It took many Mac OS 9 users a long time to get over this same hurdle. Some are still coming to terms with it, I'm sure.
There's no strife quite like internecine strife. There were some very bitter flamewars on OS 9 vs. OS X, made all the hotter by the fact that you could be fairly certain the other guy wasn't just trolling. For a while there it was brother against brother, daughter against daughter, uncle against. . . well you get the idea. Duck against chicken.
I'm sure there are some still bitter about the change over.
I waited until the apps I needed were ported, then I made the change, reluctantly. After a week of regular use, I started getting it, after a month I was a complete convert. I must say that although I was uneasy about the change from 9 to X, I did my best to be open minded and to learn.
I know you qualifiedwith the parenthetical "excluding platform specific aps", but to get an idea of some of what us Mac users are missing, read the author's article on must-have Windows utilities: Windows Utility Shootout:Power-Up Your Windows
Actually, I think the UI handles both a documented centered approach and an application centered approach equally well. You just have to experiment, or read up on various tips and tricks to find the methods that work best for you.
And, to me anyway, that's part of the beauty of Mac OSes from early on. There is usually more than one way to do something.
The thing I didn't like about OS 9 and earlier was managing extensions. What a pain in the ass that was, even with utilities like C & G Conflict Catcher (and later the extension manager). One of my money gigs is video editing, and under OS 9 I basically had to have one locked down set of extensions to run FCP and AE. If I wanted to play a game, I'd have to turn on a different extension set and reboot for the change to take effect.
This was the pre-OS X dirty little secret. I spent a lot of time, too much time, troubleshooting extensions.
Usually this amounts to a single tiny XML based pref file in ~/Library/Preferences. If you don't mind the clutter, it will not affect your computer in anyway if you just leave it there.
This file is generally created the first time you run a program that you dragged to your HD (i.e., that didn't use an installer). It's possible to edit it directly if you know what you're doing, and a program might have undocumented features that you can access in this way. Not something I'd recommend my Dad do, but it's nice to known that it's possible.
I'm not saying you're completely wrong. I'm just pointing out that Apple isn't the font of all innovation, just most of it. =) And I guess one should credit them with partnering with Sony.
I knew someone would bring this up. It might be a valid point overall, but it wasn't in the original requirements of
Please spec out an AMD64 which does all that while running under 22db of noise off an 85W power supply. Make sure to include firewire, USB2, and a DVD/CDRW. It doesn't need to look good, but cram it into a mini-ITX case.
Get back to us when you can do that for under $500.
The GP met all these requirements, and even threw in XP, instead of relying on a free OS.
Personally, Id' rather use a Mac, and mostly because of the software. However, that doesn't mean you can criticize someone for not meeting the original requirements by changing the requirements. That's changing the argument to avoid losing when you've been proven wrong.
One could also argue that Apple is succeeding now because of the various hard lessons that His Assholiness learned on the path that he actually traveled.
The depth we see is not more that just one extra channel. Instead of Red, Green and Blue, we have Red Green, Blue and Depth. Think of it a while and you'll see. Or just notice that to make those stereoscopical pattern images you need only a greyscale depth image to create something that looks "3D" for us mere humans with four channels 2D vision.
You almost have a point based on the physiological aspects, but you're missing a very important component of the human visual/perceptual system. The brain. It is the brain that interprets the visual data, including but not limited to paralax, that allows us to visually perceive the world in three dimensions. Other visual cues that give us the perception of depth include focus, contrast, modeling (the way a light source falls on an object or scene), and scale (perspective).
There is a tradition in painting going back 700 years at the beginnings of the Italian Renaissance (cf Giotto) that exploits various visual cues to create the illusion of three dimensions in two dimensions. The canvas becomes a window looking outwards to some scene.
Now, you might seize on the word illusion above, and say, aha! See! The perception of depth is all an illusion! The mistake in this thinking is that it would lead us to conclude that all information we gather from any of our senses is an illusion. So you'd be making a metaphysical argument about the nature of reality, which would be fine on it's own, but is totally extracurricular to the current argument. The point of the above was that the painters of the Renaissance were attempting to portray their subjects in more naturalistic and realistic ways, i.e., in ways that take advantage of our perception of three dimensions. You cannot take advantage of something which doesn't exist.
Yeah sure, the 3D-desktop maybe can bring out some new GUI ideas, but no good one that isn't possible in a 2D gui, what difference does it make that the computer seas the desktop as a 3D space, rather than a layered 2D space? That's the difference we are talking about, not that we suddenly will see our desktops in 3D.
I fear that you are falling victim to the imprecision of your own words, and that this makes it difficult to understand what is happening. The computer doesn't see (or sea =)) anything. The computer models data and presents that model. It is the computer user that sees what is presented on the computer display. A computer can potentially create the illusion of a third dimension that will allow us to view and manipulate our data in new ways. I say potentially, but we all know this has already been done for quite some time with FPS games. In a modern FPS game, your character (avatar, sprite, whatever you want to call it, but ultimately it's your Point of View, POV) is able to move around through a three dimensional model. When you move behind an object, you see it's back side, not merely the reverse of it's front side, which would be the case if you were in a layered 2 D model (I've heard such models called 2.5 D).
