PDA

View Full Version : Leopard Mac OS X 10.5 9A321 Screenshots




Pages : [1] 2

Diatribe
Dec 20, 2006, 04:20 AM
Thinksecret has a new gallery online of Leopard pics. A lot of new features, this is shaping up nicely...

Story (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0612leopard9a321gallery.html)

Gallery (http://www.thinksecret.com/archives/leopard9a321/)


The only thing I am wondering is, where did the firewall stealth mode go?
And when can they finally synch the iTunes playcounts, etc.?



MacBoobsPro
Dec 20, 2006, 04:30 AM
I hope they change the Time Machine interface from the stupid looking 3d buttons. It would look much better with the buttons from the Quicklook interface. Clean and simple.

MacVault
Dec 20, 2006, 06:05 AM
Finally some pics of Leopard! I'm sure you weren't suppose to post them, but hey, whatdoyaknow.. it's Think Secret! So thanks! However, there appears to be only minor refinements to the UI - it's basically the same old fUGgLY finder UI - YUK! The dark transparent jpg windows are kindof cool but overall, YUK - same old bubbly-blue rounded scroll bars, same old butt-ugly stop light buttons and brushed metal, inconsistencies etc. I hope Apple's got somethin else up their sleeve for the UI. Otherwise MAJOR dissapointment awaits us :mad:

Can we use Time Machine to travel into the future and find a better UI? I don't mean for time machine but for the rest of the finder in General. AQUA SUCKS, APPLE! REPLACE IT ALREADY! THE UI COULD BE SOOOOO MUCH BETTER THAN IT IS NOW!

garethlewis2
Dec 20, 2006, 07:29 AM
So I take it that the interface presently available is so hideous it physically repels you and as a consequence makes it impossible for you to do any work?

There's always Vista. It has quite a pretty interface.

Tymmz
Dec 20, 2006, 07:34 AM
So I take it that the interface presently available is so hideous it physically repels you and as a consequence makes it impossible for you to do any work?

There's always Vista. It has quite a pretty interface.

???

MacVault
Dec 20, 2006, 07:36 AM
So I take it that the interface presently available is so hideous it physically repels you and as a consequence makes it impossible for you to do any work?
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=262141
There's always Vista. It has quite a pretty interface.

It doesn't make it impossible for me to do any work, but yes, it's hideous and it repels me. Apple **could** do SO MUCH BETTER if they wanted to. And Vista, well, I have my gripes about vista too.

mkrishnan
Dec 20, 2006, 07:43 AM
I thought you were going to take your gripes to a "real non-Mac IT forum" where they respect important concerns like the fugliness of interfaces? ;)

Hopefully all the promised improvements to the firewall really are there and this new interface (which seems to rather lack options) is much more intuitive than it looks.

Love the new printer setup dialog...not that I really set up a lot of printers. The parental controls, which I also won't use, look nice too.

As they're changing security features, I really wish they had a simple feature that allowed FUS to the login screen on sleep or screen save and/or did away with the wake password dialog and used the login screen (perhaps with a master password override to let other users log in).

wrldwzrd89
Dec 20, 2006, 07:51 AM
I thought you were going to take your gripes to a "real non-Mac IT forum" where they respect important concerns like the fugliness of interfaces? ;)

Hopefully all the promised improvements to the firewall really are there and this new interface (which seems to rather lack options) is much more intuitive than it looks.

Love the new printer setup dialog...not that I really set up a lot of printers. The parental controls, which I also won't use, look nice too.

As they're changing security features, I really wish they had a simple feature that allowed FUS to the login screen on sleep or screen save and/or did away with the wake password dialog and used the login screen (perhaps with a master password override to let other users log in).
I have to admit, your suggestions are good ones, and ones I happen to agree with... I found the gallery quite interesting, and explained a few things I was curious about.

xUKHCx
Dec 20, 2006, 07:53 AM
All about the Plan B (http://www.time4planb.co.uk/main.php) movie in the quicklook (http://www.thinksecret.com/archives/leopard9a321/source/picture-21.html) screenshot, is the developer English?

Looks like it is coming together nicely.

mkrishnan
Dec 20, 2006, 07:54 AM
Yeah... the new big ideas do look good. It's probably the little things we'll have to live with never getting... grrr... multi-session burns in Finder grrr.... ;)

I wonder if Bonjour will have any new tricks up it's sleeve? And/or yet another new French name? Ça va? :D

Lixivial
Dec 20, 2006, 08:09 AM
I love the new installer routine, as it is clean, visually appealing and let's the user know what's in store for them (why they're installing Leopard).

I really was/am hoping for them to move the "Default Browser" option in Safari to a more system-centric location such as, oh I don't know, the System Preferences. A default apps prefpane would be rather nice. The logging parental controls option seems like a logical and often overlooked feature. Kudos to Apple for jumping on that one.

Looks like it's shaping up nicely, though. Still looking forward to January 9th!

MacRumors
Dec 20, 2006, 09:23 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

AeroXP (http://www.aeroxp.org/board/index.php?showtopic=7319) and ThinkSecret (http://www.thinksecret.com/archives/leopard9a321/) have posted galleries with screenshots from the latest seed of Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard).

Features depicted include:

- New installer screens (screenshot (http://www.thinksecret.com/archives/leopard9a321/source/install.html))
- ZFS Formatting (screenshot (http://img187.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture3mo9.png), screenshot 2 (http://www.thinksecret.com/archives/leopard9a321/source/picture-1.html))
- File Recovery (screenshot (http://www.thinksecret.com/archives/leopard9a321/source/picture-2.html))
- Quicktime (screenshot (http://img174.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture6be3.png))
- Time Machine (screenshot (http://www.thinksecret.com/archives/leopard9a321/source/picture-23.html))
- Screen Saver (screenshot (http://www.thinksecret.com/archives/leopard9a321/source/picture-6.html))
- Parental Control Logs (screenshot (http://www.thinksecret.com/archives/leopard9a321/source/picture-17.html))

... and more. Leopard is expected to be released in "Spring 2007" according to Apple.

50548
Dec 20, 2006, 09:26 AM
And why is AeroXP posting such pics, if it is a Windows-fanboy website? Is it to enable copying of features by Microsoft?

longofest
Dec 20, 2006, 09:28 AM
Nice... Screensaver is getting some nice touches I see

avalys
Dec 20, 2006, 09:29 AM
Okay, I've still never received a good answer to this question: does Time Machine backup constantly, or just once per day?

I've always heard it described as backing up files constantly, as they are changed on disk, but then I see screenshots like this where there are options like: "Back up at midnight".

If I have it set to back up at midnight, create a file at 9:00 AM, then accidentally delete it at 6:00 PM, will Time Machine let me get it back?

OwlsAndApples
Dec 20, 2006, 09:32 AM
I remember that when a thread came up with a similar title a year ago, the screenshots of leopard was a simple mac 'virus', anyone remember that? Wierd times...

wrldwzrd89
Dec 20, 2006, 09:32 AM
These are very nice, and answered some questions I had about Time Machine. I'm curious about the same issue avalys mentioned, though...

motulist
Dec 20, 2006, 09:35 AM
No iCal screenshots. I fear that the (in my opinion) insignificant updates to iCal that we already heard about is all that is going to change in iCal for 10.5. Why does Apple act like it doesn't love its own child?

Unorthodox
Dec 20, 2006, 09:41 AM
Okay, I've still never received a good answer to this question: does Time Machine backup constantly, or just once per day?

I've always heard it described as backing up files constantly, as they are changed on disk, but then I see screenshots like this where there are options like: "Back up at midnight".

If I have it set to back up at midnight, create a file at 9:00 AM, then accidentally delete it at 6:00 PM, will Time Machine let me get it back?
Time Machine backs up your computer once a day. Not constantly.
But I'm sure someone will make a hack that lets you choose multiple backup times.

boxlight
Dec 20, 2006, 09:41 AM
I'm using Tiger and I honestly don't see anything (except maybe "Spaces") that makes me want to upgrade to Leopard.

I really hope that "top secret" stuff is compelling because so far the prospect of upgrading is lacking that killer element.

Aniej
Dec 20, 2006, 09:43 AM
No iCal screenshots. I fear that the (in my opinion) insignificant updates to iCal that we already heard about is all that is going to change in iCal for 10.5. Why does Apple act like it doesn't love its own child?
You are dead on here. i feel like I am back in middle school working on my first calendar when I am entering business meetings on iCal, there is so much that could and should be done.

geerlingguy
Dec 20, 2006, 09:44 AM
Okay, I've still never received a good answer to this question: does Time Machine backup constantly, or just once per day?

I've always heard it described as backing up files constantly, as they are changed on disk, but then I see screenshots like this where there are options like: "Back up at midnight".

If I have it set to back up at midnight, create a file at 9:00 AM, then accidentally delete it at 6:00 PM, will Time Machine let me get it back?

It looks like it will only backup at midnight (i.e. copy the files to the backup drive). Although it might also keep some sort of 'change log' for all the files on the drive, and use this in tandem with the 'file recovery' utility in Disk Utility to pick up files you may have created and deleted before Time Machine backs them up.

But I think it will simply back up at an interval you choose. This is the most simple way to do it, and that way you get daily, hourly, weekly, etc. 'snapshots' of your computer. I don't think it's easy to create on-the-fly backups of everything using the filesystem we currently have (HFS+ Journaled). But with ZFS coming... perhaps...

Aniej
Dec 20, 2006, 09:55 AM
I mean beaches are a great addition to the screensaver and all, but seriously do some cool, and much requested, changes to the RSS feed in terms of the number and ability to aggregate different feeds. I will supply the beach shot if it is helpful so that they can focus on the RSS.:D

*I had to modify for the 244kb requirement:(

MacVault
Dec 20, 2006, 09:59 AM
I'm using Tiger and I honestly don't see anything (except maybe "Spaces") that makes me want to upgrade to Leopard.

I really hope that "top secret" stuff is compelling because so far the prospect of upgrading is lacking that killer element.

You've got that right, unfortunately. These Leopard pics better not represent the UI of the final release or I'm gonna run my new Mac through I wood chipper and post the video on YouTube and send it to Steve Jobs.

Apple could do SO MUCH BETTER than the current UI. I have no idea why they don't. Hopefully they're just hiding it til the expo.

nagromme
Dec 20, 2006, 10:01 AM
I notice that Finder's action (gear) menu looks different (smaller and uncentered) in that shot, not matching the rest of the toolbar. Signs of Apple messing with the scalable UI stuff? Only Quartz Debug knows for sure....

stevehp
Dec 20, 2006, 10:02 AM
I'm using Tiger and I honestly don't see anything (except maybe "Spaces") that makes me want to upgrade to Leopard.

I really hope that "top secret" stuff is compelling because so far the prospect of upgrading is lacking that killer element.

I tottttallllllyyyy agree. There is nothing I have seen in screenshots/forum posts that:

a) interests me too much (do I know what the heck ZFT or whatever does?)
b) Looks cooler and is something I neeeeed.

Even time machine doesn't look like its any better than the Retrospect Points I can create with my Maxtor external.

MacVault
Dec 20, 2006, 10:04 AM
You are dead on here. i feel like I am back in middle school working on my first calendar when I am entering business meetings on iCal, there is so much that could and should be done.

Yea - you got that right! Go from the calendar in Microsoft Outlook to iCal and it's like going from the Space Shuttle to playing with a baby's toy. iCal sucks and Apple could do way better. Is the Apple campus just full of pot smoke 24/7? Don't get me wrong, I love pot smoke, but there's a time and a place for it :D

motulist
Dec 20, 2006, 10:05 AM
You've got that right, unfortunately. These Leopard pics better not represent the UI of the final release or I'm gonna run my new Mac through I wood chipper and post the video on YouTube and send it to Steve Jobs.

Apple could do SO MUCH BETTER than the current UI. I have no idea why they don't. Hopefully they're just hiding it til the expo.


Dude, I think you need some valium or something. ;) The UI in these screenshots really don't look all that different than the current UI.

ccunning
Dec 20, 2006, 10:06 AM
My thought is that Time Machine on a standard HFS filesystem would require a nightly backup, but ZFS filesystems would allow for continuous backups. (ZFS Snapshots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS#Snapshots))
Now maybe this will be how Leopard will be deployed, or maybe they will wait until ZFS has boot support (ZFS Limitations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS#Limitations)) to implement the continuous backup feature.

wrldwzrd89
Dec 20, 2006, 10:08 AM
Dude, I think you need some valium or something. ;) The UI in these screenshots really don't look all that different than the current UI.
Umm... I believe MacVault dislikes the UI as it is now, in Tiger... and, therefore, the little-changed Leopard version too.

MacVault
Dec 20, 2006, 10:11 AM
Dude, I think you need some valium or something. ;) The UI in these screenshots really don't look all that different than the current UI.

Yes, that's right - they don't look much different, if at all, and that is the problem! We need a NEW (different) UI than tiger, and I'm not seeing that in these leaked pics. :mad: :mad: :mad:

Umm... I believe MacVault dislikes the UI as it is now, in Tiger... and, therefore, the little-changed Leopard version too.

At least somebody understands me!

motulist
Dec 20, 2006, 10:13 AM
Here's the awesome thing about Time Machine once it uses a ZFS file system. Not only can you go back to a version of a document as it existed yesterday, but you can also go forward to a version of a file as it would exist tomorrow! So if you have a long difficult report that's due today, all you have to do is fire up Time Machine and set it to give you the file as it will exist tomorrow once you've finished the report! And you're telling me 10.5 has no killer feature that makes you have to buy it?!?!

Nym
Dec 20, 2006, 10:16 AM
Yea - you got that right! Go from the calendar in Microsoft Outlook to iCal and it's like going from the Space Shuttle to playing with a baby's toy. iCal sucks and Apple could do way better. Is the Apple campus just full of pot smoke 24/7? Don't get me wrong, I love pot smoke, but there's a time and a place for it :D

AHAHAHAH!!

Anyway, are these pics supposed to be out or some nasty developer decided to break the "contract"? (if there is one).
I figure that Apple knows that people always end up breaking the secrecy pact and this time they are really holding on to the "top-secret" features, at least this is what I tell myself so I don't bash the current Leopard builds (sorry, but it looks exactly like Tiger) :D

IMO there's a lot to be done, and Apple can do it, we just have to wait for MWSF, if they don't have something really amazing up their sleeve regarding Leopard we will be very disappointed.
Still, TimeMachine and Spaces are time savers, I look forward to them, the question is: are they worth 129$? :)

MacVault
Dec 20, 2006, 10:16 AM
I sure hope someone from Apple reads these Mac forums, preferably Steve Jobs himself. Otherwise how will they know what we want? Does anyone know if there's any better/official way to get our point across to Apple?

mkrishnan
Dec 20, 2006, 10:17 AM
Here's the awesome thing about Time Machine once it uses a ZFT file system. Not only can you go back to a version of a document as it existed yesterday, but you can also go forward to a version of a file as it would exist tomorrow! So if you have a long difficult report that's due today, all you have to do is fire up Time Machine and set it to give you the file as it will exist tomorrow once you've finished the report! And you're telling me 10.5 has no killer feature that makes you have to buy it?!?!

