[.Neo]

The whole problem behind themes is that it's next to impossible sustain a consistent UI for the OS and more importantly its 3rd party applications. With that I mean themes which feature more substantial changes than different colored scroll and progress bars (etc.).

There isn't one modern guiKit out there that offers the same level of consistency of Aqua, purely because it's impossible to make skins for every single 3rd party application out there. Developers on their part can't make their software adapt to every single style "themers" come up with.

Personally I think it's a good thing that Mac OS X doesn't ship with build-in open theme support. However, I do think they should offer people more customization options like the ability to turn the Mac OS X Leopard Menu Bar solid. But nothing too drastic.

[Taylor C]

Originally Posted by .Neo 

The whole problem behind themes is that it's next to impossible sustain a consistent UI for the OS and more importantly its 3rd party applications. With that I mean themes which feature more substantial changes than different colored scroll and progress bars (etc.).

There isn't one modern guiKit out there that offers the same level of consistency of Aqua, purely because it's impossible to make skins for every single 3rd party application out there. Developers on their part can't make their software adapt to every single style "themers" come up with.

Personally I think it's a good thing that Mac OS X doesn't ship with build-in open theme support. However, I do think they should offer people more customization options like the ability to turn the Mac OS X Leopard Menu Bar solid. But nothing too drastic.

Totally agree with you. Aqua is beautiful, too.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Well yes. How many other OSs have GUIs that have changed as much in ONE YEARs time?

OS X used to be on a yearly update schedule.

Well there was changes that were made from build to build in the graphics that were only WEEKS apart. I remember installing builds, only to download a new one the next day. And even then the graphics would change and I had to again modify my theme. (Ask swiz about this)

But weeks before the release date? I already proved this wasn't the case, as the GM build was already seeded by March 5, 2001. Here's the link again.

Buggy? Do you have any documentation on this? Because I've used both themes before for and had no stability problems.

I recall that being the official reason for them being dropped, although I can't find the information anymore as it's been almost a decade.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

As a matter of fact, the themes weren't buggy., just not totally finished by 8.5 I think someone did finish them by 9. Cause the versions I used where complete.

I think those were third-party.

The odd thing is, the themes I used WHERE complete.

Okay, so they were WHERE complete. But were they WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHY, and HOW complete?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by .Neo 

There isn't one modern guiKit out there that offers the same level of consistency of Aqua, purely because it's impossible to make skins for every single 3rd party application out there. Developers on their part can't make their software adapt to every single style "themers" come up with.

That problem wouldn't really exist with proper theme support.

Why do people look at what's done now and assume it's all that is possible? It's like using Graphic Converter and then declaring that believably replacing someone's face in a photo with somebody's else's is not possible.

[PaperNotes]

Three pages of theme talk dear Gord.

[0157988944]

I know...

[Cory Bauer]

So, does anyone know how HD DVD/Blu-Ray support is fairing in the most recent builds? I know early on there was talk that Leopard recognized the xBox 360 HD DVD add-on as a device, but the DVD Player application was not yet capable of playing the discs.

[.Neo]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

That problem wouldn't really exist with proper theme support.

Of course it would. All applications use their own custom GUI elements, be it the application and document icons, toolbar icons, buttons or other parts: Those aren't being generated by the OS, but are included as separate graphics files inside the application's package contents. In 9 out of 10 cases they've been properly designed to match Aqua. Even with native theme support from Apple these elements would stick out when applying a redesigned theme and need to be skinned manually like guiKits do today.

Realistically it isn't possible to include applications skins for every single piece of third-party software out there. Nor is it possible to make an application respect every single custom build theme and icon set.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Well yes. How many other OSs have GUIs that have changed as much in ONE YEARs time?

Your claim was that Apple is "KNOWN" to slip in big GUI changes just weeks before an OFFICIAL PUBLIC RELEASE.

You then used DP3 --> 10.0 as an example.

I pointed out that you were wrong, and that almost nothing of relevance changed between DP4 (FOUR) (not three) and the Public Beta, which were FOUR MONTHS apart.

Now you're claiming that a whole lot of stuff changed between DP3 and 10.0, which nobody disputed, ever.

So I take it from this strawman argument that you've dropped the claim that Apple is KNOWN to stick major last-minute GUI changes into their OS upgrades mere weeks before release, and that we can thus expect some heavy revisions in the final version of 10.5.0 over what we're seeing now?

Because that's what you claimed, and it's just wrong.

[CharlesS]

I still wanna know about that bet, Kevin. You said you're willing to bet that the scroll bars change by Leopard's release - so how about a friendly wager? I have a PayPal account. Wanna put up, say, 20 bucks? If the scrollbars look like iTunes in 10.5.0, I'll pay you. If the scrollbars are still blue, you pay me. How about it?

[brokenjago]

I'm not sure considering you have access to development builds that that bet is fair. What if it says "THERE IS NO WAY THE SCROLLBARS WILL CHANGE IN 10.5.0 SIGNED STEVE JOBS" in the Extras.rscs file or something? :>

[CharlesS]

That's a risk he'll just have to take.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by .Neo 

Of course it would. All applications use their own custom GUI elements, be it the application and document icons, toolbar icons, buttons or other parts: Those aren't being generated by the OS, but are included as separate graphics files inside the application's package contents. In 9 out of 10 cases they've been properly designed to match Aqua. Even with native theme support from Apple these elements would stick out when applying a redesigned theme and need to be skinned manually like guiKits do today.

Realistically it isn't possible to include applications skins for every single piece of third-party software out there. Nor is it possible to make an application respect every single custom build theme and icon set.

