All I know about Bush is I had a good job when Clinton was president.
  79. It's offical Now by evilviper · · Score: 2

    Okay, this story makes it offical... I'm the only person who wants a desktop that is quick, and extremely easy to use, and doesn't give a damn about how sleek it looks.

    From anti-aliased fonts, to theme-able browsers, to transparent windows, I still don't give a damn!

    If there is anyone else out there that wants a fast and extremely intuitive and easy desktop, use XFce.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  80. I Prefer Faux Alpha Blending by Bander · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I'm using fake transparency with tint on my Eterms, and it's a lot better looking than that screenshot. Mainly because the top terminal is actually readable (only the background shows through, not other windows) -- the screenshot for the win32 Glass thing is a muddled mess.

    Bander

  81. MacOS X Does Natively by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Troll

    And without a hack. But it's normal for the Windows freaks to go around saying "I've been waiting for this", implying the poorly implemented feature Microsoft just stuffed into their system is something new or even desireable. Yes, this is not news. Your glow feature, on the other hand, as least has some novelty to it.

    1. Re:MacOS X Does Natively by athlon02 · · Score: 1

      I'm a Windows 2000 user. However, I also use OS X 10.1 and I like both (albeit I'm biased to 10.1 more because of the unix functionality it has). But I don't want more eye candy for win2k as though it's new, I want it because it's kewl to me. If Apple could afford to port OS X to x86, I'd be at the store for that one ASAP (and no I'm not talking just Darwin, I can use fbsd in that case.) In any case, don't knock it because Apple is forward-thinking in such areas.

    2. Re:MacOS X Does Natively by TobyWong · · Score: 1

      If someone says "I've been waiting for this", they are not implying anything, they just fucking said what they want explicitly. Who are you to judge what is desireable to another man?

      --
      - Toby
    3. Re:MacOS X Does Natively by Dahan · · Score: 2
      Mac OS X has this feature natively implemented.

      You mean I can right-click on any window in MacOS X and have it pop up a menu where I can set/adjust the transparency of the window? Really? I just tried to do it, and I found that I don't even have a right mouse button.

      No, MacOS X does not have this feature natively implemented.

      I checked your little URL, and I see a screenshot of the QuickTime movie player... your point?

    4. Re:MacOS X Does Natively by Mondragon · · Score: 1

      >No, MacOS X does not have this feature natively
      >implemented.

      I don't see anywhere where it says that natively implemented means that it has to be accessible through some sort of nifty clicking in the window. It *IS* natively implemented in the OS, and is a standard property setting in all Quartz-based applications. It's of course left to the application developer whether they allow you to change that setting via the preferences of their application. However, even if they don't, you can use the plist editor (or the command line) to add the property to any native application.

    5. Re:MacOS X Does Natively by Dahan · · Score: 2

      Well either both Win2K and OSX do "it" natively, or neither do "it" natively. If you define "it" as being able to click any window to change its transparency, then neither OS has that functionality built-in. If you define "it" as having API-level support for transparent windows, both OSes have that support built-in. As many people have posted, this is not some funky hack to Win2K; this is just a simple utility that lets you set the transparency of abitrary windows, even if the app developer didn't include that support. Similar to what the plist editor does, I guess (I haven't used it before... I assume /Developer/Applications/PropertyListEditor.app is what you're talking about?)

    6. Re:MacOS X Does Natively by Dahan · · Score: 1
      wow i just right clicked my logitech mouse hooked up to my Mac running OS 10.1 and got a menu and changed the transparency.

      No, you didn't. How 'bout you pony up some evidence... Here is what I get when I right-click on Terminal using a Logitech optical wheel mouse (well, maybe I do have a right mouse button after all :). Show me your menu.

  82. Textpad by John+Percival · · Score: 1

    I am not sure of how useful this would be for all windows, but Textpad has had this functionality for a while now.

    When using one of the search(&replace) tools, when the dialog box loses focus, the box becomes partially transparent, so that you can read the text behind it. Then when focus returns to the dialog box, it becomes opaque again. This is pretty useful, as previously I would end up dragging the box around the screen trying to find the text hiding under it.

    John

    1. Re:Textpad by CharlieG · · Score: 2

      The Windows editor "Textpad" uses the "Transparent Dialog Boxes" options just like this - very cool

      BTW I think that TextPad is the BEST windows editor out there, bar none - now we won't talk about editors under *inx, don't want to start a flame war

      --
      -- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
    2. Re:Textpad by Artichoke · · Score: 1

      This is in the next beta (due "soon") of FreeShade

      Current beta also includes other nifties such as Always On Top, Vertical/Horizontal maximize, corner/side hugging, sink window, blah, blah, blah...

      Next beta also has other additions such as point and shoot move and resize (i.e. hold a hotkey down, and mouse drag will resize the window - no more moving to the caption bar).

      --
      __
      Arse
  83. The only useful application of alpha blending... by Herman+Thrust · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...is to can make a window larger than your desktop, 100% transparent, and always on top.

  84. Glass windowing on Linux by ortholattice · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Translucent windowing has also been in Linux; here is an example (not mine; look it up on Usenet). (Warning: Partial nudity.) I don't know how it compares since the site referenced in the article has been slashdotted.

    1. Re:Glass windowing on Linux by http101 · · Score: 1

      It's amazing how some people get all excited about a little bit of "see-through" on the desktop. RedHat has had that ability for quite a long time. It's always nice to see that Unix has an impression on Window$.

      --
      -- Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!
    2. Re:Glass windowing on Linux by A_Non_Moose · · Score: 3, Funny

      OOOooo, now that is the reason to have transparent windows!!!

      Laetitia Casta should *never, ever* be obscured, IMO.

      --
      Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
    3. Re:Glass windowing on Linux by MikeRepass · · Score: 1

      I don't believe it's fully accurate to say that screenshot demonstrates translucent windowing in Linux. Yes it demonstrates the persistance of the appearance of windows below into windows above, but the examples present (the Liquid theme on the KDE Panel and Konsole) are special features of the applications and in no way a component of the operating system or desktop environment. The Liquid Theme is great, I'm using it right now, and it does have cool transparent menus, but its a special property of the widget (I believe, please correct me if wrong), as opposed to the transparency system in XP, which is a hardware accelerated component of the underlying GUI system. Konsole, furthermore, offers "transparency" as an option under Schema, but its not truly transparent, rather, it regrabs the desktop's background and paints it behind the console's text each time the window is moved.

      I love KDE and I think the screenshot shows two cool examples of its power, but this is nowhere near the technology I believe the poster was referring to. I'm not very familiar with X programming, but could someone share some more technical aspects of what would be required architectually and programmatically to get this working under Linux?

  85. OOH, Winodws has transparent windows now! by Mr.+McD · · Score: 1

    you should be drooling.

    Why should I be drooling? Because I can can have all my windows look trasparent on Windows? I've been seeing windows through Mac OS X's terminal for the past year now and I have to say that it's the only app that it's actually really cool to do it with (yes, you can make other windows transparent). This demo has the entire contents of the window transparent, buttons, menus and all. That doesn't really help anyone use this OS any. At least Mac OS X, and ETerm I think, keep the title bar opaque so you can see where the freakin' windows is.

  86. Cute toy by Quila · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It looks like one of those things you install for a couple of minutes for the gee-whiz factor, and then delete. Worthy of a front-page story? Maybe on a slow day -- it is cute -- but:

    I've been waiting for this for 2 years now -- a REAL glass-like windowing system. And yes, it's Microsoft to do it.