We all know that this story ends with cranking the knob way too far into the future and seeing a grim tale in which humanity has bankrupt itself and is living in trees again. :eek: ;) :D

Back on topic though... what do people think about Quick Look? It seems like a much more elegant version of something Microsoft did a number of years back. That being said, it certainly speaks to Apple's continued interest in that window look, as it appears in iPhoto, iTunes, and now Finder. I wonder, in the end, what the role of Preview is if this does so many things? Just to view PDFs? Because Preview lost some of its basic image editing features (such as scaling images) with Tiger.

MacVault
Dec 20, 2006, 10:19 AM
Here's the awesome thing about Time Machine once it uses a ZFT file system. Not only can you go back to a version of a document as it existed yesterday, but you can also go forward to a version of a file as it would exist tomorrow! So if you have a long difficult report that's due today, all you have to do is fire up Time Machine and set it to give you the file as it will exist tomorrow once you've finished the report! And you're telling me 10.5 has no killer feature that makes you have to buy it?!?!

Cool! I'll have to try that out. But do you know if we can also use Time Machine to go into the future and GET A FREEKIN WELL-DESIGNED UI FOR OS X???? If it can do that I'll buy it! Otherwise my Mac is going into the wood chipper!

By the way... it's ZFS. Not ZFT.

p0intblank
Dec 20, 2006, 10:20 AM
I think Leopard is looking really nice! Time Machine looks awesome and the new screensavers look like fun. :) As for all you people complaining about no new Finder interface... calm down. Didn't Steve say on stage at WWDC that there are some "top secret" features we have yet to see? Be patient...

motulist
Dec 20, 2006, 10:22 AM
Cool! I'll have to try that out. But do you know if we can also use Time Machine to go into the future and GET A FREEKIN WELL-DESIGNED UI FOR OS X???? If it can do that I'll buy it! Otherwise my Mac is going into the wood chipper!

By the way... it's ZFS. Not ZFT.

That shows how much we've heard about this new ZFS before now, I couldn't even remember the initials. Corrected the original post, thanks.

SiliconAddict
Dec 20, 2006, 10:22 AM
*yawns* Its Tiger with a fresh coat of paint and a new wing built onto the house. Micro-updates do not impress me. If you are going to do that roll it into a service pack and give it to the end user for free. Wake me when Apple decides to give its "house" a serious update. :(

Nym
Dec 20, 2006, 10:24 AM
..."my Mac is going into the wood chipper!"


YEAH!! make it worst!! Send it to my adress!! I'll destroy it for you! Is it a Mac Pro? if it is send it tomorrow because I'm only gonna have the "Mac Pro Torture Kit" for the next 4 or 5 days!! :D

I can only hope for a new UI and a new Finder.

MacVault
Dec 20, 2006, 10:30 AM
*yawns* Its Tiger with a fresh coat of paint and a new wing built onto the house. Micro-updates do not impress me. If you are going to do that roll it into a service pack and give it to the end user for free. Wake me when Apple decides to give its "house" a serious update. :(

Yea, same here. Micro-updates ? Major upgrade. Now ZFS I would say is a major update, but that by itself does not warrant a Major upgrade. Wake me up when Apple decides to get serious.

YEAH!! make it worst!! Send it to my adress!! I'll destroy it for you! Is it a Mac Pro? if it is send it tomorrow because I'm only gonna have the "Mac Pro Torture Kit" for the next 4 or 5 days!! :D

I can only hope for a new UI and a new Finder.

Yea, it's a Mac Pro 16-Core Quad 500GB RAM 100 TB Hard drive. But it's no good without a good UI. Vista sucks. Tiger sucks. And Leopard, well we'll see soon, but I'm warmin up the old Fargo wood chipper!

beerguy
Dec 20, 2006, 10:30 AM
ZFS is a Sun invention. The code for this and dtrace (another new feature) came out of the opensolaris.org project. I make my living on Sun boxes so seeing these technologies make it to my personal computing platform of choice is very cool.

ZFS is a "ground-up" file system. Everything is "copy on write" so nothing gets overwritten unless space needs to be reclaimed. It uses a tree structure to point to data so a snapshot is really just a copy of the uberblock prior to the write (which in turn points to the other leaves in the tree, which point to the original data). The snapshot lives in the filesystem so it's accessible to the user.

Rather than using just one or two filesystems ZFS is designed to have hundreds. Rather than make a new directory you can make a new filesystem. All the filesystems can share the same storage pool but the end effect is individual directories can have their own characteristics; i.e. snapshots, quotas, permissions....

It's very cool stuff.

karlfranz
Dec 20, 2006, 10:30 AM
I mean beaches are a great addition to the screensaver and all, but seriously do some cool, and much requested, changes to the RSS feed in terms of the number and ability to aggregate different feeds. I will supply the beach shot if it is helpful so that they can focus on the RSS.:D

*I had to modify for the 244kb requirement:(

You mean like this?
http://www.thinksecret.com/archives/leopard9a321/image/picture-8.jpg

http://www.thinksecret.com/archives/leopard9a321/image/picture-8.jpg

~Shard~
Dec 20, 2006, 10:31 AM
Yea, same here. Micro-updates ≠ Major upgrade. Now ZFS I would say is a major update, but that by itself does not warrant a Major upgrade. Wake me up when Apple decides to get serious.

I have similar feelings about Leopard as well. The only reason I might upgrade is becuase I'm still running Panther, but we'll see - I'll reserve judgment until I see a better preview of Leopard at MWSF.

This is the whole reason I never upgraded to Tiger as well - nothing really stuck out for me as a huge improvement that I needed to have, so I never upgraded. If Leopard invokes the same feelings perhaps I'll just be waiting for 10.6... ;) :cool:

Nym
Dec 20, 2006, 10:32 AM
Yea, it's a Mac Pro 16-Core Quad 500GB RAM 100 TB Hard drive. But it's no good without a good UI. Vista sucks. Tiger sucks. And Leopard, well we'll see soon, but I'm warmin up the old Fargo wood chipper!

YOU'RE FUNNY :D wood chipper... where'd you get that?

You'll see a new UI in Leopard hopefully, but what if it's the same as Tiger? are you going to throw your Mac in the wood chipper and never use computers again? :) is there any UI you don't hate? eheh.

freeny
Dec 20, 2006, 10:47 AM
It doesn't make it impossible for me to do any work, but yes, it's hideous and it repels me. Apple **could** do SO MUCH BETTER if they wanted to. And Vista, well, I have my gripes about vista too.

You need to get yourself this-
http://www.unsanity.com/haxies/shapeshifter
Now a UB app.

Then go here-
http://interfacelift.com/themes-mac/index.php?sort=date

MacVault
Dec 20, 2006, 10:50 AM
You need to get yourself this-
http://www.unsanity.com/haxies/shapeshifter
Now a UB app.

Yea, I've tried that, but ShapeShifter still works within the fugly constraints of Apple's UI.

freeny
Dec 20, 2006, 10:51 AM
Yea, I've tried that, but ShapeShifter still works within the fugly constraints of Apple's UI.

More specific please.....
Are you unhappy with the placement of items/fonts in the UI or just the colors?

MacVault
Dec 20, 2006, 10:56 AM
More specific please.....
Are you unhappy with the placement of items/fonts in the UI or just the colors?

Yea, now you're gettin it. I don't like the look of the menu bar or the fonts it uses, and I don't really like the idea of the menus being in the menu bar as opposed to in the windows themselves. And I don't like the dock, the scroll bars, the round bubbly buttons, the scroll bar arrows, etc. etc. etc.

iKenny
Dec 20, 2006, 10:57 AM
I think what Leopard needs most of all is a new, completely rewritten, completely cocoa finder. I use my Mac a lot, so it's pretty obvious to me when an app is Carbon (aka sucks to use) and when it's Cocoa (ie pleasant to use) and it's painfully obvious that the Finder is in between (ie terrible). Not only are the UI inconsistencies appalling, but it can't even do simple tasks like updating the network shares list on the fly (too many times have I tried to connect to a share that's apparently a "broken alias" when really that computer's just asleep; it shouldn't even show up), or even listing my files in the proper order (it wasn't able to tell me that a file had been updated just moments before, saying it was last modified two days earlier).

Seriously. This is the basic Mac app. Can't they at least get this one right?

And by the way... does anyone else's Finder crash more than any other app?

mkjellman
Dec 20, 2006, 10:58 AM
I shouldn't do this but let me clear up a few things:

-for context, when Tiger went GM I tried to tell everyone it was really buggy, everyone wanted it, Now in retrospect everyone wished apple had waited until 10.4.2 until they went GM but thats a different story

-there are LOTS of small refinements all over the OS, I mean lots, even Remote Desktop is getting some UI changes. It is all these small things that is really ironing the quirks out of Tiger. Personally, other than the current bugs, the current builds are as stable as our current Tiger release.

-there may be a lot of incompatibilities because Apple seems to be playing clean up with this build (libraries are being changed in every build)

-Speed is the name of the game. Programs are launching 2x faster on my MacBook C2D, opening before they even finish bouncing for the first time. Lots of little speed makes a big difference.

-Personally, I like the current UI, and if Apple was to go dark I would be upset. I like the current refinements they are making. I however am a strong member of the FTFF club and it looks like Apple has made very little changes to the Finder. However the About menu in the finder now says "10.5 The Macintosh Experience" and in previous builds it was 10.4. So, I think thats strong information that if they went to the trouble of changing the about menu we won't see a radically different finder. If they can fix networking, and it looks like they are working on AFP right now, that's all we need really. THe network should not hold up a machine for 2 minutes...!

-MacVault, don't even know where to start. But you will NEVER see the Ludica Grande font change. Personally I love the font and we all know Apple has been tied to it for years. Steve has an agenda of his own and wants a look. If you want a radically different UI then there are a lot of themes. That milk theme may work well for you but in black (i think they have it). Dark themes make doing every day work harder but if you want them, themes do exist.

-iKenny: if it is reprogrameed in Cocca it will not actually make it better. Carbon is actually a very extensive language. However, Apple needs to spend the time getting the bugs out of it instead of spending it on RSS feeds. And my finder has never crashed, it hangs on networking all the time though, especially if i sleep my laptop that is connected to a share and then go off network with it. If your finder is crashing a lot (more than microsoft word with moderate usage) then you may want to try an archive and install.

-ZFS will never be used for much in Leopard because it isn't finished at this time at Sun. According to Wikipedia, no OS can boot off it, so Apple is not going to fix that. I bet however, when Sun does fix it, Apple will implement that in the next major cat.

patseguin
Dec 20, 2006, 10:59 AM
I'm using Tiger and I honestly don't see anything (except maybe "Spaces") that makes me want to upgrade to Leopard.

I really hope that "top secret" stuff is compelling because so far the prospect of upgrading is lacking that killer element.

I 100% agree.

colocolo
Dec 20, 2006, 11:00 AM
Yea, I've tried that, but ShapeShifter still works within the fugly constraints of Apple's UI.


MacVault is to Aqua as DHM is to GMA950

MongoTheGeek
Dec 20, 2006, 11:01 AM
The black transparenty window looked like something that pixar demoed at WWDC. It was an inhouse app that they were showing off to talk about development practices there. Just a thought.

As for iCal, yeah it needs a lot more. Its being totally redone and there is a bunch of cool stuff coming. Not working as of WWDC demo. (man I need to get the new build installed.)

50548
Dec 20, 2006, 11:01 AM
I think Leopard is looking really nice! Time Machine looks awesome and the new screensavers look like fun. :) As for all you people complaining about no new Finder interface... calm down. Didn't Steve say on stage at WWDC that there are some "top secret" features we have yet to see? Be patient...

Honestly...there will be no top secret features apart from those improvements in Leopard...there will be NO UI change in Leopard at all.

Aniej
Dec 20, 2006, 11:05 AM
Dude, I think you need some valium or something. ;) The UI in these screenshots really don't look all that different than the current UI.

Yea - you got that right! Go from the calendar in Microsoft Outlook to iCal and it's like going from the Space Shuttle to playing with a baby's toy. iCal sucks and Apple could do way better. Is the Apple campus just full of pot smoke 24/7? Don't get me wrong, I love pot smoke, but there's a time and a place for it :D

Obviously motulist was not reading all of your posts or he would know Valium is surely not needed.

Nym
Dec 20, 2006, 11:05 AM
Yea, now you're gettin it. I don't like the look of the menu bar or the fonts it uses, and I don't really like the idea of the menus being in the menu bar as opposed to in the windows themselves. And I don't like the dock, the scroll bars, the round bubbly buttons, the scroll bar arrows, etc. etc. etc.

Isn't that a little bit like saying "I HATE OSX!" ? :D

I think the GUI could be a lot better, but to remove the Dock? :) that's like one of OSX trademarks and will always be improved, but never removed IMO, at least while we are in 10.x .
I love OSX the way it is now, and I do see the need for a GUI refresh but not a complete rebuild.

Manic Mouse
Dec 20, 2006, 11:08 AM
Honestly...there will be no top secret features apart from those improvements in Leopard...there will be NO UI change in Leopard at all.

You never know! Steve himself said there would be some "top-secret" features, who knows what they may be? I would put money on a complimentary UI (Aqua still being an option) and a redesigned Finder. Apple must know about the deficiencies in Finder and that people want them fixed. As for the UI, Apple seems to be getting tired of Aqua if iTunes 7 is any indication. Perhaps iTunes 7 is designed to work with the new UI and the current horribly plain one is simply a placeholder?

SiliconAddict
Dec 20, 2006, 11:08 AM
Yea, now you're gettin it. I don't like the look of the menu bar or the fonts it uses, and I don't really like the idea of the menus being in the menu bar as opposed to in the windows themselves. And I don't like the dock, the scroll bars, the round bubbly buttons, the scroll bar arrows, etc. etc. etc.


Sounds like you want windows. :p ;)

My biggest complaint about the menu bar is that when you have 6+ windows on screen there have been times I've gone to the menubar to do [insert action here] and I've had the wrong window\app active. when its integrated into the window its just there. That being said I like the way its integrated into the menubar because IMHO its a waste to have the same menus spread across multiple windows. There are pros and cons to both ways of doing it. I haven't decided which I like the best. There must be a happy medium between the two designs but what? :confused:

As for the buttons and scroll bars. Huh? What's wrong with the scroll bars?

PS-Don't even get me started on how even when a Window isn't the active window it's cursor a text field is still blinking. In Windows the cursor stops when the window isn't active. Which is a tell-tail sign.

neven
Dec 20, 2006, 11:08 AM
Steve Jobs doesn't read this forum, nor does anyone with decision-making power at Apple, nor would they agree with you or listen to you if they did. You're not making points, you're yelling.

Sorry, had to get that out of my system.

Leopard is looking very nice. I hope Quick Look and Preview merge in some way so that Preview isn't a useless app with 2 unique functions that could just be moved over to Quick Look (like Sherlock was for a while).

