[slugslugslug]

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

...the same problem as when Windows 95 came out. People couldn't see what the big difference was between System 7.5 and Windows 95 in terms of presentation.

Fixed.

[OreoCookie]

I'm not really sure whether Vista really is on par with OS X. For any of you who remember the Public Beta (or even the Developer Preview), Apple cut back on a lot of eye candy that proved to be counterproductive (e. g. overusing transparencies). MS is just in the beginning of the learning curve unless they are willing to learn from Apple's lessons.

Undoubtedly, Vista is getting closer to OS X' capabilities, the theory and the underlying frameworks are surely powerful. But in the execution, OS X is still ahead.

Personally, from the pictures I've seen, I don't like WMP11. It's certainly an improvement over its predecessors, a huge leap forward, but I still very much prefer iTunes. IMHO the thing that Apple needs to recognize is that iTunes shouldn't be a coffee-making copy machine that can also fax and make toast. In other words, it should just focus on playing music, the integration with the iTMS seems `bolted on'.

[olePigeon]

OS X should migrate to something like on Minority Report. iMovie could look like the Memory Movie thing they had in it.

[sushiism]

Sorry SVG fanboys, if Apple did add vector icons they are most likely going to be PDF data.
You can already set a vector PDF to your desktop background.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by sushiism

Sorry SVG fanboys, if Apple did add vector icons they are most likely going to be PDF data.
You can already set a vector PDF to your desktop background.

Hmm...yeah. And SVG interface is still waaaaay too early. A few hundred complex vector images could make a Quad G5 beg it was never created.

[porieux]

...

[Catfish_Man]

Originally Posted by porieux

Personally I find Spotlight a lot less useful than the old search functionality, or even (gasp) Sherlock. It just sucks, there is no way that could ever replace the FInder.

That's not inherent to the technology, just 10.4's implementation of it.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by porieux

Personally I find Spotlight a lot less useful than the old search functionality, or even (gasp) Sherlock. It just sucks, there is no way that could ever replace the FInder.

Oh ye of such little faith.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally Posted by porieux

Personally I find Spotlight a lot less useful than the old search functionality, or even (gasp) Sherlock. It just sucks, there is no way that could ever replace the FInder.

I agree but only because of the way it was implemented. The technology itself is great.

[OreoCookie]

Searches felt a lot faster in BeOS when I tried it on a measly K6-2 400 compared to Spotlight on my MacBook Pro.

[monkeybrain]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Searches felt a lot faster in BeOS when I tried it on a measly K6-2 400 compared to Spotlight on my MacBook Pro.

But how big was the hard disk on that BeOS machine? Spotlight is searching drives that are probably at least 60 gig, plus you'll probably be mulit-tasking at the same time.

I found Spotlight a bit slow on my old dual 867, but on a Rev A Mini it is certainly fast enough.

If Apple makes the Finder more search-based, what do people think about them taking it in the Quicksiler direction, i.e. not just searching for the file but allowing people to manipulate that file in many ways within the same interface?

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by monkeybrain

But how big was the hard disk on that BeOS machine? Spotlight is searching drives that are probably at least 60 gig, plus you'll probably be mulit-tasking at the same time.

Seriously...BeOS searching was fast because 80% of people that used it had next to no files on their BeOS partitions. Also BeOS had much less to do than Windows XP or OS X.

[CharlesS]

I gotta wonder: why does the Mac platform have so many fundamentalists on it anyway?

Spotlight will not "replace" the Finder. It'll get more tightly integrated with time, I'm sure, but there's still gotta be a way to browse the hierarchy.

Ever notice how there's multiple ways to do most things on the Mac? Why do you think that there has to be only one way to find a file, and that it's "my way or the highway"?

Given that Spotlight doesn't even search certain directories at all even if you type a filename (/System, /Developer/ADC Reference Library, and /usr/local are a few), I don't see how Spotlight is supposed to replace the Finder...

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

I gotta wonder: why does the Mac platform have so many fundamentalists on it anyway?