    Seriously, where has 'visnu' been, and why isn't Timothy editing? This maybe a first for MS, but from its inception, Mac OS X has had not just alpha blending, but a completely new compositing system has been a central feature of Mac OS X from inception. And they didn't just slap alpha blending on current windowing, making it harder to use or just to make it do cute my-mouse-has-a-shadow tricks, they integrated it into the usability of the desktop.

    Strange to see a /. story claiming MS innovation where there isn't. You'd think it would be the other way around.

    1. Re:Cute toy by tswinzig · · Score: 3

      This maybe a first for MS, but from its inception, Mac OS X has had not just alpha blending, but a completely new compositing system has been a central feature of Mac OS X from inception.

      And MacOS X does the alpha blending in the CPU. This item is news because it is being done on the graphics card -- no CPU hit.

      I know this reply is redundant, but so are all these goddamn MacOS X whining posts.

      --

      "And like that ... he's gone."
    2. Re:Cute toy by greygent · · Score: 1

      Where have YOU been? This has been a part of Windows 2000 from day 1. Far longer than OS X or Aqua has been around (in development or otherwise). GDI+ is pretty nifty.

      A win2k/OS X lover.

    3. Re:Cute toy by Quila · · Score: 2

      Considering that OS X was in DP2 in late '99, it sounds like they were both working on it at the same time.

      Of course, Apple integrated it into the user experience while MS mainly used it for mouse cursor shadows. It was probably a wise move for MS not to do much more with it since it would have the normal degraded user experience, tacked-on look.

    4. Re:Cute toy by Quila · · Score: 2

      I'm not sure about the alpha blending itself, but I Quartz is hardware accelerated, and alpha blending is part of Quartz, so....

      But maybe they didn't accelerate that part of Quartz?

  87. Laptops can get burn-in? by SirNonya · · Score: 1

    Really? Can an active matrix?

  88. One click wonder. by medscaper · · Score: 1

    Funny. I've got the same setup, 768M, and XP. When I drag a window, my CPU tops out and the windows slowly try to track the mouse.

    Oh, and try using the Start button and watch the remnants...

    I think it's a one-click-wonder - screen shot tells all.

    --
    Any sufficiently well-organized Government is indistinguishable from bullshit.
  89. It'd look great... by Yonasa · · Score: 1
    ... in new Hollywood movies when the main character can pop up 500 windows at a time and keep an eye on all of them ('cos he is THE h@x0r and can break through 640bit encryption faster than anyone else by typing commands like "[decrypt password]" really quickly).


    It's almost as dumb as the "futuristic computers" with see-through screens (Deus Ex?).


    ...


    I'll shut up now.

    1. Re:It'd look great... by Ziviyr · · Score: 1

      'cos he is THE h@x0r and can break through 640bit encryption faster than anyone else

      And I thought nobody would need more than 640bit encryption...

      --

      Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
  90. *sigh* Strange... by jrockway · · Score: 1

    You know, that screenshot looked like crap. Transparency looks good in MacOS because Apple got it right.... but in windows it just looks STUPID. Imagine what an ordinary user would do with transparent windows! Aahahahahah!

    --
    My other car is first.
  91. Pop-ups by Ratbert42 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Maybe they could fix it so it makes all those porn/X10 popups transparent.

    1. Re:Pop-ups by Sax+Maniac · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeh, 100% transparent would be best.

      --
      I can explanate how to administrate your network. You must configurate and segmentate it, so it can computate.
    2. Re:Pop-ups by julesh · · Score: 1

      Ah, you are, I'm afraid, mistaken.

      I can tell you this for sure, because I have worked with web advertising people in various contexts for quite some time, and I can tell you right now that X10 do not use popups.

      No.

      They use pop-unders. Because popups annoy people, and they wouldn't want to do that.

      [sic]

  92. Not the only one... by Junta · · Score: 2

    I know that part of the Object Desktop package has been doing this for a long time now. http://www.stardock.com/ The package in question, IIRC, is DesktopFX. Neat toy, but nothing really that useful or newsworthy, more useful than the 'fake' alpha blending most commonly seen in nix (only blend with the root window, ignore all others). For nearly real alpha blending, you could use KDE and use mosfet's (www.mosfet.org) liquid theme and at least have alpha blending on the menus. The reason I say almost real, is that while it does blend against windows as well as the background, it only blends against the screen as it was when it was first drawn, if background changes, the liquid alpha-blended menu does not. Xrender hints at the ability to do true alpha blending w/ hardware help, but I haven't seen it actually used for anything except AA-text.

    While Alpha-blended windows give nifty screenshots and initial "ooh" factor, people switch it back off in moments because it really makes programs harder to use in the long run. It's hard enough to make sure colors within an application always have text that is readable against the background without other applications lending their colors to further mess things up.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  93. Really can't complain by Forager · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm running the program in Win2k right now on my 950 Duron/256MB SDRAM/32MB GeForce2 box, and the slowdown is pretty mild. To be certain, Internet Explorer scrolls down in spurts instead of smoothly like it did before, but beyond that I really can't complain.

    Uses for it? None as of yet. But that probably has to do with the fact that I just became aware of its existence about twenty minutes ago. This is one of those things that I'll keep running in the background and FIND uses for. Some time, maybe a week from now, I'll be working with a program and say "hey, transparency might help me out here," so I'll fire up my little 54K download here and get it running, and BOOM! there it is. Who care's if its not practical yet. Just wait until you need it; then you'll see just how practical it can be. Besides, for 54K what's not to like?

    ~Forager

    Quick after thought: I've already got it running, making my taskbar semi-transparent; I have it set on the left side of my screen, so when it pops up to announce a window update it gets annoying if it's directly over my text or whatever; on 30% opacity, it's much less annoying. Little things like this will make me glad I spent all 20 seconds (56k connection here, people) of my life it took to download this utility.

    --
    student of animation and the fine arts
  94. Not the first by Ardax · · Score: 1

    While I haven't looked at this program yet, I know that they're certainly not the first to do this in Win2k or XP. In fact, alpha blending was one of the first GUI hack to come out with Win2k.

    Hell, if you program in Delphi 6 you can set the transparancy level in the Form Designer!

    Personally, I use PowerMenu to handle my window transparency. It does a few other exceptionally useful things too, and it's only ~50k to download.

    --
    Pax, Ardax
  95. other OS by daevt · · Score: 1

    not that its the first to do it either, but that been done since the first non-beta release of aqua (front end of Macintosh OS X). my IM app infact will pan windows with unviewed messages in and out of transparency, its pretty cool. in fact all around, darwin/mach is pretty cool.

  96. Alpha Blended Pie Menus and Censorship in The Sims by SimHacker · · Score: 5, Informative
    The classic papers on transparent user interfaces include Toolglass and Magic Lenses: The See-Through Interface (1993), and A Taxonomy of See-Through Tools (1994).

    The pie menus in The Sims use a combination of desaturation, darkening, and alpha blending to feather the edges of the menu.

    Why transparency and the other effects? I didn't want the pie menus to obscure too much of the scene behind them. You can see through the pie menu as the animation continues on in real time behind it. The head of the currently selected person is drawn in the center of the pie menu, and follows the cursor by looking at the currently selected item.

    I found it necessary to somehow separate the head from the rest of the scene, otherwise it looked like a giant head was floating in a room of the house! Drawing a solid opaque menu background would obscure too much of the scene. But even a partially transparent menu background still did not visually separate the head from the background scene enough. It looked muddy and cluttered, instead of crisp and bright.

    So instead of simply alpha blending, I actually made it desaturate the background (removes the color so it's gray scale), and darken it (like casting a colorless shadow).