Here's something to keep in mind regarding Time Machine: laptops are selling like hotcakes nowadays, and their market share is only going to increase (compared to desktops). Continuous backups don't make much sense on a portable computer - hence the insistence on external hard drives, I believe. That's my current backup method - iBackup to an external drive every... whenever :) If this happened automatically when I plugged in the drive - with a notice saying, hey, this will take 5 minutes, don't unplug the drive (or Cancel), that would be really sweet.

To whoever said that going from Outlook to iCal was a step DOWN - one daily Outlook user to another - yes, that's correct. It's like stepping down from captaining a whaler ship to driving a Honda Civic. Guess which one I want to be doing on a daily basis. What iCal needs is not the feature jungle of Outlook's calendar, but FEWER UI options. Give me a Google Calendar-like quick entry box, an onclick mid-level box with basic info about the event, and a contextual-menu detailed mode. Keep features, but hide them if I'll be using them 2% of the time.

We've seen few iLife changes in previews so far. My guess is we'll see more of those come January.

hob
Dec 20, 2006, 11:09 AM
IF there is a UI change coming, which I doubt somewhat, then why would they ruin the surprise and put it in the DEVELOPER preview. All a developer needs at this stage is to make sure their apps run fine in Leopard.

What's wrong with the current UI anyway?!

ready2switch
Dec 20, 2006, 11:10 AM
Yea, I've tried that, but ShapeShifter still works within the fugly constraints of Apple's UI.

Just get some finger paints and fix your screen the way YOU want it. Then it will always be how you like, no matter which OS you use. ;)

Aniej
Dec 20, 2006, 11:13 AM
You mean like this?

http://www.thinksecret.com/archives/leopard9a321/image/picture-8.jpg

No, not like what that at all. That screenshot shows just what I am highlighting is not there. the ability to take lets say 5 different news feeds, splice 3 of each sites newest stories to make 15 and have them all update like the current rss screensaver. You can do everything I have listed, but you are not able to ever to remain current, it freezes in time; maybe time machine can fix that too ahah;)

MacVault
Dec 20, 2006, 11:17 AM
Honestly...there will be no top secret features apart from those improvements in Leopard...there will be NO UI change in Leopard at all.

How do you know? I hope you are wrong, but I'm affraid you'll be proven right :mad: :( :mad: :( :mad:

SiliconAddict
Dec 20, 2006, 11:21 AM
What's wrong with the current UI anyway?!

Nothing as long as you are happy with a 7+ year old UI. I mean seriously. They have had close to a decade to work on new UI's. You see concept UI's coming out of Sun, MS, MIT, etc all the time. What REAL changes have we seen between 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, and now maybe 10.5? Not a whole heck of a lot. Usually a new coat of paint. Minor tweaks here and there. Its almost as if Apple is turning into MS. Sitting on their fat butt, patting themselves on the back for a UI that is closing in on being a decade old. OS X is now at the halfway mark. Something new really should be debuting with Leopard. Instead, if we are to believe that the current builds are feature locked, it’s more of the same old, same old. Add a few new spiffy features. Dink around with the color scheme yet again, probably more optimizing to give us a bit more of the ‘ol “snappy”. And call it NEW AND IMPROVED!

Well I for one am disappointed and unless those “top secret” features debut at MWSF I’m going to be outright pissed that Jobs once again mouthed off with BS to its userbase. We’ll see.

mkrishnan
Dec 20, 2006, 11:21 AM
The black transparenty window looked like something that pixar demoed at WWDC. It was an inhouse app that they were showing off to talk about development practices there. Just a thought.

Uberryinteresting! :)

I'm still kinda hoping that iTV or some other Apple device ends up being able to act in conjunction with Time Machine as a NAS that is really built to work well on Macs. :) That would be sweet. Wireless backups of my notebook! :)

MacVault
Dec 20, 2006, 11:29 AM
Nothing as long as you are happy with a 7+ year old UI. I mean seriously. They have had close to a decade to work on new UI's. You see concept UI's coming out of Sun, MS, MIT, etc all the time. What REAL changes have we seen between 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, and now maybe 10.5? Not a whole heck of a lot. Usually a new coat of paint. Minor tweaks here and there. Its almost as if Apple is turning into MS. Sitting on their fat butt, patting themselves on the back for a UI that is closing in on being a decade old. OS X is now at the halfway mark. Something new really should be debuting with Leopard. Instead, if we are to believe that the current builds are feature locked, it’s more of the same old, same old. Add a few new spiffy features. Dink around with the color scheme yet again, probably more optimizing to give us a bit more of the ‘ol “snappy”. And call it NEW AND IMPROVED!

Well I for one am disappointed and unless those “top secret” features debut at MWSF I’m going to be outright pissed that Jobs once again mouthed off with BS to its userbase. We’ll see.

Yes! Awsome post, SiliconAddict!!! Just plain awsome! 100% on the mark! I've been trying to say the same things but you've said it perfectly!

MacFloyd G5
Dec 20, 2006, 11:32 AM
I think that a lot of you guys (and gals) are really worrying far too much about not seeing any UI tweaks in Leopard yet, especially in terms of the Finder. It seemed obvious to me at WWDC that Apple is planning on doing significantly more in the way of improving Mac OS X's interface going forward, and it seems especially ludicrous from a business perspective for Apple not to freshen up Aqua after the release of Vista and its new Glass UI. Apple has the tools, such as Quartz, OpenGL, and now Core Animation to wow and amaze users with new beautiful and elegant UI elements, which seems, to me, like a major improvement that Apple would want to keep from Microsoft. Steve said very clearly that a number of features are not going to be detailed yet (likely until MWSF), even to developers. Because Leopard 9A321 is a developer release, and we have yet to reach MWSF, I'm not sure what everyone is getting upset about, at least until January.

And MacVault, if you despise everything about Aqua and the way it works, then why on Earth do you use a Mac?

MacVault
Dec 20, 2006, 11:34 AM
Uberryinteresting! :)

I'm still kinda hoping that iTV or some other Apple device ends up being able to act in conjunction with Time Machine as a NAS that is really built to work well on Macs. :) That would be sweet. Wireless backups of my notebook! :)

Yes - Apple needs to offer an inexpensive, high capacity, network storage device. But NO - it should not be part of iTV. A house needs one central storage device, but might have 5 different TV viewing locations. If iTV was the storage device you'd have 5 network storage devices around your house, paying extra money for that functionality when you only really need one storage device.

mkjellman
Dec 20, 2006, 11:36 AM
Yes! Awsome post, SiliconAddict!!! Just plain awsome! 100% on the mark! I've been trying to say the same things but you've said it perfectly!


you sure as hell weren't saying that before

ChrisA
Dec 20, 2006, 11:37 AM
I thought you were going to take your gripes to a "real non-Mac IT forum" where they respect important concerns like the fugliness of interfaces? ;)

Hopefully all the promised improvements to the firewall really are there and this new interface (which seems to rather lack options) is much more intuitive than it looks.

Love the new printer setup dialog...not that I really set up a lot of printers. The parental controls, which I also won't use, look nice too.

As they're changing security features, I really wish they had a simple feature that allowed FUS to the login screen on sleep or screen save and/or did away with the wake password dialog and used the login screen (perhaps with a master password override to let other users log in).

One of the Ten Commandments of setting up a secure system is the idea that a password belongs to one and only one real person. A "master password" violates that rule. You want to require an Admin user to type in both his username and his password. The "commandment" flows from a requirement to know who did what when. Actions need to be tracable to one specific real human.

There are a few places already where Mac OS X violates an industry rules. iPods don't mix well with fast user switching and the Mac's treament of external drives is almost as bad. Kind of big holes I hope get fixed.

Eidorian
Dec 20, 2006, 11:39 AM
I just noticed the install to USB. :confused:

ChrisA
Dec 20, 2006, 11:44 AM
Yes - Apple needs to offer an inexpensive, high capacity, network storage device. But NO - it should not be part of iTV. A house needs one central storage device, but might have 5 different TV viewing locations. If iTV was the storage device you'd have 5 network storage devices around your house, paying extra money for that functionality when you only really need one storage device.

Here is my "workaround". Get older G4 Mini. Place this on top of RAID box and connect it with FW400 cable. Now i have a real nice NAS device.

Did you read about Apple working to make an embedded version of Mac OS. Likely it will run on some non-Intel Architecture like maybe the ARM (That's the CPU inside the iPod) then you could put an ARM cpu inside a box of disks and sell a "poor man's Xserve". Apple neds to address storage issue before the can market the iTV to home users.

Georgie
Dec 20, 2006, 11:46 AM
Right now I backup using SuperDuper, which I like because I know that if my hard drive fails, or if my laptop is stolen, I can boot directly from my backup firewire drive on another Mac, and basically be up and running without any downtime. I wouldn't want to do this for long because of the speed issue, but it's nice to know I could get by in a crunch.

Does anyone know if this will be possible with Time Machine? Will Time Machine backup to an external hard drive in such a way that that drive is bootable? When I first read about TM I had the impression that that would not be possible, that it is basically storing old files in a proprietary database. But these screenshots show it's posssible to back up and then restore an entire hard drive. So maybe it is possible to ditch SuperDuper and only use Time Machine. I would gain the ability to retreive deleted files (to some extent). I don't actually care much about that feature, but if it comes free with a quality backup solution, sure I'll take it.

MongoTheGeek
Dec 20, 2006, 11:46 AM
I think that a lot of you guys (and gals) are really worrying far too much about not seeing any UI tweaks in Leopard yet, especially in terms of the Finder.

In my experience, UI updates are the last things that make it into the betas. They seem to float around inside of Apple but get stripped out of developer seeds until the RC stage where things magically look different.

crees!
Dec 20, 2006, 11:47 AM
Instead of "Archive" it's now "Compress"

jholzner
Dec 20, 2006, 11:50 AM
Yea, now you're gettin it. I don't like the look of the menu bar or the fonts it uses, and I don't really like the idea of the menus being in the menu bar as opposed to in the windows themselves. And I don't like the dock, the scroll bars, the round bubbly buttons, the scroll bar arrows, etc. etc. etc.

OMG...you might want to try using Windows. I mean, I understand one right to criticize but menus on the windows themselves!!? I HATE how that is in Windows. They're a moving target. On my mac I ALWAYS know where "file" is and where "help" is because it's always in basically the same place no matter what app I'm using.

mkrishnan
Dec 20, 2006, 12:03 PM
Yes - Apple needs to offer an inexpensive, high capacity, network storage device. But NO - it should not be part of iTV.

Sorry, as soon as I said that, I thought twice about the iTV part. Yeah, agreed, I'd just like to see them offer a nice NAS that ideally is wireless capable (can join a wireless network), supports MacHFS+ / ZFS (and probably also Windows requirements), mounts directly as a network drive in OS X, etc.

One of the Ten Commandments of setting up a secure system is the idea that a password belongs to one and only one real person.

Sorry, I totally agree... that's also what I should have said. But one thing I do like about Windows is the way it handles the lock screen ... which is why I'd like to see the lock screen in OS X be replaced by the FUS login window, albeit with the ability for an admin to allow a user change / force logout.

Related to this, I do very much also feel that, for the IT world in particular, OS X needs to get away from master passwords, the ability to reset the password using system restore DVDs, etc.

morespce54
Dec 20, 2006, 12:04 PM
Okay, I've still never received a good answer to this question: does Time Machine backup constantly, or just once per day?

That's a pretty good question... I hope it uses the same behavior as Spotlight...:confused:

kalisphoenix
Dec 20, 2006, 12:08 PM
I shouldn't do this but let me clear up a few things:


I'm sad to see that your post has been largely ignored, mkjellman. Personally, that's exactly what I hope to see out of Leopard. Better performance, ironed kinks, et cetera.

My chief complaint with Apple since I switched from Linux has been that Apple will do something 90% -- and stop right there. For instance, watching VIDEO_TS folders in Front Row. Or not allowing any app but Pages to create PDFs with working links.

I'm hoping that Apple continues to improve the "minor" things like performance and functionality and give the bragging rights a rest. Thanks for your post.

Diatribe
Dec 20, 2006, 12:16 PM
Instead of "Archive" it's now "Compress"

I am glad they finally change at least some bad expressions. I always had to explain "archive" when I wanted them to create a zip file.

MacVault
Dec 20, 2006, 12:19 PM
:D My thoughts exactly.

Oh yes I was. He just said it a little better.

killmoms
Dec 20, 2006, 12:23 PM
For instance, watching VIDEO_TS folders in Front Row.
Yes, I can't imagine why Apple wouldn't include the functionality that would allow its users to play ripped DVDs (still illegal to do in the US if they have copy protection) with their software. I mean, it's not like that'd be a conflict of interest, what with them trying to court the movie industry for digital distribution on the iTunes Store. :rolleyes:

I mean, come on. At some point your needs become more esoteric than 90% of the Apple userbase. Or, at least, the userbase Apple is targeting with features like Front Row.

Diatribe
Dec 20, 2006, 12:26 PM
Anyway, I don't see we will see major UI changes until 11.0. And I don't think Apple really needs to do this. Even virtual desktops is a pretty big addition to the UI.
They need to get out the quirks like networking, the slow Finder, etc., etc.

And whoever thinks Vista is a big UI improvement over XP and at the same time says Leopard won't be that big of a change is contradicting themselves.

I agree Apple could do a lot of things better, but there are so many changes in Leopard that it already is better step over Tiger than Tiger was over Panther.

If you people can't see that because your bitter over something Apple didn't improve that you wanted to, I am sorry.

Diatribe
Dec 20, 2006, 12:39 PM
Yes, I can't imagine why Apple wouldn't include the functionality that would allow its users to play ripped DVDs (still illegal to do in the US if they have copy protection) with their software. I mean, it's not like that'd be a conflict of interest, what with them trying to court the movie industry for digital distribution on the iTunes Store. :rolleyes:

I mean, come on. At some point your needs become more esoteric than 90% of the Apple userbase. Or, at least, the userbase Apple is targeting with features like Front Row.

And with Apple offering HD downloads or at least full DVD quality downloads I don't think there'd be one person bitching about it...

Scenicroadways
Dec 20, 2006, 12:40 PM
It doesn't make it impossible for me to do any work, but yes, it's hideous and it repels me. Apple **could** do SO MUCH BETTER if they wanted to. And Vista, well, I have my gripes about vista too.

I love the brushed metal look personally. I am sad to see it go in iChat.

willybNL
Dec 20, 2006, 12:40 PM
Finally i see:
- Preview (hopefully also with all iphoto features soon, i like my own directory structure :P)
- Good backup
- Spaces :)

But still no view of:
- moving files in finder (still need external app)
- creating new file in finder (still need external app)
- MSN ability in iChat (for video)
- Speech for other languages than English
- RSS 'live bookmark' function in safari (like in Firefox)

sachamun
Dec 20, 2006, 12:40 PM
I'm using Tiger and I honestly don't see anything (except maybe "Spaces") that makes me want to upgrade to Leopard.

