Slashdot Mirror
Panther Analysis Getting Underway
Durin_Deathless writes "Think Secret has posted their first article analyzing the changes from Mac OS X 10.2 to 10.3. In this first installment, they look at the changes to the Installation, System Requirements, the Finder, and some other things.
They have some nice images available too."
It was supposed to be for apps that emulate or interface with real-world devices.
:-)
But you know, the Human Interface Guidelines are just that--guidelines. They aren't scripture.
Then again, where are we without rules to follow? UI consistency is worth the effort, right?
I find these both interesting ideas, not really subscribing to the HIG as the Bible and not really seeing them as something to look at but not pay attention to.
Thoughts?
Mikey-San
Karma: +Eleventy billion (mostly affected by watching Celebrity Jeopardy)
I don't think it really works that way, but running two instances of any PPC OS should be easy with Mac-On-Linux. MOL is like VMWare for the PPC, you can open a full-speed non-emulated Classic session INSIDE Linux, you can also boot it to OSX. I'm pretty sure you could boot multiple sessions as well. With XFree you could even use a mac running linux as a multi-client Mac OS terminal server.
So what you're asking is already possible with 32-bit PPC systems.
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
Wrong question.
The right one is: Did anyone mirror the images and is dumb enough to post link on slashdot?
Windows had an alpha channel since windows 2000. It's just not hardware accelerated like Jaguar (and soon Panther).
From what I've seen of Longhorn, it has abilities similar to Quartz Extreme. For example, they have a rippling window demo they showed at MS's last conference.
But how useful is rippling windows? I think in general, when it comes to technology, it's not a matter of who has the best tech, but who uses their tech in the most useful way, which Apple seems to do.
It saddens me to see such so much anti-Apple sentiment in this discussion. I am mainly a PC user, and I probably will always be a PC user, for reasons I won't bring up here, but I've used Apples before and they aren't bad computers. For example, the video and multimedia capabilities on MacOS can be matched nowhere else. And my short encounters with MacOS X have been very enjoyable.
So take this anti-appleism elsewhere. You're ruining the experience for others.
/usr/bin/complain >
This gets my vote for funny. Apple won't ship any new features with 10.2.7, least of all Expose, but will save them for Panther when they can charge for it.
You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
It seems to me that the 'lickable' version of the Aqua UI was meant as a marketing promo for the new OS. I say that because with every new version (starting with Public Beta --> 10.0) the obtrusive and overly eye candy elements are being steadily removed. Looking at the new finder window theme _almost_ reminds me of Platinum OS9 - clean and simple (aside from the overuse of brushed metal). Not to say that OSX isnt the most beautiful interface ive ever seen or that 10.3 wont continue on that scale, but it does seem that after the initial fanfare the Aqua UI is evolving into what it should have been from 10.0..... Easy on the eyes, unobtrusive, easy to use and absolutely gorgeous to look at.
---- The real Slashdot is still here. You just have to browse at -1 to read the comments.
This guy is even karma-whoring by not posting anonymously.
-Esme
Panther has serious bluetooth issues out of the box
out of the box? there is no box to be out of. you're running a beta OS at best. they have misspelled words, non functional apps etc. of course there's stuff that doesn't work.
on the off chance that you're one of the few developers who are SUPPOSED to have this, i would expect you to shrug this off as typical in a beta build. otherwise this sucker comes with zero promises or warrenties.
I've seen several comments about how the new interface isn't as pretty as Aqua, and also how Panther feels snappier than Jaguar.
I'd like to suggest a reason for this: the new interface seems to lack some of the transparency that was present in Jaguar. This could make it much faster, since transparency, even as handled by Quartz Extreme, still takes a bit more time than no transparency-- especially with fade-in effects.
Try it on Jaguar: Use Unsanity's Fruit Menu to turn off transparency in the menus and see that they drop down instantaneously rather than fading in.
Of course, I could be horribly mistaken...
I agree with a good deal of what you've said, but I have several major complaints (this IS Slashdot, after all):
2. Column view still lacks sorting by anything other than 'name' in column view. I would suggest adding sorting options via a contextual menu.
No. You should never have settings or options available only via contextual menus, which a TON of users never even see. If they're in a contextual menu, find a place elsewhere for them, as well.
3. Fonts, HTML, EPS and any file handled by quicktime should be previewable right in the finder.
I don't agree with this, either. Perhaps QuickTime, but why everything else? Why not let the Finder do what everyone has bitched about the Finder being bad at since the beginning of OS X, and be a good navigation tool? (I like Jag's Finder, but nothing is ever perfect.) Concentrate on making the Finder let you find shit first and foremost. It doesn't need to be a Swiss Army Knife, it just needs to pass font files to the FontBookThingy app. Bing, done.
