[lngtones]

Originally Posted by esXXI

I believe he meant Apple will alter Motion so that it also refers to them as HUDs, so that that window style has a uniform name.



Well they've got over twelves months, I'm sure they could do an entire new look in that time - whether it be black or not.

Yeah, but they would really have to change everything for such a radical change to really work well. Not to mention all the third party apps using custom widgets mixed with standard widgets that would look strange.

I guess stranger things have happened.

[TheSpaz]

Originally Posted by dru

Anyone want to take a claim to whether Apple finally updates the scrollbars and progress bars to match the other widgets more "plastic look" instead of the 10.0 "lickable" look?

I bet they won't. I have a feeling they are alway going to use the old stupid f'ing scroll bars and progress bars... UGH! I'm a very thankful to Max for this.

[Scandalous Ion Cannon]

I feel the Dock could also use some work. Right now it is not at all clear that you can Add apps by dragging items in it or that documents must go on the right of the line.

[I WAS the One]

Could someone post a pic of what 10.5 will look like? I don't care if it photoshopped, for real.
just to have an idea, everyone is asking for stuff, but some of us will like to see it.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by Jaw3000

... I think Apple should make icons vector

Not a good idea. Vector icons means you get exactly one version of the icon for all sizes. In fact, that just doesn't work. For example, every document icon uses the same shape -- the dogeared page. If you simply shrink them down, the identifying marks within the icon simply mush together. That's why long ago, they figured out that it's critical to have different hand-crafted versions of the icon for different sizes. Look at the Adobe PDF file icon: at 16px, it has just a red bar and the Acrobat triple-curl centered on it. At larger sizes, the triple-curl is off-center, with the Adobe name under it, and the red bar says PDF in it.

The Eudora application icon is another great example: the 16px version is entirely different from all the larger ones, and the 32px, 48px, and 128px versions are all slightly different drawings (e.g. the pencil moves around, the little stylized people change in height). In other words, they're not just larger and smaller versions of the same icon.

Look at the icon for a simple TextEdit text file in OS X: as you scale it, the number of words on the lines (and the number of lines) increases as the icon gets bigger. If you were to take the biggest icon and shrink it, you'd see only a gray blob in the center. With such custom icons, you see the lines at every size.

An example of a bad icon is Fetch 4.0: it uses one icon for all sizes. It looks great at 128px, but by the time it's scaled down to 16px, you can't make out what it is at all. A hand-optimized version of the icon, or a different one for that size, would have been much better.


Note that Apple's design suggestions for icon design have great advice: design the icon at the smallest size to be clear at that size, and then blow it up to bigger sizes (adding detail as you go along). You get much better results by starting simple and adding detail as you get bigger than by starting with a detailed large icon and then shrinking down.

tooki

[Jim Paradise]

A small request I would like is for applications that are hidden to be transparent in the Dock. I've been using some haxie or another since it was first available to make applications that are hidden be transparent; it just seems logical to myself to have the icons of hidden applications be partly transparent in the Dock.

[Scandalous Ion Cannon]

Originally Posted by Jim Paradise

A small request I would like is for applications that are hidden to be transparent in the Dock. I've been using some haxie or another since it was first available to make applications that are hidden be transparent; it just seems logical to myself to have the icons of hidden applications be partly transparent in the Dock.

I think it would also be good to show which one is in the foreground.

[Tesseract]

I now present a sneak preview of the 10.5 GUI:

[TheSpaz]

Originally Posted by Tesseract

I now present a sneak preview of the 10.5 GUI:

10.5 will not look like that. We don't need yet ANOTHER interface style mixed in do we?

[Tesseract]

I'm not opposed to Apple replacing Metal with iTunes-Look and Pinstripes with Mail2-Look, since that would cut the number of different styles back to 2. (3, if you count the pro apps, but those don't come with the OS.)

[Detrius]

Originally Posted by TheSpaz

10.5 will not look like that. We don't need yet ANOTHER interface style mixed in do we?

I hope you're joking... that's a current iTunes shot.

[Detrius]

Originally Posted by Tesseract

I'm not opposed to Apple replacing Metal with iTunes-Look and Pinstripes with Mail2-Look, since that would cut the number of different styles back to 2. (3, if you count the pro apps, but those don't come with the OS.)

I find it a bit amusing that Mail has pinstripes when it's inactive.

[CaptainHaddock]

Not a good idea. Vector icons means you get exactly one version of the icon for all sizes.