    I wanted the colorful head to look sharp and bright up against the dark gray background. So the effect looks at the Z buffer to clip out the head in the menu center, so it remains bright and colorful against the dark gray background. That gives it visual "pop" that separates the head from the background. The edges of the effect are feathered, so there's no sharp line dividing the inside and the outside of the menu (useless visual clutter).

    The gray shadow just gradually tapers off with distance, suggesting that the pie menu active area extends to the edge of the screen, not confined to the borders of a circle. The labels are drawn with high contrast drop shadows around the pie menu, so they stand out and easy to read, partially overlapping the shadow so they're look like they're part of the menu.

    There's special code to perform that particular combination of pixel filters in real time, to every frame just after the 3D rendering phase.

    The pixelated censorship effect works the same way as the pie menu shadow, like a Photoshop filter run after the 3D rendering phase. There's a special suit type that's tagged as a "censorship" suit. It consists of bounding boxes attached to the varius bones of the skeleton that you can select to censor. So if you just want to censor the head, you attach the head censor suit to the head bone. The 3D character renderer transforms the 8 vertices but doesn't draw anything, and stashes the screen bounding box away for the pixelation filter to draw later. That's how it can censor just the crotch of naked men, but also the chests of naked girls gone wild.

    -Don

    --
    Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
  97. Alpha-Blended Cursors by jdclucidly · · Score: 1

    An equally interesting feature of Windows 2000 and XP that doesn't cause a resource drain is the ability to blend cursors. CursorEx is a free program for loading PNG images in to the hardware cursor space. It uses the same acceleration used to draw the cursor shadow feature. It includes some glass-like cursors as well as a set that's been anti-aliased.

  98. Right Clicks and Window-based Xparancy by eMlliK · · Score: 1

    Sure they didn't include a manual with the program but the options are incredibly straight forward.

    There is an option when you first install it to select how to handle right-clicks. If you leave it to 'enabled', it will take full control of the right-click. Set it to "alt+shift" or similar and it will require you to "alt+shift+r-click" to access the glass2k menu. Normal right clicks will work fine.

    Also, now that right click works, using alt+shift+r-click lets you set the transparancy level for each program window. Varying amounts from 0% to 100%.

    This program is excellent.. people just have to read the options...

    1. Re:Right Clicks and Window-based Xparancy by uebernewby · · Score: 2

      You're right, I should have taken a closer look before opening my big mouth. I'll still wager, however, that breaking rightclicks by default is rather iffy.

      Oh well, I just downloaded the thing, ran it for two minutes to see what it did and then chucked it out. I don't like transparent Word-documents that much, really.

      --

      News and bla for computer musicians: http://lomechanik.net/
  99. Re:Been There - fix for right click by iainl · · Score: 1

    "It does have the annoying tendency to break rightclicks though"

    I can't recommend strongly enough changing the settings on the 'Transparency Popup' from Right Click to Right Click + Ctrl (or + Alt) - otherwise you'll get this behaviour.

    --
    "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
  100. Adding functionality not eye-candy by swb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When will we see more functionality additions instead of just eye-candy? Admittedly translucency can be considered a navigation functionality, but its seldom talked about as one.

    One thing that they (GUI developers -- KDE, MS, Apple, etc) should implement RIGHT NOW is a feature I've seen on SGIs: A wheel widget that scales the contents of a file browser window. Even at 1600x1200 with a dinky font, I work with plenty of directories that just aren't easily navigable with a full-screen window. Too much scrolling. The ability to scale the contents of the window would be awesome, especially if it was coupled with a magnifying lens area arround the pointer.

    Even normal windows with no content scaling would be more usable if we could hold a key and get a panning-type movement feature for windows with more content than screen space. I know plenty of applications do this, but this should be a base feature of the file management tools as well.

    The point is, too many recent "developments" in GUIs seem to have more to do with making it fit stylistic or visual appearance goals and less with making the windowing system MORE USEFUL. Nice to look at makes it more enjoyable, but more useful means I can get the job done faster and get more time to look at something else.

    1. Re:Adding functionality not eye-candy by elem · · Score: 2, Insightful

      IMHO what would be really nice to see is pop-up menus (like the right-click ones in Windows) all looked like the ones in Office XP and if they were transparent.

      I always find that it can be very annoying when you hi-light text then open a pop-up menu and it covers the text that you've just hi-lighted or when you have programs with many nested menus (like Radlight).

    2. Re:Adding functionality not eye-candy by swb · · Score: 1

      Hey, that's cool, but it doesn't do squat for vanilla explorer windows. It'd be nice if these kinds of features were implemented as base GUI window controls and not left up for each application to reinvent themselves.

    3. Re:Adding functionality not eye-candy by Gid1 · · Score: 2
      One thing that they (GUI developers -- KDE, MS, Apple, etc) should implement RIGHT NOW is a feature I've seen on SGIs: A wheel widget that scales the contents of a file browser window.

      Apple already have (well, not a wheel). Mac OS X has a slider in 'Show View Options' which resizes the icons between about 10x10 pixels and 128x128 pixels in icon view. Very handy. Especially when looking through a directory of photos. Can be done on a global or per-view basis.

    4. Re:Adding functionality not eye-candy by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 2

      On the SGI, the wheel widget is part of the window. Although "Set View Options" is sometimes useful, it's less convenient.

    5. Re:Adding functionality not eye-candy by WWWWolf · · Score: 1
      A wheel widget that scales the contents of a file browser window.

      Uh, Nautilus has a folder contents zooming feature - and individually resizable icons, too!

      Dropping my home directory to 50% zoom certainly helps...

    6. Re:Adding functionality not eye-candy by psamuels · · Score: 2
      One thing that they (GUI developers -- KDE, MS, Apple, etc) should implement RIGHT NOW is a feature I've seen on SGIs: A wheel widget that scales the contents of a file browser window.

      Yeah! I think for SGI it was mostly to show off their vector-based icons, but this can be useful. Something like:

      • mouse wheel alone -> operate scrollbar
      • ctrl+wheel -> zoom window contents
      • alt+wheel -> resize window, keeping aspect ratio
      • ctrl+alt+wheel -> zoom and resize (so window keeps same amount of content)

      ...or something. Would this not rock?

      Sure, it would require quite a bit of application support (or some rather expensive 2-D scale transforms in GDI/Gtk+/Qt/Xlib)... but hey, scalable fonts are old news so how hard can it be? (:

      --
      "How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
    7. Re:Adding functionality not eye-candy by qwiksilvr · · Score: 1
      Even normal windows with no content scaling would be more usable if we could hold a key and get a panning-type movement feature for windows with more content than screen space. I know plenty of applications do this, but this should be a base feature of the file management tools as well.
      I'm not sure if this is what you mean, but the Mac OS (at least version 9, not sure about 10) lets you hold down the command key and drag the content around in a Finder window. Kinda handy sometimes.
  101. The question isn't how, it's WHY? by fanatic · · Score: 1, Troll

    I looked at the screenshot. I'd spent extra to make this NOT happen. This just a way to make displays more confusing. Having windows bleed through each other sucks, IMNSHO.

    --
    "that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
  102. What would make this usable... by tweakt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What we really need is an option to lock a windows draw order to the front, but send it's click focus to the back (or normal layering).

    This is extremely useful for apps that I want to use as "window decals", like resource meters, winamp, AIM, etc.. I want them overlayed onto my screen. BUT. I dont want them to have click focus, cause then they get in the way of the foreground app. I want them draw over everything, so I can see them, but I rarely need to interact with them. If I do, I just bring them to the foreground (click focus) like I would do normally.

    Doesn't that make more sense?

