i was looking at some screenshots of Microsoft's Whistler and saw something interesting:
http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/whistler_beta1.asp

look at the screenshot 3rd down on the right. It mimicks the dock, all the windows of a current application get clumped together with the application icon. Thought it was interesting, maybe a glimpse of things to come from microsoft.

"ClearType
In a thoroughly buried option somewhere in Display Properties, you can enable ClearType to smooth the display of fonts (Figure). This is a wonderful option for laptop users and other with LCD panels, though it looks miserable on a normal monitor display. ClearType effectively triples the horizontal resolution of the screen, and you can really see the difference."

To the rest of the human race, this is referred to as "Anti-Aliasing" One of the first options in Photoshop (circa late 80's) and an option in the MacOS for years.

I always thought ClearType was a liscensed technology that was different enough from antialiasing that it was patentable etc...

Plus, antialiasing looks OK on CRTs, and apparently ClearType doesn't.

But I'm probably butt-wrong on this one... just curious.

Zach

Once again, Micro$loth has copied another feature from Apple. When is this ever going to end???

Please read the article again carefully, paying particular attention to the by-line:

November 10, 2000

This predates the first public exhibition of pop-up menus in the dock by two months. Far be it from me to defend them, but Microsoft did not "mimick" this feature.

ClearType takes advantage of an LCD's ability to turn on 1/3 of a pixel at a time. One edge of a font is anti-aliased green; the other is anti-aliased red — activating a third of a pixel on either side. Like the article says, it effectively triples the resolution. I read something about Woz having done something similar on an older CRT a very long time ago. Regardless, Microsoft isn't copying Apple on that front.

Also, if you read a little bit of the article, if the user has 'enough' related windows open, they will be grouped. Generally bad design if you ask me, but it might be convenient at times. Apple's implementation is consistent, so at least once 'enough' windows are opened, you'll know where they are in the Dock. Microsoft really isn't copying Apple there either; simply fixing a bug in the Taskbar that Apple had the sense not to duplicate.

Originally posted by mindwaves:
Once again, Micro$loth has copied another feature from Apple. When is this ever going to end???

This is an incorrect and uninformed assumption. Anti-aliasing and ClearType are not the same thing. It might be somewhat correct to say that ClearType is a specific application of technology designed to improve traditional anti-aliasing techniques, but that doesn't even quite cover it.

Note that Windows has had anti-aliasing for a long time; ClearType, however, is new.

There's an OK overview of ClearType at http://research.microsoft.com/~jplatt/cleartype/ , which among other things discusses the differences between ClearType and other anti-aliasing techniques. Note that ClearType is designed to take specific physical characteristics of screens into account.

i am pretty sure MS have developers registered to Apple ADC premier...
This means MS have access to internal builds. How can they develop Carbon MS OFFICE 2001 ?

So...

A bit off topic, but I thought they were going to improve the way Windows looks. Well, it still looks like s#$t.

November 2000. It's an old build, and lo and behold, they're developing a new interface anyway.

And even if Apple did not have the dock, the window menu in every application contains alll the windows of that app so Micro$loth has still copied Apple.

And yabbadabba, what and when did I ever say anything about Clear type???

I don't know what anyone is worried about. Look at the second screen, and there is a pretty good indication of classic M$... The items on the left (in the window) are in list view, the disks are in huge icon view, the window has browser-like functionality... what a mess. Even the menus look like a hodgepodge of mixed items. No context at all! And Tog is switching over to this OS because of Aqua? What a joke. Toodles, Tog. Have fun.

Whistler is an interface nightmare, far more confusing than Aqua. Apple did the right thing by 'starting from scratch.' Whistler is just a bunch of ugly piled on last year's ugly.

I'll never know why Microsoft seems to be incapable of hiring someone who can design an icon, at the least. The Mac software looks great- why can't their Windows people do anything right?

------------------
.b
http://homepage.mac.com/jblakeh1
http://www.sit3.com

And even if Apple did not have the dock, the window menu in every application contains alll the windows of that app so Micro$loth has still copied Apple.

What on Earth are you talking about? You're going on about Window menus now... they have nothing to do with the Dock or Taskbar, nor did Apple invent them. Furthermore, BeOS had the application->document windows functionality in its Tracker long before Apple put it in the Dock.

