Slashdot Mirror


Preview of X Windows Eye Candy

glenkim writes "Remember Seth Nickell's blog entry about next generation X Window rendering? Well, in case you were wondering what it would look like, he's updated his blog with videos of luminocity, the experimental GNOME window manager, and screenshots of programatically themed widgets." From the post: "The wobbly window effect is mildly addictive. Kristian hasn't gotten much work done since he wrote it. He (and now I) spends all day moving windows around and watching them settle."

53 of 462 comments (clear)

  1. Pleasantly surprised by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Interesting
    There's some nice ideas in there, and some not so nice ones. The wobbly windows thing looks completely unnecessary (worse still, I get it for free when I try to drag opaque windows on a slow machine ;-), and it's hard to see how it can actually improve usability.

    On the other hand, the similar effect applied to drop down menus did make some sense. It made the menu appearing more obvious and anyone glancing at an unrelated part of the screen and accidentally activating the menu would be more aware of their mistake with this kind of heavily animated approach. It also looked like it wouldn't get in the way, the way it was implemented.

    I also liked the translucent file selector. That's the first time I've seen translucency done in a relevant, useful, manner. Yes, I do want to see the window underneath, damn it! Combined with Apple's "attaching selectors to the window they came from" philosophy, you could have quite a massive improvement in usability.

    It's nice to see some of the techniques developed largely as eye-candy actually find uses where they have functional, not just subjectively aesthetic, justification.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    1. Re:Pleasantly surprised by 10Ghz · · Score: 4, Insightful
      There's some nice ideas in there, and some not so nice ones. The wobbly windows thing looks completely unnecessary (worse still, I get it for free when I try to drag opaque windows on a slow machine ;-), and it's hard to see how it can actually improve usability.


      It's not meant to improve usability. It's meant to look good and show what the tech is capable of. And I think it achieves both goals quite well.
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    2. Re:Pleasantly surprised by Sunspire · · Score: 4, Informative

      The current Luminocity effects are strictly tech-demos for now, basically showing what is possible. It will then be up to third parties like distributors and desktop environment to make something useful out of it.

      The plan is to eventually merge the Luminocity composition manager and effect engine with the Metacity window manager. You will then be able to switch effects and behaviors like you do themes today.

      --
      It's like deja vu all over again.
    3. Re:Pleasantly surprised by JPelorat · · Score: 3, Informative

      Site is borked now, but they did say something like they turned the effect all the way up so it would be obvious in the video, but that it looked much better and much more natural when it just barely bounced when moved.

      --
      Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
    4. Re:Pleasantly surprised by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Well, my counter to that is it most certainly should be meant to improve usability. I know that Seth's reason for posting the article is to say "Wheee! Look at this, look at what we can do!", but without context "what we can do" is useless. The context here is that the techniques are designed to improve UIs in various ways.

      While a lot of Slashdotters and other geeks find a lot of pleasure in eye-candy without regard to usability, I think it's refreshing that Seth actually did post some examples of techniques used where they had an intuitively obvious improvement on usability. If he hadn't, I'd have ignored the demonstrations, or even flamed them. If everything had been like the initial wobbly windows effect, I'd have put it down as yet another thing that'll pointlessly bloat applications in a year or two in order to satisfy the "Ooo look, pretty colours!" mob.

      Context is important. You can't really demonstrate a technique without showing that it's potentially useful. I think Seth, for the most part, wobbly windows aside, did a great job doing just that.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    5. Re:Pleasantly surprised by vdboor · · Score: 5, Interesting
      The wobbly windows thing looks completely unnecessary [..], and it's hard to see how it can actually improve usability.

      Humans visualize a lot of 3D, so why not your windows? I can image computer-illiterates don't see "windows", just a bunch of 2D buttons and mess at a computer screen.

      Using subtile animation and shadow effects could make computing a lot easier and accessable. It allows users to distinguish between front and back windows much easier. I would certainly welcome these features if they're stable!

