Slashdot Mirror
Simon Phipps Looks At 'Looking Glass'
CitizenC writes "Simon Phipps, chief technology evangelist for Sun Microsystems, describes his experiences using Project Looking Glass, Sun's prototype three-dimensional computer desktop, in this post on his weblog. He mentions a couple of demo videos too."
It all depends on finding a terse and intuitive gesture mechanism through which the interface may be navigated. I think my preferred approach would be to present the nominal view of the user's desktop as though it were the interior of a hemisphere, wherein all of the various windows and widgets reside, as though they were affixed to the interior of this sphere. Then, a simple move of the mouse rotates the sphere along the X and Y axis, and when finally something of interest is in view, you either click or use the scroll wheel on the mouse to zoom in and make it the active window.
Kind of like a big virtual desktop, only you get to peek at what's over the horizon.
From the given picture, it doesn't appear that they're doing this though. It seems as though all of the objects have transformation matrices that are independent of one another, and without any common point of reference, which suggests an elaborate interface.
But as they say, it's a prototype.
We do need to do something about windows. It's been twenty years already. We should be better than this. Is the answer to display them at funky angles? I'm not sure. But it's nice to see that somebody somewhere is trying, even if the whole exercise is about nothing more than moving Sun's price on the market.
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
I could look at it and go
"this is UNIX! I know this!"
I saw a 3D video display at the CEATEC conference back a few months ago here in Tokyo. Several makers were showing them off, but they really weren't anything to write home about. I guess it was cool enough that they were able to display a 3 dimensional object or scene with only 2 dimensions, but it's hard to see what the practical use of something like that would be outside of "You're my only hope" type messaging.
Likewise, 3 dimensional computer desktops are not going to be taking over the world anytime soon. It is hard enough teaching people to use the mouse correctly in two dimesions. Trying to wrap people's heads around a 3 dimensional workspace looks to be virtually impossible.
I have been pwned because my
Shame the "high bandwidth" video is in RealSpyware format. If there's an mpeg somewhere, please post a link and I'll have a look.
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
I have to wonder how easy/hard it would be to get a 3d controller that works well enough allow a user to move through the desktop and select windows. The pratical limitation I can see are that if you went for a glove type interface which sould seem obvious how long would it be before someones arm got tired
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
I've always imagined people using something other than a monitor to view a 3d desktop and something other than a mouse to navigate it. Something Like VR glasses that could also track your eye movement, etc.
I don't find a 3d desktop using current interfaces that exciting, nor do I think it would be a boon to productivity. Sure does look purty though
I claim prior art! Surely, anyone seeing that must immediately think of the security system in Jurassic Park?
:)
"Hey, it's a UNIX system! I know this!"
[browses through file hierarchy in tron-like manner]
Oh, erm, just me then.
These sigs are more interesting tha
The more dimensions you've got, the more places things can get lost -- this applies equally for car keys, lost souls, and music files. One of the beauties of a two dimensional windowing environment is it puts everything right up front where you can see it. A three dimensional environment creates the same problems I've already got in my house; things could be anywhere.
How long will it be before people using this environment spend an hour rummaging around for something they know they left somewhere, but turns out to be hidden behind some other item? It'll be just like today, when you spend two hours looking for you checkbook, wondering if you accidentally threw it out, and finally find it had fallen under your old hiking boots in the closet. I get quite enough 3D at home, thank you. I think I'll pass on using it for my windowing manager.
Add to this that, in the absence of 3D goggles, everything in 3D is going to appear annoyingly false. And while I bet goggles will be amazing for games and certain specific applications, I don't want my day-to-day working environment to gratuitiously throw in an extra dimension I don't need. It's just one more thing to keep track of. And at the risk of sounding like an old man, the sample screen shot looks like something that would give me a massive headache if I had to deal with it all day.
I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
How can you possibly care???????
Wasn't there a window manager for X called Synapse that worked in 3D? It allowed all sorts of nifty things like displaying information on both sides of a window.
Sun graphics hardware uses intelligent FBRAM (framebuffer RAM). The transparency calculations are handled by the video memory chips themselves, so you need only write the alpha you want, then pixblt the data to memory instead of the read/blend/write cycle.
You might want to read the paper titled FBRAM: A new Form of Memory Optimized for 3D Graphics
You know, I like Java technology. If it weren't for the existence of Java, we'd never have this push towards writing user space software in higher-level languages that run on virtual machines. As a productivity aid to engineers, I think it's one of the best advances of the past decade.
