|
|
Mac OS X 10.4 - The 3D OS?
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Liverpool, UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
I'm sure the future of the OS X interface has been discussed at length here but I saw something interesting at Sun.com today which I don't think has ever been mentioned (I searched the forum first)
Take a look at this video for a project underway at Sun called "Looking Glass" (Real Video)
This may show the direction where Apple is headed and I think the foundations for a radical interface change have already been put in place with Quartz Extreme. What if QE was developed not only to allow for the current 2D interface to be accelerated through the use of OpenGL, but also to allow use of 3D elements within a future interface?
I think we're already starting to see small 3D elements start to creep into the OS X interface with the way save sheets now roll out towards you in Panther. I also remember seeing screen shots of Apple's OS X Chess application running without a window just floating on the screen, sadly it's confined to a window with a dull grey back ground in the release version.
Anyway, the point of this post was to get some discussion going about a possible 3D OS X interface and the possibilities it may offer. The problem is I have yet to see a compelling 3D UI, the one truly useful looking feature in the Looking Glass demo is flipping windows over to write notes on the back of them, other than that it's just eye candy.
I wonder if Apple's flare for innovation could really come up with something special...
|
Riddler
PowerBook G4 1.5GHz + MacPro 2.66 1900XT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Seattle
Status:
Offline
|
|
This is wonderful technology and I do believe that Apple will embrace this UI but I don't believe that it will happen with 10.4. Now why don't I believe that 10.4 will show 3D elements such as Looking Glass? Lets remember that Sun operates in true 64 bit environment, while the current OS X operates in a 32 bit environment. For sure, Apple has 64 bit extensions but I don't believe that it will be able to handle the overhead required to implement this feature. And it may not happen for several years until Apple decides not to support the G3/G4 chip series.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Somewhere in the land surrouding Fenway Park
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Back up 15 and punt:
This is wonderful technology and I do believe that Apple will embrace this UI but I don't believe that it will happen with 10.4. Now why don't I believe that 10.4 will show 3D elements such as Looking Glass? Lets remember that Sun operates in true 64 bit environment, while the current OS X operates in a 32 bit environment. For sure, Apple has 64 bit extensions but I don't believe that it will be able to handle the overhead required to implement this feature. And it may not happen for several years until Apple decides not to support the G3/G4 chip series.
That has nothing to do with it.
There is one main reason you wont see a 3D MacOS for awhile: there's no point. 3D interfaces just dont make sense on a 2D screen. Sure Looking Glass has some nice eyecandy byt can you name one feature that is actually USEFUL or at least faster than what we can do in 2D OSs now? Is putting notes on the back of webpages really worth the overhead of 3D?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
Highly doubtful.
Many people have tried to work up 3-D UIs before. The list reads like a graveyard of failed technologies, and even Apple has a couple of things on the list (they had a project called HotSauce -nee "Project X"- several years back).
I like to call this sort of thing a "paper UI". That is, it looks great on paper, but is hopelessly practical in reality, generally because of some major limitation of computing that isn't likely to be overcome anytime soon.
In the case of 3-D interfaces, that limitation is the computer screen. You cannot project a meaningful 3-D environment onto a 2-D screen, unless you offer the user some way to move around the environment. As soon as you do that, however, the interface becomes too cumbersome to be usable, because moving around takes time even if you crank the speed up.
A 3-D computer screen (assuming you come up with some kind of 3-D mouse to go with it) will not solve this problem, because the user will still have to move around to get things. The only way a 3-D interface can ever hope to become useful would be in a truly immersive environment (like a VR headset and glove), because that's the only way you could manipulate a 3-D environment as naturally and quickly as we manipulate 2-D environments now.
|
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Austria
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Back up 15 and punt:
This is wonderful technology and I do believe that Apple will embrace this UI but I don't believe that it will happen with 10.4. Now why don't I believe that 10.4 will show 3D elements such as Looking Glass? Lets remember that Sun operates in true 64 bit environment, while the current OS X operates in a 32 bit environment. For sure, Apple has 64 bit extensions but I don't believe that it will be able to handle the overhead required to implement this feature. And it may not happen for several years until Apple decides not to support the G3/G4 chip series.
