| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Apple's OS X: What Linux Wants To Be? | |
|
||
| Time: 00:00 EST/05:00 GMT | News Source: NewsFactor | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Following Apple's (Nasdaq: AAPL - news) successful introduction of its new UNIX based operating system, OS X (pronounced OS Ten), many are asking whether OS X poses a serious challenge to Linux for the title of best alternative desktop operating system. Others go even further, asking whether OS X is the UNIX world's best chance to topple Microsoft's Windows hegemony. "Apple could consider trying to dominate the desktop by supporting multiple kernels, including Linux, on multiple hardware platforms, and [give] Microsoft serious competition in the OS market," Goldman said. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 323 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:32:06 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 61 (168.254.3.99) at 3/8/2002 8:35:55 AM |
|
Well, you all are obviously NOT UI specialists....
Aqua is actually quite burdensom in terms of getting things done quickly. Not to say that it's not pretty, it's very very nice looking, it's just no where near as usable as the Windows UI... nor as customizeable. |
| #2 By 20 (168.215.253.242) at 3/8/2002 12:24:14 PM |
| Port OS X to other platforms then I'll consider OS X a threat. Until then, it's just more Apple proprietary crap. |
| #3 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/8/2002 1:36:57 PM |
|
First off, #7 is absolutely wrong. OS X is derived from OpenStep which was already compatible with x86 hardware before Apple purchased it. Apple is considering it's options wisely and slowly, but the top layers of OS X --particularly Aqua-- are optimized for performance on RISC architecture, and it is questionable whether or not you could get such a media intensive system to operate on x86.
stubear, OS X has gotten some Linux converts, but I think you'd find that many of the Penguins are the most diehard OS X critics. I think primarily because they are cheap, love geek chic and easy ain't chic, and they are afraid of a proprietary answer to all their problems as well. As for UI design, can you imagine a system called "Windows" with windows you can't see through (The GRAY app window)? That's starting with a great big bad idea from the get go.The Windows metaphor is the most inconsistent and detrimental concept I have ever encountered from the get go. Some apps only open as document windows (Notepad) so if you open a new document you lose your previous doc window, some apps you close, some you quit, some apps (Access) if you max/min a table window, you also max/min other windows within the app window (that makes no sense), some apps even support multi-windows like the windows shell itself, some apps support Mac-like pallettes but for the most part the app window bounds doc windows (why?), some apps support multiple instantiations of the app as separate windows, some do not, some do both, some force you to open 2 app windows even if you want them in one (Access, for example, again), what if I want to look at 2 docs in 2 different apps? I have to resize the app windows so both are visible on screen which isn't easy and then I have to resize the document windows because they are constrained within the app window, other bad designs are even worse (Photoshop) if I maximize an image, the image goes to 100% but the window also expands to a maxed grey window (how many people work on one image in Photoshop? Now I can't see my other images), there is no control to snap a window to 100% image size bounded at the dimension of the image, another example(Dreamweaver) every single window (document, pallete or other) basically contains the main application window. You can accidentally quit the program by closing a pallette you think you don't need for a minute, there are many, many more problems with this "Windows" paradigm, but I'll leave it at: think about the main "window" in "Windows"; why in the hell is that window a grey brick wall onto nothing. In a Mac, I can have 10 applications and "see thru" to all the documents I have open in each of those applications. Mac OS X will continue to develop and has far, far less UI issues to deal with since it's not built on a horrible concept from the start. This post was edited by sodajerk on Friday, March 08, 2002 at 16:29. |
| #4 By 1845 (12.254.231.11) at 3/8/2002 2:50:41 PM |
|
You are quite entitled to your OPINION sodajerk, but it is just that, your opinion. I quite prefer the Windows UI to the Mac UI.
