Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

FireWire · Apr 25, 2006, 01:06 AM

From MacNN's front page:

Open-source Puma takes on iTunes
A developer today announced the arrival of Puma 0.3.1, an open-source media player set to compete with Songbird and iTunes. Still in its early sages, Puma takes a difference stance on modern media player design. "I don't believe that the current standard in user interface is 'how it should be,' and I've got a school full of college students that agree with me," wrote Puma author Nick Meyer. "Web browsers look alike because Web browser interface design has been evolving for a long time, that's not the case with media players. There's plenty of room for improvement and Puma hopes to address those design issues.

The author hopes to have a working version of Puma available for Mac OS X in the near future. Puma 0.3.1 is available for free, and requires Microsoft Windows as well a Java 5.0 JRE.

I went to look for some screenshots, and somewhat I had great expectations; wishing for something revolutionary. Instead:

Yeah, THIS is the way it should have been from the start

(Sorry for the big screenshot, the image appeared smaller on their website)

Tomchu · Apr 25, 2006, 01:17 AM

I don't see how a semi iTunes-ripoff with file-system-based access is "revolutionary" in any way.

I wish that open-source developers would just stop reinventing the wheel.

FireWire · Apr 25, 2006, 01:31 AM

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough from the start. My post was in fact to be taken with irony

I expected a revolutionary interface but was served this instead.

mduell · Apr 25, 2006, 01:59 AM

It looks like a bad skin for Windows Media Player 10.

Chuckit · Apr 25, 2006, 02:31 AM

The only good thing about it is that the song list makes me think of orange juice, which I like.

eevyl · Apr 25, 2006, 04:22 AM

Yeah the revolutionary thing seemengly is that requires a 42" screen to enjoy properly

DarwinX · Apr 25, 2006, 10:09 AM

FireWire, I had the exact same reaction as you. Why would someone want to use this again??? Total let down for me. Don't get me wrong, its nice to see developers making new programs and trying, but please spare the hype if it can't be achieved.

qnxde · Apr 25, 2006, 11:36 AM

http://skitunes.iindigo3d.com/

What about this one?

mindwaves · Apr 25, 2006, 03:23 PM

haha, I saw the MacNN post also so I went to investigate like you did and I was so dissapointed with the interface. Revolutionary? No way.

SSharon · Apr 25, 2006, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by mduell

It looks like a bad skin for Windows Media Player 10.

A bit redundant no? You could have just said it looks like a skin for WMP10.

production_coordinator · Apr 25, 2006, 04:32 PM

wow... just wow...

And Windows people don't get why I hate Windows.

My eyes!!! MY EYES!!!

Tomchu · Apr 25, 2006, 06:04 PM

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

wow... just wow...

And Windows people don't get why I hate Windows.

My eyes!!! MY EYES!!!

What the hell does this have to do with the Windows platform? You think the reason this program is ugly is because of Windows?

Chuckit · Apr 25, 2006, 06:58 PM

It sure doesn't help.

eevyl · Apr 25, 2006, 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by Tomchu

What the hell does this have to do with the Windows platform? You think the reason this program is ugly is because of Windows?

Probably, but I bet it runs twice as fast in Windows than in OS X

- - e r i k - - · Apr 25, 2006, 11:03 PM

Originally Posted by Tomchu

What the hell does this have to do with the Windows platform? You think the reason this program is ugly is because of Windows?

Yes. It uses default windows widgets and window dressings which are by anyones standard, ugly.

Tomchu · Apr 26, 2006, 02:36 AM

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

Yes. It uses default windows widgets and window dressings which are by anyones standard, ugly.

It's not using default Windows widgets.

That's what makes it look cheesier than it ought to be.

Chuckit · Apr 26, 2006, 04:55 AM

It sure is. I'd recognize that butt-fugly title bar anywhere.

- - e r i k - - · Apr 26, 2006, 06:25 AM

Oh, but it is. Apart from the added gizmo to the title-bar and the oversized buttons on the "metal" background it's all Windows.

Tomchu · Apr 26, 2006, 12:37 PM

Ahhh you Mac guys are worse than Linux guys sometimes. :-)

Anyway, I just played around with this thing a bit, and it turns out that it's pure Java -- so I guess there goes your theory that it's using *NATIVE WINDOWS WIDGETS*. Everyone and their mother knows that Java has absolutely terrible "native" widget emulation on Windows (Linux, too).

