Slashdot Mirror
3D Sphere Interface for XP
Brian Brian writes "I found this super cool 3D, inside a sphere, desktop interface. The videos really demonstrate it. I would love this built into OS X but it is just for Windows right now. And if nothing else, the paradigm is the coolest way to handle multiple screens." Here are a
collection of screenshots & videos. I'm skeptical that it wouldn't be very practical, but it sure looks fun.
XP is slow enough as it is...and now we want to do all kinds of useless fancy junk with this kind of window manager?
It looks like someone saw Minority Report one time too many.
// Agent Green (Ian / IU7 / KB1JQO)
// IEEE 802.3: All 10base Are Belong To Us
I've tried SphereXP, even implemented my own 3D desktop before that.
The problem with it is that it's not about function, but flair.
In short, try something else, preferably something which doesn't include the ability to rotate windos around their own axels.
http://li3-33.members.linode.com/~sunny/slashdot-m irror/www.hamar.sk/sphere/screenshots.htm
if the bandwidth gets out of hand, I'll shut this mirror down
Sunny Dubey
Saw this a lonnnnng time ago. Installed XP just to try it. What I found :
-Extreme resource hog
-The designer knows nothing about UI design (so many different actions, even if you can customize the controls. Needs to be simplified)
-It's ugly.
-You can't even use the windows while they're in "3D " mode
Just a poor windows developer trying to make some competition to Looking Glass. It's too bad, because it'll never work, unless MS does it and integrates it into their OS. (It would probably be really buggy coming from them though. I hate to say it, but I'm looking to Sun for the first 3D desktop)
Clippy the office paper clip... NOW IN 3D!
http://www.sandstorming.com
... suck spheres.
*cough*
Don't blame me -- I voted for Roslin.
It's nice eye candy but I really don't see how this will make a user more efficient as it seems to be distracting (just more ammo for those with ADD). I do find Windowmaker's multiple workspaces to be a great boon though but it's not XP.
Trolling is a art,
and the screen shots page won't last much longer either But here's the Mirrot Dot Link in case you missed it
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Tried it last night, actually, while I was playing with my desktop.
It's a fun theory tool and shows you exactly what SUN was going for in Project Looking Glass. However, when it comes down to it, it has no current practical application. Windows are stored in the sphere, not used in it, which means that everytime you want to recover an open window, you need to go into sphere mode, look arounnd for the window, find it, and then bring it back to flat mode. It adds a whole extra step to the process, and definitely a lot more time.
I think the best improvement may be interaction with windows inside the sphere, but as the website proclaims, this project is still in Beta.
Best,
- Brandon
Anyhow, I hope they have improved it, as I had it installed just for the *neat* factor, and the damn thing would always start up whenever I booted into XP. I use windows so little, I didnt bother tracking down where the start up processes were, but it wasnt in the norm HKEY/LOCALM...BLAHBLAH. It was very buggy too. Even 3d desktop is cool, but then again, no real use. I cant even manage my own projects, much less 3d windows flying around.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/04/14/214020 3&tid=189&tid=190
Hey look, it was also posted by CmdrTaco.
As slashbots we can only like fancy GUIs if they are for Macs.
http://www.majorgeeks.com/download4222.html
I tried it out when it was first posted on Slashdot of spring of 2004. It was extremely impractical and had numerous flaws. It was susceptable to alt-tabbing for example. If you were going back and forth between windows a lot, you would occasionaly switch out of the gui and see your regular Windows destktop. Kinda kills the 3D effect right there.
Looking Glass
Just
This looks a lot like 3d desktop, but ontop of the desktop instead of the black background.
Do you even bother with dupe checks anymore?
Stuff.
Sorry, I only grab one page deap on stories but you can see the thumbnails:
e enshots.htm
e x.html
http://slashdot.fluky.org/www.hamar.sk/sphere/scr
Also their main page:
http://slashdot.fluky.org/www.hamar.sk/sphere/ind
I confess to not looking at the software demo but if all it does is provide a greater surface area on which you place icons then there is absolutely no benefit to having it in 3D.
Having a spherical desktop does not make it any easier to find your files since there is no point of reference.
I saw the looking glass demo a long time ago, and even this does not go as far as it should.
If you imagine a 3d terrain, preferably photographic, with recognisable features as your desktop picture, you could place files in the distance or in the foreground and they would scale automatically in relation to their depth within the 'picture'. Now it wouldn't matter how small the icon was or even whether it was so distinguishable from the next one. The point is I would more easily remember which one it was because of WHERE it was - on the rocky outcrop to the left of the farmhouse.