No more so than it's possible for every application to support Aqua, if that's what you're getting at. But I don't really see the argument there. I mean, yeah, programs that had custom UIs would still have custom UIs, and programs that didn't use the theming APIs properly would look funny just like programs that don't use current APIs well and get messed up by minor changes to Aqua or resolution independence.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Cory Bauer 

I know early on there was talk that Leopard recognized the xBox 360 HD DVD add-on as a device, but the DVD Player application was not yet capable of playing the discs.

That was just the system profiler recognizing a USB device attached but unable to make use of it. Tiger does the same thing (with any USB device that lacks drivers).

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by .Neo 

The whole problem behind themes is that it's next to impossible sustain a consistent UI for the OS and more importantly its 3rd party applications.-

If every app got it's theme resource from the same place, this wouldn't be a problem. But not every app does. Not even every Apple application does. Heck most of the iApps don't. Though Apple wants all third party application developers to use their resources, they don't do it themselves.

Personally I think it's a good thing that Mac OS X doesn't ship with build-in open theme support. However, I do think they should offer people more customization options like the ability to turn the Mac OS X Leopard Menu Bar solid. But nothing too drastic.

It could work if they wanted it to.

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

OS X used to be on a yearly update schedule.

Um yes, so did OS 9, OS 8 etc. But the GUI stayed the same. That really didn't answer the question I asked. Which was how many other OSs changed their GUI that much in a years time. None that I know of.

But weeks before the release date? I already proved this wasn't the case, as the GM build was already seeded by March 5, 2001. Here's the link again.

Ok and the GM of 10.5 hasn't been seeded at all. Has it. Not only that, just because Apple does something ONE WAY, doesn't mean it will do it the same way it did before. Esp with all the Aqua ripping off that went on before OS X came out. By the time it hit the shelves, the look was already dated. Everyone that had a Mac site had pinstripes and Aqua.

I recall that being the official reason for them being dropped, although I can't find the information anymore as it's been almost a decade.

I gave you the information on the second page. They weren't included into 8.5 not because of any buggy reasons, but some icons were missing etc. And then in 9 Steve Steve'd them. I did have working final copies of Hi-Tech, and that drafting looking one... can't remember what it was. The Gizmo or whatever it was called wasn't completely finished as far as the icons went.

I think those were third-party.

Nope, they were just "leaked" to the public.

As to the rest of the posts on the theme matter that were a bit more trollish than Charles's

I am just gonna sit it out, and wait till 10.5 comes out. If no changes are made, I will indeed admit I was wrong an apologize.

If there are, I expect some apologies coming my way.

I mean I'd hope Apple , who is calling their 10.5 GUI "UNIFIED" would have an actual unified GUI. And not 10 different ones in one OS.

I shouldn't be the only person hoping that this wont happen. 10.X have been GUI messes.

[.Neo]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

No more so than it's possible for every application to support Aqua, if that's what you're getting at. But I don't really see the argument there. I mean, yeah, programs that had custom UIs would still have custom UIs, and programs that didn't use the theming APIs properly would look funny just like programs that don't use current APIs well and get messed up by minor changes to Aqua or resolution independence.

I don't think you get the problem here: Every single application on Mac OS X has its own custom GUI elements. Some more than others. Basically there are two points where a generic application gets its GUI from:

1. System: All the default Aqua elements like scroll bars, checkboxes, background pinstripes, brushed, min/max/close glyphs, progress bars, conformation buttons, Menu Bar elements etc.

2. Elements drawn from the individual application's package contents: Application icons, document icons, toolbar icons/buttons, additional buttons for extra functions etc.

Putting a theming API in place will only affect category one. In order to match category two a themer has to include separate "application skins" for each application with his theme. This isn't possible because 1) There are simply too many applications out there for one person to skin, 2) By the time you finish an application skin, the application could have been updated again with new GUI elements to represent new features.

It's fairly easy to make an application contain GUI element that match Aqua: There's only ONE style to worry about. However, how is one going to put an API in place that magically changes all application icons to match a certain style? It simply can't be done.

It's impossible to sustain consistency throughout the OS and it's applications at the same level as it is now when there are an infinite amount of custom themes available to worry about.

Are you getting any of this? If you don't I suggest you take a look at how current guiKits work.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

If every app got it's theme resource from the same place, this wouldn't be a problem. But not every app does. Not even every Apple application does. Heck most of the iApps don't. Though Apple wants all third party application developers to use their resources, they don't do it themselves.

It could work if they wanted it to.

How is that supposed to work? To begin with every application needs its own custom application and document icons. These icons have been designed to match Aqua, and will look at out place when applying a new theme with a new icon set. How are those supposed to be drawn from a single location inside the system folder?

Next to that all applications have their own buttons and whatever to symbolize certain features. Those can't be drawn from a single location either because it isn't possible for Apple to include icons and buttons for every single feature 3rd party developers could potentially come up with.

I agree though, if we could find a solution for all applications to render their interfaces from a single point (instead of the break in two categories like I described above) theming could become possible while maintaining the same level of consistency we have today.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by .Neo 

How is that supposed to work? To begin with every application needs its own custom application and document icons. These icons have been designed to match Aqua, and will look at out place when applying a new theme with a new icon set. How are those supposed to be drawn from a single location inside the system folder?

I am not talking about icons. I am talking about the system's GUI and finder's look and feel. Icons can simply be cut and pasted. That isn't hard work.

Next to that all applications have their own buttons and whatever to symbolize certain features. Those can't be drawn from a single location either because it isn't possible for Apple to include icons and buttons for every single feature 3rd party developers could potentially come up with.