So you can't see through windows, huh? I guess that bothers you. Since any application opens in a "window", if you want to get much work done, most of those windows probably need to be opaque. This is just a semantics attack on a metaphor not created by the makers of Windows. While we are on definitions that don't make sense (like app windows being opaque), why is the function f(x) = 1 an increasing function? It look constant to me, but all the calculus books I read called it an increasing function. The point is argue with those who made the definition, not with those who implement it. |
| #5 By 5444 (208.180.245.184) at 3/8/2002 3:07:46 PM |
|
So Soda,
If I told you there are programs that allow windows to have a alpha channel embedded. Which allows the window to become transparent?? What would you say to that. On top of that, What would people say if MS added that to the base layer of the OS. because you say that is important to you. Would that Innovation be using its monopoly power?? el |
| #6 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/8/2002 3:08:16 PM |
| Not really, Bob, although I expected Windows users not to appreciate this. Most windows actually have contents, but what does the app window contain or function as? It actually only provides the application menu bar on top (so why not have an independent bar instead of a window). From there, it's characteristics are just detriments: bounding other windows (if windows are already bound, why constrain them in another window) and the grey area (which some may appreciate if they don't want to work in a more multi-tasked, multi-application environment, but what is the option? You can't make it transparent. On the other hand, if you take the other perspective of allowing visual access to other applications, then you can provide the option of "Hide Others" and have the benefit of seeing multi-apps or seeing a blank canvas.) This is all bad design in my mind, but even if you do prefer to have bounded windows within other bounded windows and like to see unusable real estate that still doesn't resolve the issue of the many, many permutations and inconsistencies of the UI. |
| #7 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/8/2002 3:10:59 PM |
|
el, I would say alpha channels would still just be a hack because you are still bounding bound elements within a container that serves no purpose.
As I pointed out to Bob, this still doesn't resolve the issue of inconsistencies and the fact that almost every app has a different windowing behavior. No, that wouldn't be using monopoly power, that would be finally learning some good interaction design. |
| #8 By 5444 (208.180.245.184) at 3/8/2002 3:21:20 PM |
|
How many here remember when *nix had the OS world by the Balls. ??
The only issue was that HPUX, ATT unix, Sun Unix and so on (don't remember the entire Number of Unix versions there were), but the main issue that a ap created for HP unix didn't always run on a att unix or a sun unix. They had the Main frame market by the balls. But these companies were tit for tat. They didn't look forward or downward and never expected the Desktop level computers to catch up to mainframe level. There was a half hearted attempt to create graphical enviroment for it. (if you call xwindows a real graphical enviroment) Xerox is another example of a company without forward looking enviroment. they are the creators of the Ethernet, the mouse, the GUI, and many other items in use today. Apple has a closed minded approach with Steve Jobs in the head. If they had maintain the outsourceing of hardware to other vendors and concentrate on the software side I imagine that they would be in a much better stance than they are now. Not to mention that they could expand thier software to beyond Apple based computers and even compete with a OS in the realm of the intel based world. El. |
| #9 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 3/8/2002 3:39:28 PM |
|
Sodajerk, it's not a hack. MS had support for transparencies and other UI enhancements before MacOS. They are a part of GDI+ which shipped as part of Windows 2000. The reason you don't see transparent windows and elabrate UI elements by default is because (as seen in MacOS) these things slow down the UI. Unlike Aqua, however, GDI+ functionality can be accelerated. And, while Apple focuses on 2D UI design, Microsoft is moving towards a 3D desktop.
Also, current x86 processors have RISC cores that run x86 instructions through translation. Besides that, it is well known, except by Apple and many of its customers, that PCs outperform Macs and have better system architectures. PCs would have no problem running MacOS X faster than Macs if there were an x86 version, and assuming the OS had adequate hardware support and optimization for the platform. To #2, check MSDN sometime. You will find that NT's core has been frequently updated and improved. The most recent update occuring in XP (NT 5.1). http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/01/12/XPKernel/XPKernel.asp |
| #10 By 5444 (208.180.245.184) at 3/8/2002 3:47:26 PM |
|
Alpha channels are a relatively new enviroment. and with current Hardware in the intel based system are a drain on cpu resourses.