A 3D sphere does not give you this frame of reference.
The links aren't going to work but you can get the idea from the thumbnails Google image search
Hehe, windowsXP with an interface that chugs it down, slows down the user, and STILL has no decent file system?
;)
Sounds like someone beat MS to longhorn
...
First of all, the modeling in OS X would be sorely stunted due to the limitations of the UNIX backend.
:)
Care to back that up with any technical information?
(tip: before you do, please watch the 2004 WWDC Graphics State of the Union address here.)
Apple really took a step backwards when they made OS X because they tried to abandon the original interfaces and paradigms that so many of us loved from the original MacOS days.
Again, specific examples please. The only one that really springs to mind is that the Finder is no longer 100% spatial by default, and even that's changeable.
Besides, 'interfaces and paradigms' have nothing to do with the machine's graphical and rendering abilities. OS X is much more powerful in this regard than preceeding versions. QuickDraw is certainly superceded (albeit not entirely replaced at present) by what OS X provides at present.
Windows just has better rendering and gaming capabilities, and it really shows with this.
OpenGL, Quartz 2D Extreme, etc. are extremely capable APIs. If you disagree about OpenGL, you'd better take that up with the guys at id Software.
The gaming abilities of Windows machines are certainly taken advantage of much more than on the Mac. However that doesn't mean that those abilities are not present on OS X.
Secondly, I can see some practicality in it. For example, if you can read the slanted boxes, you can take advantage of some additional space on the desktop with some creative maneuvering of the windows. Whether it's worth it or not is another story, but at least it's a cool knick knack to play with for a while.
Indeed, it's a good toy to play with for a few minutes or hours. But it can't compete with something that's as genuinely useful (at least to myself and many other Mac users) as Expose.
Finally, anybody that uses "paradigm" really shouldn't be posting on a "news for nerds" site. It's... it's just unnatural
Now that I can agree with. Although my distaste for the word has nothing to do with the word itself, rather how it's abused. Used in the right context and to convey actual meaning rather than to dress up an otherwise vacuous comment, it's a bearable term.
What's the frequency, Kenneth?
Since the site was slashdotted before it was even posted to non-subscribers you can go here if you want to download it:
http://www.majorgeeks.com/download4222.html
I have often regretted my speech, never my silence.
-Xenocrates
OK, kudos for an interesting idea. But I don't see a lot of practacal application of it.
I'm all for modifying the desktop, but I don't think this model is going to really solve any problems. Cool stuff is all fun and good, but in the end for something like this you have to address and solve a problem. Fulfill a need.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
I've used it a bit - It's really nice - Or rather promising! ;)
;)
;)
I didn't use SphereXP for very long, as it wasn't very mature when I used it, but I found Spaces, which was pretty good - It's not exactly the same, but they both make use of our spacial memory - With spaces I could have 30+ windows open and have no problems at all navigating them
The only problem is that they are "images" of the window, and hence does not update once they are out of focus.
Plus, none of them support multiple screens, as far as I can remember - I use a dual screen setup right now, but I would still *love* to have it
I got interested in it after viewing demonstrations of Sun's Looking Glass (I think it's called) - now they updated in real time, but that was "built in"... Plus it was linux
Any technology distinguishable from magic, is insufficiently advanced.
I think this would have loads of applications. Monitoring for instance. It would be nice to be running 18 different system monitors all in this interface and all you have to do to see other screens is move your mouse.
The only problem is, currently, the windows will not update while inactive. So for monitoring it would be kind of stupid to keep looking at the same second in time.
Bullish Machine Tzar
The longest part of XP rebooting, for me, is waiting for it to shut down. This is because I have mine set to zero out the page file before shutting down, and zeroing out a few gigs of swap space takes some time. I imagine if I disabled that, it'd reboot extremely quickly.
Nominally, the game ends after you've captured all icons, but the semi-secretive 'Inner Demon' sequence allows you to win without completing such an arduous task.
A 14-day trial download is available; after the trial period has expired certain ships (including the array of 'Fuzzy Ones' such as the Platypus, Rubber Duck, and Fruit Bat') and features (such as saving the game) are disabled.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
I can't see a 3D Desktop ever becoming the way we use computers while we're still using a 2D screen. The image is distorted so much that it becomes useless. Navigation in a 3D relm with a 2D input and display is cumbersome, and really ... the current desktop systems work pretty darn good. The modifications / enhancements that Apple have included in OS X are additionally helpful, though there are changes I would make.