I really hope that "top secret" stuff is compelling because so far the prospect of upgrading is lacking that killer element.

To be honest, I'd have to agree.
It all looks good, but not run-to-the-store-on-release-day good.
More like whenever-I-can-afford-to-throw-a-little-cash-around good.
Tigers doing fine by me.
I do look forward to see what time machine feels like to use though.

motulist
Dec 20, 2006, 12:41 PM
Yes, I can't imagine why Apple wouldn't include the functionality that would allow its users to play ripped DVDs (still illegal to do in the US if they have copy protection) with their software. I mean, it's not like that'd be a conflict of interest, what with them trying to court the movie industry for digital distribution on the iTunes Store. :rolleyes:

I mean, come on. At some point your needs become more esoteric than 90% of the Apple userbase. Or, at least, the userbase Apple is targeting with features like Front Row.

Hear hear! As soon as a program, or anything else for that matter, tries to be all things to all people then it becomes nothing to everyone. Front Row has a very clear purpose, and while it isn't perfect, it is still excellent. Front row does need more capability in some ways, but if Apple made it try and do too much then it ceases to be an excellent program for consumers to play their media using a remote control, and instead it becomes a Windows Media PC.

brad.c
Dec 20, 2006, 12:42 PM
I'm not able to get to the originating sites fo the articles, so let me ask here instead. Are we sure these screenshots are from Apple's internally seeded update WITH the GUI changes, or are these from the Developers release (that would not have the new look incorporated)?

killmoms
Dec 20, 2006, 12:42 PM
And with Apple offering HD downloads or at least full DVD quality downloads I don't think there'd be one person bitching about it...

To be fair, 640 x 480 H.264 in the Baseline - Low Complexity profile they're using at 1500kbps only looks _okay_ to someone like me. It's not full DVD quality, and definitely not HD.

However, even if you are ripping your own DVDs, wouldn't demuxing them to m2v and ac3 and then re-muxing them into a self-contained mpeg-2 container be something that QT (and thus Front Row) could grok? I believe there are now AC3 codecs for QT that won't crash it or FR. Yeah, it's an extra step, but it's still the original streams.

AndrewMT
Dec 20, 2006, 12:42 PM
I am psyched about quicklook. It's always been hard moving from XP to OSX and having to use that horrible Preview instead of something like Window's simple Image Preview. I AM PSYCHED!!!!

dr_lha
Dec 20, 2006, 12:49 PM
The black transparenty window looked like something that pixar demoed at WWDC. It was an inhouse app that they were showing off to talk about development practices there. Just a thought.
That kind of window is already used in Tiger, e.g. in iPhoto.

Diatribe
Dec 20, 2006, 01:02 PM
To be fair, 640 x 480 H.264 in the Baseline - Low Complexity profile they're using at 1500kbps only looks _okay_ to someone like me. It's not full DVD quality, and definitely not HD.

However, even if you are ripping your own DVDs, wouldn't demuxing them to m2v and ac3 and then re-muxing them into a self-contained mpeg-2 container be something that QT (and thus Front Row) could grok? I believe there are now AC3 codecs for QT that won't crash it or FR. Yeah, it's an extra step, but it's still the original streams.

Yeah, it would work, just too much work to go through and the quality would still suffer. As HD Tvs get more and more common and even Apple is upping the resolution on their displays the current res will begin to look bad.

I know it is a bandwidth problem but unless they offer better resolutions people will bitch about it not being able to play Video_TS folders.


I would gladly buy ALL my movies and music in the iTMS IF they were HD and Lossless.

killmoms
Dec 20, 2006, 01:05 PM
I would gladly buy ALL my movies and music in the iTMS IF they were HD and Lossless.

Well, to be fair, DVDs are lossy. So are HD-DVDs and Blu-Ray discs for HD content. HDTV is lossy. CDs, as they are often recorded and mastered at a higher sampling rate (and higher bits per sample) and then resampled down to 44.1kHz/16-bit, are also technically losing information. Where do you draw the line? :p

Also, the method I mentioned would not affect quality vs. the original DVD at all. You're just separating and recombining the original streams, not re-encoding. No quality loss from the original.

Diatribe
Dec 20, 2006, 01:23 PM
Well, to be fair, DVDs are lossy. So are HD-DVDs and Blu-Ray discs for HD content. HDTV is lossy. CDs, as they are often recorded and mastered at a higher sampling rate (and higher bits per sample) and then resampled down to 44.1kHz/16-bit, are also technically losing information. Where do you draw the line? :p

Also, the method I mentioned would not affect quality vs. the original DVD at all. You're just separating and recombining the original streams, not re-encoding. No quality loss from the original.

Ah ok. Yeah that'd be all right. Still a lot of work though.

I'd be content with Apple Lossless (highest encoding that is not AiFF in iTunes) and 1080p. ;)

guzhogi
Dec 20, 2006, 01:23 PM
Couple of things. First off, w/ Time Machine, you can set it to update once a day or constantly. Not sure how to do it multiple times a day.

Secondly, I'm fine w/ the UI, but would like it to be more constant. There's one kind of window for Finder, another for Mail/iTunes. Just choose one and go w/ it. Or, even better, let the user decide. I remember in the pre-OS X days there used to be this utility called Kaleidoscope that changed the appearance of everything. And in OS 8.5, Apple added a feature called that was like kaleidoscope, but later removed it in OS 9 or something. I'd really like Apple to bring that back, but to a greater degree. In my opinion, I think it would be great if Apple let the users decide whether to have the menubar on the top or in each window, the look of the windows (Aqua vs. brushed metal vs. iTunes), and let them do it on a window or application basis, but allow batch processing to if you have a lot of windows. While it would be hard, it would be cool if Apple let the users to also create their own UI. And for those who hate the UI, why don't you Photoshop a few pictures of what your ideal UI would be?

motulist
Dec 20, 2006, 01:29 PM
Well, to be fair, DVDs are lossy. So are HD-DVDs and Blu-Ray discs for HD content. HDTV is lossy. CDs, as they are often recorded and mastered at a higher sampling rate (and higher bits per sample) and then resampled down to 44.1kHz/16-bit, are also technically losing information. Where do you draw the line? :p

Also, the method I mentioned would not affect quality vs. the original DVD at all. You're just separating and recombining the original streams, not re-encoding. No quality loss from the original.

Agreed. And any recording process is inherently lossy. If I set up the most expensive, modern top of the line mic you can buy today and store the information it records onto some imaginary perfectly losses data medium, and replay that information on some imaginary perfect sound reproduction system, the sound you hear will still be drastically different than what you would've heard if you were standing in that room when the sound was originally created.

It all comes down to what level of reproduction allows you the most entertainment value. I've seen hdtv, it does look sharper than regular tv. And? To me, standard definition tv delivers about 95% of the entertainment that hdtv does, and most downloaded video gives me about 95% also, just using a different mix of variables. I have a very strong visual sense, but beyond a certain point you reach diminishing returns in terms of entertainment.

So Diatribe, if for some reason you feel like now that you've seen hdtv that standard definition tv is no longer entertaining enough to you, then that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. But if you look at the fast increasing rate at which people are choosing to use highly compressed media and then look at the rate at which old uncompressed media are declining and the slow rate of adoption for new high definition mediums, then you'll see that most people don't share the same opinion. So if iTunes downloads aren't high definition enough for you, then that's a perfectly acceptable opinion to hold, but that doesn't mean Apple is doing anything wrong in the quality it offers.

wjdennen
Dec 20, 2006, 01:40 PM
Time Machine "looks" horrible. The interface is totally foreign. :(

Lixivial
Dec 20, 2006, 01:42 PM
You see concept UI's coming out of Sun, MS, MIT, etc all the time. What REAL changes have we seen between 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, and now maybe 10.5? Not a whole heck of a lot. Usually a new coat of paint. Minor tweaks here and there. Its almost as if Apple is turning into MS. Sitting on their fat butt, patting themselves on the back for a UI that is closing in on being a decade old.

I sure as heck hope you're not suggesting we go through a UI "switch" every five or so years. When something is broken, it needs to be fixed, but it'd take a heck of an argument to convince me that the OS X UI metaphor is broken. When these subtle accents (such as the purported use of Core Animation throughout now) come together with the UI, it forms a new and -- more importantly -- improved experience. The changes made to Office 2007, on the other hand, are where UI redesign and rethinking can fix an outstanding issue.

Even having said all that, what sort of UI "revolution" are you looking for here, and in what way are the "minor tweaks" not alluding to or accomodating of an overall change in UI direction? Expose, Spotlight, Front Row and Time Machine are all in step with changing the way we interface with our computers. How are these not UI "revolutions?"

If I'm picking up on what you may mean, Apple's canned various "revolutionary" efforts in the past -- such as the 3D Finder (http://www.doctorgavin.com/Apple/finder.html) project -- and I think we should understand why that might be. Project Looking Glass from Sun may be cool, but why do we need to flip a window around in 3D space to attach a note to the back of it? Xgl may be neat, but what is in Xgl that Apple can't implement with Quartz (http://dev.lipidity.com/apple/the-ultimate-core-graphics-resource)/the Core Foundation (http://dev.lipidity.com/tutorial/xcode-transitions-core-graphics-image-2) frameworks? I guess my question is -- if Apple isn't implementing UI changes, then who else is implementing revolutionary UI changes?

I find it a bit interesting that you may believe Apple is sitting on their thumbs, simply because they fail to demo anything that lies within your view of "truly revolutionary." The best progress takes time so that each piece can be implemented with thought, care, and refinement. I see Apple's direction as being the most ideal. As a general curiousity, what sort of practical changes do you recommend they implement in Leopard that would radically change the OS X metaphor such that it could be deemed "revolutionary," while improving it at the same time?

dukebound85
Dec 20, 2006, 01:47 PM
And with Apple offering HD downloads or at least full DVD quality downloads I don't think there'd be one person bitching about it...

that you cant watch on a tv easily...i wonder why

mcarnes
Dec 20, 2006, 01:49 PM
I've seen hdtv, it does look sharper than regular tv. And? To me, standard definition tv delivers about 95% of the entertainment that hdtv does, and most downloaded video gives me about 95% also, just using a different mix of variables. I have a very strong visual sense, but beyond a certain point you reach diminishing returns in terms of entertainment.

No offense, but you do not have a "very strong visual sense" if you think standard def gives "95% of the entertainment that hdtv does" (whatever that means). This is true for little kids or people who just don't care, which is fine. But if you knew how to judge quality you would not make an absurd comment like that.

Bregalad
Dec 20, 2006, 02:17 PM
.

Mr. DG
Dec 20, 2006, 02:26 PM
My biggest complaint about the menu bar is that when you have 6+ windows on screen there have been times I've gone to the menubar to do [insert action here] and I've had the wrong window\app active. when its integrated into the window its just there. That being said I like the way its integrated into the menubar because IMHO its a waste to have the same menus spread across multiple windows. There are pros and cons to both ways of doing it. I haven't decided which I like the best. There must be a happy medium between the two designs but what? :confused:



I still wish we had the the RISC OS way of bringing up menus: 3 mouse buttons, left button does main work, right does variations on the left, and the middle button brings up the menu for the window you're in currently (NB NOT context sensitive, just window sensitive).

example here:
http://www.mjpye.org.uk/images/screens/easiwrite.png

And please - bring this back from RISC OS too - the most time saving computing feature in the world - If you click on a menu option with the right button instead of the left, the menu STAYS OPEN for you to choose another option. Handy if you need 2 options from within a menu tree.

Bregalad
Dec 20, 2006, 02:28 PM
I sure hope someone from Apple reads these Mac forums, preferably Steve Jobs himself. Otherwise how will they know what we want? Does anyone know if there's any better/official way to get our point across to Apple?

Steve Jobs doesn't care what you or I have to say. He is a "benevolent dictator" who believes that his way is best for all of us.

It's clear to any intelligent observer that the reason why we can't customize our Macs without hacks is because any change would "spoil" the interface he has bestowed upon us.

The only way to actually change the products coming out of Cupertino is to invent something better and have Steve notice and like your new invention. Then Apple will take your idea, modify it enough that you can't sue them, and release it as their own glorious new work.

Diatribe
Dec 20, 2006, 02:28 PM
So Diatribe, if for some reason you feel like now that you've seen hdtv that standard definition tv is no longer entertaining enough to you, then that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. But if you look at the fast increasing rate at which people are choosing to use highly compressed media and then look at the rate at which old uncompressed media are declining and the slow rate of adoption for new high definition mediums, then you'll see that most people don't share the same opinion. So if iTunes downloads aren't high definition enough for you, then that's a perfectly acceptable opinion to hold, but that doesn't mean Apple is doing anything wrong in the quality it offers.

1. Apple offers this quality for bandwidth reasons not because most people want it.
2. The people that buy lossy formats only buy it because there is no other option than to buy lossy formats online.
3. There are a lot of people not buying from the iTMS or online in general just because of this reason (lossy formats) (The people buying from the iTMS is actually a small percentage to the overall buyers)
4. HDTVs are getting more and more common at large sizes. Current content on those TVs looks bad however you see it.
5. It is not a matter of entertainment but of quality. You are saying we could all go back to 10" B&W TVs ... the content is still the same.:rolleyes:

motulist
Dec 20, 2006, 02:30 PM
No offense, but you do not have a "very strong visual sense" if you think standard def gives "95% of the entertainment that hdtv does" (whatever that means). This is true for little kids or people who just don't care, which is fine. But if you knew how to judge quality you would not make an absurd comment like that.

I do take offense, because I do have a very strong visual sense, and that's not just according to me. I didn't judge other peoples opinions, so you have no right to judge mine, that's why they're called opinions.

I was very specific about using the term entertainment value and not quality. I did NOT say standard def delivers 95% of the image quality that hd does, because it doesn't come close. But hd's greatly enhanced image detail, which I am fully capable of perceiving and distinguishing, only makes my enjoyment of viewing the same tv show or movie about 5% greater. It doesn't mean I can't see the difference in quality between the 2 images, because I can, and the difference is huge, it just doesn't make a great movie that much more fun to watch and it doesn't make a crappy movie suck less. And in terms of how much that extra image quality is worth, which is what the word value means, it's totally not worth it to me.

Diatribe
Dec 20, 2006, 02:30 PM
that you cant watch on a tv easily...i wonder why

I think you will be able to when iTV comes out.

guzhogi
Dec 20, 2006, 02:35 PM
I sure as heck hope you're not suggesting we go through a UI "switch" every five or so years. When something is broken, it needs to be fixed, but it'd take a heck of an argument to convince me that the OS X UI metaphor is broken. When these subtle accents (such as the purported use of Core Animation throughout now) come together with the UI, it forms a new and -- more importantly -- improved experience. The changes made to Office 2007, on the other hand, are where UI redesign and rethinking can fix an outstanding issue.

Even having said all that, what sort of UI "revolution" are you looking for here, and in what way are the "minor tweaks" not alluding to or accomodating of an overall change in UI direction? Expose, Spotlight, Front Row and Time Machine are all in step with changing the way we interface with our computers. How are these not UI "revolutions?"

