[JCS]

...whether he knows it or not

Check out his behavior during the iPod intro at around 10:25 to 10:40.

(Also note his double-click on the System Preferences icon in the Dock at around 10:09 :-)

[webintosh]

At least the Canon Elph was spared during the Image Capture demo. Poor Kodak DC280.

Originally posted by JCS:
<STRONG>...whether he knows it or not

Check out his behavior during the iPod intro at around 10:25 to 10:40.

(Also note his double-click on the System Preferences icon in the Dock at around 10:09 :-)</STRONG>

[xi_hyperon]

well, he can go here, at least until his team can implement their own.

[fats]

Doesn't OpenStep have it? At least Window Maker does. I'm not surprised.

How do you know he was double clicking on system preferences? I can't tell from the demo. I mean he keeps the mouse down there for a bounce (which begs the question, why the fsck does system preferences open so slow now?). I guess the dock does allow double and single clicks though. Works the same either way.

[Kristoff]

What I found most interesting was the price chart he showed at ~15:00.
Obviously, they have morons pricing their products, because they are way out of the market, even for the hard drive based device (Nomad Jukebox).
the iPod (idiots price our devices)

WTF apple? I want one and would gladly buy two (his and hers) if they were $299.
But for $399 I wont even buy one. Just too much.

[moki]

Originally posted by Kristoff:
<STRONG>WTF apple? I want one and would gladly buy two (his and hers) if they were $299.
But for $399 I wont even buy one. Just too much.</STRONG>

So let me get this straight. You'd spend $600, but you would not spend $400.

I guess you don't feel that the value is there for the money, which is fair, but in real terms, it seems a little odd that you're willing to spend more if the product is priced lower.

Yes, the iPod is pricey -- the drive used in the iPod is pricey currently. I'm sure in 6 months, the price will have come down some; get it then.

[xi_hyperon]

On the face of it, iPod seems a bit steep, but I think it's about added value, which is what Apple is really good at. Firewire transfer speeds, charging while connected, and a well done interface. I prefer to spend a bit extra for products with well thought-out niceties, not only in computers but everything I invest money into. I guess I fall into their market scope.

[Gee4orce]

Whoa there - there's plenty of iPod discussions elsewhere - let's not start another one, eh ?

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by Gee4orce:
<STRONG>Whoa there - there's plenty of iPod discussions elsewhere - let's not start another one, eh ?</STRONG>

Just a test to see if you are awake.

[mr_sonicblue]

Originally posted by fats:
<STRONG>(which begs the question, why the fsck does system preferences open so slow now?)</STRONG>

He was using a TiBook, not a PowerMac.

[deisom]

Originally posted by JCS:
<STRONG>...whether he knows it or not

Check out his behavior during the iPod intro at around 10:25 to 10:40.

(Also note his double-click on the System Preferences icon in the Dock at around 10:09 :-)</STRONG>

I assume you're referring to his dragging of the System Preferences window when he's showing the pictures of children that he's set as the desktop image. If so, I think this actually better demonstrates one of the arguments against having windowshading in OS X: that live window dragging is a better alternative when you're just trying to see what's behind a particular window.

[JCS]

I assume you're referring to his dragging of the System Preferences window when he's showing the pictures of children that he's set as the desktop image. If so, I think this actually better demonstrates one of the arguments against having windowshading in OS X: that live window dragging is a better alternative when you're just trying to see what's behind a particular window.

Better how? It required mouse movement (mouse could be stationary with windowshade), resulted in unnecessary displacement of the window (hard or impossible to put it back exactly where it was...although Sys Prefs doesn't remember its window position anyway (bug!), but you get the point), and hid more of the background image than windowshade would have.

Displaced minimization to the Dock would have shown more of the image, but would have required mouse movement again, and would add an additional targeting step as the displaced window would have to be located and clicked on in the Dock to re-expand it.

Also, both window dragging and displaced minimization to the Dock require more time when compared to two clicks in the same location (assuming windowshade behaves like OS 9, with no "animation")

[eno]

WindowShade X just got updated to 1.1 anyway.

Now it's even better.

For US$7 you can have what Jobs should've let them put in the OS anyway. It's even better than OS 9 windowshading.