Spotlight will not "replace" the Finder. It'll get more tightly integrated with time, I'm sure, but there's still gotta be a way to browse the hierarchy.

Ever notice how there's multiple ways to do most things on the Mac? Why do you think that there has to be only one way to find a file, and that it's "my way or the highway"?

Given that Spotlight doesn't even search certain directories at all even if you type a filename (/System, /Developer/ADC Reference Library, and /usr/local are a few), I don't see how Spotlight is supposed to replace the Finder...

I don't think anyone has said that Spotlight would replace the Finder? Spotlight isn't an app...it's a concept. It exists in Mail and various other apps.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by porieux

Personally I find Spotlight a lot less useful than the old search functionality, or even (gasp) Sherlock. It just sucks, there is no way that could ever replace the FInder.

I agree. The old 'find' didn't lose things, act randomly and illogically and it wasn't unreliable. Like Spotlight is.

Apple needs to fix the Finder, not sabotage it with more Spotlight integration.

V

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by monkeybrain

But how big was the hard disk on that BeOS machine? Spotlight is searching drives that are probably at least 60 gig, plus you'll probably be mulit-tasking at the same time.

Well, I am doing a lot more multitasking now. And I obviously cannot compare it to OS X with the same amount of files. I just give you two examples: (1) I am using MailTags to organize my e-mails and associate them with a project. I have set up some smart mailboxes searching for recent mails associated with one of the projects I'm currently working on. If I click on those smart mailboxes, it takes up to five seconds to display the result. (2) If I search for files, it's even slower. Granted, I have literally a few hundred to 1000+ pdf files so this definitely impacts performance. On the other hand, this way, Spotlight is not really useful.

Originally Posted by monkeybrain

If Apple makes the Finder more search-based, what do people think about them taking it in the Quicksiler direction, i.e. not just searching for the file but allowing people to manipulate that file in many ways within the same interface?

Of course, that would be great. Especially if I could edit title, author and the likes within the Finder, I could really use it to organize all my papers as well as my own notes.

[Kerrigan]

This reminds me of a Cody Dawg thread

[xe0]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

Once again: UNO. Seriously. Try it. It's nice.

I'm reminded of the Aaron extension for system 7. Get the future of the mac interface today.

Just installed it. Cheers for the link man

[dreamBweaver]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

What radical idea's can you see Apple coming up with? (don't say 3D for the sake of saying 3D).

Apple's VP said this is it for a while. This release, like Ubuntu's recent release, is going to be for a while. They're not going to revise the OS as readily as far as major changes. Good for my wallet but make sure it's got what we need for at least 2 years:

-High Definition everything
-Better junk mail filter (i really need this)
-Scaling the UI
-More things to do with the remote/API
-FASTER Spotlight. Come on, I have the best iMac with 1.5gb RAM and it takes 5 seconds to even open the spotlight search bar. WTF?

[CharlesS]

edit: never mind

[Catfish_Man]

Originally Posted by voodoo

I agree. The old 'find' didn't lose things, act randomly and illogically and it wasn't unreliable. Like Spotlight is.

Apple needs to fix the Finder, not sabotage it with more Spotlight integration.

V

Again, that's implementation issues, not conceptual ones. 10.0 sucked, but OSX as a whole doesn't.

[Skywalkers new Hand]

I found a good example of what I am hoping for.

Try out this app:
http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/30000

See the how the OS itself is animated? Ya it is an ugly implementation but the way it previews with an animated preview is awesome. Oh lord I hope the finder is like that.

[nforcer]

Originally Posted by dreamBweaver

-FASTER Spotlight. Come on, I have the best iMac with 1.5gb RAM and it takes 5 seconds to even open the spotlight search bar. WTF?