That is why third parties aren't supposed to be inventing their own GUI for their applications. But should be going by the HIG and using the extras file. OS 9 never really had this problem. The only applications that had it's own hard coded GUI were Quark and Adobe products. And they got SLAMMED for not using the system's GUI. Quark I remember in particular. It still looked like OS 7's GUI when running under OS 9.

I agree though, if we could find a solution for all applications to render their interfaces from a single point (instead of the break in two categories like I described above) theming could become possible while maintaining the same level of consistency we have today.

Then we agree. Apple used to be more STRICT as to what applications ran on it and really chastised those that didn't go along with the consistency. The OS used to be PRAISED for it's consistent graphic layouts and menus. In OS X this all broke. And it's something that we as Mac users can no longer brag about, or enjoy.

I am hoping 10.5 goes a little further to fix this. And they have from what I have seen so far..

But I expect it to be a tad different when it hits the shelves. Or we will have another GUI mess on our hands.

These things used to set the Mac OS out from the rest of the crowd. It was these little things grouped together that made the MacOS different. And worth the extra cost compared to it's competitors.

If they lose that, there will be no reason to pay extra anymore.

[.Neo]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I am not talking about icons. I am talking about the system's GUI and finder's look and feel. Icons can simply be cut and pasted. That isn't hard work.

That is why third parties aren't supposed to be inventing their own GUI for their applications. But should be going by the HIG and using the extras file. OS 9 never really had this problem. The only applications that had it's own hard coded GUI were Quark and Adobe products. And they got SLAMMED for not using the system's GUI. Quark I remember in particular. It still looked like OS 7's GUI when running under OS 9.

I'm not talking about entire new custom GUIs for applications. I'm talking about feature specific buttons and symbols that need to be put in place to access them. iTunes has them on the top and at the bottom and many other applications have them as well.



Those elements are problematic when theming and it's simply not possible to get rid of them without cramming everything in the Menu Bar. Nor is it possible to draw them from a single place because Mac OS X doesn't come with icons/buttons to symbolize application-specific feature A or B.

Toolbar icons of non-system applications are equally problematic because they have been designed to match one style: Aqua.



When radically changing the appearance of the OS they'll stand out and break consistency. Just like with custom symbols and buttons to access certain application features these toolbar icons can't be drawn from a single spot either.

The only way to maintain consistency when changing themes is to change everything: Window styles, icons, toolbar icons, buttons etc. which isn't possible. And that's why Apple won't include native theme support in their OS.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by .Neo 

I'm not talking about entire new custom GUIs for applications. I'm talking about feature specific buttons and symbols that need to be put in place to access them. iTunes has them on the top and at the bottom and many other applications have them as well.

[img]http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/2871/picture1rb8.png[/img

Yes, I know what you are referring to. And what I am saying is, they could use the Extras.rsrc and draw something different instead. For example, you can get something similar to the look above with the Extras.
If you've ever messed with the Developer tools and the GUI builder inside it, you can see how one should make up a GUI using the extras. Apple has made this really easy. But Apple doesn't follow it themselves. Which is a shame. "Do as we say, not as we do"

Those elements are problematic when theming and it's simply not possible to get rid of them without cramming everything in the Menu Bar. Nor is it possible to draw them from a single place because Mac OS X doesn't come with icons/buttons to symbolize application-specific feature A or B.

Have you used the interface builder that comes with the developers tools? You can indeed make similar buttons as those listed. Now, they might not look JUST LIKE IT, but I think consistency is more important.

Toolbar icons of third-party applications are equally problematic because they have been designed to match one style: Aqua.



When radically changing the appearance of the OS they'll stand out and break consistency. Just like with custom symbols and buttons to access certain application features these toolbar icons can't be drawn from a single spot either.

The only way to maintain consistency when changing themes is to change everything: Window styles, icons, toolbar icons, buttons etc. which isn't possible.

Right, it's not possible now with the way Apple is doing things. That was my point.

It IS however possible to do if done right. And so far OS X has been a cluttered GUI nightmare. Certainly not a blueprint on how to do things RIGHT.

But I think Apple also knows this. And they ARE working to make it better. I realize OS X right now is still maturing.

I used to theme back in the day, believe me I know what you are referring to. And it's the reason I (I was known as "Zimphire or Sine" back then) and swiz and a bunch of the original early OS X themers stopped themeing. It was just too much work. It was a cluttered mess.

And I don't think the theme answers that we have now are the way to go either. So until Apple gets on the ball, OS X will be next to impossible to theme properly.

You can however make adjustments to the look they give you. For example I didn't mind Aqua minus the pinstripes, brushed metal, and over-exaggerated drop shadows once I hacked it. It's still not my fav GUI, but it's usable, while still being consistent.

I was just hoping to not have to do that with 10.5

I didn't have to with OS 9. Platinum just worked. And was consistent.

[.Neo]

Using Extras.rsrc to draw feature specific symbols (like "Shuffle" or enabling or "Speed Limit Mode" in Transmission for example) and icons really isn't enough. You'll end up using the same symbols, which don't really fit in the first place, over and over and over again.

Of course one could hardcode the shape in interface builder and in theory make it more or less adapt to the main system GUI, but it wouldn't be perfect.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I didn't have to with OS 9. Platinum just worked. And was consistent.

Mac OS X 10.0 ~ 10.1 used to be a whole lot more consistent as well. That is compared to the mess Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger offers us today.

Personally I think Apple should stop inventing new elements every time they release a new application version and slam it into the application's package contents. The glossy bar Mail 2.0 uses at the bottom of the Sidebar is a perfect example. If Apple decides to use that in multiple applications they need to make it a real part of Aqua so other applications can draw from it as well. Not to mention the fact that Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger never really received updated HIG instructions to properly (and officially) explain the role of the glossy bar or Unified windows.