      --
      The best way to accelerate a windows server is by 9.81 m/s2 ;-)
    6. Re:Pleasantly surprised by urbanjunkie · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Improved usability should not be an ultimate goal.

      Usability is just one of the components of the overall user experience, and improving the overall user experience is what really counts.

    7. Re:Pleasantly surprised by shawb · · Score: 3, Informative

      He said the effect was turned up to maximum for the demo just so you could see it. Makes sense to make it really flashy when you first see it, then make it subtle for when you actually use it.

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
    8. Re:Pleasantly surprised by bankman · · Score: 4, Insightful
      You can't really demonstrate a technique without showing that it's potentially useful.

      Why not? I can come up with some technology that I think is cool but has no obvious (to me) usabilty. Then you come along with an idea to use it. It's not like every inventor also figures out the inventions final use.

      --
      I feel so sig.
    9. Re:Pleasantly surprised by the+quick+brown+fox · · Score: 4, Funny
      I'd have put it down as yet another thing that'll pointlessly bloat applications in a year or two in order to satisfy the "Ooo look, pretty colours!" mob.

      We prefer to be called "Mac users", thankyouverymuch.

    10. Re:Pleasantly surprised by russellh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I support usability. and I, too, experienced the "joy" of mp3 player skins. However, I also support an experimental approach to UI design. I like to see all kinds of things tried even if they seem stupid on the face of it. Why not? We need people trying stuff that doesn't make sense (yet). For instance, I would love it, and I mean I would rotfl if I could connect a window flutter value to a wind, um, whatever the thing is called that measures wind speed. Usability? whocares? what a cool demo. not that that specific thing would be something I'd want to actually use, but, like art, it makes you think about things differently. you think, how can I connect my UI experience more directly to the real world? The experiments going on with the motion sensor in the new apple powerbooks are another example of that: nobody really (do they?) wants to use the powerbook itself as a game controller, tilting it this way and that. But it's cool, and people are thinkin' diff'rently now about those sorts of things. I say: awesome. but again, stress it's not about that implementation specifically as it is about a way of thinking, and finding new directions for research.

      --
      must... stay... awake...
  2. CoralCDN [mirror] by danalien · · Score: 4, Informative
    http://www.gnome.org.nyud.net:8090/~seth/blog/xsho ts

    ... I'm just guessing this might get slashdotted...

    --
    I don't claim I know more than I know, and if you know you know more than I know, then by all means, let me know.
    1. Re:CoralCDN [mirror] by natrius · · Score: 5, Informative
    2. Re:CoralCDN [mirror] by AsnFkr · · Score: 4, Informative
  3. Re:Can't Play The Videos by natrius · · Score: 4, Informative

    So download something that can.

  4. Nifty, but the point? by NickHydroxide · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I agree, a lot of these implementations are kind of nifty, but not particularly useful. I looked around but couldn't find any information about how resource-intensive this is.

    It seems like part of a loose trend towards bloating Linux for the desktop market. Not that this is a bad thing, but something that should be kept in mind.

    1. Re:Nifty, but the point? by natrius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      From the site:
      People have been asking what sort of hardware this was done on. Videos were shot on a mix of an IBM thinkpad X30 (with a paltry Intel i830 video card using open source drivers) and an IBM thinkpad T41 (with a slightly beefier but still pretty old Radeon Mobility 7500, also using open source drivers). Everything we're doing so far is light on hardware requirements.

      On the topic of usefulness, that's not really what I think these videos are supposed to show. The point is that we now have the foundation to do useful things with.

    2. Re:Nifty, but the point? by 10Ghz · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I agree, a lot of these implementations are kind of nifty, but not particularly useful. I looked around but couldn't find any information about how resource-intensive this is.


      The demos in the website run on either Intel integrated vidcard, or on Ati Mobility Radeon 7500 (both with open-source drivers). Bot are very low-end vid-cards these days.