  103. Re:Day Late and a Dollar Short for a Crappy Featur by dheeraj · · Score: 1

    And OS 7.5+ could do it from, if I recall correctly, 1997 or so onward. That'd be a few years before Windows 2000, if my memory of numerals is correct.

    "Not that it really matters," of course.

    --
    --- Why yes, I am the webmaster of Microsuck.com
  104. Carried over into OS X by spicyjeff · · Score: 3, Informative

    This was carried over into OS X and its Quartz graphics layer since its inception.

    1. Re:Carried over into OS X by be-fan · · Score: 2

      Except its slow now, even with a processor with eighty times the clockspeed...

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    2. Re:Carried over into OS X by gig · · Score: 2

      No, it's not slow.

    3. Re:Carried over into OS X by be-fan · · Score: 2

      Are you seriously claiming that OS-X isn't slow? IIRC, the 2.4 GHz G5's aren't out yet, are they?

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
  105. Klient will kick ass with this tool by CoAX · · Score: 1

    Yes, this looks like the ideal addon for an IRC client. Especially Klient :)

  106. Object Desktop by SCHecklerX · · Score: 2

    Stardock's Object Desktop does this, IIRC. I wouldn't have any first-hand experience, since I don't use Microsoft products, and haven't for a very long time.

  107. Doesn't work on... by tweakt · · Score: 1

    As previously mentioned, it doesn't work for console windows, and as I just found out, it does wierd things to media player... aww, no alpha-blended video overlays :-( (yet anyhow).

  108. Who's going to use this? by quantum+bit · · Score: 2

    You can have animated backgrounds in Windows now? Suddenly I feel relieved that my employer is too cheap to upgrade my WinNT 4.0 box. ;-)

    You too can have animated backgrounds! IE 4 or "better"; even on Win95 or NT4, has a "feature" called Active Desktop that lets you load GIFs, JPGs, and even HTML pages (complete with VBScript, oh the wonder) as backgrounds. Just pick you favorite animated GIF, set it to tile, and let the migrane follow.

    Especially good images for this are phychodelic animations that change colors completely, annoying little hamsters, or quick strobe animations. Great to stick on a friends machine (warning: don't try this on someone who has epilepsy).

    It gets better! Active Desktop also has features that improve your Windows experience by making the shell crash more, both by itself and when IE falls over.

    The first thing we do with those NT boxes here at work is make sure that the Active Desktop "feature" is permanently disabled :)

    Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

    [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Winlogon]
    "Shell"="cmd.exe"

  109. Great for porn! by SCHecklerX · · Score: 2

    Now I can have a slideshow running in the foreground, but still see through it to the stuff I'm working on. That's about the only cool use I can think of for this, but it's a good one, no?

  110. Privacy? by InnereNacht · · Score: 1

    Hah, anyone else see the ICQ/MSN/AOL icons in his system tray? Nothing like having 3 IM programs and being invisible in them all.

  111. Inactive desktop :) by Pope · · Score: 1

    One of my friend's coworkers had his Active Desktop set to an HTML page the same colour as the standard Win desktop. In the middle was an animated GIF of the file copy dialog box. Whenever he needed a break from work, he'd set it to that page and hide all the other windows.
    "I'm backing up, so I need to let it finish"

    Pure genius!

    --
    It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
  112. This *is* useful by fritter · · Score: 1

    MacOS X has this, and I can think of 2 good uses off of the top of my head. Icons in the dock become translucent when you "hide" the application. Thus in a quick glance you can see whether an app is not running, running, or running but hidden. It makes for good, logical visual feedback. I also have my terminal windows set to 70% opacity, and it comes in very handy - it's nice to be able to park it over a browser window, for instance, when doing something in a HOWTO or whatever. You get the idea. I don't think it's quite worth the vein-popping orgasmic shock the submitter felt, but it is a handy feature. I think as people become more accustomed to it, we'll see some clever, useful applications.

  113. lookup tables eliminate arithmetic by peter303 · · Score: 2

    Algorithm:
    (1) Pre-compute all combinations of background & foreground.
    About 655536 entries per channel.
    (2) Just use lookups to compute result (foreground 8 ) | background.

    1. Re:lookup tables eliminate arithmetic by entrigant · · Score: 1

      Can we say cache trashing?

  114. Crotch Bone by ajna · · Score: 1

    So your characters have, among their 8 bones, a crotch bone, eh? My guess at the 8 would be: crotch, mid torso, chest, head, left/right arm, left right leg.

  115. For more desktop space... by GreenKiwi · · Score: 1

    Just get a program like MultiDesk. It gives you a very nice way of having multiple desktops. You can easily switch between them. Additionally, it easily lets one sort out their windows. One desktop for email, one for web, one for word. All easily switchable at the touch of a button.

    1. Re:For more desktop space... by IronChef · · Score: 1


      It looks cool but there's not even a download link on that page.

  116. I love /. by Boarder2 · · Score: 1

    Site Suspended
    Unfortunately the site you are trying to view has been suspended.
    The site owner has been made aware

    Please try again later

    Let's hit it harder next time!

  117. Varying Translucency w/in Same App by John_Booty · · Score: 3, Interesting

    To me, translucency in apps would be much more useful if you could have varying levels of translucency within the same app. For example, when you make a text-editor window transparent, it gets really hard to read because the text gets transparent too.

    So it would be nice to vary the translucency of window text/icons separately from the rest of the window, if desired.

    --

    OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
    1. Re:Varying Translucency w/in Same App by PhunkySchtuff · · Score: 1

      Look no further than the best GUI for a Unix Based Operating System... Namely, Aqua.
      The Terminal app can make the window transparent, but the text remains opaque, and each and every character has a real-time drop-shadow drawn on whatever's behind the terminal window.
      The Quartz graphics model is quite amazing.
      -- kai

  118. The split personalities of /.ers by Multiple+Sanchez · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I can't believe all the complaints I'm reading in these threads about something that's clearly "just a toy" being front page news on slashdot. Has everyone else been asleep while the Xbox, Gamecube, MAME Cabinets, Civ III and Freeciv, Handheld N64s, Loki Games, and Quake ported to the iPaq have made up at least half the stories here in the past few months?

    Slashdot would lose half its traffic if it filtered out the Games and Id Software topics by default!

  119. Not mutually exclusive by Eimi+Metamorphoumai · · Score: 2
    Of course, just because you have alpha-channeling doesn't mean you can't have workspaces. I could even see something like layers in the GIMP. Windows belong to different workspaces, but you can show any subset of the workspaces together at any time, in any order, with each one having any transparency. You might find it really useful to have something slow happening literally in the background while you do something else (at, say, 90% opacity) in the foreground, and when the other finishes you can see it and reorder the layers so that your background task is in the foreground.

    Necessary? Of course not! But pretty slick, and I bet with a bit of set up time, you could rig something that would be really nice to use. Personally, I want a background that looks like nature scene with semi-transparent terminals in the foreground, and things like trees blowing gently and soothingly in the wind. And if you could link the motion to other things (when cpu load goes up, the wind gets faster and gustier and clouds roll in) then I would be really happy. But that's just me.

    --

    Visit me on #weirdness on the Galaxynet.

  120. Re:Day Late and a Dollar Short for a Crappy Featur by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

    err, X11 doesn't have this now. the xrender extension allows some of this kind of thing. and rasterman got sidetracked from making a good window manager into making a pretty window manager that faked this sort of thing. and there were numerous xterm variants that fiddled around with allowing a bitmap as the background, but in general X doesn't have transparency/alpha blending as a window property. (and yes, if you are using xfree86 you are using code that I wrote, so perhaps I might have an idea what i'm talking about. (course i could be wrong.))