Tooki makes good points, as usual. However, I think it would be nice to make room for a vector (SVG) version alongside the bitmapped icons in an icon resource, to allow for infinite upward scaling and better sharpness at large sizes.

Back to window styles, I suspect all brushed metal apps will turn into dark plastic apps like iTunes, and the non-unified Aqua look will be deprecated. Pro apps will look like Aperture as they get re-implemented with CoreImage and CoreData.

I'm also really, really hoping that Leopard will be completely resolution-independent, with all GUI elements reproducible at multiple sizes.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaddock

Tooki makes good points, as usual. However, I think it would be nice to make room for a vector (SVG) version alongside the bitmapped icons in an icon resource, to allow for infinite upward scaling and better sharpness at large sizes.

That's a great idea, rather similar to how fonts worked in OS 9 and earlier, using hand-tweaked bitmap fonts at small sizes, and using the vector PostScript or TrueType in larger sizes.

That said, it's rare that one ever looks at even a 128px icon, never mind larger! For apps that will be going into special apps like FrontRow, perhaps larger icons could be added as needed.

I think that the 16, 32, 48 and 64px sizes are the most important (especially the 16, as it is used in open/save dialogs), and absolutely should be hand-tweaked. The larger ones can handle being computer-rendered much better.

tooki

[corsair]

Originally Posted by wataru

Search is worthless if you don't already know what you're looking for. There will always be a need for visual browsing of file hierarchies.

And visual browsing of hierarchies is worthless if you don't know the right filename. Because Spotlight can search inside files, the probability that what you're looking for is within the domain of searchable content is much higher than the probability that what you're looking for matches a filename.

As for visual browsing, my visual searches have never been faster than with Spotlight, because Spotlight can create alternative hierarchies. Instead of being locked to the single way the file system was organized, you can view search results in many different ways that may prove to sift the data faster for you. And visual browsing of images is light speed now. I've been keywording as I go, and now Spotlight not only shows me search results as names, but as preview thumbnails...across the hierarchies. Folders no longer seem like a maze of little rooms, all alike.

File system navigation is limited by the wall you hit in what you can display in a file system: A folder name, a file name, and maybe a visual thumbnail. Metadata can reveal much more. For instance, you can add 100 metadata items to a file that would simply not be practical to store in the filename, meaning most of the data that would be visible in a metadata search would be invisible in file system browsing.

Another falsehood is that metadata always involves manual entry. There are more and more ways now to embed metadata during file creation or derive it from the contents, and also there are many apps now that can apply metadata in bulk to ranges of files. You can fill in a bunch of stuff quickly and the rest as you need to, and even going only that far will save you time.

Once you get into metadata, advocating filesystem browsing seems like a lumbering dinosaur.

Now, nobody's suggesting that filesystem browsing is no longer necessary, but the balance is tipping fast. Where it used to be that file system browsing was successful 90% of the time and searching was successful 10% of the time, based on the performance of Spotlight - particularly after the 10.4.3 update - the success percentages for me are now the other way. I now browse the file system only when I have to.

[Tesseract]

I think the 'borderless' look currently seen in iTunes 5/6, and Mail 2 is the way of the future. Look for it in the Finder, iApps, etc. in Leopard.

I find the borderless appearance to be both attractive and an effective, compact use of screen space.

The Mail 2 gel buttons, on the other hand ... those gotta go. Especially the hover effect which NO OTHER APP has.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

I think you're asking for OS 9 Finder style tabs.

Yeah.. I liked those.

[Judge_Fire]

Originally Posted by tooki

That said, it's rare that one ever looks at even a 128px icon, never mind larger! For apps that will be going into special apps like FrontRow, perhaps larger icons could be added as needed.

I work with photos a lot, so I would appreciate higher resolution icons, but not necessarily vectors as these pics are bitmaps. In some cases, like visual documents, it would be nice if the 'icon', 'preview' and 'actual image' would be the same thing.

I'd absolutely love to run a '100%' magnifier over my pics, presentations, movies texts and layout files to blow up the icons to actual size just momentarily, without having to take the 'dedicated browser application' detour. I'd settle for a better implementation of the 'Get Info' - window. One that has a better preview.

J

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Tesseract

I think the 'borderless' look currently seen in iTunes 5/6, and Mail 2 is the way of the future. Look for it in the Finder, iApps, etc. in Leopard.

I find the borderless appearance to be both attractive and an effective, compact use of screen space.