      It seems like part of a loose trend towards bloating Linux for the desktop market.


      What "bloat" are you talking about? It seems to me that both major desktops (KDE and Gnome) are getting faster and less memory-hungry with each new release. So I REALLY fail to see your point. But if you are worried about bloet, simply don't enable any of the new features, or use XFCE or something similar! Problem solved! Me? I have vid-card, CPU and memory to spare, bring on the advanced features!
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    3. Re:Nifty, but the point? by dogas · · Score: 4, Insightful
      No dude, if you use linux, you're gonna be forced to have wobbly windows and put up with the low-end hardware accelerated bloat.

      Geez... I saw the videos and it looks pretty sweet! If it's going to make my windows friends jealous, I'm on board. Will I use it on my linux desktop? You bet. Will I load it on my linux router? Uh, no.

      --
      'When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.' -HST
  5. heh.. by Quixote · · Score: 4, Funny
    The wobbly window effect is mildly addictive.

    Wait till you see the "wobbly server effect"...

  6. Who did this? by althalus1969 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Linking to "X Window Eye Candy" Videos on the ./ Frontpage...that's like posting free porn.
    You people are crazy. That poor server...

  7. Already by cheezemonkhai · · Score: 4, Informative

    Appears to be down or at least struggling already :(

    Mirrordot should hopefully be created here:

    Mirrordot link

  8. xgl by elmartinos · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yesterday I have tried Xgl, Which also uses OpenGL to draw X. I think Luminocity and xgl are tightly related, but I am not really shure.

    Anyway, what I got was a stable desktop with nice shadow and transparency features. It looks totally cool to have a transparent mplayer behind a transparent xterm that drops a soft shadow on it :-)

    Trying it out is fairly easy, just follow this description.

  9. Nip it in the bud by Morganth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I just want to pre-emptively respond to all the posts that are going to say, 'well, as usual, Linux is catching up to Microsoft and Apple a couple years after the fact.'

    Yes, you may be right. But the difference is that Linux doesn't have to be first, it just has to be better. And it will be. The rich base of command line utilities and a solid kernel are necessary to have great degrees of stability and richness at the higher levels (like an X server). I find my Linux base indispensable (from the point of view of the usefulness and scriptability of all the UNIX tools and primitives), and I think I concord with other Linux users when I say I'd be perfectly happy with my free Linux desktop when it 'catches up' in the less useful things like eye candy and hardware rendering. Because in the end, I'll have a Free, Powerful Desktop that Looks Just As Good As Yours, while you may be stuck with a good-looking, but still proprietary, mess of a system that is still sorely weak in the basics.

    Just my two cents... but undoubtedly in the time it took me to write this post, it will no longer be pre-emptive.

    1. Re:Nip it in the bud by BenjyD · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A second pre-emptive comment:

      1) It's a tech demo. Nobody is suggesting wobbly windows are going to improve productivity. Given a wide range of possible effects like this, however, creative people can come up with nice ideas to make your desktop more usable. Decoupling the screen display and window contents rendering allows all sorts of cool things.

      2) It runs on old crappy hardware, so no, you won't need to go and buy an Nvidia 69999FX-eXtreme to run it

      3) It's not 'bloat' (whatever that is), it's just using the hardware and X-server abilities to their full. By shifting much of the rendering to the graphics card, you could actually lower CPU usage. I'm sure a thousand openbox/console/ion/ratpoison users are waiting to post "I don't need this". To which I say "well go back to your teletype then".

    2. Re:Nip it in the bud by BenjyD · · Score: 3, Informative

      Stationary windows will take just as much CPU in '3d' as they do in 2d - basically nothing. It's not like it's redrawing at 100fps or anything. Things like redrawing after exposing a part of a window will likely take less CPU, as the graphics card can just draw the relevant part of the window's texture to the screen without having to regenerate it.