Not only do the buttons look like they were Photoshopped in 2 minutes, but that entire "player" side looks like a cheap Winamp skin. The file list icons have been changed to crappy aliased ones as well.

Now, I realize that XP's Luna skin is butt-ugly, so I've provided the screenshot above for people who can't look past an OS skin to see the widget differences underneath. See? The program is still ugly. And it has nothing to do with Windows widgets.

production_coordinator · Apr 26, 2006, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by Tomchu

Ahhh you Mac guys are worse than Linux guys sometimes. :-)

Anyway, I just played around with this thing a bit, and it turns out that it's pure Java -- so I guess there goes your theory that it's using *NATIVE WINDOWS WIDGETS*. Everyone and their mother knows that Java has absolutely terrible "native" widget emulation on Windows (Linux, too).

Not only do the buttons look like they were Photoshopped in 2 minutes, but that entire "player" side looks like a cheap Winamp skin. The file list icons have been changed to crappy aliased ones as well.

Now, I realize that XP's Luna skin is butt-ugly, so I've provided the screenshot above for people who can't look past an OS skin to see the widget differences underneath. See? The program is still ugly. And it has nothing to do with Windows widgets.

Oh, the Windows 98 feel of that blue to black bar makes all the difference.

Nope, still VERY ugly.

My "And Windows people don't get why I hate Windows" comment was two fold.
1) Windows is a ugly OS
2) Windows has some UGLY programs.

OS X isn't perfect, but some of the crap I see on Windows makes me laugh...

Tomchu · Apr 26, 2006, 01:50 PM

They key here is USABILITY. The simple Windows Classic window decorations are some of the best as far as cleanliness and non-intrusiveness are concerned. We're not even talking about the window decorations though.

Nice red herring.

TETENAL · Apr 26, 2006, 02:02 PM

Mac is no guarantor for good looking software.

Chuckit · Apr 26, 2006, 02:20 PM

And yet all that bad-looking Mac software still looks a **** of a lot better than the Windows software shown above!

production_coordinator · 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Mac is no guarantor for good looking software.

While those are good examples of poor design... I would argue they are more the exception than the norm.

Tomchu · Apr 26, 2006, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

While those are good examples of poor design... I would argue they are more the exception than the norm.

And in my experience, the same applies to Windows. Nine out of ten pieces of Windows software that I use follows a normal layout/look -- none of this hacky-looking Java-esque type stuff.

Horsepoo!!! · Apr 26, 2006, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by Tomchu

And in my experience, the same applies to Windows. Nine out of ten pieces of Windows software that I use follows a normal layout/look -- none of this hacky-looking Java-esque type stuff.

Prove it!

Dark Helmet · Apr 26, 2006, 04:17 PM

Boy the interface is that App is truly horrific. It makes it even sadder because they think this is truly better than iTunes.

voodoo · Apr 26, 2006, 06:25 PM

Damn how Windows is ugly. It's been more than three months since I've used Windows sober. I don't touch it unless after three or four stiff ones.

90%+ of all computers run Wintel. Tasteless? For sure. Sad: you bet.

WiMP, MSN, IE, Windows.. hate 'em all far more than one should for inanimate objects.. or code or whatever. To add insult to injury they're all eye-bleedingly ugly.

V

Tomchu · Apr 26, 2006, 07:07 PM

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

Prove it!

FlashFXP, Trillian (with a Classic skin), Explorer, Firefox, WinRAR, Photoshop, Auto Gordian Knot, Cygwin (haha), PuTTY, BPFTP Server, Notepad, Outlook 2003, ... and so on

Nugget.

sushiism · Apr 27, 2006, 08:12 AM

this is a perfect example of programmers doing interfaces, unfortunately the person in charge seems deluded that they know a thing about good interface design.
For example, that overpowering sea of purple exists purely for branding purposes.

Take a look at the treeview, open up an artist you get a list of albums another 20 pixels right, open an album and you'll be lucky if you can read the first two letters of each track. Sure its in the iTunes directory structure but thats only one folder deeper than
root>music>artist>album

siMac · Apr 27, 2006, 09:19 AM

I'm always amazed by how many Windows users *hate* iTunes because its file organisation is automatic. They actually prefer digging through folder hierarchies and dragging/dropping to Winamp/WMP etc because they don't feel 'in control' of their music with iTunes.