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

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

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by tooki

That's a great idea, rather similar to how fonts worked in OS 9 and earlier, using hand-tweaked bitmap fonts at small sizes, and using the vector PostScript or TrueType in larger sizes.

That said, it's rare that one ever looks at even a 128px icon, never mind larger! For apps that will be going into special apps like FrontRow, perhaps larger icons could be added as needed.

I think that the 16, 32, 48 and 64px sizes are the most important (especially the 16, as it is used in open/save dialogs), and absolutely should be hand-tweaked. The larger ones can handle being computer-rendered much better.

tooki

Not the point here tooki. The point is to provide for higher resolution displays. Ie, sharper graphics at about the same size. The new PowerBooks are just the beginning. And even they need a resolution-independent GUI already.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

Not the point here tooki. The point is to provide for higher resolution displays. Ie, sharper graphics at about the same size. The new PowerBooks are just the beginning. And even they need a resolution-independent GUI already.

It's surprising how many people can't grasp that idea yet. To them, increasing the resolution goes hand in hand with increasing the screen size to match...they don't understand yet that pixel density could be increased resulting in sharper graphics making anti-aliasing a thing of the past.

I'm sure tooki just didn't think it through, he knows all this I'm sure. 128x128 icons are, one day, going to be pretty small.

I suppose the only big problem with increasing pixel density is that, even though the OS will cope with the rez independence and keep widget sizes sane, the web which is heavily pixel-based will look real tiny. I suppose the transitional solution would be to scale whatever's displayed by WebKit but it'll look nasty in most cases.


edit: hmmm...interesting new edit feature.

[MindFad]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

I'm sure tooki just didn't think it through, he knows all this I'm sure. 128x128 icons are, one day, going to be pretty small.

Considering Tiger supposedly already has—so I heard somewhere—resources built-in for 512x512 icons, it's a sign Apple is preparing.

Vector toolbar icons and app icons seem incredibly impractical—you get a finer level of detail (design-wise) with bitmaps anyway, especially considering the pixel resolutions of monitors today. We aren't sitting here on 9000x9000 monitors looking at medical photos, and probably never will be. File-size will be a factor, too. To achieve the detail of what we have today with bitmaps (and Apple's iconic photo-realism art style designers try to maintain), it would be a toss-up of similar or greater file sizes for these graphics, or just sticking with the bitmap engine. My point being [inhaling], we're not going to be blasting our resolutions to a point where having larger bitmap file sizes (say, toolbar icons are now 128x128 instead of 32x32, or even 256x256) is going to be a problem. There's just no reason for vector icons.

Though, certainly people have noticed by now that QuickTime's "Q" when you are loading a stream is indeed a vector. A preparation for resolution independence, sure, but I seriously doubt—logically so—a complete overhaul of app icons and toolbar icons. But Apple has wowed me before.

[- - e r i k - -]

MindFad: That post just reminds me of one thing: 640K ought to be enough for everybody.

[MindFad]

But I'm referring to the way these graphics are displayed and how we view them, not file sizes. (It was more of a bullet point, sorry, and I'm not the best writer.)

I'm not saying vector icons shouldn't come—I imagine they will; I just don't see the necessity in it today, or even 5 years from now. No matter how dense pixels get, we're looking at, what, needing to triple or quadruple our graphics of today? I agree with you and the "sharper graphics at the same size," but we don't need a format change, especially since I'm of the opinion that we will lose design flexibility in terms of art style. Now I'm just talking icons, not elements that change (like windows). With the advent of the 30" beast, I think all owners of that thing would agree with having resolution independence.

When consumers are surfing the web on this thing, I might reconsider this idea of vector icons. But then, we will have moved into a whole new level of designing. A new "resolution revolution" of the frickin' Internet alone. A monitor costing about as much as a brand new car. Awexome.

[Dark Helmet]

Apples smallest desktop monitor is 17".

Personally I find 128 pix icons small.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

Not the point here tooki. The point is to provide for higher resolution displays. Ie, sharper graphics at about the same size. The new PowerBooks are just the beginning. And even they need a resolution-independent GUI already.

Yes, it is the point. You can't switch to all-vector icons without ruining the icons at small sizes --which are used all over, like in menus, open/save dialogs, etc.

I am not opposed to having a vector icon in addition to hand-tweaked bitmap icons. Didn't I make that eminently clear?