However, although Schwartz demo'd some clever technology, it was not very flattering. First of all, it has a little bit of the "me too" syndrome, considering that Mac OS X already has some nice eye candy that uses the same techniques: fast compositing and scaling, to run videos in an icon; translucent windows; windows that easily shift and scale without losing clarity (Expose). Heck, Microsoft demo'd their "me too" six months ago with early images of Longhorn.
Second, was it really necessary to spend the whole time bashing the "dominant" operating system provider. Believe me, I'm no fan of Microsoft, but this anti-Microsoft schtick of Sun's is becoming tiresome, unflattering, and it's not helping their stock price.
I just wish McNealy would try to compete by being better, not by complaining or firing barbs. Frankly, Sun has not been delivering great software technology for several years, so to come at it this way seems very unprofessional. Bummer, too, 'cause I really want to see Sun (and Java) succeed.
this is fucked up. he's playing a video, and turns the window around, and the video is playing backwards on the other side! WtF?
Can you believe it that was OpenOffice.org in the screenshot, and not Sun's own StarOffice.
The way I see it even Sun knows the future is in Opensource, after all it is their advanced software lab using openoffice instead of staroffice.
Signature? why do I need such a silly thing. If It makes me think, I don't want one.
Ely Alvarado If you remember a nice signature imagine it here
It's largely written with Java (proving for once and for all that there's no inherent performance gap for Java applications) and makes good use of the integrated Java support in JDS.
It's nice to see that Java is to the point where Sun will use it for desktop projects. It has taken a lot longer than some of us hoped, but certainly better late than never!
JDK/JRE 1.5 should bring additional significant performance improvements...
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
The demo was fine, but does the user actually get a reasonable payoff for the added complication of navigating in a 3D world.
When you try to display something in three dimensions on a monitor, not only does it not really exist, but your brain can't deal with it. Watch computer game novices (and some experts!) try to lean their head around to peek round a corner playing a FPS game. See how quickly most people get motion sick watching someone else play a game. It's all because the visuals are faking 3D and our eyes & brain can't deal.
A 3D desktop is not going to be a feasible reality until we have a feasible 3D display to draw it on. Only if/when hologram or 3D-projection displays become a reality will there be a useful case for a desktop to match; in the meantime, this just adds unnecessary complexity to the 2D desktop.
From the video (yay, I managed to snatch it before /. wave propagated), it runs really smooth - they have netscape and two movie players running and it all happens with no lagging as the guy rotates the whole thing around in 3D (and when you look at it from the back, the movie is mirrored and still plays smooth). I wonder what kind of machine it is the whole thing is happening on.
Another thing i'm impressed by is that it didn't seem ackward the way they were using it - i remeber trying some other 3D wms on X, and they were all pretty bad from usability point. This introduces 3D in a way where it solves problem of organizing apps on the desktop instead of creating new problems. I'm amazed and think this is a step in the right direction.
My desktop already has four dimensions! I can move all around the objects, documents, files, etc. on it and then there's a big "TIME" jog wheel next to my keyboard. Now if there were somebody that came out with a desktop that had more dimensions then I'd be impressed. I tend to get a little messed up with string theory.
Somehow I think this isn't really going to work out for Sun -- a 2D desktop is already complex enough for most people.. 3D will be impossible for them to use.
- but I simply can't see why this is useful. OK, it's kind of exciting in a way, I suppose. The question is: What's the purpose? Isn't this just yet another useless gadget type thing? In what way will being able to see a 3D desktop make it easier and more satisfying to use a computer, as compared to eg. a piece of paper?
Let's face it - a computer is simply a way of managing information. The information we can handle mentally is either 1-dimensional (eg. strings of text) or 2-dimensional (images). We can just about get a feel for 3-dimensional data by using our stereoscopic vision, but it is only a trick of processing in the brain, and it is actually difficult if not impossible for us to perceive things in true 3D. So the idea of a '3D interface' is bad thinking.
Having used a demo, it makes me seasick.
One of the programs that was really the visual inspiration behind the framework presented in my doctoral thesis was 3Dtop http://www.majorgeeks.com/download186.html
A review is given at the link I have provided, but this program was really the marvel of simplicity. It is only 356 KB (yes k), and truly converts all the files and folders on you computer into a 3D space.
If you are ready to re-INTERPRET what you normally store in a folder of file, so that it now fits this visual space, it is extrememly powerful.