Looking Glass runs on Linux for x86 (Sun Java Desktop System), so it doesn't need 64 bit to run.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Folding customer returned size 52 underwear.
Status:
Offline
|
|
I don't see anything in that demo that we can't do now in 2D. Making it 3D does not make it easier to use.
|
{ v2.3 Now Jesus free}
Religions are like farts: yours is good, the others always stink.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London'ish
Status:
Offline
|
|
This was already discussed here a little while ago..
And it looks great. But looking good isnt enough. And as foobars said, It's nothing more than eyecandy.
One feature I did like though, was being able to completely flip a window. I can see that this could be very useful for some applications.
The actual 3D effect just seems like a pointless gimmick to me though..
|
The worst thing about having a failing memory is..... no, it's gone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Folding customer returned size 52 underwear.
Status:
Offline
|
|
It is called Expos� and it works better then what they showed.
|
{ v2.3 Now Jesus free}
Religions are like farts: yours is good, the others always stink.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
The demo was certainly interesting, and while watching it, it kinda reminded me of expos�. I believe that expos� is the first, small step towards a completley new way of managing your windows... well, lets wait and see what the future brings. I remember some early vids of longhorn showing a few 3D-Elements as well..
//edit: duh!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Provo, UT
Status:
Offline
|
|
Actually something halfway between the Sun demo and Expose would be to have a button that Exposes your windows, but in terms of a polygone in which each side of the polygon represents the windows of a different application.
i.e. if you have windows for four applications you'd have a square where you can move via a hand cursor the square to see the windows of different apps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Status:
Offline
|
|
Quartz Extreme is already running in a 3D scene.
Every single window is part of an openGL scene, and there's really no technical obstables which would prevent them spinning or whatever. The challenge is to leverage the power of QE where it makes sense and prevent implementing ideas in which could damage the usability.
A 3D desktop does not mean you have to manipulate objects as were they in different depths, but the interface's response could gain from using depth, the cube effect is a prime example. I'll leave the rest of the thinking to Apple (..and I'm confident they are considering a lot more stufff like this).
What's demo'd by Sun is possible with QE now on 32bit. Video in minimized windows has been in OS X for a while, so in my opinion the demo is pretty much a QE / aqua showcase with a Sun sticker on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: San Jose, Ca
Status:
Offline
|
|
Small note... our current user interfaces are generally referred to as being 2.5 dimensions... the regular 2 plus layers. The last truly 2D OS was Windows 2 (no overlapping windows).
I don't see any advantages in going to a 3D OS... I do see definite advantages into using 3D hardware to accelerate the effects... and if that leads to nice eye candy... well I am enjoying that with 10.3.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: europe
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by clarkgoble:
Actually something halfway between the Sun demo and Expose would be to have a button that Exposes your windows, but in terms of a polygone in which each side of the polygon represents the windows of a different application.
i.e. if you have windows for four applications you'd have a square where you can move via a hand cursor the square to see the windows of different apps.
And why is moving a cube with a hand cursor easier than tabbing through applications in Expos�?
|
Nasrudin sat on a river bank when someone shouted to him from the opposite side: "Hey! how do I get across?" "You are across!" Nasrudin shouted back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by PrettyBoyClone:
Quartz Extreme is already running in a 3D scene.
Actually, it's not; that is a common misconception. QE's compositing engine is implemented using OpenGL, but that is all. There are GUI projects out there which use OpenGL's 3-D capabilities to their fullest, but QE isn't one of them.
A 3D desktop does not mean you have to manipulate objects as were they in different depths, but the interface's response could gain from using depth, the cube effect is a prime example.
However, in that case you do not have a meaningful 3-D environment. All you have is a 2-D environment, such as we have now, painted into a 3-D space. Essentially it is the opposite of what is being presented in this thread, which is a 3-D environment painted on a 2-D space.
|
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status:
Offline
|
|
As long as the physical interface is 2D, I see no advantage in a 3D digital interface.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
Well, what about fast user switching in panther - that spinning cube looks quite 3D-ish to me.