      I imagine resolution won't be much of a problem. For actual 3d work, there is all sorts of complexity that limits the fill rate - overdraw, lots of textures, fogging, geometry etc. This is a very simple 3d system: flat projection, little geometry.

      A (say) 2000x2000 resolution screen is only 4 million pixels - cards like the geforce 2mx (which is ~$30 or so?) will do 500 million/second theoretical.

  10. KDE equivalent? by ttys00 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For those of us who don't know, is there a KDE equivalent in the pipeline?

    1. Re:KDE equivalent? by 10Ghz · · Score: 4, Informative

      KDE4 will propably have stuff like this. It should have double-buffered widgets, OpenGL-acceleration and Cairo-support, among other things.

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    2. Re:KDE equivalent? by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Even more specifically Qt isn't using Cairo, it's using its own equivalent TrollTech are writing from scratch (because they have to own the copyright on all the Qt code for their business model to work). However everything below Cairo and GTK+ is independent of GNOME/GTK+ and will work fine for KDE.

  11. Longhorn by alienfluid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How does this compare to the upcoming Avalon engine for Longhorn?

    1. Re:Longhorn by karstux · · Score: 4, Informative

      Different thing. Avalon is an API which seems to be geared to bringing 3d-accelerated features to ordinary desktop programs, and to make this easy for the programmer. For example, in Avalon you can create a window, a rendering context and a simple scene with very few lines of code.

      I guess you could use Avalon to create effects as shown in TFA. But it's really not limited to that.

      In the end it's all about eye-candy though.. :-)

      --
      Don't whistle while you're pissing.
  12. Re:Gets old quick by justsomebody · · Score: 3, Informative

    It is not a feature to be, it is a quality test of performance while in development. More the test is intensive, the better it is

    --
    Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
  13. Calm down... by raygundan · · Score: 3, Funny

    Just pretend the "s" everybody puts at the end stands for "System." You'll feel better.

  14. nice new features by mrmagos · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Those are some interesting new features, quite innovative actually. However, I would be much more interested in hearing how X is being made smaller and faster. Xserver seems to be a nice continuation of Kdrive since the fork, but it is still lagging behind a full Xorg installation. Most X users are not serving up desktops to thin clients, and only need a full install for things like hardware acceleration and multihead support. I would think a small and fast X would greatly benefit desktop adoption, and if any of you have tried Kdrive on modern equipment, it more than feels snappier, it is.

    --
    Never start vast projects with half-vast ideas.
  15. nice, but by ardor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    he should create a video showing this wobbling effect used decently, rather than exaggerated. I'm inclined to believe him when he says that this movement is pleasant to the eye (actually, the sudden appearance of menus and windows seems to irritate new users whose brain is not used to this).

    The translucency is done very very well. As mentioned before, this is the first video showing how translucency can be useful.

    One might argue that this is an utter waste of resources. Well, in this is not true. Since most PCs sold after 2003 do have some sort of 3d accelerator included (hell, even the intel graphics chipsets have acceleration!), basic 3D acceleration is very cheap. Of course, there are people exaggerating the usage of 3d acceleration for the desktop. For example, there are rumors saying that Longhorn requires pixel shader support. But the consumer-level technology for basic T&L (hell, even the CPU can do this, since we aren't talking about >50k vertices) and some basic texturing without lighting or any nifty multitexturing has been around for almost a DECADE.

    --
    This sig does not contain any SCO code.
  16. Re:Oops here we go again... by mattyrobinson69 · · Score: 3, Informative

    It already exists: Mirrordot

  17. Re:Please get it right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    It draws windows, but it's called X-Window.

    No it's not. From X manpage:

    The X Consortium requests that the following names be used when refer-
    ring to this software:

    X
    X Window System
    X Version 11
    X Window System, Version 11
    X11
  18. somewhat offtopic.... by same_old_story · · Score: 3, Insightful
    why did they record video shots from the monitor?
    excuse my ignorance: is there no video screen capture for linux?