Dollars to donuts that is what this developer means by 'design issues'. It's kind of an OS Stockholm syndrome - these poor Windows users have been using clunky apps on a clunky system for so long that when faced with a truly elegant solution they believe it to be *wrong* and run screaming to their mummies.

Awwww...

Anyway, they can keep Puma (and it's luscious yellow/orange backdrop, mmm!) - no need to waste precious time porting to Mac, we don't swing that way. Songbird, on the other hand, draws its interface from a more obvious source but also promises to add some interesting features. I'm looking forward to being able to give it a test drive.

chrisford · Apr 27, 2006, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by Tomchu

They key here is USABILITY. The simple Windows Classic window decorations are some of the best as far as cleanliness and non-intrusiveness are concerned. We're not even talking about the window decorations though.

Hi Tomchu -

Not wanting to start any bickering or anything, but I'd argue against your position here I think. I've not seen any research to suggest that what you say is correct. In fact, I've not seen any research that deals particularly well with the usability of any current or legacy OS UI.

I'd be interested to see what you have tho'.

cf

Tomchu · Apr 27, 2006, 02:25 PM

It's not any particular research, it's just based on what I've heard around the Internet, combined with my own experiences. Microsoft has kept that same default Windows look because it works and it's easy on the eyes. OS X is much better as far as UI usability goes, but Windows in Classic mode is not half bad either.

When you look at things like KDE, GNOME, and any number of cheap window managers, then it becomes obvious that Microsoft, too, has done their homework.

ChasmoeBrown · Apr 27, 2006, 04:36 PM

It really does look like someone decided to take Windows Explorer and see if they could make it even worse.

chrisford · Apr 27, 2006, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by Tomchu

When you look at things like KDE, GNOME, and any number of cheap window managers, then it becomes obvious that Microsoft, too, has done their homework.

Hi Tomchu -

Now that bit I can agree with! I don't think Windows Classic is particularly poor in general; just that the OS contains a number of glaring defects that can make for a rather poor user experience.

The iTunes-alike above? It's just a little scrappy.

cf

production_coordinator · Apr 27, 2006, 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by Tomchu

It's not any particular research, it's just based on what I've heard around the Internet, combined with my own experiences. Microsoft has kept that same default Windows look because it works and it's easy on the eyes.

I don't agree. I believe Microsoft kept the default Windows 95 look/feel because they haven't been able to create anything all that compelling... combined with their user base that hates change.

Originally Posted by Tomchu

OS X is much better as far as UI usability goes, but Windows in Classic mode is not half bad either.

While I half agree with you... I feel Windows in Classic feels very Windows 3.1 by what we have on the other side of the fence. I'm not saying it is functionally bad, but at the same time, when comparing Windows in Classic mode to OS X... it becomes obvious that Microsoft seems to suffer from "design by committee" syndrome.

Originally Posted by Tomchu

When you look at things like KDE, GNOME, and any number of cheap window managers, then it becomes obvious that Microsoft, too, has done their homework.

While true for the most part... it's sad that you are even placing things like KDE/GNOME next to Windows... and I would argue that some are nearly as good in some areas... if not nicer. The problem with most Linux window managers is that they aren't well rounded.

Graphically, I put Windows in Classic somewhere around OS 7.

Visnaut · Apr 29, 2006, 09:33 PM

Originally Posted by siMac

I'm always amazed by how many Windows users *hate* iTunes because its file organization is automatic. They actually prefer digging through folder hierarchies and dragging/dropping to Winamp/WMP etc because they don't feel 'in control' of their music with iTunes.

Dollars to donuts that is what this developer means by 'design issues'. It's kind of an OS Stockholm syndrome - these poor Windows users have been using clunky apps on a clunky system for so long that when faced with a truly elegant solution they believe it to be *wrong* and run screaming to their mummies.

This is so true. Because of WinAMP, people have come to hand-organize all of their music in the file system, and thus, anything that mucks with that, they come to distrust. And even though the option is right there in the iTunes Setup Assistant to NOT organize their music automatically, they don't care to read it carefully, and thus end up very angry that iTunes "ruined" their music directories.

There are some that will simply never get used to the idea of file system abstraction, even when appropriate. In fact, I know a few people who refuse to buy an iPod for this reason alone.