Originally posted by mindwaves:
And even if Apple did not have the dock, the window menu in every application contains alll the windows of that app so Micro$loth has still copied Apple.

Well, Apple copied Xerox, and the Dock is obviously a TaskBar ripoff - though Microsoft of course ripped that off from NeXT. And in fact, why not sue them over the use of the Qwerty keyboard? Or, um, wait - BUTTONS ! Yeah! Buttons! Stolen if I've ever seen anything stolen!

Oh, come on, kids! That's *so* 1990's.

Basically, just about anything anybody's doing now, functionality-wise, has been done before, except not that pretty, or in that combination, or whatever.
There are things that make OS X unique, but the Window menu is not one of them. I'm sure you'll find at least ten dozen applications or *nix window managers that have a "Window" menu somewhere, and *have* had it for years.

Now, if Microsoft comes up with an interface that truly resembles Aqua in all its organic beauty - transparency, animation, fluidness, pulsing - THEN we'll all have reason to get pissed.

(and if MS throws its weight around to deny Apple a fair chance, as is the subject of a different thread)

-chris.

ClearType dose not triple the resolution. Each pixel is made of three "sub" pixels of RGB color. To get triple the resolution your need three RGB pixels in the space of one of the sub pixels. Someone worked out the math and depending on the specifics of your display you get about 1.5 the number of pixel.

Before going all-Macintosh I owned two PC's with Win 95. Win-"Dont's" has had the taskbar at the bottom of the screen since Win 95. It's basically the Apple menu on the bottom of the screen instead of the top

Okay I can see how some would interpret this as a rip off of the dock, but to me the Dock is totally different than this archaic means of navigation

But you can always count on Bill Gates and Micro-smurf for the "lack" of original thought processes, so I wouldn't be too surprised if we see some stupid OSX Micro-Smurf rip-off

Mike

Yes, my wording was confused. ClearType doesn't actually triple the resolution, it just looks like it does.

A page about the ClearType/AppleII similarities:
http://grc.com/ctwho.htm .

Whistler
Notice how the 'ok' buttons now have a border around them? Also the windows. Can you now drag Windows windows by the edges or still only resize? It seem now that apple has abandoned Platinum, its ripe for the picking. Really these are the only two things I'll really miss from platinum: draggable borders and more subdued buttons.... if only they would replace all the default buttons in aqua with the square aqua buttons instead of the gell-caps.

Whistler sorta reminds me of Be's style now.... looks almost useable .

sub -Pixel would be great with Quartz because it leaves every thing as a vector unitl rendered. If I'm not mistaken pixel maps (that is just images) cannot use sub pixel rendering at all.

It's theoretically possible, but so is a lot of other stuff that won't happen.

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Well, Apple copied Xerox, and the Dock is obviously a TaskBar ripoff - though Microsoft of course ripped that off from NeXT. . . .
[SNIP]
-chris.

With all due respect, to say simply that Apple copied Xerox draws a false depiction of history. Apple did trade Apple stock to Xerox in order to get a tour of PARC. The Alto was indeed groundbreaking, and the accomplishments of the PARC researchers were magnified by the Macintosh, which advanced on those concepts. The thing is, Apple paid for the right to look at the Alto. Bill Gates, on the other hand, *stole* the Mac, and no one can say otherwise. Two very different concepts, just to set the record straight.

NEXTSTEP had a taskbar when Windows 3.0 was around.

The task bar was shown in a beta version of NEXTSTEP (or OpenStep for Intel Processors version 4) and was removed later in the final product.

So I guess NeXT was first with the idea!! Then like a year later Windows 95 was released with the task bar at the bottom of the screen.



[This message has been edited by rjpcmc (edited 02-04-2001).]

Well, first of all, let's not pick nits too much about which niggles came from whom first. Honestly, who cares? The user experience is more than 1+1+...

Also, isn't ClearType a technology that MS has access to as part of the MS/Apple cross-patent agreement in '97? I though it was based on the technology mentioned above that Woz did for the Apple II.

Originally posted by inspector:
ClearType takes advantage of an LCD's ability to turn on 1/3 of a pixel at a time. One edge of a font is anti-aliased green; the other is anti-aliased red — activating a third of a pixel on either side. Like the article says, it effectively triples the resolution. I read something about Woz having done something similar on an older CRT a very long time ago. Regardless, Microsoft isn't copying Apple on that front.