For a person just starting off, the novelty of 3Dtop wears off pretty quickly because you easily get lost, and it looks just like eye candy, but if you REinterpret what the folders and files should contain, it becomes a very very powerful cognitive space.
Please don't flame me if you don't understand what I am saying, but as a last point, I would like to mention that as our cognitive space (displayed in the electronic space on the desktop) has no real correspondence to physical 3D space, it becomes hard to impose "laws" (like physical laws) and hence the electronic space almost becomes infinite, and really disorienting. One way to build laws is to recognize that (in Windows) the Desktop itself is a folder, which contains My Computer, which has the C:\ drive, which has windows, which has Desktop again ... it is this Russian Doll like relationship between two Desktop views that provides the backbone for building the laws that are equivalent of the "physical space" for the electronic and cognitive space ....
To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies
Just get Real Alternative - play real files without the mess.
http://home.hccnet.nl/h.edskes/mirror.htm
However, the purpose of a game in comparison to a desktop is different. Three dimensions in a game adds complexity, it adds more restriction to the field of view, and more possibilities for obstactcles. Easy navigation and viewing of the entire 3D environment is rarely the goal of the game designer. And yes, a game like (say) "Black & White is pretty, and three dimensional, but the display would have been more functionally useful as a birds-eye map with icons instead of avatars.
A desktop should not be hard to look at. Contrary to most people's opinion, it should not be pretty. Aesthetic consideration should be secondary to the goal of providing an accessible, functional, and fast interface. Is it easier to see a list of available resources, or to have to fly/spin/slide through a maze of them?
If I could reach into the 3D display to pick an item (say, a hologram display with a VR glove interface instead of a mouse), it would be useful. Having a clumsy two-dimensional viewport of a three-dimensional desktop does not add to usability, it detracts from it. What a two-dimensional display needs is an improved two-dimensional interface, to fix some of the drawbacks of our current desktop paradigm.
IMHO, anyway ;)
You can download the helix player. It is quite stable, and wonderfully free of crap.
From the Looking Glass project page:
"What if windows were translucent so you could see the multiple windows you're working on at the same time? What if you could tack a note to yourself right on the Web page you're viewing? What if your CD or movie database became a 3D jukebox, where titles were joined with images to make finding what you want easier than ever?"
Could those "What ifs" be less exciting?
Syntax error: loose != lose, affect != effect, then!=than
Apparantly the "Looking Glass" demo (running on a little Sony Vaio) was one of the most popular demos at Comdex. I liked the desktop layout as well - very clean and simple, but amazingly flexible.
I think it's pretty obvious what they've done - just turn each window into a texture map, then project that in a 3D environment. That's why they can flip the windows, have multiple copies etc running very smoothly (3D accelerated), and also why you can do alpha blending very easily, or have the entire backdrop being a 3D projection (eg 360 degree world view.
This is probably using the OpenGL wrappers in Java... Sun will be feeding the "looking glass" technology into the Java Desktop System over the next 6-12 months. They weren't originally going to be so agressive, but due to the huge interest, they said they decided to accelerate the schedule. One nice side benefit of this becoming a "must have" is that the 3D cards guys will probably get more serious about doing proper, complete OpenGL drivers for Linux (the current situation ain't that great).
Like some of the others here, I do wonder just how productive it would be, but it didn't seem hard to use at all. It does give Linux (and Unix since it can run on Solaris too) a very nice wow factor - the Sun guys gave it a kinda "who cares about waiting a few years for Longhorn, here's what you can do today!". Will help dispell the bad perception that Linux has for desktop use.
PS The original demo was written by a guy in Sun Japan in his spare time. Yep, a real demo...
As I remember, there was a company named Alice who had a desktop product called Looking Glass. The also had an API called Galaxy iirc ... I wonder if Sun's already had the lawyers OK the name Looking Glass ... ?
Okay, well maybe not Quake style, but...
I have have been thinking about this kind of technology for the last year ever since starting with OpenGL. I have a few random brain farts to share so here goes...
I don't see this complex interface working. I see the 2D windowed GUI and FPS games merging at some point in the future. People would navigate through the office, and 'carry' papers. Character in the virtual office could have labels detailing their names and any files they have checked out (or records they have locked). This is the way characters are identified in multiplayer FPS, so it could work.
I believe that over the hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, people are just too used to thinking of things spatially. That's why we have the end-user who so badly wishes the office was how it was before, manual filing in cabinets in room 1A-220. He knew how to get up and walk there, and would spend the morning searching up his file. But he knew how at least.