I will grant one Item. Apple does have an advantage. They design the hardware that thier OS runs on. So they can control what is needed to support what they want in the UI. MS doesn't have that luxory. Part of having an open platform (as the PC is) that it has an almost infinant varients in power. So brand X may not have what brand Y does. When you sit down and look at that aspect of it. and then look at MS has done with windows it is an amazing accomplishment. Especially when they have close to 20 years of legacy systems that they have to support also. Apple in that Regard has a HUMONGOUS advantage. Not to mention a supieor, underlying CPU structure. Yes I do believe that the Motorola chips are a much better design than the Intel based chips. Unfortantly, in the IBM days. and then compaq opening the BIOS code the Clones market. Which in the long run Led to a MUCH larger choice in systems in the intel based systems which led to competition between those enviroments. and offered a lower priced system. Intel won that war. Now with even multiple vendors of Intel based chips. Intel, AMD, Via. even the CPU has an option for lower cost items. An Open Bus (PCI) and you get lower cost expansion (which apple finally caught onto) But you have a VERY VERY inconsistant platform that an OS must be programmed too. And a wide varience in graphics cards which provide the power for some of those features. Alpha channels being a big one that the Graphics sub system needs to support for it to be effective. Not to mention that MS dragged the 9x OS way to long. The only scarry thought in all of this. is that Motorola may pull out of the processor market, in the reorganization of its business to get profitable again. El |
| #11 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/8/2002 3:50:21 PM |
|
So how do I turn on transparent app windows in 2000, enforcer? By the way, I was calling it a hack because BobSmith calls the gray area a feature. If the definition of the app window is to provide the user with unusable, gray real estate so they don't see other windows, then changing that definition is a hack. If it's not a hack, then the app windows function isn't as Bob describes but then what is it's function?
Everyone is doing advanced research in 3D designs, I haven't seen any of them come out of the labs and onto the shelves. Aqua can be accelerated as well. If you think Windows support for alpha channels and other 2D visual effects even come close to the Mac OS (whether or not it came first, the implementation is just plain horrible), you've got the good drugs, I'll say that for you. I have no problem with Apple focusing on PowerPC optimization instead of trying to get all their developers to report twice over, I'd rather see them focused on making DVD burning 3x faster than Wintel, video editting in real-time without hardware, making media and scientific apps run substantially better than on x86. It's a preference and an opinion, but the clamoring from Windows users for an option they insist they don't want or need is rather interesting. I personally don't want my hardware/software solution to be commoditized even if it does mean saving a couple hundred bucks. This post was edited by sodajerk on Friday, March 08, 2002 at 16:22. |
| #12 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 3/8/2002 4:45:32 PM |
|
No drugs here.
One way of enabling the transpanancies is to use a program like Stardock's WindowFX http://www.stardock.com/products/windowfx/ or another program which takes advantaage of the GDI+ API. If you have an NVIDIA card, the latest beta drivers have support for enabling window transparency. There are also some freeware programs that allow you to enable it and control the level of transparancy. One is called Glass 2k. http://www.chime.tv/products/glass2k.shtml It's not just Windows that can be transparent, though. Menus and even the mouse cursor can take advantage of effects. Info on GDI+ can be found at http://www.microsoft.com/hwdev/archive/video/GDInext.asp http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/gdicpp/ugdiplus_1hk5.asp?frame=true http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/gdicpp/cpp_gdi+start_26ic.asp?frame=true Concerning the 3D desktop, I don't mean 3D as in roaming around looking for folders. I mean that it is planned sometime within the next few releases of Windows to make the desktop and all of Windows 3D accelerated. You may still have the appearance of the standard 2D Windows desktop, however, it will be 3D with a flat Z plane, and accelerated using DirectX. This would allow a great deal of increased functionality and utility for the OS and for applications. I don't know how Apple will be able to make DVD burning 3X faster than Wintel when there are current Mac users that must minimise iTunes to burn a CD faster. As for hardware, there is nothing wrong with comoditization when it allows you to get better hardware for a lower price than the Mac, and the ability to upgrade to the latest and greatest at your liesure and without having to purchase a new system all at once. Apple may want to get NVIDIA to help with hardware so they can have realtime surround sound editing added to their DVD suite. |
| #13 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/8/2002 5:03:23 PM |
|
Enforcer, considering having a transparent app window: if you now have a transparent window app and can see docs beneath it, can you "click through" it to those other docs or objects within those other docs. I would presume no. But which would be the predictable behavior? I'm not sure what the visual clues would entirely suggest. Visually, I would think, I could click on them, but then I could visually believe that I was clicking inside of the topmost app as well because of the bounding window? So, even with transparency, you still have the bounding barrier to other apps and you raise the level of confusion--you don't have a UI which is predictable.
