[GatoVolador]

I was just thinking about window resizing and i was struck with an idea. in macos9 when you resized a window all you saw was the outline, and while you didn't have a good idea of what the new-sized window would look like, you could see exactly what you would be covering up (stuff behind the window). and in macosX you get the live resizing (albeit slow) but then you can't see through the window to position it precisely according to things behind it.

does anyone else think that it just might be handy if the window would go to 50% transparency while you resized it and then back to 100% once you let go? of course, i would only be for it if it didn't make window resizing even slower, but there are definitely some very functinal uses of transparency that i don't has Apple has taken advantage of completey, yet.

anyone, anyone?[/LIST]
[ 12-15-2001: Message edited by: GatoVolador ]

[Xeo]

If it was just an outline like OS 9, that would be fine. I think the transparency thing could be nice... maybe like OS 9 where the whole window doesn't go transparent, just the "new" window to give us a preview, but the original would still be 100% like it was.

I dunno.

[GatoVolador]

yeah yeah there we go i like that idea even better

[neilw]

I wonder if the performance were better if people would be thinking about this at all. On Windoze machines, live resizing works fantastically (in most programs, anyway) and I can't imagine turning it off.

Ultimately, though, it should be a preference option, and I can't imagine why Apple has not provided it. They seem determined to make sure that all the eye candy stays turned on all the time...

[karbon]

Originally posted by neilw:
<STRONG>Ultimately, though, it should be a preference option, and I can't imagine why Apple has not provided it. They seem determined to make sure that all the eye candy stays turned on all the time...</STRONG>

I think it has a lot to do with Apple wanting to make one interface that needs as few options as possible. An experience on one mac, should be same on another. It's not an easy task to make a graphical user interface that will work for both the pros and the newbies, and that sure has it's drawbacks.

However, I think Apple will manage this as time goes on...

[Calli46]

does anyone else think that it just might be handy if the window would go to 50% transparency while you resized it and then back to 100% once you let go?

Cool! At long last, transparency becoming useful !!!
Good idea! You get my vote.

[moreno]

with or without transparency, the result is the same...

[juanvaldes]

Originally posted by karbon:
<STRONG>

I think it has a lot to do with Apple wanting to make one interface that needs as few options as possible. An experience on one mac, should be same on another. It's not an easy task to make a graphical user interface that will work for both the pros and the newbies, and that sure has it's drawbacks.

However, I think Apple will manage this as time goes on...</STRONG>

How about they add a whole bunch of great "power" options for us and keep the current interface now as the simple finder from 9. That way by default the newbie will not be overwhelmed, and we can get our power options.

BTW: GatoVolador, great idea!

[Phoenix1701]

Hmm... I like the idea, but I think we need to refine it a bit more... having the entire window go translucent is way too jarring, especially for a large window... having only the new bit go translucent (or, if the window's getting smaller, making the part that is no longer there translucent instead) would fix that problem, but it causes another:



See the issue there? Look closely at the status bar just below the toolbar. That's a rather minor one, but imagine if you had a matrix of check boxes all set to right align in the window; you'd see each of them twice, one superimposed upon the other, both in their old position and their new one. Yuck.

That said, I think the idea has a great deal of merit, so... any thoughts?
(Note: being a programmer, I can tell you that having the controls that change appear only in their final positions when the window's being resized would be absolute hell to work into the window manager, and would probably break a great many people's code, so let's not even talk about that.)

[OverclockedHomoSapien]

does anyone else think that it just might be handy if the window would go to 50% transparency while you resized it and then back to 100% once you let go?

Wow, that's a brilliant idea! I like it. I don't see any problems with a large window being "jarring" at all. It would simultaneously be functional and cool.

You should submit that idea to Apple...not the standard OS X feedback, find a better channel where your voice will be heard. Maybe they will even give you a tour of their skunkworks if they decide to use your idea.