Now imagine a similar UI environment. Are there any interesting and useful ways that we can examine and manipulate our data in such an environment? I suspect you can think of a few if you try. These might not be unique to a 3 D model, but perhaps they are more intuitive or easier to use.
So, in conclusion: The development of 3D-desktops may prove to be good, in that it gives ideas that isn't as obvious with the 2D-desktop mindset. But there's no reason for an end user to want a 3D-desktop over a similary featured 2D-desktop.
Right. And no reason for an end user to ever use more than 640K of RAM. Whether or not all this will make for a better UI has not been decided. Currently, certain tasks are better suited for using a command line o
Feed him sugar pills dipped in blue food coloring.
Refresh my memory. Is it the red pills or the blue pills that allow one to see the matrix for what it really is? If it's the red pills, do you happen to know where I can get a shit load of the blue ones?
Ah, yes, the beauty that is slashdot. Where the only thing worse than the shoddy sloppy job done by the editors is the shoddy sloppy knee jerk reactions of most of your fellow slashdotters.
This is really a must have if you're serious about your editing. You'll become a lot more productive. I've done some editing on my PB, but for that sort of work I rely prefer to stretch out on my desktop machine. I was happily using two 17 inch monitors for a while, but I eventually coughed up the cash for a refurbed 22" flat panel with 16:9 aspect. It's great to work on; I can have the timeline stretched out along the entire bottom of the screen.
OK, that might be overkill for you, or more than you want to spend. But seriously, even if all you can manage is another 15" monitor, do it. It will make your work so much easier and quicker.
And when this Looking Glass stuff is finally ripe, just think. Instead of having just one virtual room to fill with junk, you'll have two!
Wrong. We have binocular vision, which is one of the reasons we can perceive depth. If you only had 2 D vision, as some people who have lost an eye, you'd have more trouble perceiving depth and might be bumping into things all the time. Fortunately (for the one eyed), there are other visual cues that aid in depth perception, such as the focus depth of the eye.
Maybe the reason isn't that there's no demand, but that the area of 3 D GUIs hasn't been fully explored, other than in science fiction or in extreme cutting edge research. If we stopped developing an idea because "that's not how people currently work, " we wouldn't have PCs, let alone GUIs.
Slashdot Mirror
It took many Mac OS 9 users a long time to get over this same hurdle. Some are still coming to terms with it, I'm sure.
There's no strife quite like internecine strife. There were some very bitter flamewars on OS 9 vs. OS X, made all the hotter by the fact that you could be fairly certain the other guy wasn't just trolling. For a while there it was brother against brother, daughter against daughter, uncle against. . . well you get the idea. Duck against chicken.
I'm sure there are some still bitter about the change over.
I waited until the apps I needed were ported, then I made the change, reluctantly. After a week of regular use, I started getting it, after a month I was a complete convert. I must say that although I was uneasy about the change from 9 to X, I did my best to be open minded and to learn.
tell me, what taskes are significantly easier in Windows?
Maybe you should read this article before asking that question:
Mac Mini: The Emperor's New Computer
I know you qualifiedwith the parenthetical "excluding platform specific aps", but to get an idea of some of what us Mac users are missing, read the author's article on must-have Windows utilities: Windows Utility Shootout:Power-Up Your Windows
To get an even better idea where this reviewer is coming from, I suggest you also read Windows vs. Linux on the Server and the Desktop
Hope this helps.*
*Helps you laugh.
I just reread your post, and you said "file oriented".
This is exactly correct. Much like any other *nix, OS X treats everything as a file. At least that's my understanding.
Actually, I think the UI handles both a documented centered approach and an application centered approach equally well. You just have to experiment, or read up on various tips and tricks to find the methods that work best for you.
And, to me anyway, that's part of the beauty of Mac OSes from early on. There is usually more than one way to do something.
The thing I didn't like about OS 9 and earlier was managing extensions. What a pain in the ass that was, even with utilities like C & G Conflict Catcher (and later the extension manager). One of my money gigs is video editing, and under OS 9 I basically had to have one locked down set of extensions to run FCP and AE. If I wanted to play a game, I'd have to turn on a different extension set and reboot for the change to take effect.
This was the pre-OS X dirty little secret. I spent a lot of time, too much time, troubleshooting extensions.
Usually this amounts to a single tiny XML based pref file in ~/Library/Preferences. If you don't mind the clutter, it will not affect your computer in anyway if you just leave it there.
This file is generally created the first time you run a program that you dragged to your HD (i.e., that didn't use an installer). It's possible to edit it directly if you know what you're doing, and a program might have undocumented features that you can access in this way. Not something I'd recommend my Dad do, but it's nice to known that it's possible.
Hey now. We don't want to be starting a holy war. =)
Yes, mods, I'm offtopic. I'm not posting with my karma bonus, so go easy on me.
Actually, I think you should be awarded a Pullet Surprise.
Can you correctly identify who said, "Real artist ship"?