  121. Re:It's offical Now (you are not alone) by CaptnMArk · · Score: 1

    You are not alone.

  122. Re:Day Late and a Dollar Short for a Crappy Featur by class_A · · Score: 1

    OSX could do this before it even came out. It will also do all other cool GUI hacks before they are even invented. But they won't be hardware accelerated. And I own two Macs :-)

  123. OK but there could be much better functionality by petree · · Score: 1

    This program offers some capability that I have not seen elsewhere, because of it's ability to change -ANY- window's transparency, but it seems like there could be more rubust functionality. Also, even though Windows 2000 has had alpha blending abilities since it's release, few programs have actually used it. (Two notable exceptions, Miranda ICQ and Winamp with one of the many available plugins.) One of these such plugins, TransparentFX not only has the ability to make portions of winamp transparent, but have varying levels of transparency for when the window is out of focus, when out of focus and the mouse is over that window, and also the speed of the fade-out/fade-in between them. I'm not sure how feasible this is to do on system wide basis, but I would imagine that it wouldn't be that tough because any application could easily find out where the mouse cursor is and focus/de-focus accordingly. Another thing, although the program has the option open the transparency options on right-click, it would be nice if you could selectively have this (when you right-click on the title-bar, not just anywhere.) This seems like a cool program, but not very polished, nor worthy of posting on the front-page of slashdot. I'm not quite sure if this actually qualifies as "news" although I am glad I happened to run across this link.

  124. Re:drooling??!! by TechnoVooDooDaddy · · Score: 2

    well... what are you waiting for? you've obviously put some thought into something you'd like done... do it.. people do code like this because they're having FUN.

    enjoying what you do is what makes getting up in the morning worthwhile. don't rant at someone spending personal time and effort, that's just silly.

  125. As usual . . . by White+Roses · · Score: 1

    It's easy to see through Microsoft "innovation".

    --
    Do not touch -Willie
  126. OT: Why "DualHead"? by Haeleth · · Score: 1

    DualHead is a nice solution - if you want to use a Matrox card. If you want to keep your GeForce3, it's no good. Besides, it's a silly name for a feature that's really nothing new.

    Just plug in a second (ie PCI) video card. You probably won't be playing games on your second screen, and AFAIK a cheap video card is just as good for GUI stuff - as long as you aren't running at some crazy resolution, which is out of the question if you're using an old monitor.

    Not so good for hardware-accelerated alpha blending, of course, which is why this is a bit OT.

    The main use of a second screen is to hold tool palettes. They're invaluable if you're doing graphics work.

    1. Re:OT: Why "DualHead"? by Steveftoth · · Score: 1

      Unless they changed it in XP, win2k doesn't actually accelerate any but the primary display. So getting a secondary video card that is fast is not a good investment. Advantage... Dualhead, because dualhead is trickier then that and accelerates the second video card. At least when you make windows think that it is one huge screen.

      But 2 monitors is the bomb diggity for working. Especially debugging.

  127. Not funny, insightful! by itwerx · · Score: 1

    That's a great idea! (No, seriously, it is!) 'Course since mice don't have pressure sensors, (yet, anyway), might need for it to be a chorded click or using some alternate keystroke. Make an OSX version too, would you please? :)

    No sig. Sigh. Oh, wait... Doh!

  128. Here's how to do it in Delphi... by cmeans · · Score: 1
    Follow this link for sample code in Delphi.

    1. Re:Here's how to do it in Delphi... by flegged · · Score: 1



      <.pas file>

      unit Unit1;

      interface

      uses
      Windows, Messages, SysUtils, Classes, Graphics, Controls, Forms, Dialogs,
      StdCtrls;

      function SetLayeredWindowAttributes(hwnd: HWND; crKey: PByte; bAlpha: Byte;
      dwFlags: DWORD): Bool; stdcall;
      type
      TForm1 = class(TForm)
      Transparency: TScrollBar;
      CurrentTransparency: TLabel;
      procedure SetLayered(Sender: TObject);
      procedure TransparencyChange(Sender: TObject);
      private
      { Private declarations }
      public
      { Public declarations }
      procedure CreateParams(var Params: TCreateParams); override;

      end;

      var
      Form1: TForm1;

      implementation

      {$R *.DFM}
      function SetLayeredWindowAttributes; external user32 name
      'SetLayeredWindowAttributes';

      const
      WS_EX_LAYERED = $80000;
      LWA_ALPHA = $2;

      procedure TForm1.CreateParams(var Params: TCreateParams);
      begin
      inherited CreateParams(Params);
      Params.ExStyle := Params.ExStyle or WS_EX_LAYERED;
      end;

      procedure TForm1.SetLayered(Sender: TObject);

      var
      aRGB: array[0..2] of Byte;
      pRGB: PByte;
      begin
      { Set WS_EX_LAYERED on this window }
      SetWindowLong( Form1.Handle, GWL_EXSTYLE, GetWindowLong(Form1.Handle,
      GWL_EXSTYLE) or WS_EX_LAYERED );

      aRGB[0] := 0;
      aRGB[1] := 0;
      aRGB[2] := 0;
      pRGB := @aRGB;

      { Make this window 70% alpha }
      SetLayeredWindowAttributes(Form1.Handle, pRGB, 178, LWA_ALPHA);

      end;

      procedure TForm1.TransparencyChange(Sender: TObject);
      var
      aRGB: array[0..2] of Byte;
      pRGB: PByte;

      alpha: integer;
      begin
      aRGB[0] := 0;
      aRGB[1] := 0;
      aRGB[2] := 0;
      pRGB := @aRGB;
      alpha := Transparency.Position;
      CurrentTransparency.Caption := inttostr(alpha);
      SetLayeredWindowAttributes(Form1.Handle, pRGB, alpha, LWA_ALPHA);
      end;

      end.

      </.pas file>
      <.dfm file>

      object Form1: TForm1
      Left = 192
      Top = 107
      Width = 636
      Height = 419
      Caption = 'Form1'
      Color = clBtnFace
      Font.Charset = DEFAULT_CHARSET
      Font.Color = clWindowText
      Font.Height = -11
      Font.Name = 'MS Sans Serif'
      Font.Style = []
      FormStyle = fsStayOnTop
      OldCreateOrder = False
      OnShow = SetLayered
      PixelsPerInch = 96
      TextHeight = 13
      object CurrentTransparency: TLabel
      Left = 48
      Top = 96
      Width = 99
      Height = 13
      Caption = 'CurrentTransparency'
      end
      object Transparency: TScrollBar
      Left = 8
      Top = 8
      Width = 361
      Height = 49
      Max = 255
      PageSize = 0
      TabOrder = 0
      OnChange = TransparencyChange
      end
      end
      <.dfm file>

      </Karma whore>

      --

      "I think he was truly surprised at how little I cared about how big a market the Mac had" - Linus on Jobs
  129. And now I need to go rest my eyes... by leibnitz27 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Its bad enough spending 10 hours a day in front of a monitor without having to look at that sort of stuff! I had eyeache within seconds of looking at the screenshot. Lovely idea, but pointless eye candy :)

    Went to the optician complaining about eyeache the other day - she said "stop using computers so much". Hmm - and how did she expect I was going to pay her?

  130. I've seen this pharse and... by A_Non_Moose · · Score: 1

    am suprised no one picked up on it!

    "glass like windows" and not one comment to the effect, of course "Windows should be transparent, other wise they are called doors or walls"!

    Just one other thing that maybe Windows programmrs could answer...is there a single window mode planned? I'm partially serious. (and that is really scary)

    It was in OS X dp4, and I for one loved it.
    Can't beat the "switch the app/window, hide the porn" trick...saves a lot of, uhh, mouse'ing.