BTW, no worry about GUI performance after MWSF. New mobos for iMac LCDs, Powermac G5s, they will have a "secret weapon" that will make all speed problems with Aqua vanish. I can't say much more, but it will be revolutionary, and it will allow Apple to do things with their GUI that Windows cannot do, will not copy, because they don't have the control over both software and hardware like apple!

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by OverclockedHomoSapien:
<STRONG>

BTW, no worry about GUI performance after MWSF. New mobos for iMac LCDs, Powermac G5s, they will have a "secret weapon" that will make all speed problems with Aqua vanish. I can't say much more, but it will be revolutionary, and it will allow Apple to do things with their GUI that Windows cannot do, will not copy, because they don't have the control over both software and hardware like apple! </STRONG>

Does the word "Raycer" occur at all?

[Jelle Monkmater]

Originally posted by OverclockedHomoSapien:
<STRONG>BTW, no worry about GUI performance after MWSF. New mobos for iMac LCDs, Powermac G5s, they will have a "secret weapon" that will make all speed problems with Aqua vanish. I can't say much more, but it will be revolutionary, and it will allow Apple to do things with their GUI that Windows cannot do, will not copy, because they don't have the control over both software and hardware like apple! </STRONG>

What about the words "left out in the cold"? My G4 is a year old, my iBook not even a month and Apple is basically making both of them obsolete instantaneously by pulling just stunt? Are you sure about this? It would tick a lot of people off.

[BatmanPPC]

Originally posted by Jelle Monkmater:
<STRONG>

What about the words "left out in the cold"? My G4 is a year old, my iBook not even a month and Apple is basically making both of them obsolete instantaneously by pulling just stunt? Are you sure about this? It would tick a lot of people off.</STRONG>

Heh. To quote Weird Al in It's All About the Pentiums ... "...but it was obsolete before I opened the box". It's just the way this industry goes.

[Jelle Monkmater]

Originally posted by BatmanPPC:
<STRONG>

Heh. To quote Weird Al in It's All About the Pentiums ... "...but it was obsolete before I opened the box". It's just the way this industry goes.</STRONG>

Man, Apple sure is getting skimpy with what it's supporting with OS X. If it's at all true.

[dr. zoidberg]

Originally posted by Jelle Monkmater:
<STRONG>

What about the words "left out in the cold"? My G4 is a year old, my iBook not even a month and Apple is basically making both of them obsolete instantaneously by pulling just stunt? Are you sure about this? It would tick a lot of people off.</STRONG>

i�m not sure if i interpret you correctly... but when it comes to hardware alone, i�d say apple should rather "pull as many stunts" as they can!!!! because when i�ll be buying my next mac (whenever that will be), i�d frickin LOVE to get an integrated raycer chip blasting all that funky neato gfx on my screen at stellar speed. it�s absolutely NOT an argument to say that apple should refrain from adding a hardware graphics acceleration/coprocessor just because it would make some g3/g4 user burst into tears.
nevertheless, i say: put in that freakin' chip already, AND optimize the heck out of os x so that also with current g3s/g4s you can get the best performance possible out of it.

[limbotron]

I wish apple had put hooks in the OS to allow 3rd partites to substitute behaviors and give us option. I have some machines with 3rd party video cards that are dog slow on OS X. For these machines I would like simple outline resizing always. On my standard machines w/ apple installed video cards I'd probably like transparent resizing/dragging or the current default. What I hate is not having a choice.