I'm not saying just make an FPS display files instead of weapons, most end-users would have a mental freak-out. User controls would have to be super-intuitive, and the display would have to be responsive and large (it has been shown that dizzyness and disorientation can be minimized with larger and wider displays).
Other people in a database at the same time could see each other, and they could see who 'took' (read: locked) and record. External connections (passing outside a corporate network) could involve that character leaving the virtual building onto the virtual 'main street' and seeing all their options for external connections. It would be analogous to downtown shopping.
Power users could see all this navigation as a waste of time, and for those of us who are familiar with command-line use of computers need not use this interface. Just as we don't use the 2D GUI now, we would not be forced into the 3D one into the furture. However I do see the 3D navigation as a boon to some end-users. They could virtually 'file' documents in their virtual 'filing cabinets'. When in essence they are finally properly modifying and saving their online work for once in their lives! The added time in this navigation would truly (I believe) pay dividends.
But truly, a 3D repesentation of 2D windows will just serve to complicate matters. And cool spheres and icons will just further confuse people. Make it as close to reality as you can with simple, super intutive controls and and great wide display and I think we can realise the next computing revolution as far as a GUI is concerned.
this is my sig, be amazed.
The GUI of InGen's Site B computer in the otherwise execrable book of "The Lost World" was something similar. Needless to say, the kids figured it out where the adults failed.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
I've seen this in the flesh and was lucky enough to play with it. (Friend is an employee of Sun)
It does sound like some of you didn't even bother to RTFA. One of the points of the 3d desktop is to make it easier to find your windows. Your not going to lose your windows with this technology.
I think it also shows that Sun is still trying to innovate, frankly that should be applauded. Besides, it looks way cool!
It's largely written with Java (proving for once and for all that there's no inherent performance gap for Java applications) and makes good use of the integrated Java support in JDS.
;-) you can see the CD selector from the screen-shot to the right in action, and I can imagine all the other experimental 3D apps I've enjoyed using (photo gallery browsers, SQL database explorers with 3D visualisation, etc.) finally making it to the real world.
That tells you nothing about Java performance. The performance critical portions of Java3D and the operating system's 3D drivers are written in C and assembly language. Even JavaScript and VRML manage to render 3D scenes fast.
At one level it provides a 3D windowing environment for existing X applications (interesting enough in its own right), but at another it introduces the ability to create 3D applications where you interact spatially to explore data. In the demo video (starts a little way in, persist or fast-forward
3D data visualization is an old hat, as are 3D user interfaces and mapping 2D window systems (including X11) onto 3D surfaces. There are even a bunch of open source projects around, including 3dwm.
What if windows were translucent so you could see the multiple windows you're working on at the same time? What if you could tack a note to yourself right on the Web page you're viewing? What if your CD or movie database became a 3D jukebox, where titles were joined with images to make finding what you want easier than ever?
Translucent windows have been done many times, as have annotations. 3D representations of physical objects as user interface metaphors have been done numerous times (and those kinds of interfaces generally belong into the Interface Hall of Shame), and "titles" can already be "joined with images" in some MP3 players, including Windows Media Player.
Sun Microsystems' latest innovations by its Advanced Software Technology Team will make the above scenarios a reality for the desktop of the near future.
There is nothing wrong with tinkering with old ideas and trying to integrate them into a nice system. But, people shouldn't repeat old mistakes and they should give credit to the people who came before.
Referring to such tired old ideas as "innovation" either means that Sun is ignorant or that they are deliberately misrepresenting their work.
I think 3D GUIs may have some good purpose, but the problem is that until now they have mostly been applied to things that just work better in 2D.
The clearest example of this is exploding menu-style choices from a 2D list that is easy to scan quickly and accurately with your eye into some 3D "infospace."
Imagine going to a restaurant where, instead of a paper menu of the food options in front of you, all of the waiters in the restaurant, each holding a big sign with the name of one menu item on it, form a big circle around you and you have to turn in your chair around to view each one.
Restaurants have been around for a long time and I don't know of any that work that way.
Syntax error: loose != lose, affect != effect, then!=than
Great for artists, but your Quake framerate would fall to one per lifetime of the cosmos. So you gamers who want to finish a deathmatch better hope for a closed Universe.
--- Ban humanity.
Looking at this, I can't help but wonder, how do they intend to handle the blurriness and uneven pixel distortion that inevitably results from matrix transformations on bitmaps?