    I mean, they did go through all this work to make something look good and then released these crappy monitor shots?

  19. Uh Expose? by bogie · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Luminosity is a testbed for technology. It's not meant to show exactly what Gnome 2.12 or X whatever is going to look like.

    You say its not useful but what about something like Expose which many users think is useful? Imagine how boring the early versions of it looked which did nothing interesting or useful? Think outside the box for a minute and realize that by using the technology someone may come up with some new ways of interacting with windows that nobody has ever thought of and turns out to be really useful. Your boring and bloated accusation is way close-minded and short-sighted.

    --
    If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
  20. Combine it with Enlightenment by houghi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Combine it with the new Enlightenment stuff:
    This one
    This one
    This one
    This one

    So who said that Linux was mainly textbased?

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  21. Torrent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As often as this has happened lately, you'd think someone would be courteous enough to put up a torrent of the videos rather than blow away various project websites everytime someone posts video-candy.

    1. Re:Torrent? by TeknoHog · · Score: 3, Informative
      I already posted this, but it's not modded up so maybe not very visible:

      http://www.iki.fi/teknohog/luminocity-theora.torre nt

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  22. Re:Buttons/windows still look archaic by natrius · · Score: 4, Informative

    With all the effort put into wobbly windows and transparency, it seems like they ought to have windows and buttons themselves looking fairly slick. Instead they look like a slight improvement over Windows 98.

    Since this comment keeps finding its way up from -1, Troll, I guess I'll respond. GTK uses themes.

  23. This is a good start, but by elucido · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think someone needs to create better themes. Coders suck as artists and as theme designers. Coders also suck at designing interfaces. We need an interface design contest now, complete with bounties. All artists should be welcomed and no programming experience should be required to contribute. I suggest we make a glass like interface, or an interface such as the interface in the Lain anime series. Lets make something impressive, also lets make it functional. How can we use the extra dimensions and power to make things work better?

  24. Why Eye Candy Enhanced Usability by WombatControl · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I know it's fashionable to bash UI eye candy, but there is a reason for it. For instance, the human eye is very good at determining depth. Drop shadows on windows help distinguish one window from another. When I turned on xcompmgr on my Ubuntu box, it was actually quite surprising how much easier it was to determine what windows are where. When you have Anjuta, Firefox, Glade, and a bunch of other applications open, it can be hard to tell what window is here. Drop shadows help create another way of visually distinguishing window placements that can enhance usability.

    Transparency when done right can also help usability. The transparent dialogs here help cement the relationship between a dialog and its parent window. That's why Mac OS X has such great usability - it not only has some visually interesting eye candy, but that eye candy is designed to provide you with a series of visual cues that clue you in on what actions you're performing. The "genie effect" when you minimize a window to the Dock is another example of this - by showing the window move into the Dock you're providing a visual clue that lets you know that you can find that window again in the Dock.

    When done right, eye candy can really enhance usability, and thanks to things like the Damage extension, the Render extension, and the Composite extenstion, Linux usability is getting better.

    And for the record, those who think that eye candy adds excessive processor bloat, my current Linux system is a Duron 600mHz with 256MB of RAM and a GeForce4 MX. Granted, the T&L engine helps a lot in making the UI responsive, but given that xcompmgr and the Composite extension is essentially beta code it's quite shocking how little processing power this sort of thing takes. Now that T&L engines on graphics cards are pretty much standard, it's time that X put that power to use to enhance usability.

  25. How to run ogg video files in Windows by baker_tony · · Score: 4, Informative
    I went here

    http://www.illiminable.com/ogg/

    downloaded and installed, brought up Windows Media player and dragged and dropped the .ogg file on to it to play.