My OS X has all of those features without requiring the shareware and I do not see the enhanced benefit. I am looking for visual modifications that translate to usablity and functionality. As for the 3d, I don't see the benefit of 3D if it is simply projected into 2D. The appearance can be created with 2D vector effects; the only way I could see an added functionality is by animating these 3D objects, something that could still be done with 2D but less efficiently. By the way, OS X has OpenGL as a low level API already and can be accessed by the system and apps. So I guess OS X is as far with 3D as Microsoft is with GDI+. OS X already does have 3X DVD burning speeds over Wintel; I've never had to minimize iTunes to burn faster, but I haven't frequently burned CDs with iTunes. But my Mac system is capable of burning a CD at 8x even though I choose to burn them at slower rates anyway. I don't see what commoditization has to do with Nvidia; Apple has a much closer and stronger relationship with Nvidia than Microsoft has. |
| #14 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 3/8/2002 6:31:31 PM |
|
Come on, Sodajerk. MS and NVIDIA worked together to architect the XBOX. Plus NVIDIA works with MS to engineer new functionality into DirectX, and MS helps NVIDIA get the functionality into their cards and running well on the platform. Each company frequently has developers at the others offices. The most NVIDIA has ever done for Apple is show up at Mac World saying the Mac would get their next card first, then allow their OEMs to release cards for the PC into the market before Mac users could get one. This happened with the GF3 and GF4. Plus NVIDIA doesn't have as big of a market with the Mac because only the high end machines can be upgraded. I don't see Apple including GeForce2GO or GeForce4GO or Quadro2GO or Quadro4GO in their laptops. The Mac desktops just recently started shipping with NVIDIA hardware, and they come with the MX series by default.
OpenGL is very much a part of Windows. Has been in NT as long as I can remember, and the consumer line since 95. NT now even includes a wrapper to allow cards without an ICD to be accelerated. How do you think we run the Quake series, which being one of the most platform independent apps around, still runs faster on PCs by the way. There is also Maya, 3DSMax, Lightwave, etc. Only 8x? Lite-On and others currently have drives that burn at 40x. Windows doesn't require shareware to take advantage of GDI+. Those were just some examples of the functionality in use. I'm pretty sure OS X doesn't cover all of the territory that GDI+ does. Any app can take advantage of it. It is an API and a device interface layer. MS takes advantage of it OOTB in Windows XP for alpha blending and shadowing -- possibly other things, but those are the most obvious. One of the main things it allows for is mixing of 2D and 3D without perormance penalties to the display hardware. But GDI+ isn't just about display graphics, it goes further than that. The windowing thing. Logic would say that despite the window being transparent, you cannot click through to an underlying window, just as you wouldn't be able to reach through an actual double-paned window to touch the outer pane. Why would you need this feature anyway when you have the taskbar? If there were three windows and you clicked through, would you expect to go through to the second wndow or the bottom window. I don't think I quite understand this great bounding window to which you are referring. I can interact with objects accross applications just fine. MS apps are probably the best example of cross-application functionality. If I wanted to, I could run any of the Office apps, Acrobat viewer, or any app that supported it, from within IE. The toolbar would change with the apps functionality. If you mean not having the ability to work with document windows outside of the main app window, all you have to do is add that functionality to your app. You can even have floating toolbars that you can more wherever you want, even outside of the app window. Also, it largely depends on how you take advantage of Windows. Windows don't have to be rectangular. Toolbars and documents don't have to be bound. The features are fairly easy to implement as they are accessible through APIs (the same APIs Sun, AOL et al. would have you believe are so difficult to gain access to). |
| #15 By 5444 (208.180.245.184) at 3/8/2002 6:40:26 PM |
|
Now how are they going to do that without hardware?? Video editing that is.??