Mac OS X Leopard is a huge improvement when it comes to this. Instead of having three or four completely different window styles within the same OS everything has been replaced by the dark Unified window theme featured by iLife.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by .Neo 

Using Extras.rsrc to draw feature specific symbols (like "Shuffle" or enabling or "Speed Limit Mode" in Transmission for example)

I use transmission, and there are other ways he could have done that without using his own images. I understand why a developer would do it, but that developer wont make any friends with those that theme, or use themes. I guess I am just lucky that the theme variant I use isn't so different from Aqua that these matter.
I would like Apple to at least offer SOME customization. I mean even in OS 9 you could control the color of the scroll bars. I was hoping iTunes scrollbars would become 10.5s, and this feature, or preference would be back in there.. but I doubt it happens. Being able to change the default font like you used to be able to without any third party hacks would be nice as well. I wont even go into Jobs pushing the scroll arrow at one end only GUI in iTunes (It was like that at first, then enough people complain and iTunes stopped using it's own resources for such things. But now it's back to using it's own again..) So I have double scroll arrows on all my applications, BUT the new iApps. Because they have the new look, and sorta break the double scroll.

For example:



You'd never see stuff like this in an Apple application before.

Of course one could hardcode the shape in interface builder and in theory make it more or less adapt to the main system GUI, but it wouldn't be perfect.

It would however be consistent. And to me, that would be over-all more important.

Mac OS X 10.0 ~ 10.1 used to be a whole lot more consistent as well. That is compared to the mess Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger offers us today.

Oh I agree 10.0 was consistently bad. A GUI should be a wrapper for the content. It should be pleasing to the eye, but it should never distract you away from the content it is surrounding. Platinum was awesome in this regard. It was one of the reasons when I first saw OS X, I decided to make Simple Aqua (A non-striped slightly darker version of Aqua, with less dramatic drop shadows and transparencies) and Sosumi (a modern OS 9 look) I was just not happy with Aqua as a GUI. It was pretty, and yeah chicks dug it, but it wasn't "usable" like Platinum. Nor was it as responsive.

Over the years Apple has dropped the pinstripes, and has made OS X a tad darker than the white white with pinstripes it used to be. They have also made the "Shadows" less dramatic. And made it over all more Platinum like. 10.5 even comes closer to this. It's getting better, I give them that.

Personally I think Apple should stop inventing new elements every time they release a new application version and slam it into the application's package contents.

Agreed. They should stick with the consistency.

The glossy bar Mail 2.0 uses at the bottom of the Sidebar is a perfect example. If Apple decides to use that in multiple applications they need to make it a real part of Aqua so other applications can draw from it as well. Not to mention the fact that Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger never really received updated HIG instructions to properly (and officially) explain the role of the glossy bar or Unified windows.

And this is Apple forgetting it's roots. The reasons people used it's OS over another. I remember when the Mac OS used to be THE customizable OS. You could change it more than ANY OS. Shortly after Jobs took over, this came to an end. But if it's a consistent GUI he is wanting he needs to make it, and stick with it. I think they should have just modernized Platinum. After all Platinum was just a modernization of the original good idea, and consistent GUI.

Mac OS X Leopard is a huge improvement when it comes to this. Instead of having three or four completely different window styles within the same OS everything has been replaced by the dark Unified window theme featured by iLife.

And I love that look. And I am glad Apple has done this. I can't speak for 10.5 till it's out. But At least they are TRYING. Someone over at Apple is listening.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Um yes, so did OS 9, OS 8 etc. But the GUI stayed the same. That really didn't answer the question I asked. Which was how many other OSs changed their GUI that much in a years time. None that I know of.

10.2, 10.3, and 10.4 all made greater changes to the Aqua skin than what happened between DP4 and 10.0. Yes, things changed between DP3 and DP4, but that couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that they were inventing a whole new OS at the time, now could it? And that wasn't anywhere close to release, so I don't get what you are going on about regarding DP3.

Ok and the GM of 10.5 hasn't been seeded at all. Has it.

Well, they don't tell the developers when a build is declared GM, so we can only speculate there. However, considering how close we are to release I wouldn't be one bit surprised if they have indeed already declared the GM. If not GM, we should at the very least be in the final candidate stages by now.

Not only that, just because Apple does something ONE WAY, doesn't mean it will do it the same way it did before.

Yeah, because it makes much more sense for them to rush things less when they're still struggling to get a brand-new OS out the door to prove their legitimacy and avoid a mass exodus from the platform due to the old one being a technical embarrassment that's falling apart at the seams than when they're just putting out the fifth revision to an OS whose previous revision already works pretty damn well.

As to the rest of the posts on the theme matter that were a bit more trollish than Charles's

I really hope you're not calling me a troll.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

I really hope you're not calling me a troll.

Pointing out reality, like playing devil's advocate, is seldom appreciated at the time.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

10.2, 10.3, and 10.4 all made greater changes to the Aqua skin than what happened between DP4 and 10.0.

Between DP4 and 10, but not between DP3 and 10.0

Yes, things changed between DP3 and DP4, but that couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that they were inventing a whole new OS at the time, now could it?

I don't recall arguing about why anything changed Charles.

And that wasn't anywhere close to release, so I don't get what you are going on about regarding DP3.

Well I used DP3 as an example of progress because it was the first version of Aqua to be shown to the public Charles.

Well, they don't tell the developers when a build is declared GM, so we can only speculate there.

Hmm I remember downloading golden masters before the OS was announced done and shipping.
They always had the GM title in the number. How did they know it was GM? This was of course weeks before the OS shipped.