On the other hand, I do think the Nanode cases are extremely cool.
Or was it the chili they served in the company cafeteria yesterday?
Wasn't that the one designed and manufactured by Sony, way before Sony did the Vaio?
PB 100
I'm not saying you're completely wrong. I'm just pointing out that Apple isn't the font of all innovation, just most of it. =) And I guess one should credit them with partnering with Sony.
The GP met all these requirements, and even threw in XP, instead of relying on a free OS.
Personally, Id' rather use a Mac, and mostly because of the software. However, that doesn't mean you can criticize someone for not meeting the original requirements by changing the requirements. That's changing the argument to avoid losing when you've been proven wrong.
Oh, all the what-ifs.
One could also argue that Apple is succeeding now because of the various hard lessons that His Assholiness learned on the path that he actually traveled.
Perhaps by "dates" he was referring to "tricks". If so, then I imagine that Hugh Grant wouldn't find the Mac Mini sexier.
You almost have a point based on the physiological aspects, but you're missing a very important component of the human visual/perceptual system. The brain. It is the brain that interprets the visual data, including but not limited to paralax, that allows us to visually perceive the world in three dimensions. Other visual cues that give us the perception of depth include focus, contrast, modeling (the way a light source falls on an object or scene), and scale (perspective).
There is a tradition in painting going back 700 years at the beginnings of the Italian Renaissance (cf Giotto) that exploits various visual cues to create the illusion of three dimensions in two dimensions. The canvas becomes a window looking outwards to some scene.
Now, you might seize on the word illusion above, and say, aha! See! The perception of depth is all an illusion! The mistake in this thinking is that it would lead us to conclude that all information we gather from any of our senses is an illusion. So you'd be making a metaphysical argument about the nature of reality, which would be fine on it's own, but is totally extracurricular to the current argument. The point of the above was that the painters of the Renaissance were attempting to portray their subjects in more naturalistic and realistic ways, i.e., in ways that take advantage of our perception of three dimensions. You cannot take advantage of something which doesn't exist.
I fear that you are falling victim to the imprecision of your own words, and that this makes it difficult to understand what is happening. The computer doesn't see (or sea =)) anything. The computer models data and presents that model. It is the computer user that sees what is presented on the computer display. A computer can potentially create the illusion of a third dimension that will allow us to view and manipulate our data in new ways. I say potentially, but we all know this has already been done for quite some time with FPS games. In a modern FPS game, your character (avatar, sprite, whatever you want to call it, but ultimately it's your Point of View, POV) is able to move around through a three dimensional model. When you move behind an object, you see it's back side, not merely the reverse of it's front side, which would be the case if you were in a layered 2 D model (I've heard such models called 2.5 D).
Now imagine a similar UI environment. Are there any interesting and useful ways that we can examine and manipulate our data in such an environment? I suspect you can think of a few if you try. These might not be unique to a 3 D model, but perhaps they are more intuitive or easier to use.
Right. And no reason for an end user to ever use more than 640K of RAM. Whether or not all this will make for a better UI has not been decided. Currently, certain tasks are better suited for using a command line o
He did. It just wasn't the type of masturbation you of which you were imagining.
Comedy gold, my friend. I might have heard something similar, but your delivery was impeccable.
Feed him sugar pills dipped in blue food coloring.
Refresh my memory. Is it the red pills or the blue pills that allow one to see the matrix for what it really is? If it's the red pills, do you happen to know where I can get a shit load of the blue ones?
Ah, yes, the beauty that is slashdot. Where the only thing worse than the shoddy sloppy job done by the editors is the shoddy sloppy knee jerk reactions of most of your fellow slashdotters.
Spam is not FREA SPEACH.
You're doing that on purpose. =)
I wonder if the dry cleaner can get these semen encrustations off of my old data glove.
This is really a must have if you're serious about your editing. You'll become a lot more productive. I've done some editing on my PB, but for that sort of work I rely prefer to stretch out on my desktop machine. I was happily using two 17 inch monitors for a while, but I eventually coughed up the cash for a refurbed 22" flat panel with 16:9 aspect. It's great to work on; I can have the timeline stretched out along the entire bottom of the screen.
OK, that might be overkill for you, or more than you want to spend. But seriously, even if all you can manage is another 15" monitor, do it. It will make your work so much easier and quicker.
And when this Looking Glass stuff is finally ripe, just think. Instead of having just one virtual room to fill with junk, you'll have two!
Wrong. We have binocular vision, which is one of the reasons we can perceive depth. If you only had 2 D vision, as some people who have lost an eye, you'd have more trouble perceiving depth and might be bumping into things all the time. Fortunately (for the one eyed), there are other visual cues that aid in depth perception, such as the focus depth of the eye.
Maybe the reason isn't that there's no demand, but that the area of 3 D GUIs hasn't been fully explored, other than in science fiction or in extreme cutting edge research. If we stopped developing an idea because "that's not how people currently work, " we wouldn't have PCs, let alone GUIs.
Just warn me when Uranus is about to explode. I have some vacation time coming up.
You missed one thing. Steve Jobs as a Tele Tubby.