(Under OS 9 I use Power Windows to change some of my window options: http://www.kaleidoscope.net/greg/PowerWindows.html )

[moreno]

can you imagine the platinum sounds on Mac OS X, when doing the slow resizing?! GRRR GGRRR GRRRRR GRRRRRR eheheh

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by Jelle Monkmater:
<STRONG>

Man, Apple sure is getting skimpy with what it's supporting with OS X. If it's at all true. </STRONG>

Not really ... it's not as if OS X would stop working on older machines once the hypothetical Raycer PowerMacs came out. "Supported" does not mean it runs equally well on all machines; it just means it runs. Operating systems work better on newer hardware, fact of life. Given how advanced Quartz is and how speedy Windows XP (allegedly) is, I think Apple needs to do everything it can to perk up its hardware. If this turns out to be true, I'm all for it. In fact, I've been hearing so much positive buzz about this MacWorld that I'm seriously debating selling my old G4 and putting the cash toward a new Apple box. Trouble is, who'd want a 350Mhz G4 at this point?

[theolein]

Originally posted by OverclockedHomoSapien:
<STRONG>

BTW, no worry about GUI performance after MWSF. New mobos for iMac LCDs, Powermac G5s, they will have a "secret weapon" that will make all speed problems with Aqua vanish. I can't say much more, but it will be revolutionary, and it will allow Apple to do things with their GUI that Windows cannot do, will not copy, because they don't have the control over both software and hardware like apple! </STRONG>

Which will obviously be some kind of Quartz/PDF processor on a chip on the motherboard. Apart from the usual rumour mill stories that could actually make some sense of Apple's absolute refusal to support themes and keep the Aqua GUI standard as they'ld have problems supporting too much stuff if they moved to a hardware processing thing for Aqua. But maybe I'm just dreaming anyway.

[moki]

Originally posted by OverclockedHomoSapien:
<STRONG>BTW, no worry about GUI performance after MWSF. New mobos for iMac LCDs, Powermac G5s, they will have a "secret weapon" that will make all speed problems with Aqua vanish </STRONG>

I dunno where people are getting this stuff, but I *assure* you that there will be no G5 at MacWorld/SF -- indeed, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if there were no G5s in 2002 at all. It just isn't on the radar screen, and won't be under late 2002 at the earliest.

As for the more tightly integrated video acceleration that you allude to, yeah, that'd be cool -- but it doesn't solve the problem for old Macs, which is where you're most likely to be bothered by it.

Any of the current Macs being sold today run Mac OS X well enough.

[ChaChi Boy]

Originally posted by moki:
<STRONG>
Any of the current Macs being sold today run Mac OS X well enough.</STRONG>

Yes but not the iBooks, it is still too slow.

[diamondsw]

OS X runs fine on the iBooks being sold today. I have an older Pismo, and it saddens me to see it outclassed by an iBook in pretty much every way. *sniff*

[Metzen]

Originally posted by GatoVolador:
<STRONG>I was just thinking about window resizing and i was struck with an idea. in macos9 when you resized a window all you saw was the outline, and while you didn't have a good idea of what the new-sized window would look like, you could see exactly what you would be covering up (stuff behind the window). and in macosX you get the live resizing (albeit slow) but then you can't see through the window to position it precisely according to things behind it.

does anyone else think that it just might be handy if the window would go to 50% transparency while you resized it and then back to 100% once you let go? of course, i would only be for it if it didn't make window resizing even slower, but there are definitely some very functinal uses of transparency that i don't has Apple has taken advantage of completey, yet.

anyone, anyone?
</STRONG>

Get WindowShade X. You can do exactly as you describe here, abeit a little cruder. Setting the window to 50% Opacity and dragging it...

Well... Let's just say that the infamous "eraser effect" returns (albeit at 50% opacity) while resizing an OmniWeb window (400Mhz iMac). If you thought OS X.0.0 resizing was bad, wait till you try this. List view, uh ah, it's horribly slow (at least 1 second to redraw translucent contents, very noticeable lag behind cursor).

I don't think we want to go back to this kind of performance just yet...