If I'm picking up on what you may mean, Apple's canned various "revolutionary" efforts in the past -- such as the 3D Finder (http://www.doctorgavin.com/Apple/finder.html) project -- and I think we should understand why that might be. Project Looking Glass from Sun may be cool, but why do we need to flip a window around in 3D space to attach a note to the back of it? Xgl may be neat, but what is in Xgl that Apple can't implement with Quartz (http://dev.lipidity.com/apple/the-ultimate-core-graphics-resource)/the Core Foundation (http://dev.lipidity.com/tutorial/xcode-transitions-core-graphics-image-2) frameworks? I guess my question is -- if Apple isn't implementing UI changes, then who else is implementing revolutionary UI changes?

I find it a bit interesting that you may believe Apple is sitting on their thumbs, simply because they fail to demo anything that lies within your view of "truly revolutionary." The best progress takes time so that each piece can be implemented with thought, care, and refinement. I see Apple's direction as being the most ideal. As a general curiousity, what sort of practical changes do you recommend they implement in Leopard that would radically change the OS X metaphor such that it could be deemed "revolutionary," while improving it at the same time?

I agree w/ you in that if it's not broken, don't fix it. While I also agree there may be better ways of getting somethings done. You just have to make sure the benefit:cost ratio is good enough to merit the change. Just something is "old" doesn't mean isn't good anymore. While software should keep up to date w/ the hardware and vice-versa, if it works well for you and you like it, stay w/ it. Remember, there are people out there that would have a hard time adjusting to Mac OS X if we radically change the UI every year or something.

081440
Dec 20, 2006, 02:54 PM
No offense, but you do not have a "very strong visual sense" if you think standard def gives "95% of the entertainment that hdtv does" (whatever that means). This is true for little kids or people who just don't care, which is fine. But if you knew how to judge quality you would not make an absurd comment like that.

Actually it is best that little kids be exposed to the best quality sound and visuals not the other way around. If they see and hear the best when they are young they will be able to better understand and take advantage of the better quality available to them later on.

(maybe the 95% person you're quoting only got to watch grainy black and white when they were young :D ;) )

iGuy
Dec 20, 2006, 02:55 PM
No offense, but you do not have a "very strong visual sense" if you think standard def gives "95% of the entertainment that hdtv does" (whatever that means). This is true for little kids or people who just don't care, which is fine. But if you knew how to judge quality you would not make an absurd comment like that.

He didn't say that it give 95% of the visual quality, he said it give 95% of the entertainment value. The two are quite different things.

Personally I'd say 70 to 85 percent, but that's just me. :)

Of course movies with a lot of special effects are a lot more fun for me in HD. But if I'm watching a British murder mystery or a film that was shot in black and white 40 years ago, HD doesn't really add that much.

For me, and what I think he was getting at, is that the quality of the story and how it's told comprises a significant amount of the total 'Entertainment Value' of a movie.

Another factor that is often overlooked when describing HD vs SD is compression. Heavily compressed video in either format can be less than appealing.

~iGuy

Evangelion
Dec 20, 2006, 02:59 PM
:rolleyes: And why is AeroXP posting such pics, if it is a Windows-fanboy website? Is it to enable copying of features by Microsoft?

propably, since some screenshots in some website is the only way microsoft can use to steal features from os x....

matticus008
Dec 20, 2006, 03:02 PM
Back on topic though... what do people think about Quick Look? It seems like a much more elegant version of something Microsoft did a number of years back. That being said, it certainly speaks to Apple's continued interest in that window look, as it appears in iPhoto, iTunes, and now Finder.
I think it's more of a sign of things to come. Notice that all the new features that have been coming out lately have involved the use of floating "shadow" boxes or rich black backgrounds (iLife from '05, Quicktime 7, Coverflow, Front Row, Quick Look, my Adium theme ;), Time Machine, etc.)? All the long-standing features are still the same, as one would expect this far out in development. The poorly scaling UI widgets and the puzzling lack of Finder improvements also seem to point to this. If you look at Quick Look in particular, you can see a strong embodiment of what Illuminous potentially will be--light use of transparency, consistent rich smoke and black colors (but not overbearing--bright, vibrant colors still pop in the previews), and the use of Core Animation and Core Image effects to accent, but not upstage, the UI.

I really think that Illuminous is going for the rich blacks, but only in complement to lighter, brighter colors. Take a look at the Leopard pages, especially developer.apple.com. It all comes together and looks appealing without being "dark." Illuminous seems like it will be about the use of light and shadow, contrast and vibrance--not about "black."

I just noticed the install to USB. :confused:
Wasn't this a foregone conclusion? Why shouldn't Macs be able to boot to USB?

kitki83
Dec 20, 2006, 03:06 PM
That sucks they didnt have a screenshot of the virtual monitors where you can click and drag windows into any four so its like having 4 monitors in one, you cant see them at once but its good to organize, Online screen, Design, Music, Files Screens.


Also the aesthetics is not up to Apple to work on bec to agree on a design that everyone will like is like asking everyone to follow one religion (T_T i fail at comparisions) They made it simple and clear, as long its clarity is understandable theres shouldnt be a need to tweak the UI, thats why we have programs.

dernhelm
Dec 20, 2006, 03:11 PM
You've got that right, unfortunately. These Leopard pics better not represent the UI of the final release or I'm gonna run my new Mac through I wood chipper and post the video on YouTube and send it to Steve Jobs.

Apple could do SO MUCH BETTER than the current UI. I have no idea why they don't. Hopefully they're just hiding it til the expo.

I'll upgrade for Time Machine alone. That and a big ol' external harddrive to use it with...

Project
Dec 20, 2006, 03:12 PM
How old are these builds? I mean, is there any way of knowing when this particular build was compiled? I know Microsoft were on builds much further ahead of what was released for Beta 2, RC1 etc internally.

Sharkus
Dec 20, 2006, 03:27 PM
Apologies in advance if someone else has mentioned this. Whilst looking around, I noticed when I created a new account that I had three options "User Account", "Sharing Account" and "Group". It got me wondering as to what a Sharing Account could be for.

When connecting from another mac I saw the default shares (home folders of the two users I had on the system) which is what you'd see today. Was about to exclaim to myself "what's the point" when I used "Get Info" on a folder and noticed the "Published (ip)" option. After enabling it (required Administrator authorization) I was able to connect to that new folder.

So it would seem that, for this seed at least, PFS (Personal File Sharing) is back in the OS.

At present it seems only to be for AFP, SMB connections didn't want to allow me to connect to the new share, but that might just be me.

Never worked out why Apple removed the interface for PFS when the OS supports it, as evidenced by SharePoints, or by editing Netinfo (which I think is what Sharepoints does, I recall creating an applescript a fair while back that wrote information to netinfo to create a new afp share).

MrCrowbar
Dec 20, 2006, 04:00 PM
Wasn't this a foregone conclusion? Why shouldn't Macs be able to boot to USB?

Because you can't boot XP from a USB drive without major tweaking. Once my iPod nano (8GB) was installed when I installed Tiger again. I freaked out when I saw the screen where you can choose where to install OSX to. There was the MacHD, 2 external drives and a black iPod nano. I had all the music backed up so I clicked on the iPod and it installed Tiger on it.

I was even more amazed when I heard the Macintosh booting chime come out of the headphones connected to the iPod and saw the nano booting OSX. It was still connected to my Macbook and I was able to register OSX using the Macbook's keyboard to enter my personal data. Ok, this paragraph was just joking.

But you can actually use an iPod as a bootable USB drive. It boots around as fast as booting from the internal HD. Didn't try to plug it into a different kind of Mac to see if it works too, because I didn't want to kill the flash memory (too much read/write when the OS runs on it...).

Manuel Moreno
Dec 20, 2006, 04:03 PM
there's the secret to the new GUI!
http://www.dbug.org/images/leopard_cd.jpg +http://telescopes-com.telescopes.com/images/3d-glasses.jpg

:cool:

kroko
Dec 20, 2006, 04:04 PM
everybody is yelling about secondary issues: "how the new ui looks old", that all these are "micro-updates", the only reason to switch would be spaces etc...
but it seems that something is forgotten-->
the reason i will upgrade to leopard-> 64 bit. for the job i do (3d modelling/rendering) future is there. sure, those whose macs are dedicated only for 24/7 action in macrumors are wellcome to stay with the tiger.

mkrishnan
Dec 20, 2006, 04:04 PM
How old are these builds? I mean, is there any way of knowing when this particular build was compiled? I know Microsoft were on builds much further ahead of what was released for Beta 2, RC1 etc internally.

There are two issues with the way Apple appears to do this... one is the difference between the internal builds and the external builds, as you point out. There are news items on Page 1 or Page 2 that get at what supposedly is the internal build. But the second issue is that Apple does not release all aspects of the new OS to the public. Any little programs / features that aren't part of the coreservices and so don't affect developers may not get seeded at all. UI changes may not get seeded at all or not until very close to release. And so on.

phenomenon23
Dec 20, 2006, 04:12 PM
thank you very much

tonyvz
Dec 20, 2006, 04:14 PM
in regard to it looking exactly like tiger...

Maybe (if) when it's unveiled in January after telling you all the new features, Steve will do say something like "Oh, and you can make it look however you want" and unveil different skins for it, and the ability to create your own and upload them much like widgets.

???

I don't know, just a thought.

motulist
Dec 20, 2006, 04:14 PM
He didn't say that it give 95% of the visual quality, he said it give 95% of the entertainment value. The two are quite different things.

Personally I'd say 70 to 85 percent, but that's just me. :)

Of course movies with a lot of special effects are a lot more fun for me in HD. But if I'm watching a British murder mystery or a film that was shot in black and white 40 years ago, HD doesn't really add that much.

For me, and what I think he was getting at, is that the quality of the story and how it's told comprises a significant amount of the total 'Entertainment Value' of a movie.

Another factor that is often overlooked when describing HD vs SD is compression. Heavily compressed video in either format can be less than appealing.

~iGuy

Exactly. Most of what I watch is comedy, so if I can see all the individual blades of grass instead of a shaggy carpet of green, it doesn't make the jokes any more funny. And if I can see the individual fibers in a janitor's floor mop, it doesn't make watching Joe Dirt any less agonizing. (Actually, that movie isn't as bad as its rep, but its an easy target.)

And when I watch the occasional action flick, high def does make an improvement in my enjoyment of about 15 to 30%, like you said, but to me that small amount of increase isn't worth the few extra thousand dollars of initial purchase cost and the ongoing extra costs and hassles of higher download bandwidth, more expensive purchased, rented, or burned media, and increased service costs for high def signals.

shidoshi
Dec 20, 2006, 04:15 PM
Back on topic though... what do people think about Quick Look?

I'm glad they put it in, because it makes me look like a smarty when I pulled it idea out of my ass and called it "Finder Peek" for my entries for the 10.5 fake screenshot contest back last summer. *heh* Now I can lie to myself and say that they did it after seeing my entries.

Spagolli94
Dec 20, 2006, 04:19 PM
Personally, I like the smooth gray skin of the new iTunes over the brushed metal look of Safari. I never did like the brushed metal in the first place - it looks heavy and clunky. However, I actually like the aqua buttons much more than the new muted scroll bar in iTunes 7. The full color version look a little too childish, so I tone it down by selecting the "graphite" appearance.

someguy
Dec 20, 2006, 04:30 PM
Looks like Leopard is shaping up to be something great. :)

One thing, though. Am I the only one who thinks the following dialog box is a little too "windows-ish"? I mean, one of the best things about OSX (IMO, obviously there are many greater things, too) is that when you plug in a new device, beit USB, Firewire, ethernet, or otherwise, nothing happens. No bubble messages. No annoying audio feedback. "Yes, I know I plugged something in, and yes, I know what it is, you don't have to tell me. I also know what it is for, you don't need to tell me that either." The device is simply available for use, with no suggestions or presumptions as to how the user would like to use it. Part of the beauty of Apple's OS is that setting up your devices is so simple, you don't need any "wizards" or what-have-you.

I just hope Apple keeps OSX the way it is now (read: non-obtrusive, non-intrusive, and of course, intuitive as can be).

http://www.thinksecret.com/archives/leopard9a321/image/picture-22.jpg


BTW, sorry if this opinion has already been expressed in this thread. I admit I haven't read through it in it's entirety as of yet. :)

mkrishnan
Dec 20, 2006, 04:35 PM
I'm glad they put it in, because it makes me look like a smarty when I pulled it idea out of my ass and called it "Finder Peek" for my entries for the 10.5 fake screenshot contest back last summer. *heh* Now I can lie to myself and say that they did it after seeing my entries.

:D I like your style. I'll back you up. ;)

motulist
Dec 20, 2006, 04:40 PM
Here's why I think upgrading is worth it.

1) Time Machine - Yes there are other incremental backup programs, but none that are integrated into the OS. It's going to be the best backup program for most Mac users for the same reason the AddressBook is the best contact manager for most users. AddressBook isn't close to being the best contact manager in and of itself, but it's totally worth using for the way it integrates with the rest of your system components. The same will probably be true for Time Machine. It won't be as fully featured as some other products, but it will work seamlessly with everything else on your computer, and that's always a killer feature.

2) Spaces - This is gonna be one of those things that, once you use it, you'll never wanna go back to the old way. By nature, all modern OSes spawn a ton of windows. If you're just using a single app, you can do a hide all, and then bring just the programs to the front that you want, but that's slow and cumbersome, and if you need to jump into another program for a quick sec you need to rehide it when you're done, and so on and so forth. With spaces you can just setup a workspace for each particular activity you do, and then everything else gets out of the way so you can just get down to doing your business without clutter and interference. Like if you're always doing business research reports, you'll setup a work space that just has your spreadsheet program, your word processor, and safari in it, and all arranged in the perfect on screen layout. Then if you need to pop into the finder for a second to check a file name or something, you can just flip to the general space, find your info, and then flip back to your work with everything exactly as it was. This is the type of usability thing that computers SHOULD do, just get of your way and let you do what YOU want to do, not the computer. This is a killer feature too.

* 3) I didn't think that 10.4 was worth upgrading to, because all it added that I wanted was the built in dictionary and the updated safari. So for those of us that never upgraded to 10.4, we get the 2 killer features of 10.5 plus all the minor features from 10.4 (p.s. Yes, I know about spotlight in 10.4, but in my opinion it is only marginally more useful than the Find feature)

dukebound85
Dec 20, 2006, 04:43 PM
I think you will be able to when iTV comes out.

well yea but until then its is sorta a hassle to hook up your tv as a display

Snowy_River
Dec 20, 2006, 04:44 PM
Yes, I can't imagine why Apple wouldn't include the functionality that would allow its users to play ripped DVDs (still illegal to do in the US if they have copy protection) with their software. I mean, it's not like that'd be a conflict of interest, what with them trying to court the movie industry for digital distribution on the iTunes Store. :rolleyes:

I mean, come on. At some point your needs become more esoteric than 90% of the Apple userbase. Or, at least, the userbase Apple is targeting with features like Front Row.