However, considering how close we are to release I wouldn't be one bit surprised if they have indeed already declared the GM. If not GM, we should at the very least be in the final candidate stages by now.

Ok, cool. I don't think I was arguing about what stage OS X 10.5 was in..

Yeah, because it makes much more sense for them to rush things less when they're still struggling to get a brand-new OS out the door to prove their legitimacy and avoid a mass exodus from the platform due to the old one being a technical embarrassment that's falling apart at the seams than when they're just putting out the fifth revision to an OS whose previous revision already works pretty damn well.

I explained why hiding a look of the new OS was important in comparison to how they did it with Aqua. As to what reason they would have to hide such things. Again, by the time 10.0 came out Aqua was stale. 1,000s of sites already had the look. And people were making Windows knockoff GUIs that looked like it. I am sure if Apple was going to redo the OS look they wouldn't want that to happen again. And again I am not saying this is fact. I am saying it's MHO.

I really hope you're not calling me a troll.

I was saying the exact opposite.That your post was the only one that wasn't tipping the troll scale. Therefore the only reason I responded.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

And this is Apple forgetting it's roots. The reasons people used it's OS over another. I remember when the Mac OS used to be THE customizable OS. You could change it more than ANY OS. Shortly after Jobs took over, this came to an end. But if it's a consistent GUI he is wanting he needs to make it, and stick with it. I think they should have just modernized Platinum. After all Platinum was just a modernization of the original good idea, and consistent GUI.

Um. Apple's ROOTS were in consistency and simplicity, NOT in customizability.

The era of customizability and wild patching and system extensions and all that was the time when Apple lost most of their customers.

After Jobs took over, Apple finally *RETURNED* to their roots - "the reasons people used it's [sic] OS over another."

A direct result is that more people are deciding to try using it's OS over another than ever before.

They've lost track a little bit, what with brushed metal et al., but honestly, the three or four different looks Apple has been using as of Tiger are NOT a serious problem - although I'm glad they're getting fixed, as they should be.

[.Neo]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I use transmission, and there are other ways he could have done that without using his own images.

Such as? Keeping in mind I want to make it say "Speed Limit Mode".

Next to that I don't think any developer should have to worry about the fact how customizable his or her application is from the point of view of a themer. It's really not their problem. The only thing they have to worry about, in terms of GUI designing, is if it fits in with Aqua and if it makes sense to the enduser. Not if it will work with theme A, B, C,D, E, F or G.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I would like Apple to at least offer SOME customization. I mean even in OS 9 you could control the color of the scroll bars.

And you still can in Mac OS X. Just fewer options to choose from.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

It would however be consistent. And to me, that would be over-all more important.

Consistency for the sake of consistency, regardless if it doesn't make any sense to the enduser. Yeah, I bet that will make Mac OS X a real treat to use.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Between DP4 and 10, but not between DP3 and 10.0

[...]

Well I used DP3 as an example of progress because it was the first version of Aqua to be shown to the public Charles.

What about this bit then:

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Having said that, Apple is KNOWN to make GUI changes and revamps at the very last minute. (Well GUIs they were working on for along time, just to stick them in at the last minute.

That was the remark that sparked any discussion at all about DP3, DP4, the Public Beta, and 10.0.

It's the only reason anybody asked you for examples.

YOU brought DP3 up in support.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by analogika 

YOU brought DP3 up.

Yes I did. Because it was the first version of Aqua to show it's presence to the public. (I'd love to see versions in-between, and any other GUIs that Jobs might have gotten to see if he was given a choice)

I remember Rhapsody.. it had a nice dark modern Platinum look. And it was neat.

I could imagine that, but somewhat more modern and using 10.5s technology.

Someone in another Mac forum once made a preview of what a modern OS 9 could look like when Apple showed off Aqua the first time. I wish I kept that picture.. It is what I tried to make Sosumi look like.. but I wasn't even close. Too many limitations.

But that mockup was bad-assed.

It was done by a graphics guy.. .have no clue who it was. I think he may have hung out on the old macopz forum.. that is where I saw it.

I even went back to look if I could find it with no luck. No one remembered what I was talking about.

*cries*

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by .Neo 

Such as? Keeping in mind I want to make it say "Speed Limit Mode".

Not sure, not a programmer. But I have seen applications using what I thought were custom buttons that weren't. I think there is an ability to superimpose an image on one of the many button GUI choices Apple has to offer now. Web pages are able to do it as well.

Take a page like.. .Demonoid.com - Animal house



Look at the bottom where you can type in a comment. They are using OS X web button elements with graphics of their own superimposed onto them. You can do this with applications as well.

Next to that I don't think any developer should have to worry about the fact how customizable his or her application is from the point of view of a themer. It's really not their problem. The only thing they have to worry about, in terms of GUI designing, is if it fits in with Aqua and if it makes sense to the enduser. Not if it will work with theme A, B, C,D, E, F or G.

They don't have to, but if I were one I would. Just to make it consistent in case I stopped supporting it.

And you still can in Mac OS X. Just fewer options to choose from.

Yeah you can go from Aqua to Graphite.. and you are right LESS options. A modern OS should grow options, have more options. Not take them away..

Consistency for the sake of consistency, regardless if it doesn't make any sense to the enduser. Yeah, I bet that will make Mac OS X a real treat to use.

I am not sure you understand what I am talking about when I talk about consistency. OS 9 was consistent. Esp in the menu area. Everything was in the same place no matter what app when it came to menu items and key commands. Not so anymore ...

It's little things like that that used to separate the Mac OS from it's competitors. It's what used to win Apple GUI and design awards.