My point is that all-vector icons are a bad solution. Using both vector AND bitmap (small icons from bitmaps, large ones from vector) is the ideal solution.

tooki

[besson3c]

My prediction is that Apple has been contributing to WINE, and will include something just like WINE in 10.5 for Intel Macs (and possibly PPC Macs using Rosetta). I wonder how they will allow Windows apps to interact with Mac apps?

We'll have Java apps with a slightly different look and feel, Classic apps (although they'll be very scarce), X11 apps, and Windows apps. The differences between Carbon and Cocoa apps seem to be virtually non-distinguisable.

Some X11 app users may simply download the Windows version, if available (e.g. OpenOffice), so that ought to change things slightly.

I do think Apple will provide a WINE like layer, for several reasons:

- Developers will still have incentive to write Mac apps, because Mac users won't be content with apps with menu bars incorporated into the window, and missing other Mac-app touches.

- Users will not have to pay for a Windows license, but will gain access to all compatible Windows apps instantly

- Marketability

- Access to games

[moonmonkey]

Originally Posted by besson3c

My prediction is that Apple has been contributing to WINE, and will include something just like WINE in 10.5 for Intel Macs (and possibly PPC Macs using Rosetta). I wonder how they will allow Windows apps to interact with Mac apps?

We'll have Java apps with a slightly different look and feel, Classic apps (although they'll be very scarce), X11 apps, and Windows apps. The differences between Carbon and Cocoa apps seem to be virtually non-distinguisable.

Some X11 app users may simply download the Windows version, if available (e.g. OpenOffice), so that ought to change things slightly.

I do think Apple will provide a WINE like layer, for several reasons:

- Developers will still have incentive to write Mac apps, because Mac users won't be content with apps with menu bars incorporated into the window, and missing other Mac-app touches.

- Users will not have to pay for a Windows license, but will gain access to all compatible Windows apps instantly

- Marketability

- Access to games

This would be fantastic (if a bit wishful).

[JulesLt]

Good point - it's the external database of metadata that makes iTunes so useful.
However, with text documents it's certainly possible to extract some metadata (as Spotlight and Google do).

Yahoo and Google also seem to be making in-roads into doing similar metadata from speech (in audio / video) and from video closed captions (which are metadata already).

User created pictures and video are more problematic - at least until cameras which record GPS along with the date and time on photos, allowing location and news based metadata.
I can imagine recognition technology improving to the extent that someday iPhoto could be trained to recognize who is who in photos of family members.

iTunes also points to what needs addressing - ability to add user defined fields/tags - i.e. I would dearly like a 'City' column, so I could quickly make a playlist of 'Chicago - 1950-1995' or 'Manchester - 76-92'.

I could do that now using the single 'comments' field or abusing 'grouping' but then I can't easily add another tag - i.e. label - without going through and re-editing all those Chess artists actually from Chicago.

Even if I do that, I still need to define a smart folder to use the information - (a search using spotlight will use it, a search in iTunes doesn't).

What's needed there is the ability for the user to both define their own tags and add them to the 'search bar' (and from that, you could infer they should be included in the search). Again, I want that ability to rapidly just go 'Manchester' and get a selection of tunes. I doubt many other people want that.

Now if this was done at a low enough level, and then inherited through all apps (like the Open/Save dialog) we could end up with a very powerful and customizable system - although then you'd probably need some meta-metadata ('the City tag is only relevant to audio files').

Another issue evident from iTunes is that a tune might have one artist, but it can exist in more than one album (currently you have to workaround this by turning albums into playlists) and also have more than one genre.

The same holds true of wider collections of files - a file could be part of multiple projects - which is an issue for many with the folder metaphor (in fact the folder metaphor keeps some of the inefficiency of the real world desktop, encouraging people to duplicate documents from one folder/machine to another) - with iTunes I find it easier to live with duplicate songs in separate albums.

[Mediaman_12]

Originally Posted by besson3c

My prediction is that Apple has been contributing to WINE, and will include something just like WINE in 10.5 for Intel Macs (and possibly PPC Macs using Rosetta). I wonder how they will allow Windows apps to interact with Mac apps?

We'll have Java apps with a slightly different look and feel, Classic apps (although they'll be very scarce), X11 apps, and Windows apps. The differences between Carbon and Cocoa apps seem to be virtually non-distinguisable.

Some X11 app users may simply download the Windows version, if available (e.g. OpenOffice), so that ought to change things slightly.

I do think Apple will provide a WINE like layer, for several reasons:

- Developers will still have incentive to write Mac apps, because Mac users won't be content with apps with menu bars incorporated into the window, and missing other Mac-app touches.