  26. MS already did that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    it was called NT.

  27. Just a quick note to "eye candy nay-sayers"... by Jerk+City+Troll · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Shut the fuck up. Seriously. Every time there is an article on /. about X11 eye candy, a troop of future-shock losers come forward and start complaining about how we "don't need this" or how it's "totally useless" and other nonsense. It's called "progress" and we should talk about how we can apply this technology in interesting ways (like Apple has done with Aqua) instead of bitching about how it shouldn't even be created in the first place.

  28. Apple won't rest on their laurels by mamladm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You seem to assume that Apple will rest on their laurels. Recent additions include such things as core image and core video which is quite a leap forward.

    www.apple.com/macosx/tiger/coreimage.html

    Also, it's not just about how things appear on screen, but how it all works underneath and also how it is being used by application developers.

    What gives OSX a lead in the GUI department is the Cocoa Framework and programming model, associated development tools and consistent use of interface design guidelines.

    I wouldn't consider Linux to be catching up to OSX in the GUI space _unless_ GNUstep becomes more mature, gets a more modern appearance and is going to be widely and consistently used for application development on Linux.

    For the avoidance of doubt, I am not trying to praise Apple here. After all, this technology came from NeXT and was at some point in time co-developed with SUN. Apple were just extremely lucky that NeXT saved their butts with this awesome technology.

    Let's be honest, compared to other Unix windowing systems such as NEWS and OPENSTEP, X11 is archaic. It's bad enough that NEWS didn't catch on as a standard. Hopefully GNUstep will become more mature and finally take off, now that it is nearing a 1.0 release.

    http://www.gnustep.org

    --
    the macintosh asterisk mailing list http://www.astm
  29. nothing wrong with eye candy, but ... by Per+Bothner · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What I'm really waiting for is easier and dynamic configuration, including true hot-plugging of displays. I want to be able to plug in a new monitor and have X recognizes it. You can dynamically resize the screen to a limited extent, but the available video sizes are still limited to what's in the xorg.conf.

    Also, why don't we have fast user switching? I want to have multiple desktops belonging to multiple users, and switch between them quickly.

    Fast user switching can be viewed as a special case of screen virtualization: Your applications are always talking to virtual server, either VNC or (better) NX. A physical display can then switch between different virual servers, multiple displays can share the same server, you can move display, or you can switch users.

    This kind of stuff is much more important than eye candy, and you'll have more of a chance to make a name for yourself.

    1. Re:nothing wrong with eye candy, but ... by Reorax · · Score: 3, Informative

      KDE 3.4 has this, I don't know about earlier versions. You can start a new session right from the menu, and you can switch back and forth with Ctrl+Alt+F7 and Ctrl+Alt+F8.

      --
      This sig is only here so people stop skipping the last lines of my posts.
  30. Re:Pleasantly surprised - MOD PARENT UP by Mornelithe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Video games give a good demonstration of what it is possible to do with a video card. That is irrelevant to what was demonstrated in these videos.

    These videos were a demonstration of the type of thing that is possible because of the composite and damage (and perhaps a few other) extensions recently added to xorg. Before this, you were stuck with fairly static windows and fake transparency if you were using anything but a special X replacement (like XDirectFB or something). These videos show transparent, wobbly windows and real-time previews that weren't possible with regular X before.

    Anyone who comes away from this saying, "No shit, graphics cards have been able to animate wobbly stuff for years," is missing the point by a lot. The hardware's been there, but the framework for using it hasn't. Now the framework is there, and people are demonstrating what's possible with it. It's a tech demo of the X extensions, not of whatever old graphics card was running in that guy's laptop. Games aren't a demonstration of that.

    --

    I've come for the woman, and your head.

  31. Re:Steve Jobs: Take Note! by node+3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You should check out the Dashboard demos. The one one Apple's Tiger site don't show the animations and effects the Macworld keynotes show.

    When you bring in a widget, there's a ripple effect, and when you configure a widget, it flips over to present the back with the configuration options.

    I think this sort of thing is best left with non-main windows, because it can be annoying if every time you move your browser window a little bit, it starts jiggling around.