People used to talk about how elegant and consistent the OS was to use. It made using computers enjoyable, and learning different apps easier. Apple got awards because of their input. They made big deals about monospaced fonts, and really got anal retentive when it came to Human Interface Guidelines.

If you've never read the HIG I suggest you do. I suggest Steve does again too.

[Big Mac]

How are OS X's menus any less consistent than OS 9's?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

How are OS X's menus any less consistent than OS 9's?

Some applications, even iApps have commands located in different places. In OS 9 most all applications were consistent. Export, Save as, and other things were all in the same place, and all used the same key command for the most part.

IPhoto itself in a chameleon with it's menus. Constantly changing with each revision.

It's just something Apple used to not do. And took pride in the fact that it wasn't done. You learned the key combo for one application, you knew them for all..

I know it sounds like I am all anti-OS X and pro OS 9, but I am not. You couldn't get me to go back to classic. OS X just is too stable to have to deal with crashes like that.

But in some ways, OS 9 was more polished. It was also tons more mature than OS X is. That is why i have been patient with Apple. And they have been improving is some things, while getting worse in others (menus)

[Big Mac]

I don't really see it as far as menus go, but we all realize Apple has been a lot less consistent in general with the UI of its own apps, which sets a poor example for third parties. And I do not see anything being fixed in a stealth maneuver before 10.5's release. What we're seeing now is what we're going to get.

[TETENAL]

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Between DP4 and 10, but not between DP3 and 10.0

And the response still remains: So what?

How does the idea that they are going to change the GUI several weeks before release logically follow from the fact that they changed the GUI a year before release back when they were still inventing a brand-new OS?

What does DP3 have to do with any of this at all?

I don't recall arguing about why anything changed Charles.

I was pointing out that with 10.0 they were in a position to need to rush the OS (and it showed from the end product), whereas with 10.5 they are not. Delaying 10.0 would have caused serious problems for Apple's future. Delaying 10.5, not so much. There is no reason that Apple should have to rush 10.5 more, dramatically more even, than they did 10.0. None whatsoever.

Well I used DP3 as an example of progress because it was the first version of Aqua to be shown to the public Charles.

Which is also why things changed from DP3 to DP4 - it was a brand-new UI and had kinks to work out before it could be usable on a day-to-day basis. Leopard's UI is Aqua 5.0.

Hmm I remember downloading golden masters before the OS was announced done and shipping.
They always had the GM title in the number. How did they know it was GM? This was of course weeks before the OS shipped.

No, the GM title was not in the number. The GM for 10.0 was 4K78. Where's GM in there?

I think you've got the process backward. You don't declare a build to be GM right when you seed it - eventually, you're in Final Candidate stages, and you start seeding builds that you think might be good enough to release, to see what bug reports you get from the testers. If one of the builds turns out not to have any major showstopper bugs that HAVE to be fixed by launch (they can still have minor bugs to be fixed in a point release), you declare that one a GM after the fact. So when Apple seeds the build that eventually ends up being GM, they won't know it until later. For all I know, the build I'm using right now could end up being GM. They could have already declared it GM. Or they might declare it GM next week. Who knows? But we've got to be getting pretty close to the GM by now.

The reason we knew 4K78 was GM back in the 10.0 days was because piracy was running around these forums screaming about 4K78 being the GM. Where he got that information, I don't know. But he's not around here anymore (thank goodness, actually), so we'll just have to wait for 10.5.0 to be released and see what its build number is.

Ok, cool. I don't think I was arguing about what stage OS X 10.5 was in..

Originally Posted by Kevin

Ok and the GM of 10.5 hasn't been seeded at all. Has it.

I explained why hiding a look of the new OS was important in comparison to how they did it with Aqua. As to what reason they would have to hide such things. Again, by the time 10.0 came out Aqua was stale. 1,000s of sites already had the look. And people were making Windows knockoff GUIs that looked like it. I am sure if Apple was going to redo the OS look they wouldn't want that to happen again.

Well, aside from the fact that that's not how software development works, if they were going to change the scrollbars to those miserable dull ones that you like, it wouldn't be a very good secret since those things have been in iTunes for a long time now, would it?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

You got to admit, the second looks better.

Also, the x - + buttons would have to be changed to match..

[CharlesS]

In your opinion.

I'd take that first one anyday.

[TETENAL]

The second ones actually fit into the overall design (especially the new folder icons). The first ones don't.

[Big Mac]

Agree with Tetenal there. . .

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

And the response still remains: So what?

I don't know, I was just responding to what you said in your post. Why did it matter when you said it? :???:

How does the idea that they are going to change the GUI several weeks before release logically follow from the fact that they changed the GUI a year before release back when they were still inventing a brand-new OS?

Wait, I think I told you why I think they would try to hide the GUI. For reasons so that it will be "Fresh" when launched. I said Apple has changed things in the last minute before. And they have! I am not talking about a major GUI overhaul here.

I was pointing out that with 10.0 they were in a position to need to rush the OS (and it showed from the end product), whereas with 10.5 they are not. Delaying 10.0 would have caused serious problems for Apple's future. Delaying 10.5, not so much. There is no reason that Apple should have to rush 10.5 more, dramatically more even, than they did 10.0. None whatsoever.

Again, I never said that they had to rush anything.. never argued about time it took to put out an OS..

Which is also why things changed from DP3 to DP4 - it was a brand-new UI and had kinks to work out before it could be usable on a day-to-day basis.

I would say that OS X's OIUs still have kinks to work out..

Leopard's UI is Aqua 5.0.

Now Charles, no one really knows that on this forum for sure either way.

No, the GM title was not in the number. The GM for 10.0 was 4K78. Where's GM in there?