All the arguments on this forum about which method is best are silly anyway. WindowShade X shows that, as always, freedom for users to CHOOSE the method they prefer is the ideal. If Jobs had WindowShade X installed he could've done ANY of the following:

1. click the minimise button to genie the window into the Dock (what he should've done if he REALLY believed that the New Mac OS X Way [tm] was the True Path [tm])

2. double-click the title bar to windowshade it (my preferred way of doing it)

3. dragged the window out of the way temporarily then dragged it back (what he actually ended up doing)

[NosniboR80]

Beautiful! Well-said, eno! I love options (easy options)! That's part of why I switched to MacOS. Why is anyone trying to defend apple's failure to provide options as 'the wise' or 'correct' decision, when it is simply a failure to provide users with what they want as consumers. If they are smart, which they are (at least it seems to me), then they will offer these options when they get around to it. I just wish it were sooner.

[deisom]

Originally posted by JCS:
<STRONG>

Better how? It required mouse movement (mouse could be stationary with windowshade), resulted in unnecessary displacement of the window (hard or impossible to put it back exactly where it was...although Sys Prefs doesn't remember its window position anyway (bug!), but you get the point), and hid more of the background image than windowshade would have.

Displaced minimization to the Dock would have shown more of the image, but would have required mouse movement again, and would add an additional targeting step as the displaced window would have to be located and clicked on in the Dock to re-expand it.

Also, both window dragging and displaced minimization to the Dock require more time when compared to two clicks in the same location (assuming windowshade behaves like OS 9, with no "animation")</STRONG>

The problem with windowshading is that it increases the complexity of the UI and that it leaves a title bar in place. Live dragging allows for one essential UI technique--the moving of windows--to accomplish a similar task without increasing complexity, and better allows the user to see behind the window since no remnant of the window remains when it is moved.

I really don't feel strongly about this--I was just pointing out that what Steve was doing could actually go against your argument--but I have found that, for me, live window dragging better accomplishes the task of "peeking" behind a window than windowshading. YMMV. And, if it does, grab WindowShade X.

[JCS]

The problem with windowshading is that it increases the complexity of the UI

How is it any more complex than any other form of minimiztaion?

and that it leaves a title bar in place.

That's a feature! It's in-place minimization. It's different the displaced minimization. Both have their merits. Why not include options for both?

Live dragging allows for one essential UI technique--the moving of windows--to accomplish a similar task without increasing complexity

So should minimization to the Dock be dropped too? This argument for the simplicity of using window dragging for everything is not relevant at all to the issue of whether or not windowshade (or any other form of minimization) is also useful.

and better allows the user to see behind the window since no remnant of the window remains when it is moved.

I disagree. The best case for dragging is that it hides the same amount of desktop area as windowshade (e.g. window dragged all the way to the bottom, since OS X does not allow the title bar to go off screen). In the video, Jobs leaves much more than just the title bar visible (probably because dragging all the way to the bottom lands him "behind" the Dock... :-), making it worse than windowshade in terms of total desktop background area obscured.

I was just pointing out that what Steve was doing could actually go against your argument

How so? It sounds more like you're putting forth the notion than any form of window minimization increases UI complexity. Fine, but that doesn't show that windowshade in particular is any more of a problem than minimization to the Dock.

but I have found that, for me, live window dragging better accomplishes the task of "peeking" behind a window than windowshading.

Ah, but the beauty is that my feature does not interfere with yours Now, how about if OS X shipped with window shade, but without the ability to drag windows out of the way to peek behind them?

YMMV. And, if it does, grab WindowShade X.

Sure, but do we really have to go through this all again? As someone pointed out earlier, windowshade started as a third party tool, got rolled into the OS, and now it's back out again. It just seems silly to me. Why not remove context menus too, while we're at it? System 6 forever!

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by deisom:
<STRONG>
YMMV.
</STRONG>

Yes, my mileage DOES vary. I've gotten VERY used to Windowshading to do the quick-peek-behind move. And I don't want to re-learn that, especially for what I agree is a less-effecient method such as window-dragging or dock-genie minimizing

Originally posted by deisom:
<STRONG>
And, if it does, grab WindowShade X.</STRONG>

Yes, I have... thanks very much!

It's all about choice - we don't have to argue about whether windowshades are good or not, as long as they are available for those who want them, and not the default behavior (as in OS 9) for those who don't want them.