Either it will need a faster Processor, or a combination of hardware that will make that a reality. I agree and Hope that Apple does do that, I would like to see the errosion of the x86 market to at least 20% other processor on the desktop for good reason. Innovation for one. Although the x86 market is concentrating on speed, and efficiency now instead of putting some real useful features into the cpu arena. But I have very selfish reasons. the more companies putting out chips the better prospect I have for keeping a job. Unfortantly Chips will soon become a comodity. and the price to cost ration is only going up. And Motorola is looking at pulling out of some of the non returning semiconductor industry. The PowerPC being one of those items. So Yes I would like to See Apple Succeed, I would rather see them spread the wealth, As Apple doesn't have the power to push to far into the market, Until it is commodisized and can make sense to the Business sector to replace thier PC's with an Apple or an Apple Clone. Apple alone can never do it. But Apple would be the controller in that market they provide the OS. Unfortantly I see some fragmentation starting to happen in the x86 market, especially with the coming move to 64 bit processors. The Epic and x86-64 architechtures are not the same and function differently. While the Epic is a MUCH better design it doesn't run 32bit code effiently. and there are 100's of billions of dollars worth of software that is 32 bit. While the x86-64 will run both 32 bit and 64 bit x86 instructions efficiently. At the desktop level this is very important. And as corps transistion. they may make a decision one way or the other. This may be Apples chance to get into the corporate market if the decision is to change to the Epic market. Then that basically means running most of the software or changeing it out to effectly run. Only time will tell. Perhaps Microsoft will get in the computer manufactoring business to narrow down the hardware that they have to program to:) And make the PC platform more efficient. But then we come down to a Sun platform or an Apple platform with their forced limitations or the PC platform with a multitude of customizations. And more importantly, I can build my own and configure it the way that I want instead of being forced into one configureation that Apple chooses or Sun chooses. I will take the former thank you. El |
| #16 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/8/2002 6:51:34 PM |
|
Yeah, and according to this site, here, MS is dumping Nvidia on the next XBox. Does Mac have the architecture options? No, but the 2 companies get along unlike MS and Nvidia.
OpenGL may be a part of Windows but is it a system level API? In other words, could you integrate OpenGL 3D into an app's UI? Sure I'm using a 2 year old FireWire 24x, 8x, 4x CDRW so what. I don't need to burn that fast; I'd rather guarantee data integrity. I really don't care about the apps; all you are saying is that you have somethign like Aqua that isn't utilized that much, isn't as persuasive, and is a drain on the system as much as Aqua is--hence, it not being utilized. Just look at text rendering as the best example. I think most of you would simply be blown away by what a web page's text looks like with OmniWeb. And I realize that my windowing issue is difficult for most to understand, but I'm not talking about being able to cut and past between apps or to access pdf from another program, I am talking aout having visual and physical access to other areas outside a program from the GUI--it can't be down the way you can work in MacOS without a lot of futzing. And then you go on to explain how it can be implemented... This is exactly my point as well: the standard metaphor doesn't work well so it gets broken all over the place and different apps have entirely different behaviors. This immediately disqualifies it as a superior UI--it's not flexibility, it's a bad starting metaphor. Already done, el, buy FCP 3.0 and you can do realtime video effects on a Powerbook. |
| #17 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/8/2002 7:19:39 PM |
| And, damn it, does anybody else have problems editing comments after the first page. Everytime I try to do it, I get bounced to page 1, and I am not presented with the possibility to edit. |
| #18 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 3/8/2002 8:02:55 PM |
|
The article of MS dropping NVIDIA is FUD. They still have a close relationship. Whenever MS does demos, they often use systems with NVIDIA driven displays. And, as I said earlier, they both work on DX and improving NVIDIA's hardware. XBOX 2 isn't even close to implementation.