It was on the disk images I got. Again, weeks before the release.

I think you've got the process backward. You don't declare a build to be GM right when you seed it - eventually, you're in Final Candidate stages, and you start seeding builds that you think might be good enough to release, to see what bug reports you get from the testers. If one of the builds turns out not to have any major showstopper bugs that HAVE to be fixed by launch (they can still have minor bugs to be fixed in a point release), you declare that one a GM after the fact. So when Apple seeds the build that eventually ends up being GM, they won't know it until later. For all I know, the build I'm using right now could end up being GM. They could have already declared it GM. Or they might declare it GM next week. Who knows? But we've got to be getting pretty close to the GM by now.

I am not arguing about the process. Nor did I say anything that goes against what you are saying above, accept for one thing. Someone did know these OSs at the place I was going to were the GM or not. NOT the minute it was released to the developers no. But not too far after. Again, I was downloading files with the GM in the title weeks before the official software came out. And EVERY TIME they GM labeled images were the same build number as the final was. I guess someone has a crystal ball. RIGHT before the GM came out there would be FC versions labeled. This was back when I was doing Sosumi. And certain people getting dev builds wanted to keep Sosumi working in them so I would find these builds on my back porch...

The reason we knew 4K78 was GM back in the 10.0 days was because piracy was running around these forums screaming about 4K78 being the GM. Where he got that information, I don't know. But he's not around here anymore (thank goodness, actually), so we'll just have to wait for 10.5.0 to be released and see what its build number is.

I am not just talking about 4k78. I am talking about ones after that as well.

Well, aside from the fact that that's not how software development works

Software development has nothing to do with hiding things. Hardware development doesn't work like that but no one knows what the iPod is going to look like till the day it comes out.

if they were going to change the scrollbars to those miserable dull ones that you like, it wouldn't be a very good secret since those things have been in iTunes for a long time now, would it?

They did the same thing to the iTunes when it first came out for OS 9. Gave it the brushed metal OS X treatment.

I see a trend.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

The second ones actually fit into the overall design (especially the new folder icons). The first ones don't.

I agree. They just stand out. Like someone modified a good theme horribly wrong.

I do think however they need some texture in the middle. Like Minfad's screenshots



And then make it able to change colors to your liking like Platinum was.



That would go far with people that want a change, while still keeping with the default look like Jobs has said he wanted.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I don't know, I was just responding to what you said in your post. Why did it matter when you said it? :???:

Got me there. I never brought up DP3, and it absolutely mystifies me as to why you keep trying to shift the topic over there.

I said Apple has changed things in the last minute before. And they have!

No, they haven't, and you haven't demonstrated anything even close to what you're claiming, unless you think 1 year and 4 weeks are an equivalent amount of time.

Again, I never said that they had to rush anything.. never argued about time it took to put out an OS..

Science is wrong! A black hole is not the densest thing in the universe.

Read my posts again. I'm tired of explaining this.

I would say that OS X's OIUs still have kinks to work out..

Oh no! OS X's UI didn't play nice with your hacking it!

Now Charles, no one really knows that on this forum for sure either way.

Yes we do.

DP3 = Aqua 1.0a1
DP4 = Aqua 1.0b1
Public Beta = Aqua 1.0b2
10.0 = Aqua 1.0
10.2 = Aqua 2.0
10.3 = Aqua 3.0
10.4 = Aqua 4.0
10.5 = Aqua 5.0

Everything they are doing now is just refinement. During the DP3 days they were inventing a whole new UI! What is so hard to understand about this?

It was on the disk images I got. Again, weeks before the release.

Let me guess - pirated disk images? Which the guy who uploaded it labeled with "GM" because he knew 4K78 was GM due to the info having been leaked?

I am not just talking about 4k78. I am talking about ones after that as well.

Hint: The GM build was always the same build that shipped on the retail CDs as OS X 10.x.0. You could see the build number in the Apple menu -> About This Mac. They didn't have "GM" in them - they're just a build number. GM status gets decided after the build is already out.

[MindFad]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Not sure, not a programmer. But I have seen applications using what I thought were custom buttons that weren't. I think there is an ability to superimpose an image on one of the many button GUI choices Apple has to offer now. Web pages are able to do it as well.

Take a page like.. .Demonoid.com - Animal house

Those Apple-esque buttons aren't part of Safari or OS X, though—they're just part of the javascript text box input on their pages. They're definitely "custom," you could say. Besides, the rollover state is lime green.

Here's the button location from the script: http://www.demonoid.com/images/bbc/bbc_bg.gif

Anyway, I'd like to have the color-changing scroll bars like in OS 9, too. They've thought about it enough to give us graphite—so give us all the old preset colors, I say!

[.Neo]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Not sure, not a programmer. But I have seen applications using what I thought were custom buttons that weren't. I think there is an ability to superimpose an image on one of the many button GUI choices Apple has to offer now. Web pages are able to do it as well.

You still have to include an image file inside the application's package contents that fits the function and more or less the Aqua style of the OS to put onto such a button. Unless you actually like what you see on that picture.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I am not sure you understand what I am talking about when I talk about consistency. OS 9 was consistent. Esp in the menu area. Everything was in the same place no matter what app when it came to menu items and key commands. Not so anymore ...

What are you talking about? The Mac OS X Menu Bar is perfectly consistent. Stuff like File, Edit, View, Window and Help are always in the same spot. So is Preferences, Cut, Copy, Paste, Quit etc.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

If you've never read the HIG I suggest you do. I suggest Steve does again too.

I've read the HIGs enough to know they're outdated.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I would say that OS X's OIUs still have kinks to work out..