[Jelle Monkmater]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
<STRONG>

Not really ... it's not as if OS X would stop working on older machines once the hypothetical Raycer PowerMacs came out. "Supported" does not mean it runs equally well on all machines; it just means it runs. Operating systems work better on newer hardware, fact of life. Given how advanced Quartz is and how speedy Windows XP (allegedly) is, I think Apple needs to do everything it can to perk up its hardware. If this turns out to be true, I'm all for it. In fact, I've been hearing so much positive buzz about this MacWorld that I'm seriously debating selling my old G4 and putting the cash toward a new Apple box. Trouble is, who'd want a 350Mhz G4 at this point? </STRONG>

Yeah, but I'm just a mean bastard and the thought of having paid money for something that, had I waited a bit, could have been something with a hypothetical Raycer chip...

Then again, I'm aware I'll never catch up with Moore's Law and that whining isn't going to make anyone but me feel any better. I'm just afraid HW acceleration is going to be the rage while us non-HW enabled will see X not getting any quicker.

BTW, the version of XP I've seen is an absolute B*tch to work with on a Pentium III 800-something with 640MB and 40GB SCSI HD. Speedier? Well, only in the sense you lose less time restarting your computer than before.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by GatoVolador:
<STRONG>does anyone else think that it just might be handy if the window would go to 50% transparency while you resized it and then back to 100% once you let go? of course, i would only be for it if it didn't make window resizing even slower, but there are definitely some very functinal uses of transparency that i don't has Apple has taken advantage of completey, yet.
</STRONG>

I'm no expert but it seems this would be slower, because the computer has to calculate a composite of the window and the layer under it, as opposed to simply drawing the window being resized. You can try this experiment using WindowshadeX and see what I mean: click on a window to make it semitransparent (key combo depends on your settings in WindowshadeX) and then move the window around the desktop. See how choppy the movement has become? Your computer is now making twice the calculations (well, maybe not twice, but definitely there is an increase there).

[Agent69]

I like the idea but I still think outline dragging and resizing should be an option for those who prefer it. In my case, I just don't care for live resizing/updating.

Agent69

[ink]

Originally posted by moreno:
<STRONG>can you imagine the platinum sounds on Mac OS X, when doing the slow resizing?! GRRR GGRRR GRRRRR GRRRRRR eheheh</STRONG>

LOL!

I just wish I could make a Terminal.app window longer without accidentally making it wider. They really need to put in an 'outline only' resize mode, this opaque resize is just WAY too slow on my iBook/500 -- I can't even imagine what it must be like on a slower machine.

[Eug]

Originally posted by diamondsw:
<STRONG>OS X runs fine on the iBooks being sold today. I have an older Pismo, and it saddens me to see it outclassed by an iBook in pretty much every way. *sniff*</STRONG>

"Fine" is a relative term. I have the fastest iBook in existence and I still think OS X feels slow. For this reason, I'd rather have the old OS 9 type of outline resizing (like in Word v.X) for now, for the sake of GUI speed. I do like having the option of transparent resizing though, for when I have my new G5 iBook in 2003.

[Skywalkers new Hand]

Originally posted by diamondsw:
<STRONG>OS X runs fine on the iBooks being sold today. I have an older Pismo, and it saddens me to see it outclassed by an iBook in pretty much every way. *sniff*</STRONG>

Fine is very relative. OSX runs awesome on my G4 Cube 450MHz, the iBook still feels very slow even though it is 150MHz faster (G3).

[Jelle Monkmater]

Originally posted by Skywalkers new Hand:
<STRONG>

Fine is very relative. OSX runs awesome on my G4 Cube 450MHz, the iBook still feels very slow even though it is 150MHz faster (G3).</STRONG>

Maybe I've got a really freaked-out iBook, but OS X runs almost as fast on it as on my G4 DP 500, with 256MB of RAM. In fact, in day-to-day use I can't really tell the difference unless I put them next to each other. And whenever I do that I notice that the G4 tower is significantly bigger and heavier. Erm, I mean that the G4 is indeed a little faster, but not by much.