Yes. OpenGL can be used to integrate 3D into an apps UI. Ever heard of Burn-Proof? Just kidding, I know Macs can use faster drives that 8x. I think you haven't seen ClearType (no, it isn't just for LCDs), http://www.microsoft.com/typography/cleartype/ and if you have and it looked funny, it probably needed to be adjusted which can be done from http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/using/howto/customize/cleartype/tuner/default.asp Or, if using MS Reader, it can be adjusted from within the app. Concerning UI usability, I'll just say we think differently (kinda like the Apple tagline with an ly :-) ). Let me also say that I like Macs and am not trying to bash them, I'm just trying to explain the PC side of things too because I often see a lot of inaccuracies spread around when browsing sites like MacOSX.com or MacSlash (not that there aren't inaccuracies on PC sites about Macs, but I've seen less). One thing I think Apple could benefit from is going cross-platform. They could easily license the OS to OEMs like Dell, and have the OS BIOS locked or similar. Better yet, they could sell to OEMs and offer a retail product. They could still sell Macs for the true experience, but it would allow them to get into the same market as MS and *nix while continuing to make money from licenses, and their own system/laptop/ipod sells while possibly gaining increased developer support due to the more open platform. They could also easily take away most of the potential Linux market. Another option would be if the x86 version ran as a application whithin Windows. Users wouldn't have to dual-boot. I know Be tried that, but Be was also offering a free product at that time, and Apple's OS is more marketable and more feature complete than Be's was. Realtime video editing/effects can also be done on PCs. :) |
| #19 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/8/2002 8:29:40 PM |
| So, enforcer, basically we are saying that GDI+, Direct3D, OpenGL, and ClearType are comparable to Aqua and OpenGL--these are underlying GUI technologies. I argue that the Windows UI metaphor is extremely inconsistent and not condusive to viewing multiple docs across applications simultaneously. Whether you disagree or not, I think throughout this discussion I've at least demonstrated inconsistency to a high degree. As for the other less tangible work behavior, there are those who will agree those that will disagree. Even with disagreement, from a purely theoretical interaction design perspective, I think a lot of UI people would agree with my conjecture. But even if it is only applicable to some users, the consistency issue as well as this depends-how-you-work issue I think is an easy place to begin evaluating the quality of the 2 different UIs and demonstrates that OS X is still ahead of XP despite need for improvement and XPs interesting new task-based UIs. I know you disagree, but just look at the multitude of different and unpredictable behaviors in #17 and tell me that's good UI. |
| #20 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/8/2002 8:39:37 PM |
| z00k, I'm not going to go out and redevelop Access, Office, etc.. I am saying there is a lack in the basic, initial assumed metaphor of the windows UI. And, ultimately, I've established that this wouldn't allow you to actually access what is behind the application window. After all, I'm not talking about a document window, I'm talking about the complete lack of usefulness of the application window. |
| #21 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 3/8/2002 10:33:35 PM |
|
I still don't get what you mean by behind the app window. Do you mean the desktop? I currently have multiple IE windows open and can access either of the windows or the desktop without closing or minimizing the windows. I can select either of the windows in a variety of ways (taskbar, clicking on the window, key combination,etc.) without much effort.