It seems to me that there's a simple solution to this illegality business. If Apple allowed disks to be ripped, but encoded them with FairPlay as iTunes ripped them, then there couldn't be much question of distributing on the 'net. Both versions would then have copy protection, and, I think it could be argued, it would then fall back under the purview of Fair Use laws.

Just a thought...

I do take offense, because I do have a very strong visual sense, and that's not just according to me. I didn't judge other peoples opinions, so you have no right to judge mine, that's why they're called opinions.

I was very specific about using the term entertainment value and not quality. I did NOT say standard def delivers 95% of the image quality that hd does, because it doesn't come close. But hd's greatly enhanced image detail, which I am fully capable of perceiving and distinguishing, only makes my enjoyment of viewing the same tv show or movie about 5% greater. It doesn't mean I can't see the difference in quality between the 2 images, because I can, and the difference is huge, it just doesn't make a great movie that much more fun to watch and it doesn't make a crappy movie suck less. And in terms of how much that extra image quality is worth, which is what the word value means, it's totally not worth it to me.

I couldn't agree more. I have long felt that the move to HD wasn't worth that much. Right now, it would cost me about $800 to get a TV the same size as my 15 year old TV that still works just fine. There would be two things that I would get out of that $800. (1) Widescreen and (2) HD. Neither is really worth it to me. And, indeed, widescreen is more worth it to me than HD is. As you put it, that extra 5% just isn't worth that much. ;)

Machead III
Dec 20, 2006, 04:50 PM
I think it's fairly certain Leopard will feature plenty more than so far shown, and will be out sooner than expected - Apple might be as fast as an OAP in introducing new tech into its' hardware, but it's usually ahead of the game and pressuring the competition in the software arena, which means Vista, so I expect flashy new **** - fast.

TBH I won't be excited until Aqua is refined to something more pastel and subtle, overlying an entirely new Finder based on metatags - more like a database than the current idea of GUIs, which once felt liberating, but now feel clumsy and too easily get messy.

iindigo
Dec 20, 2006, 05:14 PM
Most of it looks pretty cool... it lacks polish, but we all know that will be fixed soon.

I honestly don't see why people hate Aqua/Brushed Metal though... If anything, that nasty, dark, depressing, Windows-like gray metal used in iTunes 7 is the abomination that should be purged from existence.

petvas
Dec 20, 2006, 05:19 PM
I have been reading this thread and I can only say, the opinions expressed here are not representative for most people! One guy hates all GUIs, another one things that Aqua sucks, the other thinks that Leopard won't be worth its money. I think most of you here are overreacting.

If Leopard is going to be available by the end of April, all features should be locked by now and heavily tested. I don't think that we will see more features than the currently announced or seen in the latest build. Only if Apple has a strong Beta User Base and publishes different betas of Leopard, we could have something to wait for...

Many of us seem to forget what Leopard brings:


Full 64 bit support. All current Intel Models will gain from 64bit support. Speed will be a great improvement
Time Machine: Yes, I know, most of us have a backup solution, but having one integrated in the OS is just great! The Time Machine UI is also great! I don't understand the ones that find it bad.
Spaces: Again, this is a UI change that will make working with the OS much easier
iChat: It will become much better than before and I agree, MSN integration will be missed, I can't blame Apple for the lack of it though. MSN should federate with AOL, then this could be possible!
Deleted Items recovery: isn't that a great feature?
iCal gains new groupware functions, but I agree it could be much better. I believe Apple wants to keep iCal simple
Mail will be much better. Tasks Support, Notes, RSS feeds...It certainly looks good
The quick look app looks also nice.
Safari will be also improved, especially Tabs, Phishing Filter
Dashboard will be much better and the web clipping feature is cool
Don't forget the new dev tools and Core Animation! They will make the new gen apps much nicer
ZFS support could also become something major!

wrldwzrd89
Dec 20, 2006, 05:20 PM
Most of it looks pretty cool... it lacks polish, but we all know that will be fixed soon.

I honestly don't see why people hate Aqua/Brushed Metal though... If anything, that nasty, dark, depressing, Windows-like gray metal used in iTunes 7 is the abomination that should be purged from existence.
You know what, I have to agree... the simpler Brushed Metal look, as used in Mail, I like the best, and would gladly use it systemwide if the option to do so was available.

shawnce
Dec 20, 2006, 05:20 PM
I sure hope someone from Apple reads these Mac forums, preferably Steve Jobs himself. Otherwise how will they know what we want? Does anyone know if there's any better/official way to get our point across to Apple?

http://apple.com/feedback/

iindigo
Dec 20, 2006, 05:24 PM
You know what, I have to agree... the simpler Brushed Metal look, as used in Mail, I like the best, and would gladly use it systemwide if the option to do so was available.

That style is known as "Unified" in the Mac GUI world and has exploded in popularity since its introduction - in fact, I'd estimate that as many as 70%-75% of active Mac developers have made their applications unified. While it can be used in multi-document programs (Photoshop, Word, etc) it feels forced in those cases. Unified works particularly well in single-window apps, hence Apple's use of it in Mail and System Preferences.

Peace
Dec 20, 2006, 05:32 PM
The main reason most folks here don't think the GUI is going to change much is because of the dev releases.

Remember one thing.

iTV

The interface is going to be different than the way front row is now.Because of this Apple is holding back on showing off any changes to the GUI that could reveal aspects of the new front row iTV integration..Even to developers.Dev's don't need to see any new GUI until after MWSF2007.
After that we should see vast improvements to the GUI.And developers will get kits.Plenty of time for the March release.

OdduWon
Dec 20, 2006, 05:52 PM
does anyone have any screenshots of Quick Look? I must have missed them:confused:

Electro Funk
Dec 20, 2006, 06:02 PM
Steve Jobs doesn't care what you or I have to say. He is a "benevolent dictator" who believes that his way is best for all of us.

It's clear to any intelligent observer that the reason why we can't customize our Macs without hacks is because any change would "spoil" the interface he has bestowed upon us.

The only way to actually change the products coming out of Cupertino is to invent something better and have Steve notice and like your new invention. Then Apple will take your idea, modify it enough that you can't sue them, and release it as their own glorious new work.

Ha Ha... Were you previously employed by Konfabulator? :p

japanime
Dec 20, 2006, 06:10 PM
You've got that right, unfortunately. These Leopard pics better not represent the UI of the final release or I'm gonna run my new Mac through I wood chipper and post the video on YouTube and send it to Steve Jobs.

If you're gonna do that, you should consider donating it to http://www.willitblend.com instead! :D

Snowy_River
Dec 20, 2006, 06:50 PM
If you're gonna do that, you should consider donating it to http://www.willitblend.com instead! :D

That's a riot! And have you seen how much the blended iPod is going for? (True, it does come with a blender, but still...)

Peel
Dec 20, 2006, 06:57 PM
...If you look at Quick Look in particular, you can see a strong embodiment of what Illuminous potentially will be--light use of transparency, consistent rich smoke and black colors (but not overbearing--bright, vibrant colors still pop in the previews), and the use of Core Animation and Core Image effects to accent, but not upstage, the UI.

I really think that Illuminous is going for the rich blacks, but only in complement to lighter, brighter colors. Take a look at the Leopard pages, especially developer.apple.com. It all comes together and looks appealing without being "dark." Illuminous seems like it will be about the use of light and shadow, contrast and vibrance--not about "black."

Hmm...All of this (brighter colors, set against rich blacks) will only look better on the MacBook's (pro and non) glossy screens. Is this a case of the UI conforming to fit where the hardware is going?

wrldwzrd89
Dec 20, 2006, 07:00 PM
Hmm...All of this (brighter colors, set against rich blacks) will only look better on the MacBook's (pro and non) glossy screens. Is this a case of the UI conforming to fit where the hardware is going?
I think you may be right... remember, Brushed Metal came about because of the metallic shell on the PowerMac G5 when it was introduced.

Marx55
Dec 20, 2006, 07:09 PM
ZFS ZFS's self healing feature means that it repairs disk damage automatically in real time even before you notice it!!!

http://opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/demos/selfheal/

FANTASTIC!!!

ipedro
Dec 20, 2006, 08:14 PM
To those saying that Leopard won't have a UI improvement, they're forgetting that, YES, it already is and has been stated and proven: Resolution Independance.

Most of the Res-Independant stuff hasn't been seen in the Developer's builds, yet we know it is coming. It is CONFIRMED through that alone that Apple is working on a new UI. If it will look similar is a different story, but I don't see Apple completely revamping the UI to fit Res-Independance and keeping the old look.

bathysphere
Dec 20, 2006, 08:25 PM
I think you may be right... remember, Brushed Metal came about because of the metallic shell on the PowerMac G5 when it was introduced.

hmm...

no, it didn't. quicktime has been brushed metal since moses came off the mountain. itunes was brushed metal... i'm pretty sure safari was out before the g5, as well as ichat, blah blah blah.

japanime
Dec 20, 2006, 08:39 PM
That's a riot! And have you seen how much the blended iPod is going for? (True, it does come with a blender, but still...)

Yeah, but it's for a good cause (a Children's Hospital), and so whoever wins it probably can fill out a donation form and use it as a tax write-off.

I love that site, though. It reminds me of the sort of stuff Letterman used to do in the early days of his show (when it was still great, not merely good like it is now).

maxrobertson
Dec 20, 2006, 08:54 PM
I notice that Finder's action (gear) menu looks different (smaller and uncentered) in that shot, not matching the rest of the toolbar. Signs of Apple messing with the scalable UI stuff? Only Quartz Debug knows for sure....

I wondered about that too. Frankly, it's really ugly. It looks like it was ripped from 10.1

Personally, I like the smooth gray skin of the new iTunes over the brushed metal look of Safari. I never did like the brushed metal in the first place - it looks heavy and clunky. However, I actually like the aqua buttons much more than the new muted scroll bar in iTunes 7. The full color version look a little too childish, so I tone it down by selecting the "graphite" appearance.

I completely agree. I hope they keep the gel look, maybe make it a little flatter on the scrollbars and the normal buttons, like they did from 10.1 to 10.2, but like I said, I like the look.

I think whoever said the look will reflect the Leopard page (dark and light working together) is on to something. I'd hate a really dark UI, but I really am starting to love black glossy windows. I really have never liked metal as an interface element. I hope Apple ditches the iTunes 7 look ASAP.

Willis
Dec 20, 2006, 08:58 PM
ooo nice to see how Time Machine works. I was wondering how you backed it up/how it did it.

Willis
Dec 20, 2006, 09:02 PM
If you're gonna do that, you should consider donating it to http://www.willitblend.com instead! :D

Blended iPod "now you know what I want for christmas"

maxrobertson
Dec 20, 2006, 09:24 PM
Nothing as long as you are happy with a 7+ year old UI. I mean seriously. They have had close to a decade to work on new UI's. You see concept UI's coming out of Sun, MS, MIT, etc all the time. What REAL changes have we seen between 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, and now maybe 10.5? Not a whole heck of a lot. Usually a new coat of paint. Minor tweaks here and there. Its almost as if Apple is turning into MS. Sitting on their fat butt, patting themselves on the back for a UI that is closing in on being a decade old. OS X is now at the halfway mark. Something new really should be debuting with Leopard. Instead, if we are to believe that the current builds are feature locked, it’s more of the same old, same old. Add a few new spiffy features. Dink around with the color scheme yet again, probably more optimizing to give us a bit more of the ‘ol “snappy”. And call it NEW AND IMPROVED!

Well I for one am disappointed and unless those “top secret” features debut at MWSF I’m going to be outright pissed that Jobs once again mouthed off with BS to its userbase. We’ll see.

Were you a user of the Classic Mac OS? Because if you were, you would probably know that Apple didn't really significantly alter the original Macintosh interface (from 1984) until Mac OS X came out in 2001. I wouldn't be surprised if they kept doing what they have been doing: change the appearance, but not the layout. Apple doesn't need to be like Microsoft and alter the UI drastically with every release.

ingenious
Dec 20, 2006, 09:33 PM
:rolleyes:

propably, since some screenshots in some website is the only way microsoft can use to steal features from os x....


But didn't the MacBU receive a Developer's Preview at WWDC?

ingenious
Dec 20, 2006, 09:40 PM
Looks like Leopard is shaping up to be something great. :)

One thing, though. Am I the only one who thinks the following dialog box is a little too "windows-ish"? I mean, one of the best things about OSX (IMO, obviously there are many greater things, too) is that when you plug in a new device, beit USB, Firewire, ethernet, or otherwise, nothing happens. No bubble messages. No annoying audio feedback. "Yes, I know I plugged something in, and yes, I know what it is, you don't have to tell me. I also know what it is for, you don't need to tell me that either." The device is simply available for use, with no suggestions or presumptions as to how the user would like to use it. Part of the beauty of Apple's OS is that setting up your devices is so simple, you don't need any "wizards" or what-have-you.

I just hope Apple keeps OSX the way it is now (read: non-obtrusive, non-intrusive, and of course, intuitive as can be).

http://www.thinksecret.com/archives/leopard9a321/image/picture-22.jpg


BTW, sorry if this opinion has already been expressed in this thread. I admit I haven't read through it in it's entirety as of yet. :)

But doesn't it have to be this way so not every single one of your external drives turns into a Time Machine drive? Or are you thinking that instead of using a dialog box, Apple should just leave it in System Preferences?

matticus008
Dec 20, 2006, 09:43 PM
Because you can't boot XP from a USB drive without major tweaking.
I guess the last two PCs I've owned didn't get that memo. Both support USB booting. It's a hardware/BIOS thing, not an OS thing. Macs have been able to boot from Firewire for years, and it just seems to me that USB boot support was an inevitable next step now that all iPods are USB and most new PCs support USB booting (problematically for some, maybe).

But you can actually use an iPod as a bootable USB drive. It boots around as fast as booting from the internal HD.
Right. I guess I'm just not getting why this is exciting. iPods have always worked as external drives, and since Intel Macs came out, USB booting only makes sense.

jholzner
Dec 20, 2006, 09:44 PM
If Leopard is going to be available by the end of April, all features should be locked by now and heavily tested. I don't think that we will see more features than the currently announced or seen in the latest build. Only if Apple has a strong Beta User Base and publishes different betas of Leopard, we could have something to wait for...



Right, Apple just SAID there were more features than they were annoucing and being kept secret. In January they will tell us they were just kidding and we'll all have a good laugh.

MacVault
Dec 20, 2006, 09:50 PM
Right, Apple just SAID there were more features than they were annoucing and being kept secret. In January they will tell us they were just kidding and we'll all have a good laugh.

Maybe they meant secret as in secret for the next couple year til 10.6 comes out. :D

vmardian
Dec 20, 2006, 10:22 PM
I would gladly buy ALL my movies and music in the iTMS IF they were HD and Lossless.