If you're on a mac running panther (like me) you can see this with Expose -- basically, when you take a window and shrink it it *will* look a little blurry -- particularly if the shrinkage is such that the window is only shrunken by a small amount, say, 90% original size -- you don't get a clear mapping of pixels, so you get weirdnesses. That's fine for uses like expose when you're not interacting with a window's widgets (you're only picking the window itself) -- but if I'm to actually work with a transformed window we had better have a display system that really acts in transformed space, rather than simply mapping a 2D bitmap.
As much as I dislike MS, and as vaporous as Aero is or whatever-its-called-this-week, it seems like MS is investing into some new kind of display mechanism -- and if it really is vector based and all that hoohah then it probably could skip the render-into-a-bitmap phase and instead draw directly into a transformed gl context, sorry , direct3d of course.
Anyway, I'll happily admit I'm short on technical details. If anybody knows anything enlightening, please, enlighten me. This is a *real* problem. You can't just transform a bitmapped window and expect people to be able to comfortably read it or interact with it.
lorem ipsum, dolor sit amet
Frank Parker just showed up and said while everyone uses a Powerglove ]I[ to communicate through friendly gentures (in addition to talking smack) in quake 5, Minority Report: Still gay.
Yes, it is an old program. It still works for me, but then I am still using Win 98 and Win 2000 on my computers. Never moved to XP.
I just tested the download from the link that I provided and it still works for me.
There are more details here http://www.wirehub.nl/~technica/3dtop/home.html but, unfortunately, the Developer moved on to create some rather "new age-ish" biofeedback programs, rather than concentrating on 3Dtop ... So, this program is no longer supported. The link above gives an old version of the program, while the majorgeek link http://www.majorgeeks.com/download186.html lets you download a newer and much more powerful version.
If you have access to an older version of Windows, do have a look at the program. It is worth it.
To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies
I've seen these 3D interfaces like the screenshot linked from the article before, but the filesystems doesn't look very spectacular... it looks like a poor 3D Excel chart that doesn't show any informative relationship or correlation of data. As far as displaying file and folder sizes go, it seems like 2D pie charts work well enough (there are several apps that do this).
Even if a 3D interface was used, a large amount will still have to be 2D, because that's the best way to display text. 3D doesn't automatically mean better. Many things would be best left as 2D, especially text.
IIRC there was a 3D Windows explorer shell replacement before. Can't remember what that was called...
Not really 3D, but the OS X "genie" window minimizing effect is pretty cool.
In Japan I've seen animated desktop icons, which could have 3D animation.
3D space is best for first person shooting games where you want the excitement of exploration (as opposed to a simple 2D map and easily exterminating bad guys by point-and-click instead of point-and-shoot).
But when it comes to GUIs, usefulness is key. A 3D interface would have to have some additional usefulness over a 2D interface to the user, not just being a good tech showcase for Sun.
I think a 3D first person shooter anti-spam / anti-virus software might be cool, but it'll mostly be frivolous bells and whistles, and more of an attempt to trick the user into thinking they are playing a game as opposed to doing a real task.
Porn will lead the way.
I'm betting on new Russ Meyer breast fetish movies (script adapted by Roger Ebert) that demand a third dimension to present their subject in all their unrestrained glory.
You should check out sun's video, very intuitive. But unless the code is in Mohommed Ali in Ziare fighting trim, it's going to demand one George Foreman grill of a processor.
Your mind has a contradiction, since it's well-know now in neuroscience that the brain is massively parallel, yet consciousness itself at any point in time is mostly serial and unaware of the great bulk of stuff that is being unconsciously attended to. Yet, consciousness can use parallelism - as when we focus on an issue, then put it on the "back burner," only to come back to it hours or days later and find that we now "suddenly" have a solution. So the "virtual" scope of consciousness extends into areas which are presently unconscious - yet still active, and still ultimately accessible by consciousness.
Your consciousness is already a bit like a two-dimensional, small window into a large three-dimensional space - which is just what Sun is working up here for your monitor. So you already have in your brain "mechanisms" for navigating in such a situation. And this navigation is largely unconscious - we can choose where to focus our attention, but much of the process of "choosing" what comes to the focus of consciousness is itself unconscious. That doesn't mean it's not active, and not part of our intelligence.
We may find ourselves strangely at home in the environment Sun is proposing, able to bring to it some of the "instincts" we use for internal regulation of mind.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
You could use 2 mice at the same time. The non-primary buttons could toggle you into navigation mode.