If what you are saying can be exhibited in OS 8, I can see what your talking about, but for the exception of poorly engineered apps (AOL, but I don't use that), I don't see any usability inconsistancies. I'm not saying GDI+, D3D, OGL, and ClearType are comparable to Aqua and OpenGL -- I'm saying they are better and more extencible, especially where GDI+, DirectX (not just D3D), and ClearType are concerned. To prove this, however, I would probably need a video of a Mac and a PC and demos of the UIs total capabilities. I can say that the majority of what Mac users have gained from the period encompassing OS 8 to OS X, PC users have had for years. Steve Jobs and Phill Schiller just have a flair for making things that have been available in consumer OSes and hardware for years seem new. Great design team, though, and they do score points for Firewire (except for the licensing costs). |
| #22 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 3/8/2002 10:37:51 PM |
| I think what z00ker had in mind was a small add-on app, not redevelopment of current apps. And NVIDIA has basically integrated the app he describes into their drivers. |
| #23 By 61 (65.32.169.133) at 3/10/2002 3:09:32 PM |
|
Sodajerk: That's what the taskbar is for. The application containers allow the writer of the application more flexibility in how thier apps work. So really, yeah you can click through them via the taskbar, or alt+tab, or with XP, you can get the alt+tab enhancement that generates bitmaps of the appls running.
As for the inconsistancies, it's all up to the designer of the software, if you notice, Microsoft has published MANY books on UI design and concepts, and in every one they stress being uniform with the standard Windows interface (even though the Office team kinda does a little bit of their own thing with the UI). Windows just simply gives the programmer(s) more flexibility when writing his/her app. BTW, I don't think some people quite understood what you mean about being able to see through your windows, and didn't quite understand that you mean the application containers, rather than having the single task menu at the top of the screen that changes based on what application you hav open... and just so you know, that has other problems with things like ease of use, as it could be very confusing for a person using and see that it constantly changes wheny ou switch apps, so in order to get the base funcationality of it (shutdown, reboot, etc...) you have to go back to the desktop. |
| #24 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/10/2002 7:12:44 PM |
|
enforcer, I don't necessary mean the desktop, but that would be applicable; your citing IE is the perfect example--the app is designed to use document windows as the app instead of using the app container window--so yes you can get the behavior I'm discussing from it. I am not discussing the shortcuts and keyboards combos and alt+tab--these are 100% available in the MacOS as well. It is the ability to actually see and work with two apps, multi docs at once--visually; and the ability to click into another doc in one move (if you alt tab, you bring the doc into focus, but you still need to click in, the same with other shortcuts). CPU Guy is kind of getting it. ANd it's my assertion that the inconsistencies in the designs are in order to achieve such functionality, such functionality as can be achieved with a uniform design (or at least nearly uniform design).
Enforcer, I'm not at all convinced by the assertion that Windows UI APIs and engines are far superior and more advanced in terms of the capabilities and implementations than Apple. CPUGuy, yes, I realize MS has written many books on UI design and concept--it's my assertion that their concepts are so bad that every developer needs to or wants to break it, including MS themselves. CPUGuy, I appreciate your last point--that's very significant, and it's also treated now in OS X. I think you would find it not as confusing that instead of having a grey resizable canvas to obscure potential confusion below, you use Hid Other, Hide App, Show Other, Show App, Hide All, Show All. And now, Apple has integrated system level functionality in the omnipresent and new Apple menu--it persists through all operations as the Task Bar does so that these functions aren't tied to a seprate app now known as the Desktop. |
| #25 By 61 (65.32.169.133) at 3/11/2002 1:20:06 AM |
|
Soda, ok, so now they need to fix the dock (it's really stupid how they have the shortcuts totally undistinguisable from running apps) and their file browser, and they will be on their way into the right direction.
Still I say that the Explorer UI is MUCH more customizeable and also MUCH more task oriented, so you get things done more quickly. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 323 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:32:06 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