- Users will not have to pay for a Windows license, but will gain access to all compatible Windows apps instantly

- Marketability

- Access to games

If a 'Wine-like' layer is included in the default install of OSX it will virtually kill off a huge amount of Mac App development, especially with big apps e.g. what incentive would the likes of MS have to continue development of Mac Office when the Windows version works 'just fine'. the same would go for Adobe, Macromedia etc.
Also companies like Aspyr who do the porting of games to Mac OS from the PC would be dead in the water, as the Windows version would run without modification.
The ability to run Windows apps without any modification can't be compared to the current ability to run X11 apps. There is a huge pool of well known, popular applications on the Windows side. Where as on X11 there is (just about) Open Office. Nobody I know with a Mac is interested in using X11 (or is even aware what it is), They would probably all be using at least one Windows app.
The support would be a nightmare.
Oh goody, all those Windows viruses etc. would be able to run.
And finally, in the long term it would turn the Mac OS from a competing OS to a windows runtime environment, (and one that MS would be likely to attempt to hobble at evry chance it would get, as it would mean a viable way of running Windows apps without giving them any cash.

[macimmortal]

I'm getting sick and tired of mastering my workflow through the many iterations of this OS X finder. If they change this thing dramatically again, and don't create a way for us to maintain our workflow, I'm going to flame on.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by tooki

Yes, it is the point. You can't switch to all-vector icons without ruining the icons at small sizes --which are used all over, like in menus, open/save dialogs, etc.

I am not opposed to having a vector icon in addition to hand-tweaked bitmap icons. Didn't I make that eminently clear?

My point is that all-vector icons are a bad solution. Using both vector AND bitmap (small icons from bitmaps, large ones from vector) is the ideal solution.

Sorry, you are still not making sense. Small bitmap icons just won't make sense once resolution approaches 300dpi or even more. The icon will be sharp purely based on resolution alone. The need to hand-tweak small icons is a consequence of having to work with so insanely poor resolution.

A vector icon would obviously also be able to include bitmap information (but with a vector mask). The realitive equivalent of a 128x128 icon at 72dpi is 534x534px at 300 dpi. A 16x16px icon at 72dpi will be 66x66px at 300dpi. Would you need to hand-tweak the 66x66px version of an icon? Possibly, but to a much lesser extent than you need to tweak a 16x16px icon.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Mediaman_12

If a 'Wine-like' layer is included in the default install of OSX it will virtually kill off a huge amount of Mac App development, especially with big apps e.g. what incentive would the likes of MS have to continue development of Mac Office when the Windows version works 'just fine'. the same would go for Adobe, Macromedia etc.

I disagree. What incentive do developers have now? Their apps will work in Virtual PC. The answer is, they don't work well. A WINE layer would most definitely not work as well as the real thing, and would likely be lacking in terms of Mac integration.

The ability to run Windows apps without any modification can't be compared to the current ability to run X11 apps. There is a huge pool of well known, popular applications on the Windows side. Where as on X11 there is (just about) Open Office. Nobody I know with a Mac is interested in using X11 (or is even aware what it is), They would probably all be using at least one Windows app.

I can think of a couple apps. Kontact and Evolution are so much further along than anything on the Mac side as far as integrating with a non-Exchange Groupware server. Gnu-cash is a replacement for Quicken that I don't think is available in Aqua. Gimp is a replacement for Photoshop. Just because Mac users unfortunately don't know about X11 apps doesn't mean they don't exist.

The support would be a nightmare.

No worse than the support of Classic.

Oh goody, all those Windows viruses etc. would be able to run.

No, WINE just emulates the API needed to run apps, it does not recreate the entire Windows environment. Apple would just have to figure out a way to sandbox Windows apps from the rest of OS X, if this wouldn't occur naturally anyway.

And finally, in the long term it would turn the Mac OS from a competing OS to a windows runtime environment, (and one that MS would be likely to attempt to hobble at evry chance it would get, as it would mean a viable way of running Windows apps without giving them any cash.

How could Microsoft make WINE hobble?

[production_coordinator]

Spotlight should be more configurable so I can make it search by file name only. SOME of us organize their computers meticulously. I would be fine if they keep the default the way it is, but I want it more customizable...

Folder icons are starting to look aged... I wouldn't mind seeing an upgrade there.

I like the remote idea... Perhaps bluetooth?