[Skywalkers new Hand]

Originally posted by Jelle Monkmater:
<STRONG>

Maybe I've got a really freaked-out iBook, but OS X runs almost as fast on it as on my G4 DP 500, with 256MB of RAM. In fact, in day-to-day use I can't really tell the difference unless I put them next to each other. And whenever I do that I notice that the G4 tower is significantly bigger and heavier. Erm, I mean that the G4 is indeed a little faster, but not by much.</STRONG>

I guess it depends on what you are doing. My iBook does a mean job of sitting in the finder and checking e-mail.

[Jelle Monkmater]

Originally posted by Skywalkers new Hand:
<STRONG>

I guess it depends on what you are doing. My iBook does a mean job of sitting in the finder and checking e-mail.</STRONG>

I just realised I might have the slowest G4 DP 500 in existence.

But as a referrer, here's what I did on my iBook yesterday. Note that apart from Otto Matic, I don't close any of the apps I run.
-- doing a bit of forum talking. Not very processor intensive, though OmniWeb sometimes shoots right into the 90% CPU usage for no apparent reason. Same on my G4.
-- Running VNC (server and client). No idea how this easts into the system. A bit, perhaps.
-- Otto Matic. Gotta love the game. Runs smooth as silk too.
-- Tony Hawk Pro Skater whatever. Smooth, but ugly, ugly colours.
-- iTunes. Bit tinny, but I can't always lug around my G4 with my stereo attached to it. I'm 6'7", not stupid.
-- Cocoa programming. Probably does nothing much in the load department while happily tapping away, but compiling is slower than on my G4.
-- other permanently open applications are the Terminal, System Preferences and BBEdit 6.5.

Hm, I don't have my Mail app open. That could be the difference!

[Skywalkers new Hand]

Originally posted by Jelle Monkmater:
<STRONG>

I just realised I might have the slowest G4 DP 500 in existence. </STRONG>

You want speed? Stream an MP3 at 128 KBs from iTunes (that is 40% of your CPU easy) and run LimeWire at the same time. Show's over.

[JLL]

Originally posted by Calli46:
<STRONG>

Cool! At long last, transparency becoming useful !!!
Good idea! You get my vote.</STRONG>

Transparency is useful in many places. What I like best is when you copy files: they are transparent until fully copied.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by moki:
<STRONG>

I dunno where people are getting this stuff, but I *assure* you that there will be no G5 at MacWorld/SF -- indeed, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if there were no G5s in 2002 at all. It just isn't on the radar screen, and won't be under late 2002 at the earliest.
</STRONG>

There's been a lot of scuttlebutt about people testing G5 systems, Andrew, with some folks claiming Apple's had prototype G5 machines in circulation for months now. I don't think a G5 will show at MWSF, but many other folks do and they have fairly good reasons. Yours is by far the most pessimistic take I've heard--if Apple can't get G5s out in 2002 at all, they'd better get ready to not sell very many PowerMacs.

[moki]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
<STRONG>

There's been a lot of scuttlebutt about people testing G5 systems, Andrew, with some folks claiming Apple's had prototype G5 machines in circulation for months now. I don't think a G5 will show at MWSF, but many other folks do and they have fairly good reasons. Yours is by far the most pessimistic take I've heard--if Apple can't get G5s out in 2002 at all, they'd better get ready to not sell very many PowerMacs.</STRONG>

I don't agree. The new Apollo G4's are really G4.5's -- and they will reach some pretty decent clockspeeds in 2002.

Again, you will not see G5s at MacWorld/SF. I can promise you that.
I'm fairly doubtful you'll see G5s in 2002 at all -- and if you do, it will be late in the year.

I'll be happy with a dual ghz apollo g4 myself

[mikemako]

There will be no "G5" in January, but 3 new G4 models based on the 7460 chip with the low-end G4 surpassing the speed of our current fastest, and the high-end topping out at 1.4GHz. The processor speed along with a faster version of DDR SDRAM @266MHz should dramatically change the feel of our current slug of an OS.