You need to separate applications bugs from OS bugs.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

So is it GM yet?

[0157988944]

Kevin and CharlesS, can you stop arguing in here? It's not benefiting the thread anymore, and its all personal. Do it in a PM. And to Tetenal, the second looks sooo much better. they MUST do it.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by adamfishercox 

Kevin and CharlesS, can you stop arguing in here? It's not benefiting the thread anymore, and its all personal.

I'm gonna agree here. I think most people here know that Apple never ever changed the GUI within a few weeks of the final OS release. And therefore they also likely won't pull such a stunt this time. What we saw up to now will be very close if not exactly what we'll get in a few days.

Can we now get back to discussing actual Leopard features? For instance, can anybody report on changes to X11? What about the yellow cursor bug on MacIntels? I really hope it'll be fixed in Leopard.

[MartiNZ]

I agree that the iTunes style scrollbars look better in that Finder mock-up. It did take me a few seconds to figure out the difference between the two pics though, I have to admit . It seems silly to have two different types, and really makes the iTunes jump seem strange, when as has been said enough in here, it has been the leader in other interface shifts. Here's hoping.

[no shoes]

I'm not a great fan of the dark/light look of Leopard but since they're running with that then I'd like to see the iTunes look ported over. With iTunes, I'm meaning not just the grey look, but also the slider buttons you see in the equaliser, the metal pop-up buttons, scrollbars, etc. Those look good.

[- - e r i k - -]

They should, but they won't. Not yet anyway.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Got me there. I never brought up DP3, and it absolutely mystifies me as to why you keep trying to shift the topic over there.

I am not trying to shift any topic anywhere Charles as I've told you now 3times *I* brought up DP3 because it was the first version of Aqua to hit the shelves.

No, they haven't, and you haven't demonstrated anything even close to what you're claiming, unless you think 1 year and 4 weeks are an equivalent amount of time.

You must have missed the many times I told you, that in the last few weeks of development little changes were made in the GUI. The x-+ buttons were redone to look better. SO were the push buttons, along with many other things that were added at the last minute. Now, the average person that wasn't themeing or looking at these files up close in Photoshop may not have known it, but those of us that WERE, DID notice it. It was one of the things that upset us. Cause we kept having to modify our themes. I really wish swiz still came to this board.

Science is wrong! A black hole is not the densest thing in the universe.

Read my posts again. I'm tired of explaining this.

You are arguing something I wasn't. Simple as that

Oh no! OS X's UI didn't play nice with your hacking it!

Um, I didn't hack it.

Yes we do.

DP3 = Aqua 1.0a1
DP4 = Aqua 1.0b1
Public Beta = Aqua 1.0b2
10.0 = Aqua 1.0
10.2 = Aqua 2.0
10.3 = Aqua 3.0
10.4 = Aqua 4.0
10.5 = Aqua 5.0

For one, you are the only one making this claim. No we to it. For two, Apple has never made any such statement or claim. So you seem to be just making it up. Unless you have documentation showing this. Do you?

Everything they are doing now is just refinement. During the DP3 days they were inventing a whole new UI! What is so hard to understand about this?

Again I told you why they would want to hide the GUI. If you don't accept that answer. Cool. I don't care. I am not stating MY opinion as fact, like you are.

Let me guess - pirated disk images? Which the guy who uploaded it labeled with "GM" because he knew 4K78 was GM due to the info having been leaked?

The images I got, I assure you weren't pirated. I mean once they got in my hands, me not being a "developer" at the time It was. But the person that gave them to me had them legally.

Hint: The GM build was always the same build that shipped on the retail CDs as OS X 10.x.0. You could see the build number in the Apple menu -> About This Mac. They didn't have "GM" in them - they're just a build number. GM status gets decided after the build is already out.

You aren't listening to what I am saying at all Charles.
I never ONCe claimd there was a GM in the about box. NOT ONCE. Why you keep arguing with me about things I've never said is beyond me. I said it was labeled on the disk image. And that it was the same OS that was released 2-3 weeks later. Before the GM came out a slew of FC disks showed up on "my doorstep" I am sure, actually POSITIVE I wasn't the only themer getting these either.

Originally Posted by .Neo 

You still have to include an image file inside the application's package contents that fits the function and more or less the Aqua style of the OS to put onto such a button. Unless you actually like what you see on that picture.

What I am saying is, you DON'T have to make custom buttons. You can use the image builder to do what the guy in transmission did without reverting to making your own buttons. SURE you have to make your own image that goes over top it. In this case it's a black turtle. Which BTW goes with any theme. Unless of course it's black .

What are you talking about? The Mac OS X Menu Bar is perfectly consistent. Stuff like File, Edit, View, Window and Help are always in the same spot. So is Preferences, Cut, Copy, Paste, Quit etc.

Go into iPhoto. Look at the menus. Now, go into TextEdit, look at them. Same commands in different places. This used to never happen.

I've read the HIGs enough to know they're outdated.

Outdated how?

You need to separate applications bugs from OS bugs.

Why? When I was complaining about over-all consistency?

Like I said, if nothing about the GUI is changed when it comes out, I will say I was wrong in this very forum and apologize.

However, if it does, I expect the same from those that are attempting to belittle me over such a silly "maybe" I am saying *I BELIEVE* they will change it. I am not acting like I know something someone else here doesn't. Or that it's factual. So why ANYONE is getting upset over something that I myself just believe is beyond me.

If someone else had said it, and they have I am sure they'd not get slammed like I did. (And they haven't) So it pretty much tells me what these squabbling are all about.

And .Neo, when I say these things, I am not referring to you. Me and you have had a civil conversation.