[tooki]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

Sorry, you are still not making sense. Small bitmap icons just won't make sense once resolution approaches 300dpi or even more. The icon will be sharp purely based on resolution alone. The need to hand-tweak small icons is a consequence of having to work with so insanely poor resolution.

A vector icon would obviously also be able to include bitmap information (but with a vector mask). The realitive equivalent of a 128x128 icon at 72dpi is 534x534px at 300 dpi. A 16x16px icon at 72dpi will be 66x66px at 300dpi. Would you need to hand-tweak the 66x66px version of an icon? Possibly, but to a much lesser extent than you need to tweak a 16x16px icon.

I've made perfect sense.

"Sharpness", as you describe it, is only one aspect of icon design. A small, sharp icon with too much detail will still look like a mess. (In print, where you have very high resolutions at your disposal, you still have to keep things simpler the smaller they get.) There's no practical way to have vector data smoothly simplify itself as it scales, so either you need multiple bitmaps or multiple vector files to get around this problem.

But moreover, you make the assumption that we will be going over to high-res displays: my point is that low-res will be around for a VERY long time still, so low-res icons will be very important for years to come. I don't expect high-resolution UIs to be widespread for at least 10 years.

tooki

[TheSpaz]

Originally Posted by tooki

I've made perfect sense.

"Sharpness", as you describe it, is only one aspect of icon design. A small, sharp icon with too much detail will still look like a mess. (In print, where you have very high resolutions at your disposal, you still have to keep things simpler the smaller they get.) There's no practical way to have vector data smoothly simplify itself as it scales, so either you need multiple bitmaps or multiple vector files to get around this problem.

But moreover, you make the assumption that we will be going over to high-res displays: my point is that low-res will be around for a VERY long time still, so low-res icons will be very important for years to come. I don't expect high-resolution UIs to be widespread for at least 10 years.

tooki

AMEN!

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I disagree. What incentive do developers have now? Their apps will work in Virtual PC. The answer is, they don't work well. A WINE layer would most definitely not work as well as the real thing, and would likely be lacking in terms of Mac integration.

I can think of a couple apps. Kontact and Evolution are so much further along than anything on the Mac side as far as integrating with a non-Exchange Groupware server. Gnu-cash is a replacement for Quicken that I don't think is available in Aqua. Gimp is a replacement for Photoshop. Just because Mac users unfortunately don't know about X11 apps doesn't mean they don't exist.

No worse than the support of Classic.

No, WINE just emulates the API needed to run apps, it does not recreate the entire Windows environment. Apple would just have to figure out a way to sandbox Windows apps from the rest of OS X, if this wouldn't occur naturally anyway.

You're wrong besson, the capacity to run Windows apps with acceptably well would kill the Mac. There would be no incentive whatsoever to develop on the Mac directly and incur the development, marketing and support costs for another platform if it were unnecessary. Any rational person would choose to develop in Win32 and only Win32. And Classic has no bearing on this discussion. Classic was a dying environment for development; Windows, of course, is not. Of course it didn't happen with Virtual PC because VPC is slow emulation. If VPC had run at even near native speeds, it would have had a serious detrimental effect on the Mac. I'm even leery of dual-boot capability.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by tooki

I've made perfect sense.

"Sharpness", as you describe it, is only one aspect of icon design. A small, sharp icon with too much detail will still look like a mess. (In print, where you have very high resolutions at your disposal, you still have to keep things simpler the smaller they get.) There's no practical way to have vector data smoothly simplify itself as it scales, so either you need multiple bitmaps or multiple vector files to get around this problem.

But moreover, you make the assumption that we will be going over to high-res displays: my point is that low-res will be around for a VERY long time still, so low-res icons will be very important for years to come. I don't expect high-resolution UIs to be widespread for at least 10 years.

I am making that assumption, because that where we are heading. How long it takes is absolutely irrelevant to this discussion whatsoever.

Icons, no matter what size, should never be too detailed. That just goes against everything an icon is. You can have a complex vector or a complex bitmap, it just won't make a good icon. A great icon is one that is simple no matter what size it is.

I think we are both making sense here, it's only that my perspective is a bit bigger than yours.

[gadster]

Sorry guys, somehow I don't think the intricacies of icon design will figure hugely in the next iteration of the Mac OS, even if the attention to detail demands it. It's a secondary consideration, at best.

I'm expecting paradigm-shifting, 'why-didn't-i-think-of-that' stuff.

See Aperture as a for instance. What app does that resemble?