Usually a sign you need to restart. I've had some weird slowdowns before that were seemingly attributed to nothing; I could find no apps using a disproportionate amount of CPU time, nothing was writing or reading to the hard drive much, I still had a little over 300 MB free or inactive yet I was experiencing all kinds of weird slowdowns. Things like:
- Took about 20 seconds for the "enter your password" dialog to come up in the screensaver after moving the mouse. Took another 15 seconds or so for it to display what I typed and dismiss.
- Switching to an app to display it took as long as 8 seconds with apps I had not touched for over a day.
- Safari tabs took a while to close.
- Refreshing dashboard widgets took about 7 seconds to update. It did not play the refresh animation and the background was temporarily screwed up during the refresh like it was corrupt or something.

Upon restart I had no such problems and about 1 GB more disk space. Which seems weird because if I had 300 MB of free and inactive RAM why not use that? Did I really generate 1+ GB worth of temp files during a 2 day session which consisted mostly of browsing and torrenting?

The numbers vary but the point is the same; OS X seems to get progressively slower the more I use it and I don't know why. Restarts fix it and I hope 10.5 improves this as well since this has been the case across 3 different Macs with various incarnations of OS X dating back to 10.1.

[TheSpaz]

Originally Posted by nforcer

Did I really generate 1+ GB worth of temp files during a 2 day session which consisted mostly of browsing and torrenting?

BitTorrent can wreak havoc on your machine. Don't use it. It can and WILL slow down your system for no apparent reason. However... without using BitTorrent I can notice a slowdown within a few days of leaving the System on. This did NOT happen at all when I was running Panther. I still think Panther is a way better OS than Tiger. I don't know what Apple was thinking. I would switch back to Panther if I wasn't so used to Tiger already (I'd be trying to do Tiger specific things in Panther and get all pissed off that it's not working hehe).

[Salty]

I find I really miss Spotlight on a Panther Machine.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by TheSpaz

BitTorrent can wreak havoc on your machine. Don't use it. It can and WILL slow down your system for no apparent reason. However... without using BitTorrent I can notice a slowdown within a few days of leaving the System on. This did NOT happen at all when I was running Panther. I still think Panther is a way better OS than Tiger. I don't know what Apple was thinking. I would switch back to Panther if I wasn't so used to Tiger already (I'd be trying to do Tiger specific things in Panther and get all pissed off that it's not working hehe).

I agree...and most torrent apps generate hidden config files in your home dir (I absolutely hate apps that do this.)

That's why everyone...and I mean everyone should use Transmission and only Transmission. If you respect yourself, you use Transmission.

[nforcer]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

I agree...and most torrent apps generate hidden config files in your home dir (I absolutely hate apps that do this.)

That's why everyone...and I mean everyone should use Transmission and only Transmission. If you respect yourself, you use Transmission.

I do only use Transmission (except when I only want a specific part of a torrent, then I use Azureus).

Indeed, I hate apps that generate hidden files ANYWHERE.

[nforcer]

Originally Posted by TheSpaz

BitTorrent can wreak havoc on your machine. Don't use it. It can and WILL slow down your system for no apparent reason. However... without using BitTorrent I can notice a slowdown within a few days of leaving the System on. This did NOT happen at all when I was running Panther. I still think Panther is a way better OS than Tiger. I don't know what Apple was thinking. I would switch back to Panther if I wasn't so used to Tiger already (I'd be trying to do Tiger specific things in Panther and get all pissed off that it's not working hehe).

I've noticed anything that touches the HD a lot slows the system considerably. Copying large files, especially between HDs will do this.

But yes, even when not running BT or anything that uses the disk a lot, my system does slow down over time for seemingly no real reason.

[Chuckit]

I don't really notice my computer slowing down over time. How much RAM do you have?

[Thinine]

Really the only problem with OS X's multitasking right now is disk access blocking almost everything else. GUI responsiveness (in regards to multitasking) could be improved too but it's not nearly the problem disk access is in my experience.