    The API is still there, but, no way to access it save for a bit of shareware that accesses it (forget the name) but 12 dollars for one function I'd use?

    I think not.

    Heh, "Windows(tm) now has transparency"...and nobody said a word. That's FUNNY.

    --
    Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
  131. Media player and translucent movies by Haeleth · · Score: 1

    With Media Player, it's probably something to do with the fact that they're probably using an overlay surface. Besides, could you imagine trying to real-time alpha blend a movie? Ouch.

    It's exactly that. Media Player, and indeed just about all media players, use overlays for various reasons; it makes taking screenshots difficult (unless you use somehting like HyperSnap DX), and it's something transparency apps like this one don't take into account.

    If you want to watch translucent movies, try Sasami2k, a lovely little movie player. It can do loads of other kewl stuff, like using a movie for your wallpaper. Nice.

  132. Useful by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    What about using it on a transparent flat LCD? You could give windows flags like the LetPeopleOnTheOtherSideOfTheScreenSeeThis and the TurnScreenIntoOneWayGlassSoICanStareAtThatGirlAccr ossTheOffice flags.

    At the moment i think it could be used for playing qauke and doing a spreadsheet at the same time "No, im not playing quake, im _multitasking_". Or "Someone else must have been playing quake on this machine and it burned into the monitor, but really _im_ doing a spreadsheet." Also you could use it for slowing down your computer if it doesn't have one of those "Turbo" buttons for older games with no frame capping.

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  133. Antialiasing (Re:Glass and icing) by the_olo · · Score: 1

    > I would guess that the only time that
    > transparent windows help is if you have an OS/wm
    > that does not offer workspaces or similar.

    What about antialiasing? Suppose you have a window of irregular (non-rectangular) shape, You don't want its edges to appear jaggy, and can't predict the color of the background (not to mention background images/wallpapers, lower windows etc.).
    The only way to achieve proper anti-aliased edges would be to use semi-transparent pixels at the edges.
    And of course we can imagine windows which use transparent areas as a part of their design.
    Have you seen various skins to the K-jofol audio player? I'm sure their authors would love to put their hands on an alpha-channel capable windowing system...

    1. Re:Antialiasing (Re:Glass and icing) by gig · · Score: 2

      QuickTime 5 also supports skinning the "player", so that your whole QuickTime movie floats on the desktop, any shape, any size, any use of transparency that you want. Audion is a Mac MP3 player that has always had great transparency features, but under OS X it doesn't have to do all the work itself.

      There's too much focus in these posts on the idea of rectangular windows being made translucent. Most of the time, a mask has fully transparent areas that make the whole image appear to be non-rectangular. Mac OS X windows are not even rectangular, their title bars have rounded edges. That is a much better use for masks than just making everything translucent. An "alpha mask" is an 8-bit image, but most posters here are thinking of situations where you would have a solid gray mask, making the graphic translucent from top to bottom. Ugh.

      Another good use for transparency is seen when you press the keyboard volume controls on a Mac. A nearly-transparent overlay appears near the bottom of the display with a small meter that shows where the volume is and how you're changing it. It doesn't block what you're doing, or even stop you from reading what's under it, but provides great feedback to your actions. Same with the brightness controls, and with Sticky Keys if you have them activated.

      Anything that doesn't appear to be completely rectangular is using a mask. A coder would focus on "alpha-blending" API's, but an artist is just like, "ho-hum, a mask". Most objects in the real world are not perfectly rectangular. If you want to represent those objects on a display, you need to use a mask. It's so basic and elemental and necessary that to argue against transparency in a GUI is missing the bigger picture. Every GUI before Mac OS X is prologue. We are in a time where the graphics adapters and CPU's can handle real graphics, even in a file manager, if the software is done right.

  134. 404 File Not Found by LowAmmoWarning · · Score: 1

    I wish Slashdot would give some people the courtesy of either telling them before they post a link to their page or finding a way to mirror the page themselves. There are quite a few reasons for this... monetary, bandwidth, benefit of slashdot readers, and probably more than I have cited. I don't know the legalities of mirroring pages in the context of news or whatever, but I think it would be something to look into. It may be more costly to slashdot, but I am sure there are enough people who read these pages that have the bandwidth to help mirror, and slashdot could possibly give some kind of compensation. I've never had a link here, but it's just something I could see as being a general improvement. Thanks, LowAmmoWarning

    --
    We could all benefit from my education.
  135. Re:Because they can??? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2


    Say ... I keep hearing about "meta-moderation." Is this real or a joke. If so, how does one get involved. It would seem two people have it in for me, as this is the second time I have lost karma points for completely absurd reasons. My post an over-rated troll???? And what about the poor guy who responded with useful information regarding the quote I was paraphrasing, who got modded down for offering valuable information? Perhaps these 'people' are too stupid to figure out that my comment has validity, especially when it parallels in many ways the overall sentiment of all the posts that got +1 or greater mods ... Do these idiots have to fail an IQ test to get to be moderators or what?

    Go ahead. Mod me down more you dumb fucks. Karma on Slashdot is not linearly related to the real thing, as you will soon find out.

    Zero__Kelvin

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  136. This is amazing! by pclminion · · Score: 1
    This is the first story I've seen on /. about a Microsoft product that had no undertones whatsoever of Microsoft bashing in a loooooong time.

    To be honest, it's refreshing to see some reporting from the other side of the fence make it onto /. Please continue doing it. Just not every day, ok? ;)

  137. app download... by djocyko · · Score: 2

    would someone mind mirroring the exe? (assuming there is nothing against doing this in any applicable lisense)

    I wanna see if it works with video overlays. (mm...watching tv and bein able to see through it)

    1. Re:app download... by wodelltech · · Score: 2, Informative

      I found it here:
      ...http://fileforum.betanews.com/detail.php3?fid =1 006319398

      --
      Your monitor is staring at you.
    2. Re:app download... by djocyko · · Score: 1

      that page still links to the same file

      (no help while /.ed)

  138. Re:Alpha Blended Pie Menus and Censorship in The S by prophecyvi · · Score: 1

    Troll?????????

    Gimme a break, modders. "Troll" shouldn't even be an option with a score of 4 or higher.

  139. fantastic attitude there by streetlawyer · · Score: 1

    If I were you, I'd bookmark this post, so if you ever find yourself idly wondering why Bill Gates is a billionaire while you're a ramen-eating graduate student, you'll be able to find it easily and remember why.

    1. Re:fantastic attitude there by tfb · · Score: 1

      Oh, I know why he's a billionaire thank you: because selling lowest-common-denominator solutions in large numbers is a good way of getting rich. There's this guy Henry Ford who worked that out.

      There's a weird thing about software: everyone thinks that `popular' implies `good' when all it actually implies is `good at being popular'. Should we apply this logic to, say, drugs?

      (And fortunately I'm not a graduate student or any kind of academic)

  140. Re:Alpha Blended Pie Menus and Censorship in The S by Twon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What _would_ be a useful Windows UI hack would be some kind of on-the-fly conversion of context menus into pie-style menus... I don't even know whether this is possible, but it's a neat idea.

  141. Awesome! Does it support 100% transparency? by Mustang+Matt · · Score: 3, Funny

    We can finally make pop up adds truly disappear!

    --
    The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
  142. Mirror? by dynweb · · Score: 1

    Could someone PLEASE post a mirror? It looks like their entire site has disappeared... I would really like to try this out. =D

  143. Re:Because they can??? by GMFTatsujin · · Score: 1

    Wow... I can't seem to get away from metamodding. Seems like every day, "Have you metamodded lately?" Yup. Sure did.