Microsoft IS copying Apple on this one, because Woz had it working on the Apple II's unique CRT's where the RGB spots were arranged more like an LCD than in a modern CRT. In fact, I think the story goes that it was even Patented by him (or Apple) and the patent is so old that it's now free technology. So I don't know how Microsoft got to Patent it... maybe by saying something like "but LCD's didn't even exist then! our technology brings this to LCD's!"

In any case, that makes MS' patent fairly useless, because anyone else using such technology can say, "no, I copied it from Apple's 1970's technology, not MS's 1990's technology". heheh... that sound's funny.

Edit:

Here's an old article comparing the 2... some of my info may not be entirely accurate, but the essense is the same:
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article.asp?aid=8947

[This message has been edited by Brass (edited 02-04-2001).]

Look, the MS Taskbar needed updating. Whistler will provide some updated features. This Apple-centric phobia that MS is just sitting around doing nothing but waiting for Apple to develop something so that they can copy it is just tired.

The Taskbar was old before Apple even developed OS X. MS has probably had many ideas for improvement for it for years. Whistler just gives them the opportunity to finally make it better. It's not at the expense of Apple.

They also now have transparent-ish icons, and the Trash positioned
at the lower right corner of the desktop.
http://www.winsupersite.com/images/r...10per_0002.gif

Also, icon text labels now have shadows underneath.
http://www.winsupersite.com/images/r...16pro_0024.gif

I have to admit, it does look pretty. The moral of the story: make sure the Public (not just the American public) knows that you invented it first. Market, market, market. Mac OS X, Aqua commercials as early as now. On Feb. 13, Microsoft is going to launch the beta at a rock n' roll-themed expo. And you can bet they are going to peddle this thing like they made it all by themselves.
It's just icons, and shadows, and whatelse but it's not a petty matter as it seems, especially when Aqua is one of the major selling features of OS X.

It looks crap compared to the Mac, but 10% better than W2K. I actually hope they do a decent job as I have to use it when my friends 'puters break .



------------------
-JB72.338x

Imagine a clever quote here.

Basically, I think Aqua has raised the bar so far over Microsoft's heads that they can't even see it any more.

And yes, I too find it strange that Microsoft - the world's biggest, richest software company - can't seem to employ icon designers with a mere ounce of talent. I was admiring the icons on Mac OS X yesterday; have you noticed that when you change the window background in the Finder, the icons still blend perfectly (thanks to alpha channels) - the Preview application icon is especcially good here, you can see the background through the loupe...wow

With regards to the MS interface, I agree it's crappy.

However, I recently talked to a couple of former Microsofties, and they claimed that in their time at Microsoft, they saw some of the most beautiful, intuitive and easy to use GUIs come and go.

Naturally, I said: "Well, why do they still have that crappy interface held over from Windows 3?"

And they reminded me: "Windows has 80 million users, many of them in business. People in business DO NOT LIKE CHANGE. You've got to keep things the same from release to release."

I said: "Well, don't give them a choice. Make them change. Give them a beautiful GUI, and make them adapt, a la Steve Jobs."

They said: "Do that, and you end up with 3% market share."

Ouch!

I think these people have a point. This is a Mac user forum - we all "Think Different" and would perceive ourselves as more enlightend than Windows users. However, look at all the complaining about Aqua that goes on all over the Mac web.

Now, imagine yourself some corporate stuffed shirt who wishes he still had his "girl" taking dictation and typing everything up on an IBM Selectric, but IT gave him this PC and he just figured out how to switch from e-mail to Word using the Taskbar. Is he going to think different?????

And they reminded me: "Windows has 80 million users, many of them in business. People in business DO NOT LIKE CHANGE. You've got to keep things the same from release to release."

That's ironic, considering the interfaces in 3.1, 95, and 98 have all been substantially different. 3.1 was just weird. 95 copied the Mac. 98 added browser-like functionality.

M$ wouldn't know an elegant GUI if it slapped them in the face. They have never had an original idea, and never have been innovative, except in their attempts to profit off other people's ideas. "Luna" is proof nothing has changed.