As for Leopard UI, I'm hoping for a refinement and unification of current UI paradigms. Aqua unified and metal unified themes, with new buttons, sliders, and progress bars (which haven't changed much since the public beta). We'll also see a solution for icons in scalable interfaces, possibly along with a change in UI widget implementation. 3D icons with programmatic animation (instead of the hacks that currently exist) for greater application feedback are also a possibility. Refinements to other UI parts are possible as well, but I wouldn't count on it.

[nforcer]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

I don't really notice my computer slowing down over time. How much RAM do you have?

1 GB. I cannot recall a time I had less than 200 MB of free + inactive RAM, however.

[nforcer]

Originally Posted by Thinine

Really the only problem with OS X's multitasking right now is disk access blocking almost everything else. GUI responsiveness (in regards to multitasking) could be improved too but it's not nearly the problem disk access is in my experience.

Most definitely disk access needs improvement.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by nforcer

Most definitely disk access needs improvement.

That is true. I don't know if this is still a problem with Tiger or not, but when I used to work in the uni's Mac lab back in the Panther days, we would have this problem happen every so often where someone used a slightly flaky USB thumb drive, and the entire computer would lock up OS 9-style, and would appear to have crashed, but when you pulled out the USB key, it would spring back to life because apparently the entire OS had stalled while trying to read or write to the USB key or something.

Of course this would result in the guy whining that "Macs crash all the time" when in fact nothing had actually crashed...

[Simon]

Charles, when that happened, could you still log in through ssh? In other words, did just the GUI freeze, or did the entire machine go into some kind of suspend?

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Simon

Charles, when that happened, could you still log in through ssh? In other words, did just the GUI freeze, or did the entire machine go into some kind of suspend?

Actually, I can't remember. I do know I tried it. I can't remember whether I got in with SSH and the Terminal was beachballed, or whether SSH timed out and the Terminal was one of the few apps that didn't beachball due to it not trying to read anything on the disk. I did get into the CLI one way or another, but it didn't matter because not much useful could be done with it, because most of the commands just hung forever. Kill did nothing, for example...

The system really was brought to its knees until I unplugged the USB drive. It was Panther, though, so it may have been fixed by now.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

I think we are a bit off topic here, this is supposed to be about the interface of 10.5 not other features.

[Salty]

Apple should bundle Uno with X.5

[TheoCryst]

Originally Posted by Salty

Apple should bundle Uno with X.5

I love UNO (especially the dark unified look), but I'm just waiting for 1.3.1, which will have normal sized Apple and Spotlight icons in the menu bar.

As for 10.5, I'm hoping for MUCH less emphasis on metal windows, which would be perfectly replaced with dark unified (ala iTunes 6). However, I'd rather not see Apple completely remove all pinstriping from the interface. At least in my humble opinion, windows and menus would look bland without some sort of subtle texture. Take a look at some Java applications to get an idea of what I mean.

[Salty]

agreed the thing I don't like abut Uno is now pages and keynote look weird, at least their inspectors do. As well my photoshop pallets look starnge.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Perhaps all this 10.4 interface inconsistency is just to confuse the competition. If apple was planting bits of 10.5 interface in 10.4 than Vista would surly have copied.

Right now vista copies 10.4, by the time it ships apple will pull out the big guns and show us the remade 10.5 which looks a million times better than 10.4 or vista.

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by TheoCryst

However, I'd rather not see Apple completely remove all pinstriping from the interface. At least in my humble opinion, windows and menus would look bland without some sort of subtle texture. Take a look at some Java applications to get an idea of what I mean.

Apple doesn't seem to be removing subtle textures. iTunes 6 definitely has one (And I see that as the next logical step in the evolution of Aqua)

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Salty

I find I really miss Spotlight on a Panther Machine.

Spotlight was never available for Panther, it's a Tiger only feature.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

Perhaps all this 10.4 interface inconsistency is just to confuse the competition. If apple was planting bits of 10.5 interface in 10.4 than Vista would surly have copied.

Right now vista copies 10.4, by the time it ships apple will pull out the big guns and show us the remade 10.5 which looks a million times better than 10.4 or vista.