    But yes, Zero, I personally have it out for you.

    Stay in view, please.
    Tatsujin

  144. Looks like Linux is still behind by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



    When it comes to stuff like this Linux is way behind.

    While Linux has KDE and Gnome, and Linux is easy to use, it lacks little nice extras that OSX and WindowsXP has.

    Someone needs to start an open source project which purpose is just to create specific effects for the linux desktop.

    From what i hear its difficult and requires editing Xfree86, well lets do it.

    Start a project, and if you want to get paid, then ask for donations, Ill donate 5 bucks (if everyone else did that same we'd have a product)

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:Looks like Linux is still behind by OvErRiDeX · · Score: 1

      ah but what about the directFB project that was /.'ed a while back showing off a tranparent movie playing?

    2. Re:Looks like Linux is still behind by tempfile · · Score: 1

      The good news is that XFree86 has had the capability of hardware-accelerated alpha blending for quite some time now via the XRender extension. That's the same playing field as AAed fonts. Now it's up to the hardware drivers to get the acceleration done, and to toolkit and wm developers to include the support in their software.

  145. Re:Day Late and a Dollar Short for a Crappy Featur by flegged · · Score: 1

    I'm just waiting for someone to write a program to SWITCH THE FUCKING THING OFF.

    <flamebait>
    Isn't it great having a window manager that does all this transparency and crap without even giving you the option of running at a sensible speed?

    2x faster my arse.

    </flamebait>

    --

    "I think he was truly surprised at how little I cared about how big a market the Mac had" - Linus on Jobs
  146. It;s been done before, with varying levels by Nameles · · Score: 1

    It's a program called Transperizer, search for it on google. It can monitor certain windows I believe, and can do varying levels of transparency.

  147. Download address for the confused by CedgeS · · Score: 2, Informative

    Glass2k is still availible for download from chime.tv:

    http://www.chime.tv/products/glass2k/Glass2k.exe

    1. Re:Download address for the confused by Yosho · · Score: 1

      Erm... No, it's not. Or am I the only one still getting a 404?

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
    2. Re:Download address for the confused by groke · · Score: 1

      I've been getting a 404 all day.. really pissing me off.

  148. Apple did this first! by Lissst · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but OSX beat everyone to the finish on this one. Apple has had OSX out since March and it's been doing the transparency thing since day one. Sorry guys, but Apple beat MS to market on this one, and it's always turned on.

    1. Re:Apple did this first! by 1+(smarterThanYou) · · Score: 1

      well...unfortunately you are wrong. Windows 2000 had this feature included in pre-release betas. For any person who knows what hes/shes doing (i.e. anyone using 2k should know this), they would have been able to render windows transparent. This isn't what the hype is about. This app has hardware acceleration...meaning that the APIs that normally do this on the CPU aren't used and instead the calculations and rendering is done on the otherwise underworked GPU...or Graphics Card...this is a new concept. So not only were you wrong about OS X being first...you were wrong about the point of the article. Perhaps you would like to read the article all the way through before you make an ass of yourself in a public forum. And its always turned on in Windows 2k...its just set to 0% transparency...

  149. DirectFB can do that by i_am_nitrogen · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Not to mention that this has been on Linux for quite some time now. DirectFB supports translucent windows, as do a few other things (including KDE3, as mentioned previously). It's not terribly useful yet, as this would require rethinking much of the way people design GUIs, but some day in the future this could prove to be quite useful, especially in virtual reality environments.

  150. how about by sewagemaster · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... blue screen transparency? :)

  151. Interesting by Danse · · Score: 2

    troll (tról) n. A poster who does not hypocritically slander Redmond-based software developers.


    After reading your tag line, I'm not sure how to take your post. Are you just seriously lacking in critical thinking skills, or are you trolling? Either way your post should be modded down for the very reasons pointed out by others here. Primarily because you've done nothing to show that the hypocrisy that you speak of exists. Some people think one way, others think another way. That isn't hypocrisy. But you probably knew that.

    --
    It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
  152. Msn Messenger Plus transparence by asy204 · · Score: 1

    http://www.patchou.com/msgplus/index.html hello world

  153. OS X does this by Frobozz0 · · Score: 1

    Uhhh... you guys _do_ know that OS X does this, and that it's rpedecessor, OpenStep also does it. This is old news... nice to see Microsoft trying thought. Hahahaha.

    --
    "Politicians find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the people."
  154. Speed by be-fan · · Score: 2

    The speed for the extension, BTW is REALLY good. I was playing with a different program (same concept, though, hooks into the GDI) a few months ago, and you can make Internet explorer transparent and run a high-res video under it, all without any flicker or jerkiness. The ironic thing is that even with transparency, IE still performs better than Konqueror...

    --
    A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
  155. anything new? by dollargonzo · · Score: 1

    well, first of all, this is not exactly new. there has been fake alpha blending for a while, and the real stuff isnt exactly that revolutionary either. second, i dont know about the author, but in my opinion its UUUUUUGGGGLLYYY!!! on top of that, what is good about it? yuo know what the windows under the current one look like? i cant say that is exactly a functional improvement. when a window is hidden under others, seeing it because of the transparency of the one on top doesnt help me get to it. plus, how do you tell which one is on top if there are 2 windows pretty much entirely on top of each other!

    .

    --
    BSD is for people who love UNIX. Linux is for those who hate Microsoft.
  156. What's the point in that? by Uerige · · Score: 1

    What I mean is that, well, it is a nice effect and all, but why would you want to have the whole app transparent. IMHO This should be done by the application programmer so that only those parts of the GUI that actually have use for it have transparency.

  157. I guess that's why it's not in the standrd install by Halcyon-X · · Score: 1
    Microsoft would've probably included it in Windows if it actually helped the user experience. I'm sure they've experimented with this sort of thing before.

    This is just a freeware third party app, not a critical Windows element, so it doesn't have to be all that useful. It's just a neat trick, as the story suggests.

    --

    .sig: Open Source, Open Mind

  158. Re:As old as the street by flegged · · Score: 1

    Actually, Microsoft did invent the wheel.

    --

    "I think he was truly surprised at how little I cared about how big a market the Mac had" - Linus on Jobs
  159. These are really great features! by cafeteria · · Score: 1

    Excellent example. Very useful!

  160. Re: This is supported on Win98 by freelance+ninja · · Score: 1

    The API call that is used for Alpha Blending on windows is called AlphaBlend().

    The minimum requirements (at the bottom of the page) for it are Win98 or better and Win2000 or better (that means Me and XP are also supported).

    Windows 95 and NT 4.0 are not supported, but here is a link to do Aplha Blending on multiple Windows platform.

  161. Re:Alpha Blended Pie Menus and Censorship in The S by MikeFM · · Score: 2

    Transparency in menus makes lots of sense to me but transparency in apps means eye strain I think. I like high contrast interfaces without to many nasty color clashes.. something my eyes can work with easily. Not see-thru apps. I don't want to see four windows stacked at the same time. I want more powerful menus that let me access what I want faster. I wasn't impressed with transparent windows in Linux or MacOS and I'm not impressed to see it on Windows. :)

    --
    At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
  162. Re:Works Great for me by Artichoke · · Score: 1

    You might like to try FreeShade. The next beta (due "soon") has alpha toggling/sliding. The current beta does shading (duh!), single click sinking, and various other natty doodads.

    --
    __
    Arse
  163. Re:Been There - fix for right click by 1155 · · Score: 1

    Don't people on macs have the tendency to push a button the the keyboard and then click?