4. Contextual menus need to be smarter. For example if I click on a font or a saver file I should be able to send it to it's proper folder.
Same thing as the first point. Contextual menus should only provide a convenient grouping of commonly used commands that pertain to the object you've clicked on to generate the contextual menu you're looking at.
This may also confuse more people, since you have your font folder and the system's font folder. How do you distinguish between the difference(s) for the average (non-geek) user?
6. Finder windows still take up too much screen real estate. If apple used small scrollbars it would save a significant # of pixels per window.
The scroll bars and window title bars are the same size in OS X and OS 9. For example, the window title bars are 22 pixels tall in both 9 and X.
11. The admin should be able to control what kind of finder window a user sees and they should be able to control which drives/folders are available within the finder window.
Hmm . . . I agree with the second half of that, as long as you're not restricting items in someone's home folder (duh), but that first part is an interesting point. Should a user be forced to see certain styles of windows for different folders? I dunno.
Perhaps only if the admin couldn't screw with the window of a folder that belonged to them. I think that's how Jaguar does it, but I'm really not sure.
12. A new (better) folder design would be appreciated.
What's wrong with the current folder icon? Get a system icon replacement thingie from ResExcellence or wherever.
13. There should be an option to turn disk images into folders (this is what users normally want to do with downloaded images).
Apple does something similar with "Internet-enabled disk images". I think they're shitty, though, since I can't look at a .dmg file and tell that it's going to delete itself once I double-click it. Some of us like to back up the things we download, and self-trashing .dmgs totally screw that up.
1. Exposé is fantastic, but it still does not solve the problem of minimized windows (it does not show windows minimized to the dock although it probably should). While minimized windows will be used less often when users get the hang of Exposé, there is still a need for some sort of windowshading that allows for speedy one or two click window swapping. I personally miss having windowshade from OS 9 and had a haxie installed to add this behavior. Even better is minimize-in-place hack from unsanity which recently became available. I have found shading invaluable in production. The standard OS X minimize/maximize simply takes too long to swap between windows and windows get lost in the dock. Also exposé, does not solve the problem of window clutter (many of our designers are clean desktop sort of people), while some s
Mikey-San
Karma: +Eleventy billion (mostly affected by watching Celebrity Jeopardy)
I don't need a play button that's NEARLY as big as QT Player's is. Couple that with the size of the other buttons, and you no longer have to wonder why the player window has to remain so friggin' large when you play a small movie.
/not/ intuitive at all. If it were consistent, at least, it would reverse itself to time remaining rather than time elapsed.
Now we're getting somewhere. You find the size of the buttons offensive. That doesn't make them bad UI. The most noticeable button is also the most frequently used one. You know--the one mapped to the space-bar. I can't really argue with the fact, that there is a minimum size the player window will have. That means you can't realistically display more than 6 windows at the same time on a 1024x768 screen. I have no idea how many users feel that this is a problem. If we stay as unscientific as humanly possible and take you and me as sample group, then I would guess that it could be about 50%. If the problem is about having the movie playing in the background then I don't see how player size keeps anyone from doing that.
Intiutive? Clicking the timecode in the window to get to balance, treble, and bass controls is
You're right. Clicking on the icon (and even though it is animated, it still is an icon) displaying the sound levels of the movie you are watching should not display the controls for modifying sound properties. What where they thinking?
Hank! White!
The original "lickable" OS X interface -- right down to the thin horizontal gray lines on menu bars and window borders -- almost certainly was designed to resemble the original iMac and Blue-and-White G3. The design aesthetics reinforced each other, and even extended to Microsoft's Internet Explorer, which gives you the choice of browser chrome to match your hardware (including the venerable Bondi Blue).
Apple went out of its chromatic phase in a blaze of glory with the regrettable "Blue Dalmatian" and "Flower Power" iMacs. Ever since then they've moved in a more elegant direction, with no more dramatic change than the shift from colorful, purse-like iBooks to today's snowy variant. OS X has looked dated in comparison -- it did its job too well. It's no coincidence that as brushed metal themes are emerging more and more often, especially in the new Finder, that the new G5's following suit.
I totally agree about the design aesthetic matching on the hardware and software. I do wish they would bring back the purse design laptop though, or make something new like it. The clamshell enclosure was great -- spacious; my fingers always feel cramped on notebook keyboards, but not that one. More importantly, it was rugged as hell. I've seen them dropped with no harm done; try that with a tibook. The new 12" Tibook is better in terms of being rugged but doesn't have that space. And I know everyone laughed at the purse thing but that handle was damn convenient for carrying your machine across the room! I would love to see a new clamshell enclosure from apple with a G4 or G5 in it. It doesn't have to be fruity looking; surely their designers can create an elegant but toned down design that retains the functionality of the clamshell....