1080p x 30fps x 24 bpp = 626 GB / hour. The best lossless video compression scheme (MSU) on RGB colour will do about 3:1 (average) so that brings it down to only 200 GB / hour!

dguisinger
Dec 20, 2006, 10:29 PM
everybody is yelling about secondary issues: "how the new ui looks old", that all these are "micro-updates", the only reason to switch would be spaces etc...
but it seems that something is forgotten-->
the reason i will upgrade to leopard-> 64 bit. for the job i do (3d modelling/rendering) future is there. sure, those whose macs are dedicated only for 24/7 action in macrumors are wellcome to stay with the tiger.

And for me, the reason is Networked Spotlight, where MS has failed on search. Its making us switch to macs and redesign our corporate network.

D34thPwny
Dec 20, 2006, 10:36 PM
Aw man, I cannot WAIT for 10.5... It looks so cool! After it comes out, I'm gettin' me a new mac! *holds breath*

Cubert
Dec 20, 2006, 11:09 PM
I remember that when a thread came up with a similar title a year ago, the screenshots of leopard was a simple mac 'virus', anyone remember that? Wierd times...

Totally remember. That story broke on Valentine's Day (Feb. 14th) 2005, I think.

BPG074
Dec 21, 2006, 12:01 AM
You've got that right, unfortunately. These Leopard pics better not represent the UI of the final release or I'm gonna run my new Mac through I wood chipper and post the video on YouTube and send it to Steve Jobs.

Apple could do SO MUCH BETTER than the current UI. I have no idea why they don't. Hopefully they're just hiding it til the expo.

MacVault, I've seen you state here several times that the UI of Tiger is less than you'd approve of, to put it mildly. Generally speaking, when one protests so vehemently against something like the UI, there exists in mind, an alternative that does please the writer.

That said, perhaps it's time for you to provide examples to readers of this forum of your ideal UI. Personally, I'd like to see what you'd do so differently that would warrant shredding your Mac and posting it on YouTube if it wasn't implemented.

BWhaler
Dec 21, 2006, 12:25 AM
No iCal screenshots. I fear that the (in my opinion) insignificant updates to iCal that we already heard about is all that is going to change in iCal for 10.5. Why does Apple act like it doesn't love its own child?

It took me a long time to get to this place, but I now understand that iCal is just always going to suck.

I was hopeful for so long. I emailed Apple with suggestions. But each OS upgrade left iCal with a miniscule change or two.

It comes down to this: no exec at Apple--especially Steve--manage their own calendar. No person in control uses the app. So it sucks, and always will.

Such as shame...

MacsomJRR
Dec 21, 2006, 01:50 AM
nothing to do with Leopard but there is a new Christmassy ad on Apple.com.

Supa_Fly
Dec 21, 2006, 03:12 AM
First off, I'd like to mention to all the whiners complaining about the OS X's GUI. You ALL knew since 10.0.5 that this was going to be it until for the next 10 years. At OS X's developer preview before Puma's launch Jobs mentioned this. STOP WHINING and enjoy it. Reminds me of a saying you dont know what you have until its gone. Well I dare you to use WinXP in an office/work/ call center environment for 3 months and you'll LOVE OS X enough to either KISS or HUMP the screen!

(you can tell that I dont own a Mac, and haven't used one since Puma).

My biggest complaint about the menu bar is that when you have 6+ windows on screen there have been times I've gone to the menubar to do [insert action here] and I've had the wrong window\app active. when its integrated into the window its just there. That being said I like the way its integrated into the menubar because IMHO its a waste to have the same menus spread across multiple windows. There are pros and cons to both ways of doing it. I haven't decided which I like the best. There must be a happy medium between the two designs but what? :confused:

(Edited) .... PS-Don't even get me started on how even when a Window isn't the active window it's cursor a text field is still blinking. In Windows the cursor stops when the window isn't active. Which is a tell-tail sign.

Menu bars for EVERY single window in EVERY single running program (unless minimized to task/system tray's) is a SERIOUS waste of Desktop/Monitor real-estate!

I didnt know about OS X does that with text in non-active windows, I thought it was to do away with things like that.

WinXP: what drives me utterly insane (I almost punched my monitor in front of my supervisor today lol - I got a 10min break to cool off, a suggestion). Imagine typing notes for a TroubleShooting call your own. You launch another program in preperation because you know your going to need it within the next few minutes but NOT just YET:

1) I HATE splash screens - Brand killing Remembrance/Ads whatever you want to call them. WHY oh WHY do I need to see a 6"x8" splash screen of Lotus Notes?! I know that I launched the application sure a small screen to notify me of my last execution, fine, but to cover the dead center of my screen and I cannot see what I'm typing or what the user is doing is a SERIOUS annoyance. Why not make the splash screen see-through? why not allow me to also click-it-goodbye and load the app in the background.

2) that app I just loaded wants me to login or use it EVEN THOUGH I'm still continuously typing in the app I'm using! ARRGH. WHAT on EARTH are programmers thinking. Firefox is the ONLY application, the ONLY application I've come across that when launched, and I'm working with another application will load in the background (safe for its maiden launch & setup) UNTIL I ALT-TAB to USE it when I CHOOSE to or left clicking on it.

I pray this doesnt happen - if rarely allowed - on the Mac!

January I'm either buying the Mac Book Pro Core2Duo or MacPro (undecided and both cost the same - 15.4"/120GB/128MBVideo vs 2.6Ghz Quad Xeon/250GBHDD/256MB Video. No desk to enjoy either on though.

BrianMojo
Dec 21, 2006, 03:26 AM
Am I the only one here that doesn't really have a problem with the UI, per se, but is much more interested in a unification of the design? I mean, I'd appreciate a simple, clean approach to the look (say, like how the new product description pages in the online store look), but more than anything I'd like to see what's already here organized. The OS is quickly becoming more and more bloated.

Personally I'd like to see Apple continue to simplify rather than complicate. And a more logical organization of what already exists within the finder would be ideal. (C'mon, what's the deal with the Image Capture program and needing to get into the preferences there? That doesn't make any sense at all.)

rcha101
Dec 21, 2006, 03:40 AM
I'll be getting 10.5 when it comes out but i'm looking to purchase something like the maxtor shared storage II so I can access my data whereever I'm using my macbook in the house (over wireless), does timemachine only work with firewire and USB drives? Or can I use it to do backups to a network attached device.

MacRohde
Dec 21, 2006, 03:42 AM
Oh man, spaces sounds awesome - I've wanted such a feature for years.

Other than that, and perhaps ZFS, the changes seem ok if somewhat less-than-stellar. But let's see what the "secret" features are when Steveo tears down the curtain come January.

Diatribe
Dec 21, 2006, 04:02 AM
1080p x 30fps x 24 bpp = 626 GB / hour. The best lossless video compression scheme (MSU) on RGB colour will do about 3:1 (average) so that brings it down to only 200 GB / hour!

Hm, how are they doing this with Blu-Ray or HD-DVD? I always thought they were 1080p?:confused:

50548
Dec 21, 2006, 05:12 AM
Were you a user of the Classic Mac OS? Because if you were, you would probably know that Apple didn't really significantly alter the original Macintosh interface (from 1984) until Mac OS X came out in 2001. I wouldn't be surprised if they kept doing what they have been doing: change the appearance, but not the layout. Apple doesn't need to be like Microsoft and alter the UI drastically with every release.

That's indeed true, although some of the Windows fanboys that populate this site still try to infer that Windows has a better (sic) UI than OS X.

Notwithstanding a few UI inconsistencies among Apple apps and the Finder, I sure hope that Apple keeps OS X as the cleanest and most unobtrusive OS ever. Linux does NOT come close to that, Windows does NOT come close to that, and Vista neither.

What I said above is: there will be NO "secret" features in terms of totally revamping the UI. And this should NOT happen, for the sake of design stability and adherence to human interface guidelines. Apple might even add some shapeshifter-like options...but never change its principles altogether.

And to those that advocate for a menu bar on every window, like in horrible Windows...pllllllllllease...this is just ridiculous and a waste of screen real estate.

wrldwzrd89
Dec 21, 2006, 05:14 AM
I'll be getting 10.5 when it comes out but i'm looking to purchase something like the maxtor shared storage II so I can access my data whereever I'm using my macbook in the house (over wireless), does timemachine only work with firewire and USB drives? Or can I use it to do backups to a network attached device.
My understanding was that Time Machine is capable of backing up to a server (I thought it mentioned that on the Time Machine page, but apparently it doesn't), so I'd assume that it can also back up to a NAS if you're connected to it. I wish I had a link for you.

puuukeey
Dec 21, 2006, 05:44 AM
Why is everyone so concerned with the "appearance" of the UI? the real question is "when are we going to see simplification and innovation in the finder"

I've constantly got 3 windows open and every single one of them has a big fat toolbar, a screen-estate eating sidebar. I'm constantly fumbling with the idiotic column view.

There are so many conveniences and 'features' in the finder that its starting to clutter it up. the dock and the sidebar could basically be the same thing. not to mention the desktop which is all but gone. then there's your favorites and your recent items folder.

But those are just problems. not solutions. well.... I have some fun ideas... call me crazy...


•one standard plug in format for finder views. So *users* can add ZUIs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooming_User_Interface), more neato 3d interfaces and , and for god sakes build a browser into the finder window already.

•one low(er) level standard for system themes so *users* can choose themes. (your brand is less important than your *users*)

• make the right hand side of the menu bar a dock. allow the *user* to drag and drop the current system menus into and out of the finder, the toolbar and the sidebar. this allows the user to spread his commonly used stuff out OR focus them all in one place.

•make finder a quittable application like anything else, and let programmers write newer cooler ways to navigate a mac (http://www.infinite-3d.com/screenshot.html)

•let the *user* disable the dock and use a 3rd party app switcher.

•let developers alter finder windows.

• add a preview palette for all views (not just column)

• an option to grant only the front most finder window a sidebar and toolbar. so you can see more. OR just make background windows smaller

In short: a good user interface doesn't take away power, it cloaks it. and apple has just taken away the users power. the finder is the most prevalent application on a mac and it's the least customizable. I feel that apple needs to write more standards for the system so that users have a choice.

cheunghy
Dec 21, 2006, 05:52 AM
erm... one request... change the icons of Expose and Spaces...

MacBoobsPro
Dec 21, 2006, 05:56 AM
erm... one request... change the icons of Expose and Spaces...

I agree with you there. They look a bit smashed together.

pna
Dec 21, 2006, 05:58 AM
Oh man, spaces sounds awesome - I've wanted such a feature for years.



Seriously? Spaces functionality (multiple desktops) has existed for years in a fantastic app called 'desktop manager'. There are others, but DM has been the best for me. Freeware, unobtrusive, mac native, and totally customizable. Spaces doesn't do much that DM doesn't already.

http://desktopmanager.berlios.de/

Compile 'em all
Dec 21, 2006, 06:15 AM
•make finder a quittable application like anything else.


Why?

Fotek2001
Dec 21, 2006, 06:29 AM
All those people saying they don't see any reason to upgrade will have a shock when they see the number of new applications coming out that will ONLY run on 10.5.

So far this includes Delicious Library 2.0 and Textmate but I imagine there will be others too.

10.5 is a dream come true for developers so expect applications to drive upgrades and NOT gimmick features.

puuukeey
Dec 21, 2006, 06:29 AM
Compile 'em all:
why should This (http://www.marcmoini.com/f3_en.html) run on top of the finder?

wrldwzrd89
Dec 21, 2006, 06:51 AM
Compile 'em all:
why should This (http://www.marcmoini.com/f3_en.html) run on top of the finder?
Now that is cool! It is possible for applications to quit the Finder (some Mac OS X installers do this), but there really is no need for the user to quit the Finder if the application in question can do it for you.

If I were you, I'd suggest to the developers to offer a "Finder-replacement" mode that auto-launches the app at startup and quits the Finder, for users like you that love the cool 3D interface.

page3
Dec 21, 2006, 06:55 AM
I still wish we had the the RISC OS way of bringing up menus: 3 mouse buttons, left button does main work, right does variations on the left, and the middle button brings up the menu for the window you're in currently (NB NOT context sensitive, just window sensitive).

example here:
http://www.mjpye.org.uk/images/screens/easiwrite.png

And please - bring this back from RISC OS too - the most time saving computing feature in the world - If you click on a menu option with the right button instead of the left, the menu STAYS OPEN for you to choose another option. Handy if you need 2 options from within a menu tree.Oh for those days! The RISC OS 'finder' really was excellent. The 'drag and drop' save method was pure brilliance and has never been beaten. Check out that screen-shot above - why navigate all the way through your directory structure to save something when you already have a finder window open on your target sub-folder. Simply pick up the save icon and drag it. Magic :)

maverick808
Dec 21, 2006, 06:57 AM
I guess the last two PCs I've owned didn't get that memo. Both support USB booting. It's a hardware/BIOS thing, not an OS thing.

Well, your PC might support USB booting but Windows XP and Windows Vista will NOT boot off a USB drive. Sure, you can do a pretty intensive hack to make XP boot off USB, but it's far beyond what most people can manage.

wrldwzrd89
Dec 21, 2006, 07:03 AM
Well, your PC might support USB booting but Windows XP and Windows Vista will NOT boot off a USB drive. Sure, you can do a pretty intensive hack to make XP boot off USB, but it's far beyond what most people can manage.
The problem in Windows' case is that it wasn't really designed to boot off of anything other than an internal hard drive, and every single solution devised to make Windows boot from anything else - CD, USB, FireWire, what have you - is "hacktastic". Mac OS X, on the other hand, is meant to be booted from other devices (hence the Startup Disk system preference pane), and even boots from non-writable devices (though this requires a few hacks, as Mac OS X, like most OSes, expects certain directories to be writable, and freaks out if they're not).

DaveTheGrey
Dec 21, 2006, 07:23 AM
Yea, now you're gettin it. I don't like the look of the menu bar or the fonts it uses, and I don't really like the idea of the menus being in the menu bar as opposed to in the windows themselves. And I don't like the dock, the scroll bars, the round bubbly buttons, the scroll bar arrows, etc. etc. etc.

this sounds like Win95 could be the OS of your dreams :D
just kidding

50548
Dec 21, 2006, 07:29 AM
The problem in Windows' case is that it wasn't really designed to boot off of anything other than an internal hard drive, and every single solution devised to make Windows boot from anything else - CD, USB, FireWire, what have you - is "hacktastic". Mac OS X, on the other hand, is meant to be booted from other devices (hence the Startup Disk system preference pane), and even boots from non-writable devices (though this requires a few hacks, as Mac OS X, like most OSes, expects certain directories to be writable, and freaks out if they're not).

Damn...is that true? I didn't know Windows was THAT bad...yet another reason to be a Mac-fanboy... :rolleyes:

Evangelion
Dec 21, 2006, 07:56 AM
But didn't the MacBU receive a Developer's Preview at WWDC?