------------------
.b
http://homepage.mac.com/jblakeh1
http://www.sit3.com

If I could just add...
Microsoft hsa made it clear that "themeability" is going to be a HUGE part of their new system. I feel that it is in this aspect that Microsoft is going to slap Apple around if apple doesn't pull their head out of their ass.

Being able to customize is a hige part of the user experience. And it really is not that difficult to implement it in such an awesome graphics engine like quartz/aqua.

If apple doesn't wake up, OSX is not going to make as big a splash as they are hoping in the PC market.

I'm really ambivalent about theming in an OS. It's not the appearance I have a problem with, it's the behavior and position of elements, possibly different elements altogether. That would be bad IMO. But having a famiy of Mac OS "Aqua" themes wouldb e fine. They would really have to split hairs about what to alter and what to leave the same. But consistent behavior is paramount, which is one thing we Mac users can hold over Windows users' heads. I had to get that out, thanks.

Joey-
I completely agree with you, but you must agree that it is essential to change the LOOK of the interface. Your right, the way things work shouldnt be changed, by the LOOK, that is what matters. So if apple doensn't implement some sort of theme option, they are going to lose their pants.

Hmm, so much for Microsoft's new antialiasing technology. I'm looking at the Whistler screenshots on my PowerBook and until now I thought it was impossible to make an LCD display look blurry. Sure, their techniques may technically work, but who wants their expensive LCD display looking like a 500-line television?

Originally posted by 00101001:
So if apple doensn't implement some sort of theme option, they are going to lose their pants.

I don't think that lack of themeability is going to lose any Windows converts. If you're that sick of Windows, is the inability to change your windows lime green going to slow you down much? I think it would more likely be the constant crashing, the forced upgrades, the time-consuming troubleshooting and reinstallation, etc. Theming is a small price to pay to be free of that.

Besides, I really don't blame SJ for keeping themes out of the initial release. Have you seen the themes available on Windows theme sites? Most of them are uglier than a pile of severed legs. Apple wants the public to see OS X as something elegant and tasteful. It's worth a little initial conformity to help cultivate that impression.

Nonsuch


------------------
And only a numbskull thinks he knows things
about things he knows nothing about!

Hmm, so much for Microsoft's new antialiasing technology. I'm looking at the Whistler screenshots on my PowerBook and until now I thought it was impossible to make an LCD display look blurry. Sure, their techniques may technically work, but who wants their expensive LCD display looking like a 500-line television?

Well, for one, why are you attempting to compare what you see in an image ONLINE to the actual tech? You haven't seen anything, basically, except what was in the screen buffer from the person who took the shot.

When you ACTUALLY USE ClearType on an LCD, then you can comment about it.

Originally posted by Big Mac:
With all due respect, to say simply that Apple copied Xerox draws a false depiction of history. Apple did trade Apple stock to Xerox in order to get a tour of PARC. The Alto was indeed groundbreaking, and the accomplishments of the PARC researchers were magnified by the Macintosh, which advanced on those concepts. The thing is, Apple paid for the right to look at the Alto. Bill Gates, on the other hand, *stole* the Mac, and no one can say otherwise. Two very different concepts, just to set the record straight.

Yes - I was entirely aware of this; I was just making the point that this "xxx is a bad boy because he stole from me" is dead - that was yesterday.

The issues today are entirely different - I'm less worried about Microsoft "ripping off" Aqua - not that it's Aqua that makes OS X, anyway - than about them throwing their marketing weight around to deny Apple of the chance they deserve.

-chris.

Screenshots of OS X convey the crispness of Quartz power pretty well. There's no reason to think those Whistle...sorry, "Windows XP" screenshots aren't fairly representative of its appearance. And I'm gonna have to agree, it looks terrible. It looks like a bad Plus theme on Windows 2000. It is a horrid mishmash of styles. You've got list views, icon views, and browser behavior *in the same window??* Ick. Then you gotta factor in the classic Windows poor design choices, like the menubar for every window fun, the illogical arrangement of window widgets, showing removable drives with no media, that damned browser integration - oh, and "Windows are grouped together if you open enough" - oohhh kaaaay. Open five IE windows and all of a sudden they jump together into one icon or something? No, that's not confusing or infuriating...

Guess I'm just spoiled by Apple design.