:)
Left mouse:
left-click + 2D movement = movement
Right mouse:
right-click + 2D movement = "mouse look"
Two-handed manipulation of the environment would be possible. With scroll mice, other degrees of control are possible.
Finally, games could as easily be "build 'em ups" as "shoot 'em ups".
The "videos" link isn't slashdotted atm, and is definitely worth checking out, especially if you're tempted to just rant how "quake is a bad interface for writting essays"
What's good about this technology, is that it is just cool/useful enough to use right out of the box with existing OS/WM/applications, but probably does provide a framework to extend and improve programming styles and UI techniques.
I guess its fair to be critical that much of this wasn't invented by Sun, but it doesn't change the point that its been rolled into an apparently useful package.
Putting the annotation on the back of the window is cool, but as a software guy I'd be more interested in how they're persistently attached to windows or documents, how complex those attachments can be, and how the user digs them up again after the windows are gone.
Unfortunately, even the real application of 3D to human/computer interfaces has been a bust. It's been the metaphor of the future for about twenty years now...
I'm wondering if a new type of 'desktop workspace' could be thrown into the mix.
Engineering managements
Databases
Navigational
Management of very large networks
Visually routing your system or network for a specific task.
Playing with the focus (not visual) and mipmap may allow higher data exposure and look very pretty at the same time.
heh, LCARS, of course you'll need touch screen capability.
How does interaction change when voice is added?
look forward to saying things like "Our skill tree doesn't let us view Excel files yet! Build more blacksmiths!" or "Oh, no! PDF Rush!!"
Most people I know do have difficulties getting used to and navigating simulated 3D environments. For example, beginning FPS players seem to have a lot of problems learning their way around new maps.
3D is a rather difficult problem because it'll have to be done in a way that models itself to the end user. Right now, many people have problems with operating a mouse, moving and resizing windows, etc. If 3D doesn't find an extremely intuitive way for managing these sorts of resources, it won't be particularly useful.
Also, although we live in a three-dimensional environment, the best science I've read so far suggests that our perception of it is largely two-dimensional. For example, when humans remember how an object looks, they don't memorize the 3D shape of the object, they memorize 2D images of how the object looks from various angles. There is research suggesting that when we memorize a truly 3D environment such as an office building, we really create a series of linked 2D 'maps.'
This situation becomes very clear in video games. Most folks don't have a hard time at all getting used to FPS games, where the action is really mostly two-dimensional. A lot of people have a slightly harder time with flight simulators, but can get the hang of it fairly easily. This still isn't really a 3D problem though - it's more of a "2 1/2 dimensional" because it's still largely 2D action that is augmented by "up" and "down", but freedom to move along the up/down axis is severely restricted so fluent thinking about the game really only requires a 2D internal model of the action combined with details about whether something is above or below oneself.
3D space combat games are where the situation really becomes clear. My own experience with them is that when I was first learning them I really didn't keep a good idea of the 3D action in the games at all. I kept an idea of where various objects were in relation to me, and didn't maintain a good concept of the overall layout of the gamespace in 3D. Not exactly Khan and his inability to strategize in three dimensions, but certainly not a fluent ability to plan and strategize in irreducibly three-dimensional environments. Watching other people learn to play these games suggests that their experience is similar.
There were only a few years of engineers who didn'' know what a virtual machine is. On mainframes, virtual machines were quite common.
.NET.
Bill Gates and Paul Allen wrote the first MS-BASIC in a virtual Altair on a DEC VAX. First they wrote the virtual machine, then they wrote BASIC inside it.
They only did their very last bit of work on a real Altair. They did this because they couldn't afford a real Altair.
On the Apple ][ and early PC, there was the UCSD P-System virtual machine running Pascal and FORTRAN.
Then of course recently there is Java and
So most recent programmers have had the opportunity to work with virtual machines.
Anyway, I find it strange that you call Java a success. There has never been a successful language that you have to pay royalties to implement and especially to use. Why? Because whenever possible, those who create new platforms will select free languages to save themselves money.
and it's been done before.
whew, sorry, just had to get that off my chest.
3D space combat games are where the situation really becomes clear. My own experience with them is that when I was first learning them I really didn't keep a good idea of the 3D action in the games at all.
Situational awareness... is, I believe, the term that you are searching for.
Combat flight sims are difficult for me to maintain SA without a head-mounted display that would track my gaze. Constatly switching views using the hat is clumsy and throws me off.
Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
Microsoft research has been prototyping the same thing for some time now.
I like his little poke at MS, which of course was a lie
One of these was the use of two mice. Yep, it's true. He discovered that using two mice (as well as footpedals - yet another thing that hasn't caught on) could be very beneficial to some tasks. There are probably a lot of tasks where such a system could be beneficial, but he couldn't explore them due to computer limits of the time (btw, consider those limits, then watch the video of the demonstration and be prepared to bow in AWE - these guys, guys like Engelbart, guys like Sutherland and his "Ultimate Display", aka "The Sword of Damocles" for 3D virtual environment display - described in 1965, and ultimately ready by January 1970!).
Sorry, your not the first to suggest it - as always, it seems like Doug was there first...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Ok, it all looks very pretty. But when the guy brought up the 3D "CD database", am I the only one that thought of the Interface Hall of Shame? They have three pages on interfaces that try to look like real things - The horrible QuickTime player, and IBM's RealPhone and RealCD applications. The underlying criticism is that interfaces that try to look and act like real things often don't work very well on a computer screen. Look at the apps on your computer desktop. Does your web browser look like some real applicance? Or your email reader? File manager? No, they probably don't. They have some similar widgets, like buttons or tabs. But other things like drop-down menus or scroll-bars don't have real-world cousins. It's a mish-mash that has evolved over the last 20-odd years of GUI design.
The problem I have with their 3D desktop is I bet they'll try to "reinvent" the interface by imitating real-life appliances and devices. And guess what, it's different using a real-life device with your hands from operating a virtual device with a mouse and 1, 2, or 3 buttons. Things like thumb-wheels aren't so easy to use with a mouse (forgetting the actual wheel on modern mice), just look at the QuickTime player example. And it's not always obvious what is a widget, and what is simply decoration.
Or they might do it correct from the start, what do I know. In the video the guy talks about a community of some sort. So maybe they'll rely on third-party programmers more.
Of course not - gloves can be really nice. The problem is (as always) - patents.
You see, part of the PG's technology was licensed from Jaron Lanier's company of the time, VPL. They made what could be considered "the ultimate" glove - the DataGlove.
It was made of lycra or spandex - very flexy and comfortable, like bicycle gloves. IIRC, there were no fingertips, so you could type with it on. The sensors were lightweight loops of fiber optic (which, when bent, would leak light out, the more light leaked, the more the finger was bent, and an optical sensor at the end of the loop could read this).
For position tracking, you typically used a magnetic tracker like a Polhemus system - which utilized a small sugar-cube sized position/orientation sensor (basically three orthogonal coils) that was stuck on the back of the hand of the glove.
Very lightweight, very comfortable, excellent response. Its only real drawback was calibration, as the lycra/spandex of the glove tended to shift as you used the glove, shifting the sensors away from the bend points. I also think it had problems with sensing finger abduction (side to side movement) - but all glove devices at the time (even today) have that issue.
So, the technology is there, but it is still wrapped up in patents. VPL no longer exists, I don't know who has the patents today (used to be Thompson/Phillips, but that may not be true anymore). A lot of physical 3D human interface technology is locked up in those patents - the DataGlove, some HMD stuff, various display software patents, the BodyGlove (full body tracking)...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Is is 3D as in Doom or 3D as in Quake? Assuming they are using the Java3D API, looks like 3D as in Quake. (not psuedo 3d)
I wouldn't mind a 3D interface, except that most interfaces are created these days with a orthographic view. If the OS exposed a 3D application development environment (which it would, hopefully) I would REALLY like to get into it. We have semi-serious discussions about 3D interfaces for some parts of our software (sourceforge.net/projects/bie). There are many applications/domains where a Z-plane could have meaning and add lots of functionality. Anyone who says otherwise probably doesn't need more that 640k ram either.
TallGreen CMS hosting
My use of a desktop, and esp. the 3D Desktop is very personal, and I use a lot of tools to achieve what I want. It would take a long time to convey what I do, but let me try to start by answering your specific questions ...
This is true as M$ could never really communicate what they were trying to do with the Desktop Metaphor. And their tendency to define "special folders" and then hide them in the Windows subfolder was not very helpful ... And I think in their Win XP version they have tried to retrace their steps - emphasizing a clean desktop, automatically removing unused icons etc ... Personally I believe, M$ screwed by taking this approach and have wasted the whole paradigm of Desktop ..