I'm confused by the use of language here (and elsewhere in this thread). To me, the concept of interface is our *interaction* with software, the way it provides visual feedback, the way it communicates and provides cues.

My concept of interface has nothing to do with whether a window is brushed metal or Aqua - we don't interact with that aspect of the interface.


Is my understanding of this terminology off? Does it matter? Am I splitting hairs? Are others confused? Should there be a distinction here?

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

Right now vista copies 10.4, by the time it ships apple will pull out the big guns and show us the remade 10.5 which looks a million times better than 10.4 or vista.

Apple goes through design trends. Before, we could tell where things were headed. After the iMac came out we all knew that hardware and later the UI were in for big changes.

When the iBooks and iMacs were given the sterile white look, we knew that OSX was moving away from translucency and pinstripes and towards a cleaner, glossier, more refined look.

Right now Apple seems to be moving towards black. Its newest, coolest products all are heavy on black. MacBooks and iPods have gone black. In terms of software, Front Row, Aperture, iPhoto, Dashboard, and a few other apps make heavy use of blacks and dark greys.

Black is not easy on the eyes though so I don't see how an OS could be made around it. But it is the color that Apple is has moved towards lately.

[Catfish_Man]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I'm confused by the use of language here (and elsewhere in this thread). To me, the concept of interface is our *interaction* with software, the way it provides visual feedback, the way it communicates and provides cues.

My concept of interface has nothing to do with whether a window is brushed metal or Aqua - we don't interact with that aspect of the interface.


Is my understanding of this terminology off? Does it matter? Am I splitting hairs? Are others confused? Should there be a distinction here?

Basically you're thinking like a UI designer, not a marketer.

That said, appearance does have some small effect on UI design. Most of the eye candy (not the dashboard ripple, for example) either serves to convey information (the shadows both define the edges of windows, and give a subtle visual indication of layering depth, for example) or provide visual metaphors for otherwise-hard-to-grasp actions like fast user switching.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Spotlight was never available for Panther, it's a Tiger only feature.

Which would explain why he misses it when he's on a Panther machine.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Catfish_Man

Basically you're thinking like a UI designer, not a marketer.

That said, appearance does have some small effect on UI design. Most of the eye candy (not the dashboard ripple, for example) either serves to convey information (the shadows both define the edges of windows, and give a subtle visual indication of layering depth, for example) or provide visual metaphors for otherwise-hard-to-grasp actions like fast user switching.

I agree that the appearance conveys *some* information. I would actually like to talk about this more than I would like to talk about pure aesthetics, but most conversation about the differences in opinions over window styles generally doesn't go this direction.

Not to sound snobby or elitist, but I just feel that I'm done with picking a really nice desktop picture and dressing up my computer to look its best. It just doesn't interest me anymore, although I do remember the days when it did...

[Skywalkers new Hand]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Right now Apple seems to be moving towards black. Its newest, coolest products all are heavy on black. MacBooks and iPods have gone black. In terms of software, Front Row, Aperture, iPhoto, Dashboard, and a few other apps make heavy use of blacks and dark greys.

Black is not easy on the eyes though so I don't see how an OS could be made around it. But it is the color that Apple is has moved towards lately.

I know and I love it. It makes things so much easier for my eyes as a designer. The colours look better and the whole screen is not blaring white just your work.

[lookmark]

Vista uses dark charcoal gray for the Taskbar and in various panes, though, and I expect Apple will want OS X to look different.

I think we'll see Unified become the new Aqua and the iLife '06 smooth metal gradient the new "textured."

I do expect a visual/UI refresh across the board -- lots of new and higher-resolution icons, new widgets, a serious Dock revamp, a Quicksilver-like launcher, and even (if my hunches are correct) the first dip into some 2.5/3-D UI...

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by Skywalkers new Hand

I know and I love it. It makes things so much easier for my eyes as a designer. The colours look better and the whole screen is not blaring white just your work.

Ya I agree. What I meant was that glossy black (as in Vista) is hard on the eyes, but black in general looks good.