None, what so ever.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall in the Apple development labs. Who knows what they are working on now?

[Adam Betts]

The problem with vector is that it's very cpu intensive to draw on screen. The more complex vector art is the slower it will be rendered. It'll only encourage artists to keep their artwork extremely simple/dumb (think Windows XP system icons), a step back from OS X's photorealistic icons in my opinion.

OS X handles bitmap scaling extremely well no matter what the size is.

Imagine rendering 100 photorealistic vector icons on your desktop O.O

[tooki]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

I am making that assumption, because that where we are heading. How long it takes is absolutely irrelevant to this discussion whatsoever.

Icons, no matter what size, should never be too detailed. That just goes against everything an icon is. You can have a complex vector or a complex bitmap, it just won't make a good icon. A great icon is one that is simple no matter what size it is.

I think we are both making sense here, it's only that my perspective is a bit bigger than yours.

Insulting me does no good.

I think mine is a practical view: all I have said is that we cannot leave behind low-res, because that's THE standard now, and for the foreseeable future. High-res display won't be common for a while -- the timeframe is very relevant, because nixing low-res icons now would cause huge problems now. It'd be causing problems now to fix a problem that hasn't happened yet.

tooki

[Horsepoo!!!]

I also think vector icons are a bad idea. It might be an idea waaaaay down the road but I think the focus should be on vector widgets and UI elements that use bitmaps...

Apple should simply up the bar...512x512 icons for apps (someone has said that Apple has already been adding this behind-the-scenes) and 128x128 icons for toolbars.

Now...this doesn't mean we're going to have icons that take up half our screens. It just means that on a monitors with denser resolution, the icons will use up the icon size that makes the most sense. This will result in very sharp and pleasing icons.

With rez independence, beyond a certain pixel density, OS X can stop anti-aliasing fonts. Pixel artists can stop anti-aliasing their art (well...they can continue to do so but the anti-aliasing will become less noticeable.)

A vector UI that doesn't use bitmaps would either be too CPU intensive (if complex enough to look good) or would look like ass (if simple)...it would be a step backwards to what we have today.

[SMacTech]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

Apple should simply up the bar...512x512 icons for apps (someone has said that Apple has already been adding this behind-the-scenes) and 128x128 icons for toolbar.

I think this is a great idea, while maintaining good looking lower res icons. What is used in FrontRow now?

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

I have been using Aperture for 24 hours and love the interface.

I think the 10.5 finder will look much like it.

It uses core image, it is super easy to find things you are looking for, It is smooth, logical and makes good use of space.

Why need folders on the desktop if you can have a long list of "projects" on the left? Think about how easy things would be moving files, there would be no need for Finder windows.
I LOVE the way Aperture shows you when you import where you are moving things from and to were.

This is partly how Windows 98 did it when they integrated IE.

Apple mentioned how iTunes influenced Spotlight, people love it, it is fast and logical.

This is what Apple needs to move towards and AWAY from these windows.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Haha yeah integrating IE into Windows was such a masterstroke.

While 10.5 will certainly use Core Image, like 10.4 already does, it will not rely on it. There are still far too many machines out there not CI capable so they system must be able to run without that ability. It doesn't really matter anyway, as CI is just effects and doesn't add anything to the UI that can't be done without it.

As for Spotlight, its reception among users is lukewarm at best. Only in 10.4.3 has Spotlight become fast enough to be usable is so limited as it is that it isn't reliable as a search engine - simply because it doesn't always *find* things. Even when they are *there*
Its interface is also a mess, not knowing whether it is its own app or a part of the Finder. I had high hopes for Spotlight, but I'm down to Earth now. It may well become pretty neat but not in the near future.

Apple needs to move away from harebrained interface ideas, such as the iTunes Finder and move to a design meant for file manipulation etc. Meaning a music organizing interface was a bad idea for the Finder and a photo organizing interface will be too. Sorry Skywalker, but one shoe does not fit all.

If the iTunes design was so perfect well, then Aperture would look a lot different now wouldn't it?

cheers

W-Y

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Why can't the whole desktop/finder be one giant open save dialogue box? Sounds perfect to me.

[TheoCryst]

No, our minds will probably not be blown. I'm thinking some smaller changes are in order, at least for the immediate future. Metal will probably go the way of the dodo (thank God), with much of the UI being replaced with the plastic of iTunes or, quite possibly (knowing Apple), a completely new look-and-feel. I foresee tweaks to the Finder and to Spotlight, but nothing monumental. Maybe tabs in Finder, or more options for Spotlight (sorting metadata before typing anything).