... what am I missing?
The ability to put a window into the dock is pretty nice, though that section should be larger so the contents of the window are still recognizable, while shortcut icons are still small (16x16-ish).
To get more 'desktop space' we've tried bigger displays with higher resolution; multiple virtual desktops; multiple displays; parts of the desktop sliding in and out of view
What we really want is the ability to see everything that's going on at the same time without having to turn our head or move anything on the screen.
I think if there were a system like Expose with a central area for displaying the current window, we'd be there. That way you could have all your windows displayed miniturized and your primary window large in the center of the screen. You could still get information from the rest of your windows without having to switch to them or stop whatever it is you're working on.
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
It's all Jurassic Park's fault.
"It's a UNIX system!" (followed by what was apparently some sort of VRML-based power management tool)
Here's a paper copy of the device:
O
---- Take the Space Quiz!
The GUI on XP loads fast - if you've ever wondered why it takes another minute for it to become useable, it's because it's still loading all the services and crud in the background - the difference with linux is that it loads the crud up front in the open. When it's ready to go, it's ready so to speak.
...that what drives innovation is new input and output devices. There is a limited set of software that can be made to add or enhance functionality of the existing input and outbput devices on a computer. For example, a plain old QWERTY keyboard can only do so much regardless of whether it connects with an AT, PS/2 or USB interface. You might be able to write software that will use the scroll lock LED as a network link/traffic indicator, but that's about it. I've also heard that there were some projects that utilized the numeric section of the KB in a chording mode so you could ostensible type with one hand and possibly get a little faster at it. But as you can see, a keyboard is a keyboard is a keyboard. The same goes for a mouse. There is only so much you can do with a mouse before you hit limitations no matter how unique your GUI is (Mac, Windows, *nix, it doesn't matter).
:)
So the only answer to continue to drive innovation is new input and output devices. This is where Microsoft has got it right. They see the need for this and are constantly developing newer and more unique interfaces. They have their biometric login device that allows you to log in just by touching something. And now they have this new 3D sphere interface. What they need is a corresponding physical input device to take the most advantage of this new UI. Since they are so keen on the tactile approach, they should probably make an input device that is more convenient to what most of the users of their products are accustomed to interacting with.
I would suggest that they build a unit that can be placed on the lap for convenient reach. It should have a firm cylindrical projection that is easy to grab (probably about 6.5 inches in length and about 2 inches thick to fit the majority of the users hands) and two spheres placed on either side of the control rod. The placement of the two spheres on either side should accomodate left or right handed users who with to interact with the 3D Sphere UI. Just to make the make the spheres more tactile, they should use a surface that is somewhat riled. Possibly the entir e device could even be heated to approximately 98.6F so that touching it would be a little more intuitive.
Following up on their force feedback technology from the mid 90s, they could add the same kind of technology to this input device. A little jerking to and fro to represent more 3D features in this new UI might be helpful for most users. There could also be an automatic sensor in the control rod that can detect when a user's skin is getting a little dry and a plume of self contained moisturizing cream could be oozed out of the tip of the control rod and directed down the sides to the users hand(s) for instant skin relief.
Just a simple premise to prove that innovation in UIs is purely driven by the input and output hardware.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
I would love this built into OS X but it is just for Windows right now.
I can recall seeing some kind of 3D finder for OS X before, so I did a google and found it. It's called 3DOSX. However, I also found another one called 3D-Space VFS as well. They aren't the same thing as the UI the Slashdot post is talking about, but still are some kind of 3D interface.
I can corroberate. Saw this a lonnnng, said "hey cool", installed, it runs like shit.
And it's a terrible UI.
And I'm easily impressed by bells and whistles. I could get nothing done using it. It vanished from my computer roughly 5 minutes after I installed it.
And this is ME. I would've been one of the ones insisting that we should just give Microsoft Bob a little time to flesh itself out.
xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
Firefox/IE are applications. Compare that to trying to make/extend a window manager. Sure, IE runs faster sometimes because of so much of it being built into the kernel, but the window manager (Explorer) in Windows is completly built into the OS (it basically is the OS in Windows's case). All this guy is doing is throwing up an openGL window that takes screenshots of windows, and uses them as textures for the inside of a sphere. Looking Glass, as one example on *nix, is in a much better posistion because it can be a full fledged window manager, because it justs use X as a window server.
