| 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 |
 |
MS Longhorn Alpha Task Shelf Unveiled - Real or Fake? | |
|
||
| Time: 05:57 EST/10:57 GMT | News Source: MS Beta | Posted By: Alex Harris | ||
|
MS Betas have posted a video [480 kb] and design documentation for the upcoming OS from Microsoft, Codename Longhorn. They claim the file was sent into them from an anonymous source. They also are suppose to have the very first official Longhorn design documents that have been released to the public here. So what do you think? Real or not? Update - MS Betas have updated the video to twice the length and is now 52 seconds long. In this it shows the beginning of Corona. You can get it from here | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 331 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:57:31 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 4/28/2002 6:08:30 AM |
|
Looks pretty neat. In fact, it reminds me a lot of the OS X thingy... you know, that thing at the bottom of the screen?
Although I really don't like the idea of my task bar taking up that much of my desktop. |
| #2 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 4/28/2002 11:13:58 PM |
|
#14 - Actually, I would say that Windows XP is a better interface than OS X.
OS X is certainly prettier... but that doesn't equate to better. Windows XP's task-based interface was innovative. All Apple did was add some mystery meat controls, and pretty stuff up. They did do (or, rather, copy from NeXT) some neat stuff with file/folder navigation, and attaching dialog boxes to the window they originated from, but other than that, nothing great. Apple was once the king of interface design... but OS X shows they need some guidance. Who would have though it would come from Microsoft!? :-) But, as I said, the task panel thingy is very much like the OS X bar. Funny thing is, from what I've read, the OS X bar is the least useful part of the new OS. |
| #3 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 4/29/2002 12:34:18 AM |
|
#16 - You must be joking. The XP UI is by far the most productive UI I've ever seen. Yes, that blue panel may not look like much but wow does it ever save a lot of time. And yes, that's called innovation.
I have to agree with RMD, the OS X UI is lot's of glitz with little substance. But then I've also never liked any of Apple's UI designs. |
| #4 By 3339 (64.175.40.175) at 4/29/2002 4:07:24 AM |
|
I think whether you think XP's task pane is innovative is a matter of choice, but I think it's agregious to think Microsoft innovated it. Let's try to accurately remember what the scenario was at the time: OS X was still pre-public beta, Linux was big news, so was AOL, and Microsoft was behind. We started to see sneaks of what MS would offer, MSN was redesigned somewhere between AOL and Aqua, and then we heard of "Luna"...
What XP is is a three-ponged attack against AOL, Apple, and (what was perceived to be the future of a desktop Linux UI) Eazel. I don't care about what you think of Linux, or about Eazel, a venture that tanked, or about the viability of a usable Linux UI--I do think you're ridiculous if you do not accept that XP's interface was largely--shall we say--"extrapolated" from Nautilus. With Unix, where frequently the same types of files are stored in their own directories, it makes sense to have contextual views based on directory location or file type. I think that's how it started... These views could display file info, meta data in different layouts and with different updateable icons, etc... And then each directory view has its own set of associated tasks based on what are the most common tasks needed when working with those files. Sound familiar? If any of you are familiar with Nautilus, you'll know that it looked more like all of Apple's iApps and XP's task panes in one than a file browser. Nautilus is still receiving work, but basically hasn't progressed since its initial release, and it is still in many ways more sophisticated than MS's task pane or the XP UI overall. |
| #5 By 3339 (64.175.40.175) at 4/29/2002 4:11:19 AM |
|
When these things were still in progress, I was concerned that Apple was behind both Microsoft and (I thought at the time, soon) Linux. But then I realized that these were essentially just file browsers... And then I heard Jobs say that the new Finder was now just a file browser applicatin and that OS X would support and soon have other file browsers. That is true today, but they are mostly limited Liux file browsers--nothing on the order of Eazel. (Unfortunately, they went under and stayed an OS project.) The other factor that mitigates the importance of this "innovation", at least at the shell-level, is this: it's starting point for opening up functionality is tied to the file's location or type.
Apple's iApp model works the other way: for a task, we will open up which files are related to the task. I know a lot of you will dismiss this argument, but I want to make the comparison of using the task panes for managing photos vs. iPhoto. In XP, if I'm in a folder with images, I get less functions but similar functionality to iPhoto... in iPhoto, you get fuller functionality and a "specialized" file browser of all image files which can be stored as "playlists" or "photo albums" or "libraries"--whatever word you want to use--no matter where those files are stored; the same as most audio players. So I see it as: there is a question of ease of use, there are improvements to the speed and number of steps something takes, and the way in which this affects your work behavior--how it may change the way you view these tasks. For me, the ease of use can be questionable--frequently I find, these are dumbed-down features or just unuseful. (This is me, personally--I know for some this may serve them well.) Things can be quicker, but I would never keep the task pane open in Office; I hardly would ever need the task pane in a file browser because I know the equivalent keyboard shortcut or context menu selection. I suppose there are some people who prefer to actually edit files from the shell without entering an app--I'm the type of person who prefers to use a full-powered app to kick a file around, etc... |
| #6 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 4/29/2002 4:49:40 AM |
|
Wow... that was quite a diatribe Sodajerk.
Alas, you are mistaken. Nautilus was a poor copy of the old Post-IE 4 Explorer windows, and offered nothing more than tabs to often completely unrelated information. I used Nautilus quite a bit actually... because it reminded so much of Windows. Windows XP's task panel (thing on the left of Explorer windows) is, indeed, new. By the way, I think the task panel is more of a UI+ than a productivity+. Few would doubt that using XP is a LOT easier for *newbies* than any other OS.... even OS X, and that is largely due to the task-based approach. For the rest of us, as Sodajerk said, keyboard shortcuts will almost always trump a button or panel. |
| #7 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 4/29/2002 4:52:33 AM |
|
Oh, and Sodajerk, I agree that Nautilus probably inspired the "specialized" folder views in XP. Like folders that show slideshows of pictures, and stuff like that.
If that's what you were talking about, then yes, I agree, XP was "inspired" by Nautilus. But there are no task panels in Nautilus... at least that I can see. :-) |
| #8 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/29/2002 11:09:32 AM |
|
#18 - "When you go to the Fry's and see OS X on a large flat panel it is so inviting."
When you see a Monet on a large flat panel it is so inviting. That doesn't mean waterlilies make for a good user interface. |
| #9 By 1896 (66.20.202.102) at 4/29/2002 4:19:37 PM |
| #26 if you are so usatisified with Windows why don't you switch to something else? There are others OS available. |
| #10 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/29/2002 5:54:49 PM |
|
#28 - Let me guess, you will be happy when Windows defaults to a Monet background, and uses Waterlilies as the icons?
It amazes me how little Apple proponents know about UI design. |
| #11 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/29/2002 6:46:13 PM |
|
soda, .45 is clearly a Windows user who just likes OS X--as far as I can tell. He never says he is a Mac user and that Apple's UI is better for this, this, and this.
And you say "I [...] never liked any of Apple's UI designs" without acknowledging that you are using many of them right now. It's these sorts of things that I'd call pissing on yourself. |
| #12 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 4/29/2002 8:02:28 PM |
| Well... the video is a fake. (www.wininformant.com) |
| #13 By 931 (63.169.175.28) at 4/29/2002 9:35:03 PM |
| I realy dont give a sheet about having a 'cool' ui.. I care that it runs 99.99+% of the time, is reasonably secure..and does what i tell it to do.. personally I think this new interface seamee street on steriods.. they better rethink this a bit for .net server.. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 331 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:57:31 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