As for the search-versus-organize debate that this thread has become, here are my two cents: search will NOT replace old-skool organization, at least not in the short-term (not before 10.7 at the very earliest). There are just too many people who were raised on classic Mac or pre-XP Windows left out there. To so drastically change the way we use our computers at this point would be virtual suicide for Apple. Evolution is the key, not revolution. Allow the Finder to edit metadata for now. Allow the two to live side-by-side, refining both and appeasing everyone.

Oh, and did I mention getting rid of the ing metal look? Ugh, that was a bad idea.

[kent m]

Originally Posted by JulesLt

Good point - it's the external database of metadata that makes iTunes so useful.

You know, one thing I think I might like from all of this is the ability to 'soft-link' between specified files and/or to create 'hyperlinks' between specific areas or text strings in different documents...

By 'soft links' I mean that documents would live where I want them on my HD but could also be part of various other 'groups' that I would add them to. I imagine that a way to view the groups might be via the preview pane - a drop down menu with a list... or maye another view mode... similar to iTunes... or there might be a drop down menu available somewhere in the apps - "Jump to..." Sure, this is similar to what can be done in the current sys vis aliases, but I'd like the metadat benefits taken a bit further.

By 'hyperlinks' what I mean is basically that. I'd like to be viewing a document, browsing a web page, reading an email, whatever, and decide that something I'm viewing relates to another doc I have in mind... so I select a text string and "Create a Hyperlink..." where I find another doc, select a text string, and "Set Hyperlink".

It might also be nice to have a built in Find feature where I could select a text string and do a search for related etceteras from that app/doc, the results of which would show in a floating window...

[Socially Awkward Solo]

With Windows Vista getting pretty flashy and just about on par with 10.4, Windows media player beta's that look better than iTunes... you guys still think we are going to have the same old Finder with just spotlight integrated better?

Apple better redefine what computer interfaces are about in 10.5 or they will run into the same problem as when Windows 95 came out. People couldn't see what the big difference was between OS9 and Windows 95 in terms of presentation.

With Expose and QE apple could do some amazing things and interfaces like Aperture and Front row might give us a taste of what's coming.

Again, I am not talking about getting rid of brushed metal and using the unified look but more on revolutionary new ideas like Expose was but better integrated into every part of the OS. OSX currently does not make good use of large monitors.

10.5 needs to make Vista look 8 years old before it even ships.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

With Windows Vista getting pretty flashy and just about on par with 10.4, Windows media player beta's that look better than iTunes... you guys still think we are going to have the same old Finder with just spotlight integrated better?

Apple better redefine what computer interfaces are about in 10.5 or they will run into the same problem as when Windows 95 came out. People couldn't see what the big difference was between OS9 and Windows 95 in terms of presentation.

With Expose and QE apple could do some amazing things and interfaces like Aperture and Front row might give us a taste of what's coming.

Again, I am not talking about getting rid of brushed metal and using the unified look but more on revolutionary new ideas like Expose was but better integrated into every part of the OS. OSX currently does not make good use of large monitors.

10.5 needs to make Vista look 8 years old before it even ships.

Spotlight needs better integration in the Finder. I'd like to see a brand new Finder that focuses primarily on Spotlight but can double as a traditional hierarchical file system browser. But it's time to move away from static hierarchies (which essentially represent a primitive form of metadata: location) which made sense in 1984 and possibly 1994 but made little sense in 2004 if we consider how many files we had on our hard drives then and especially how many we have now.

So better Spotlight integration...Spotlight bugs have to be squished once and for all. A lot of people hate Spotlight for the wrong reasons...the bugs. Spotlight is awesome, it's just too bad some people are having problems with Spotlight not indexing (people can't find their files) or over indexing (indexing volumes that really shouldn't be indexed).

I'm guessing 10.5 will mark the end of resolution dependence and mark the beginning of resolution independence...I'd wager we'll see a lot more CoreImage effects added to the resolution independent GUI.

Unfortunately, we're not going to see anything revolutionary, but I think the overall experience will be more pleasant.

As for iTunes...it's a lost cause. Because Apple insists that iTunes Mac and iTunes Windows look the same and act the same, it doesn't seem like the iTunes team is willing to rewrite iTunes for Mac or at least incorporate Spotlight into it or other niceties that don't exist on the Windows side.