As far as a multiple monitor vs. multiple desktop setup... I'd definitely go with multiple monitor by far. I have a dual-monitor setup in my cube and I never want to go back. I like to be able to have something up on both screens at the same time (think comparing documents). With a dual-desktop approach, you have to switch back and forth (whether it's keyboard combo, or moving the mouse to the edge of the screen).
:-)
Perhaps have a dual-monitor setup where if you go past the edge of the entire display (left of left monitor or right of right monitor) you switch desktops. Combine this with a KVM-switch-by-mouse-drag
Having a smoking section in a public restaurant is like having a peeing section in a public swimming pool.
Over the years, I've tried out several "3D" window and file managers. Most are just eye candy, though I applaud the effort. The base problem seems to be that computers are designed, from the ground up, two dimensionally.
/usr are all the programs a user might need. This sits on top of root. Linux took this a bit further and added /usr/local for user installed programs (not managed by the distribution).
/home/username along with documents and everything else. Most system settings are under /etc. Mounted devices (CD-ROM) are under /media/cdrom or /mnt/cdrom. User programs are under /usr/bin or /usr/local/bin or /opt/program-name or /home/bin. Administration programs are under /usr/sbin or /usr/local/sbin. System programs are under /sbin or /bin
/srv).
In the DOS days, everything was dumped into a single directory. After a while, directory trees were developed to help organize the mess. Though a step in the right direction, directory trees are inherently two dimensional. About 1995, I started using UNIX (Solaris). One of the most interesting things I noticed was the three-dimensional aspect of the file layout. Off the root, you have everything needed to boot. Under
Way back in the day, I belonged to several Citadel bulletin boards systems. The Citadel system consisted of subject based rooms where users could leave messages (similar to USENET). These rooms were then organized by floor. You could see all of the rooms on a floor and all of the floors on a system. If you were on the "Computers" floor, you might see rooms for Atari or IBM. However, you would need to go to the "Music" floor to see rooms for Classical or Rock.
I've often thought that such a system would benefit Linux and inspire a truly useful "3D" environment. All the files used by the system (but not the user or admin) could be put on the system floor. Files used by the admin, but not the user, would be on the admin floor. User's files would be on the user floor. You move between floors as your needs change. Need to add a user to the system? Drop to the admin floor and add them. Need to write that report? Jump up to the user floor and start writing. This fits in well with the current Linux layout while adding better organization and separation of roles. It also frames a "3D" environment.
An example...
Currently, most user specific settings are saved under
In the floor system, user settings would be in [user]/etc. System-wide settings would be in [system]/etc. The CD-ROM could be mounted at [user]/mnt to restrict it to a single user, or [system]/mnt for system-wide access. User-specific programs would go under [user]/bin. System-wide user programs could go in [system]/bin. Administration programs might go in [admin]/bin and boot programs could go in [boot]/bin. You could even add [user]/documents, [system]/documents, and [daemon]/documents for individual user documents, system shared documents, and daemon specific documents (think
Obviously, floor organization would have to be thought out. However, the current system fits nicely on a per floor basis. Best of all, it makes security a breeze. You could restrict daemons to the [daemon] floor and users to the [user] floor. [system] could be setup on a read-only basis or with the directory sticky bit set. If something is needed between floors (passwd needs to be on the [user] and [admin] floor) you could create a link (ln command) between floors.
Well, to sum up my babbling... For a truly useful "3D" environment, you need to design the system, from the ground up, in 3D. Designing a 3D interface, that's patched over a 2D environment, will only produce eye-candy and research materials.
Request a Linux Shockwave player here: http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform/
On Mac OS X, there is a small, free software program called "Desktop Manager" that provides multiple desktops. You can configure the desktop "transition" to look as if it's a multiple faced cylindrical polygon (where each side face is rectangular) rotating. This transition is advertised as cube rotation rather than polygon rotation, but you can have more than 4 desktops/faces, and it certainly doesn't make a cube.
I once had a signature.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virt-dimension/
A great tool. I've been using it for quite a while on Windows 2000 and the only quirk is after setting up how you want it to behave having to shut it down once to store its settings in the registry. I also keep a backup of the registry key for that. Other than that it works great for me, and I'm used to KDE.
home
I used the Litestep implementation of a virtual desktop manager where you could just pickup a window and drag it to another virtual desktop (it jumped from one to the other when the mouse hit the edge of the screen). I'm yet to see anything but extra physical screens beat that.