... and it's done with Quartz Extreme.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Seattle
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Tsilou B.:
Looking Glass runs on Linux for x86 (Sun Java Desktop System), so it doesn't need 64 bit to run.
Since Java runs on OS X does that mean we can get Looking Glass for OS X?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Provo, UT
Status:
Offline
|
|
The Sun Java Desktop is basically just Gnome with a few extras. Think of it as Sun's version of Ximian.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
I think we could benefit a little bit from a more 3d-ish environment. I think that the most important characteristic that would help is depth. I want my desktop to appear as if it is several inches behind my screen, the frontmost application's windows are at the surface and that all windows in the background are somewhere in between the surface and the desktop. Switching between applications would show the windows shifting back and forth a couple inches (in and out, not vertically or horizontally) and all light and shadows would look accurate at all times.
Currently the shadows in OS X aren't all that great. If you pile up shadows on top of eachother they get darker. Shadows don't work like that in real life. I have a lamp here on my desk. If I old my left hand under the lamp I see a shadow under my hand. If I put my right hand above my left hand, the area where the two shadows overlap does not produce a darker shadow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Somewhere in the land surrouding Fenway Park
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by waffffffle:
I think we could benefit a little bit from a more 3d-ish environment. I think that the most important characteristic that would help is depth. I want my desktop to appear as if it is several inches behind my screen, the frontmost application's windows are at the surface and that all windows in the background are somewhere in between the surface and the desktop. Switching between applications would show the windows shifting back and forth a couple inches (in and out, not vertically or horizontally) and all light and shadows would look accurate at all times.
This isnt directly related to your idea but this is a neat Expose feature that simulates more depth: try hitting F9/F10 and then tab (do this with many apps open)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Flipping the window to put notes on the back is sort of cool, but doesn't seem terribly useful (I can't remember the last time I've written notes on a web page... and even if I did I would probably want to have the webpage visible)...
Just looks like a 3D expose + a dock to me...
The rotating windows reminded me of Exhibition X which displays iphoto images in a similar fashion. This a good gee whiz factor, but in practice I've found the standard iphoto layout to be a better way to navigate the data (I actually have ditched iphoto for fr-photostudio which is a basically a much faster clone of iphoto).
Re incorporating 3D: What I think would be more useful would be if windows were "lit" in 3D space so that the top most window would be at 100% visibility and windows further back dropped off in brightness. Also it would be nice if shadows made sense in 3D space I think realistic shadowing would be much more effective at focusing to topmost window.
Having a 3D background seems like it would be annoying...
I think it will be some time before people figure out graceful and useful ways of integrating 3D into the desktop.
(
Last edited by barbarian; Dec 11, 2003 at 05:44 PM.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Winnipeg
Status:
Offline
|
|
having windows become darker if they are farther behind would be awful for anyone working in Graphics! Not to mention most people would complain that things looked bad. Shrinking and growing might work but even then...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Allston, MA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
Doesn't that look just like OSX?
They even have a Dock, with is clear...
Complete copy if you ask me
X
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by barbarian:
Flipping the window to put notes on the back is sort of cool, but doesn't seem terribly useful
Now you can't just browse the windows to find what you're looking for, you have to flip them all over too
|
JLL
- My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Denmark
Status:
Offline
|
|
I think this is a great thing. Then again I'm a sucker for eyecandy and stuff. But I'm not sure that Apple will incorporate it in 10.4 but no-one can tell except for Apple themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
Can't view it?? What's wrong?
|
"Unfortunately, no one can be told what Mac OS X is... you must see it for yourself."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Status:
Offline
|
|
having windows become darker if they are farther behind would be awful for anyone working in Graphics! Not to mention most people would complain that things looked bad. Shrinking and growing might work but even then...
I'm not talking about a major drop off, just a minor shift... to enhance depth.. and windows could be brought to the same "level" when they need to be seen side by side for graphics and so on. There was an MIT demo of this a few months ago... I'll try to dig up the link. It was subtle but super effective..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Seattle
Status:
Offline
|
|
the only thing goofier than a 3D UI is a 3D UI that is voice controlled.
|
1.25GHz PowerBook
i vostri seni sono spettacolari
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|