Originally posted by Spirit_VW:
Screenshots of OS X convey the crispness of Quartz power pretty well. There's no reason to think those Whistle...sorry, "Windows XP" screenshots aren't fairly representative of its appearance. And I'm gonna have to agree, it looks terrible. It looks like a bad Plus theme on Windows 2000. It is a horrid mishmash of styles.

Wait!

They're developing an entirely new interface design called "Luna." This hasn't been shown yet, and won't make it into the next beta (Feb 24th), either.

We'll see what they have in mind...

-chris.

Well Spirit, you'd be wrong then about how ClearType looks. Try actually using each beta build of Whistler, then come back and talk about it.

BTW....Spirit, since you're looking at an IMAGE of a technology that manipulates pixels at a subpixel level, you're OBVIOUSLY not going to see "how it really looks" when you're staring at it on your CRT/LCD...This should be plainly obvious.

Hey Akula, don't reply when you don't seem to understand what I'm saying. I was talking about the whole interface. I don't have to see it actually running to tell that it looks horrid. I don't need to see how great ClearType fonts look on an LCD to tell that the interface is just badly designed.

I guess if you have low standards, it would work.

You know, some of us unfortunately have to use Windows. I've tried the Stardock stuff, and the instability it creates on my machine makes it completely unusable.

Does anyone know of a decent NeXT-style dock app that I can use in Win98? I know this is not the place to be asking, but Windows sites are still new and aggrivating to me.

[gorgonzola]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Now, if Microsoft comes up with an interface that truly resembles Aqua in all its organic beauty - transparency, animation, fluidness, pulsing - THEN we'll all have reason to get pissed.

Aw, man, calm down. You think Aqua could ever appeal to a corporate system? Do you realize that a lot of huge companies (like airlines) are still running on DOS 1.0?

These people have no place for the Genie effect. Any colors besides white, black, and gray would probably blow their retinas. Sadly, Aqua just can't fit into some environments.

But let's wait for Mac OS X. Its sheer power may bowl people over.

MS CAN'T copy Apple because their model is different. Their window manager won't be fluid, trust me.

The scariest thing they could do is make it blue, LOL

------------------
it's only after you lose everything that you're free to do anything

Spirit_VW: I understand what you're saying, though in my opinion UI look is subjective (and also relates to what you're used to). BTW, I commented on ClearType because of this:

Screenshots of OS X convey the crispness of Quartz power pretty well. There's no reason to think those Whistle...sorry, "Windows XP" screenshots aren't fairly representative of its appearance.

Sorry, I understand on what you're commenting about now

You guys don't get it. You say you "Think Different" but most of you don't. It's not about an interface, it's about a product as a whole. Individuals come up with great interfaces by themselves all the time. The GUI wars are over. What was the result? Everything became similar.

Now lets stop looking at Aqua as a major part of Mac OS X. What Apple needs to do is push Mac OS X to consumers as a whole package deal. Not just a pretty GUI. Then again who am I to tell Apple what to do. Who are any of you to tell Apple what to do.

Who cares if you have pop-up menus when you can have an almost crash-free easy to use open source fun sexy powerful operating system. And that's just the beginning. Add the great APIs, the PDF based Quartz, and all kinds of other things out of the range of this post and you've got something to talk about.

If you compare interfaces your never going to gain market share in this day and age. That was good for the 80s and maybe early 90s. Now you gotta push the whole picture. I like Aqua. But it's too controversial and not enough better than the competition to base a whole PR campaign on.

Dave

------------------
Think Different.

Airlines will want darwin, to beat the heck outta dos.

[gorgonzola]

Or they could have a more standard and accepted Unix.

Like FreeBSD. How many "Powered by Darwin" tags do you see on the internet?

------------------
it's only after you lose everything that you're free to do anything

Originally posted by gorgonzola:
MS CAN'T copy Apple because their model is different. Their window manager won't be fluid, trust me.

Give me WindowsCE, WindowsME and WindowsNT. What do I have?

CEMENT.

JLL

[gorgonzola]

Cement? Definitely.

It's even flat gray.

Can you imagine MS coming up with anything that could even be called fluid? The computers Windows runs on are still primarily beige and this is the way many people like it. Colors aren't really part of the Windows mentality.

I wouldn't worry too much. I think they're scared about Aqua's functionality, not it's lickability.

------------------
it's only after you lose everything that you're free to do anything