Slashdot Mirror
Apple's Illuminous (Aqua v2) to Compete with Aero
tovarish writes "According to Apple Gazette Apple will replace Aqua with a new name (and hopefully looks) called Illuminous. Is Jobs scared of Aero?, does it make sense to go for a new UI now?, has Aqua run out of steam? The answers will probably come later next month(year)."
Gorram it! I'm going to take the bait since the editors did such a bad job on this one.
;)
Seriously, if you are going to cut some one else down on their sentence structure make sure your own is correct to start with. From a purely syntax based look at a sentence it is illegal (I've been coding C all day so give me a break) to put a comma after a question mark. You may how ever encapsulate a question mark inside quotations ('?') and then follow with a comma, exclamation mark, full stop, or even another question mark. In the context you were using the statements they were rhetorical questions which means unless they were inside inverted commas they would be a full sentence in their own right. Next, if you want to hit some one over English maybe you should replace your 'z' in recognise (I don't care if you are American) with an 's' to make the rest of the world happy first. And lastly there should be a space between 'over' and the opening bracket at the end of your last sentence.
Also as I rarely put with the grammar/spelling Nazi hat on I do not defend any errors in my own post. I'm simply defending the editors which is probably a better reason to mod me down than for being a Nazi.
I ate your fish.
I'm about to do that really annoying thing and pick on your expression, apologies.
A "steep learning curve" means something can be learned quickly.
I think what you are trying to say is a shallow learning curve; one that takes a while to ramp up.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
"It's microsoft who should be scared of needing to play catch up with the next Mac OS interfaces."
:-) Stick it to 'em Bill!
I can tell you right now that Bill Gates is scared of zip.....well, maybe his next electricity bill. Have you seen how many christmas lights they have on their Lake Washington pad?People travelling eastbound on the 520 bridge have to wear blinkers to get across
In Windows, this type of application tends to be either run in a service, minimise to a tray icon or simply display a small window (and is extremely uncommon, in any event).
Services are no good if there is user interaction. I'm talking about applications. Tray icons are a hack and confuse most users to no end. They don't behave as users expect and don't have any way to provide the normal menus. Small windows are the common hack used to get around this problem. I've seen plenty of programs that have small, useless windows that take up space but are otherwise useless. So yeah, there are ways to work around the problem, but they are just nasty UI hacks.
IME Windows multitasks much better than OS X does.
I wish that were the case, but it just isn't so. I've seen numbers that indicate it might handle CPU sharing as well or better, but in the real world with disk and memory and other bottlenecks I've never seen Windows win in a head-to-head competition. One of the reasons macs are so popular among graphic professionals is if you're drawing a line on an OS X system it is unlikely that a background application will ever take enough resources to make the mouse input be ignored by the system or not displayed with the cursor. This is a common occurrence on Windows systems. Maybe this will be fixed with Vista as I have not tested it extensively yet, but for WinXP, Win2K and earlier this is certainly the case.
Firstly because OS X is so sluggish to begin with - and adding more running apps just makes it worse - that interacting with multiple tasks is discouraged, and secondly because the task-switching UI - particularly historically - isn't as good.
Your first statement is not supported by the benchmarks I've seen. Both OS X and Windows are faster at different tasks with different applications. Now that both run on the same hardware, this is even more apparent. As for switching applications, it is better right now on OS X than it is on WinXP and historically, it has been a draw depending upon your workflow and experience. For people using the mouse as their switching mechanism, OS X is a clear win. For people using the keyboard, OS X was behind up until a couple of years ago when they extended the keyboarding and now, it is maybe a bit behind for novices and a bit ahead for power users.
Expose certainly added a dramatic improvement on previous versions (and cleverly hides some of the sluggishness with flashy graphics), but it becomes difficult to use with numbers of windows in the double digits, especially if they are similar (eg: terminals) or screen resolution is relatively low (a problem with most Macs).
It works fine for me with 68 windows open right now on a 17" CRT and a 13" laptop display. My terminals are color coded to make picking them out child's play. As for screen resolutions, I don't even generally use the highest available on my displays and I don't think most people with normal vision do. In any case, since the soon to be released Leopard version of OS X is resolution independent you can stop bitching about that one.
Interestingly (with regards to your comment) while Microsoft was doing UI research for Vista, they found that Windows users tend to "multitask" - that is, run more stuff at once - more than Mac users did.
That is interesting, but given the UI's that come out of MS I'm not sure they are a credible source of info, especially in regard to their largest "competitor."
Nice assertion. How many programs do you have open right now? I have 12, one of which being an entire Windows install running in a VM and an entire Linux install also running in a VM. And yet, I don't notice any slowdown in using resource intensive Adobe applications. How come every time I go to a LAN party all the Windows users quit all their other programs before gaming? How come they always look sho