I use a program called Iconlock which gives me the option os saving in the Right-Click Context Menu of the Desktop. Looks now it is hard to get a free copy but I have an older and free version of it. Let me know and I can upload it somewhere for you. Otherwise you might find better substitutes that achieve the same goal. Iconlock lets you save the various arrangements of the icons ... The saving mechanism is quite extensive, and more you use it the more powerful it becomes esp when you redefine the Desktop folders.
You could use TweakUI to redefine your Desktop. Use the program to define ANY folder (not just c:\win\desktop) to become your desktop. It does make you Log On/Off but it is a minor irritant. That way you can get whatever icons you want on your Desktop using TweakUI, and then resort to the saved Icon arrangement using Iconlock.
QuickLaunch is my place of choice for Icons. Notwithstanding the fact that people say too many icons there make it load slow- I have about 130 icons, and I am doing just Fine. It is nice because no matter where you are, you can always hit the Windows button on the Keyboard, and all your shortcuts are immediately there ...
This is the crux of the problem, and there is no complete solution to it. In fact you have to balance the flow of information from 1D listing, to 2D X-Y plane, (and extending it with Virtual Desktop Manager like JS Pager using the Natural Skin) to the 3D using 3Dtop. Actually the 3Dtop window is just a window and you can make it just one of the virtual windows on the JS Pager ..... In each of the 1D, 2D, and 3D, there are nestings and recursions of information, and also there are pseudo layers, i.e.1.5 D, 2.5D, and you also have to look at the temporal aspect. So, it does take a little while to be able to make a packet of information move from one type of dispaly to another, and as you can't preserve all the information tradeoff's have to be made. It is these tradeoff's that make it hard to describe my system.
Then I use programs like Peepshowlite to be able to cut thru layers, and the Peepshow Full program lets you make multiple incisions ...
To control which windows stay on the top, and to control their transparency I use the program PowerMenu ...
Anyway, I know you must be thoroughly confused by now, but all of these and many more utilities come
To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies
A 3D desktop is pretty neat to look at (for a while before migranes set in) but, as many have mentioned, incredible overkill and immensely inefficient. But, then again, I say the same about 2D GUI's too! If one can't do it on the command line, it can't be done! Hear, hear for 1D interfaces! That being said, I'm definitely setting up a 3D desktop eventually just to show off and be more of a geek.
--- "To iterate is human, to recurse divine." -- Robert Heller
I mean, take two identical software products, but make on run slower than the other. Ask users to tell you which product they like better. The faster product will win every time. This is why Java is a bad idea for most projects.
Ask 100 *nix software engineers which version of the software users will prefer, and at best one quarter will give the correct answer, one quarter will either say it doesn't matter to the user, or the user will prefer the slower one because they know it must be doing a lot of work if it is that slow, and the remaining half will question why you want to know, didn't you read the man page? This is why Sun is not as successful as Microsoft. There is no appreciation of the user in a *nix world. Projects are for the developers to work on, and if the marketing flacks can get people to buy it, well, we were right all along then.
Their 3D desktop demo is cute and all, but there are already packages that let you do this. And my desktop is already 3D. I have one window on top of another as we speak. If they could procreate in that position, Sun might have something. Sure, I can't turn my window around to see the backside, but why would I want to, other than idle curiosity? And why would I pay for the ability to see the backside of a window, when I can't really use it in that manner? Is this 3D desktop for high school detention halls, where kids need something to keep their mind occupied while they kill time? I certainly don't see how adding useless features results in a more productive work force. But that's just me. I'm no underwear gnome, I guess.
Vitrite: Giving you useless window transparency since 2002:
Vitrite
Ricardo
Wake me up when the porn industry figures out how to utilize it.
Bush is a cylon.
I certainly agree with the arguement of '"3D" on a 2D space,' but in addition, I'm also wondering why we're trying to this right now anyway. In my opinion, we have a long way to go before we even have 2 dimensional desktops mastered, why are we trying to go 3D already? I think it would be better if we mastered what we already work with before we move on to bigger and "better" things...
Whether you like "looking glass" or not (and I've gotten to play with it directly and did like what I saw for a very early alpha) one thing that I haven't seen mentioned is proper credit.
:)
The ideas and java coding behind the first versions of "looking glass" were all the brainchild of Hideya Kawahara (aka Dan). The fact that it is taking a life of it's own will hopefully give him the resources to complete it. He is a software engineer for Sun and came up with the idea on his own then brought it to management where everyone was floored.
Congrats Kawahara-san
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.