    Just thought I might point it out

  164. A real use for transparent emails... I have it... by Mustang+Matt · · Score: 2

    It would be perfect if you had a full screen tv tuner card and wanted to type emails while leaving the TV screen running behind it.

    I know tv tuners do some special "magic" to make the image appear on the screen. Don't they usually replace Pink or something like that?

    I'm not sure if that would pose a problem or not, but a lot of times, I fire up an email and I can either make the window really tiny so I can still see the TV or I can make it bigger and constantly minimize.

    I know it only cuts out one or two steps, but so does the mouse right?

    Another use would be if you were using an IM with a tech and were tailing a logfile through ssh and you were conversing about the results of the logfile as they appeared.

    You could resize, but I have a 17" monitor and I like to use the whole thing all at once. I can either fit everything on it, or I can set transparencies and add "depth" to my monitor.

    --
    The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
  165. Partially transparent this, 90% transparent that by kimihia · · Score: 2

    How many people here went through school and actually realised there is no such thing as partially transparent?

    The word you want is translucent. DO YOU HEAR ME ROAR! TRANSLUCENT!!!

    I think I'll go lie down now ...

    Have a look at the terminology.

  166. Pull down trolls by SimHacker · · Score: 2
    Oh relax -- that's to be expected.

    There are a few misguided people who passionately hate pie menus, like the guy who invented LED watches with the two buttons for setting the time, that you have to press again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

    The same guy wants the web browser to have just one button, that you press every time you want to see a new web page. If you want to go back and see a page you've seen before, you have to keep pressing the button again and again, until you've seen every page on the web, then it cycles back around to the ones you've seen before.

    Some people simply have a stake in computers being hard to use, and they feel threatened when something comes along that's better and easier than whatever else they put all their time into learning. That's why so many monolinguistic Perl programmers hate Python so much. They call it job security, but I call it self imposed hell.

    Pie menus: It's not just a good idea, it's Fitts' Law!

    -Don

    --
    Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
  167. OS X has per pixel alpha, not just per window by Kranium · · Score: 1

    I don't think anyone pointed this out yet, but OS X has per-pixel alpha blending in addition to per-window alpha blending. (i.e. different parts of a window can all have different transparency WRT the things behind the window)

  168. Re:Important Info for you (drinkypoo) by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Thank you for the heads up. I saved it as a mht and generated a PDF, for posterity.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  169. my wish list... by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

    toggles in the window menu for...
    never on top
    always on top
    translucent

  170. you vs. the UI professionals of the world, round 2 by streetlawyer · · Score: 1
    Yes I have, as a matter of fact (BlackBox), and the fact is, nine times out of ten, the major effect is to leave you typing text into the wrong window.

    The user can easily raise a window by clicking on the title bar or the resize border, or using alt+tab

    You are clearly working on a personal, ludicrously intellectually non-rigourous concept of "easily", which means it is no longer worth discussing the matter with you.

  171. A better modus operandi by Jetson · · Score: 1

    Everyone keeps bringing up the idea of a transparent "always on top" application like WinAmp running in front of the window with the focus. The problem with this idea is that no matter how transparent the front window becomes it still blocks you from using the mouse to select items/text on the obscured window. A more practical application would be to place the secondary application below a semi-transparent top level application. For example, I would far rather place a television tuner application in the background and watch it *through* my foreground task than have to move it around when I need to click on something under it. A hot key or widget to toggle the opacity between two set levels would be a real benefit.

    I use the Mosfet translucent window theme for KDE and like it. Unfortunately it isn't true transparency as the background image is not updated while the menu is open. I would assume it's the difficulty of doing large-scale alpha blending on an ongoing basis that is preventing the type of windowing I desire.

  172. functional by devious · · Score: 1

    First to say that this option does look kinda nice..
    But from a usability perspective it is just not
    very usefull because it doesn't help you be more
    productive. Besides usually it just makes most
    documents unreadable. Give me the alt-leftmousebutton-drag-window-around option instead. That just helps not having to select the
    window dragbar... which makes life a lot easier..

  173. Re:I guess that's why it's not in the standrd inst by swb · · Score: 1

    MS would have included it in Windows if it made MS more money, gave them more market share, sodomized the competition, *and* if it helped the user experience. If it just helped the user experience it would be low on their development list, since their list looks like:

    1) More money
    2) More Market Share
    3) Sodomize the competition
    56583) Improve user experience

  174. Re:you vs. the UI professionals of the world, roun by spitzak · · Score: 2
    Clicking on the title bar is not "easy"? Well, I guess that proves that the MicroSoft engineers are idiots and don't do user testing at all. There are a whole lot of useful functions (like moving the window or closing it or iconizing it) that require clicking the title bar, and they made them not "easy" according to your definition.

    I still find it hard to believe you have not tried a system that does not raise the windows when you click on them. BlackBox by default raises the window on clicks (so did NeXTStep, which BlackBox copies). Last time I tried it it was impossible to turn off this behavior unless you also switched to point-to-type.

    If raising to type is so important, why does MicroSoft (and Gnome and KDE) go through all this trouble of making toolbars and docks and non-modal dialog boxes that stay on top even though you can interact with the lower windows? The answer is that in fact they are working around a basic design error by "fixing" it in the specific cases where it is most annoying.

    This is exactly the same as the state of word processors in 1980 or so. It took ages (like 4 years or more) for the concepts of always-on insert mode and of a newline being a character you could insert and delete like any other from appearing in commercial word processors, despite ten years or more of the existence of such ideas in Emacs or other "professional software". The reason was a total paranoid fear of being "confusing" to the end user, and this was backed up by bogus tests by people who were not novice users, but instead highly experienced users conditioned by years of overtype word processors and thus unable to handle the slightest change in behavior of their programs.

    I worked on a word processor then and they had us dedicate 3 pages (!) to describing the optional insertion mode and refused to allow us to default to insert mode being on at startup.

    Then in 1984 the Macintosh came out, for *real* novice users, and, guess what, the text editing was in insert *ALL THE TIME* and they spend ZERO pages in their very friendly manual explaining it!

    I think the same thing is true of click-to-raise (and click-to-type, but that is another battle) and someday you will wonder how you ever believed differently.

    You may think I am full of shit, but I know for a fact that you have not used a non-click-to-raise system for any serious amount of time.

  175. alpha blended frippery by Graspee_Leemoor · · Score: 1

    As many have pointed out already the tools to do this have been in Windows (in GDI+) since betas of 2000. I and I'm sure countless others at least made an application with a 50% transparent main window before we realised you just couldn't see the damn thing...

    The trick is to make the window background for example black and 50% opaque, but draw the titlebar and the text in the window in 100% opaque. Now you can see the window properly!

    This is actually quite tricky because the opacity affects the whole window. What I ended up doing was to have a window with a richtext on it with its background set to transparent (as in not there at all), and a home-drawn titlebar and buttons. Then you have to create a blank window the same size as it set to be all black 50% opaque and cunningly move it around under the other window.

    There are a few problems though:

    a) Getting the zorder right is annoying (so the 50% opaque window doesn't come on top of the text window)
    b) Because the richtext is "transparent" mouse clicks on spaces instead of words go right through to the blank, alpha-blended window underneath.
    c) Even if you create a console process and hook its stdout, stderr and stdin so you can have your own alpha-blended terminal (yay!) it doesn't really work because far too many console programs cheat and don't use the stardard streams. (I haven't tried with Cygwin yet though- all of those programs might work...)

    graspee

  176. Re:I guess that's why it's not in the standrd inst by Halcyon-X · · Score: 1

    It's probably because users are used to using "Search" engines and not "Find" engines, to the dim ones out there, it might be more appealing if it is called "Search"

    --

    .sig: Open Source, Open Mind