I bet that Microsoft has about zillion machines running Leopard preview as we speak. Which is why I find the comment about website putting prerelease screenshots of Leopard on the net so that Microsoft could use them to steal features from Apple to be... well, dumb.

someguy
Dec 21, 2006, 08:05 AM
But doesn't it have to be this way so not every single one of your external drives turns into a Time Machine drive? Or are you thinking that instead of using a dialog box, Apple should just leave it in System Preferences?
I just get that nasty "oh my god, leave me alone, I don't need a help with everything!" kind of feeling that normally only Windows can deliver. I would hate to see Apple do the same. I think a Time Machine preference pane would be excellent. :)

Evangelion
Dec 21, 2006, 08:06 AM
Menu bars for EVERY single window in EVERY single running program (unless minimized to task/system tray's) is a SERIOUS waste of Desktop/Monitor real-estate!

No it's not. True, you have SOME wasted space, but we have quite a big resolutions in our monitors these days, so any space that gets "wasted" on menubars in marginal at best.

I do like the universal menubar, but I do see two problem in it. First of all, it makes "focus follows mouse" impossible. I like a scheme where I can change the app that has focus by simply moving the cursor over the app. In OS X, that would simply not work, since it would make accessing the menubar impossible. The second problem I see is with large resolutions and multimonitor setups. In multimonitor setups, the menubar is available in just one screen, right? What if your app-window is in the other screen? You have to move the cursor all the way to the other screen, just so you could access the menubar. Same thing if you have one hi-resolution screen. The bigger the resolution, the bigger the distance between the app and it's menubar.

2) that app I just loaded wants me to login or use it EVEN THOUGH I'm still continuously typing in the app I'm using! ARRGH. WHAT on EARTH are programmers thinking.

IIRC, I have seen that happen in OS X.

Related to this: there is one feature that I had in Linux that I would like to see in OS X as well. In Linux I could launch apps (for example, my IM) when I logged in, and it would load in the background. It would be up and running, and I would be logged in, but there would be no app-window visible, it would just be in the systray. When I log in to OS X, I have set it up so that it loads iChat automatically. But I haven't found a way to load it so that it does NOT display the app-window. So I have to close the window manually every time (the app keeps on running in the background, however).

MacVault
Dec 21, 2006, 08:06 AM
...I would gladly buy ALL my movies and music in the iTMS IF they were HD and Lossless.

I would gladly buy ALL my movies and music in the iTunes Store IF they were without DRM! Down with DRM! Down with DRM! Down with DRM!

Evangelion
Dec 21, 2006, 08:10 AM
Notwithstanding a few UI inconsistencies among Apple apps and the Finder, I sure hope that Apple keeps OS X as the cleanest and most unobtrusive OS ever. Linux does NOT come close to that

Yes it does. Of course there are many GUI's to choose from, but GNOME (for example) is very, very simple and clean. In some ways it's cleaner than OS X, since it doesn't suffer from the disease where every app has it's own kinf of UI like OS X does. iTunes has a look of it's own, Finder has another look, Garageband has that fake-wood thing going on etc. etc.

And to those that advocate for a menu bar on every window, like in horrible Windows...pllllllllllease...this is just ridiculous and a waste of screen real estate.

Like it or not, such a scheme has some advantages over the OS X menubar. And OS X menubar has it's own set of advantages. So it's not like the Mac OS menubar is the only correct way of doing things, whereas the "Windows-way" is 100% retarded. each approach has it's upsides and downsides.

MacVault
Dec 21, 2006, 08:11 AM
MacVault, I've seen you state here several times that the UI of Tiger is less than you'd approve of, to put it mildly. Generally speaking, when one protests so vehemently against something like the UI, there exists in mind, an alternative that does please the writer.

That said, perhaps it's time for you to provide examples to readers of this forum of your ideal UI. Personally, I'd like to see what you'd do so differently that would warrant shredding your Mac and posting it on YouTube if it wasn't implemented.

No problem! I can't wait to do a demo of what I want to see in OS X, or what I don't want to see anymore, and the comparison between OS X and the features/UI in Windows XP. I'm just waiting til the expo to get a Macbook so I can run Windows in order to do a video of the comparisons. Don't worry, I'll post the video here and on YouTube. :)

AidenShaw
Dec 21, 2006, 09:07 AM
Originally Posted by vmardian
1080p x 30fps x 24 bpp = 626 GB / hour. The best lossless video compression scheme (MSU) on RGB colour will do about 3:1 (average) so that brings it down to only 200 GB / hour!
Hm, how are they doing this with Blu-Ray or HD-DVD? I always thought they were 1080p?:confused:
Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YCbCr

The assumption of 24bits/pixel is wrong. Television signals (and MPEG et al) don't use an RGB color space. (Note that one of the hardware offloads for video processing is to do color space conversion in the GPU.)

Also see http://www.blu-ray.com/faq/#bluray_video_codecs

"1.8 What video codecs will Blu-ray support?

MPEG-2 - enhanced for HD, also used for playback of DVDs and HDTV recordings.

MPEG-4 AVC - part of the MPEG-4 standard also known as H.264 (High Profile and Main Profile).

SMPTE VC-1 - standard based on Microsoft's Windows Media Video (WMV) technology.

Please note that this simply means that all Blu-ray players and recorders will have to support playback of these video codecs, it will still be up to the movie studios to decide which video codec(s) they use for their releases."

So Blu-ray is compressed using MPEG-2, H.264, or WMV. HD-DVD supports the same codecs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hd-dvd)

goosnarrggh
Dec 21, 2006, 09:15 AM
Many of us seem to forget what Leopard brings:


Full 64 bit support. All current Intel Models will gain from 64bit support. Speed will be a great improvement
iChat: It will become much better than before and I agree, MSN integration will be missed, I can't blame Apple for the lack of it though. MSN should federate with AOL, then this could be possible!

I think the Mac Mini is still shipping with Core Duo processors. So not all current Intel models will gain from 64 bit support. But it is possible to install Core 2 Duo processors in an Intel Mini as an unauthorized customization, so maybe an official 64-bit refresh of the Mini is just around the corner...

I think that the iChat/AIM integration comes mainly from intentional infrastructural design.

Like most other products, MSN uses its own proprietary infrastructure, so the main practical method of interoperability has been via "trusted 3rd party" services like Jabber gateways. Isn't is possible to sign in to a Jabber service using iChat? (If memory serves, AOL has been the major stick-in-the-mud for allowing Jabber-like programs to provide wide-ranging interoperability!)

puuukeey
Dec 21, 2006, 09:23 AM
props to aidenand anyone else who knows their *****

for anyone wondering. a quick google led me to this: http://creativebits.org/mac_os_x/quit_finder

mea culpa on that. the rest still stands.

guzhogi
Dec 21, 2006, 09:23 AM
No problem! I can't wait to do a demo of what I want to see in OS X, or what I don't want to see anymore, and the comparison between OS X and the features/UI in Windows XP. I'm just waiting til the expo to get a Macbook so I can run Windows in order to do a video of the comparisons. Don't worry, I'll post the video here and on YouTube. :)

So Windows is your ideal OS? Then why even use Macs? Why not just get a PC from Dell or Gateway or build your own if you know how?

Or, if Windows isn't your idea OS, why not use Photoshop or something and make a few pictures of what your ideal OS would look like?

Diatribe
Dec 21, 2006, 09:43 AM
Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YCbCr

The assumption of 24bits/pixel is wrong. Television signals (and MPEG et al) don't use an RGB color space. (Note that one of the hardware offloads for video processing is to do color space conversion in the GPU.)

Also see http://www.blu-ray.com/faq/#bluray_video_codecs

"1.8 What video codecs will Blu-ray support?

MPEG-2 - enhanced for HD, also used for playback of DVDs and HDTV recordings.

MPEG-4 AVC - part of the MPEG-4 standard also known as H.264 (High Profile and Main Profile).

SMPTE VC-1 - standard based on Microsoft's Windows Media Video (WMV) technology.

Please note that this simply means that all Blu-ray players and recorders will have to support playback of these video codecs, it will still be up to the movie studios to decide which video codec(s) they use for their releases."

So Blu-ray is compressed using MPEG-2, H.264, or WMV. HD-DVD supports the same codecs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hd-dvd)

So basically about what size per hour are we talking about for 1080p?

50548
Dec 21, 2006, 10:01 AM
I bet that Microsoft has about zillion machines running Leopard preview as we speak. Which is why I find the comment about website putting prerelease screenshots of Leopard on the net so that Microsoft could use them to steal features from Apple to be... well, dumb.

Of course it was dumb, Evangelion...even dumber is to take such comments so seriously; of course MS has better access to Leopard than through kids' websites...chill out and have a whisky, man.

AidenShaw
Dec 21, 2006, 10:05 AM
So basically about what size per hour are we talking about for 1080p?
from the same Wikipedia link:

1.7 How fast can you read/write data on a Blu-ray disc?


According to the Blu-ray Disc specification, 1x speed is defined as 36Mbps.

However, as BD-ROM movies will require a 54Mbps data transfer rate the minimum speed we're expecting to see is 2x (72Mbps).

Blu-ray also has the potential for much higher speeds, as a result of the larger numerical aperture (NA) adopted by Blu-ray Disc. The large NA value effectively means that Blu-ray will require less recording power and lower disc rotation speed than DVD and HD-DVD to achieve the same data transfer rate.

While the media itself limited the recording speed in the past, the only limiting factor for Blu-ray is the capacity of the hardware.

If we assume a maximum disc rotation speed of 10,000 RPM, then 12x at the outer diameter should be possible (about 400Mbps). This is why the Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA) already has plans to raise the speed to 8x (288Mbps) or more in the future.

54 Mbps -> ~7 MB/sec -> ~24GB/hr

Most of the Blu-ray discs that I have, though, are at average around 15-20 Mbps, or on the order of 10 GB/hr.

(Since single layer Blu-ray is 25 GB, that's OK for most movies - but they have to leave off the bonus material unless it's DL.)

petvas
Dec 21, 2006, 10:30 AM
I think the Mac Mini is still shipping with Core Duo processors. So not all current Intel models will gain from 64 bit support. But it is possible to install Core 2 Duo processors in an Intel Mini as an unauthorized customization, so maybe an official 64-bit refresh of the Mini is just around the corner...

I think that the iChat/AIM integration comes mainly from intentional infrastructural design.

Like most other products, MSN uses its own proprietary infrastructure, so the main practical method of interoperability has been via "trusted 3rd party" services like Jabber gateways. Isn't is possible to sign in to a Jabber service using iChat? (If memory serves, AOL has been the major stick-in-the-mud for allowing Jabber-like programs to provide wide-ranging interoperability!)

Yes, you are right, the Mac Mini has the Duo Core processors.

If iChat would like to support MSN, then they should connect to the MSN Cloud. Since iChat is just an interface to the AIM network, AIM should federate with MSN, just like Yahoo did..
Apple can't do anything apart from licensing MSN, if that's possible

CrazyWingman
Dec 21, 2006, 10:43 AM
And to those that advocate for a menu bar on every window, like in horrible Windows...pllllllllllease...this is just ridiculous and a waste of screen real estate.

People - wait a second! This whole argument about whether the menubar is in the window or at the top of the screen is moot for 90% of users. Unlike us few multi-task junkies who flip between applications faster than an secretary with a rolodex, most people use one application at a time - *maximized*! The only difference they'll notice between menubar placements are speed improvements related to Fitt's Law. The amount of screen real estate used by menubars for them is exactly the same in both cases.

Of course, for the rest of us, we can squabble over what we prefer as much as we want. I doubt it will make a lick of difference to Apple, though.

guzhogi
Dec 21, 2006, 10:44 AM
1080p x 30fps x 24 bpp = 626 GB / hour. The best lossless video compression scheme (MSU) on RGB colour will do about 3:1 (average) so that brings it down to only 200 GB / hour!

That would be if the movie updated each pixel for each frame which is a waste if what that pixel displays doesn't change. While this would probably be the simplest way to do it, it's not necesarily the best way. I'm no expert on video formats, but I do know that they often just send what changes in each frame and then have a key frame every x number of frames that has info for all the pixels.

ChrisA
Dec 21, 2006, 10:57 AM
....When I log in to OS X, I have set it up so that it loads iChat automatically. But I haven't found a way to load it so that it does NOT display the app-window.

You can make it work the way you want: Launch an applescript that first launches iChat and then closes it. It's just one level of indirection.

I'm almost certain your Linux distro must be doing the same thing

bathysphere
Dec 21, 2006, 11:38 AM
from the same Wikipedia link:

1.7 How fast can you read/write data on a Blu-ray disc?


According to the Blu-ray Disc specification, 1x speed is defined as 36Mbps.

However, as BD-ROM movies will require a 54Mbps data transfer rate the minimum speed we're expecting to see is 2x (72Mbps).

Blu-ray also has the potential for much higher speeds, as a result of the larger numerical aperture (NA) adopted by Blu-ray Disc. The large NA value effectively means that Blu-ray will require less recording power and lower disc rotation speed than DVD and HD-DVD to achieve the same data transfer rate.

While the media itself limited the recording speed in the past, the only limiting factor for Blu-ray is the capacity of the hardware.

If we assume a maximum disc rotation speed of 10,000 RPM, then 12x at the outer diameter should be possible (about 400Mbps). This is why the Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA) already has plans to raise the speed to 8x (288Mbps) or more in the future.

54 Mbps -> ~7 MB/sec -> ~24GB/hr

Most of the Blu-ray discs that I have, though, are at average around 15-20 Mbps, or on the order of 10 GB/hr.

(Since single layer Blu-ray is 25 GB, that's OK for most movies - but they have to leave off the bonus material unless it's DL.)

for what its worth (and i know this discussion is more focusoned on the size of a blu-ray or hd-dvd video file)...

an h264 encoded 1080p movie trailer (the new transformers trailer) is just over 2 minutes, and is just over 154.7MB. if the mb/s scales linearly, a 2 hour movie would be 9GB. while this is a much smaller data rate than what you're listing in the blu-ray spec, the quality is still very good, and far, far, far superior in quality when compared to the current itunes offerings.

and for a 2 hour 720p file (again based on the transformer trailer) your looking a 5.5GB. it's still alot, but not that huge of a deal for someone with a fast cable connection (though apples storage and bandwidth requirements would skyrocket).

Some_Big_Spoon
Dec 21, 2006, 11:41 AM
I played with the new build last night and I'm in the "meh" camp. It's got nice little upgrades in features, but nothing that I see, for me at least, improves my workflow much. It's a beta, and one that is most likely being kept at half mast to not give away the farm to M$, so I'll wait.

killmoms
Dec 21, 2006, 11:42 AM
for what its worth (and i know this discussion is more focusoned on the size of a blu-ray or hd-dvd video file)...

an h264 encoded 1080p movie trailer (the new transformers trailer) is just over 2 minutes, and is just over 154.7MB. if the mb/s scales linearly, a 2 hour movie would be 9GB. while this is a much smaller data rate than what you're listing in the blu-ray spec, the quality is still very good, and far, far, far superior in quality when compared to the current itunes offerings.

and for a 2 hour 720p file (again based on the transformer trailer) your looking a 5.5GB. it's still alot, but not that huge of a deal for someone with a fast cable connection (though apples storage and bandwidth requirements would skyrocket).

Well, right, but short of resizing and re-encoding these, there'd be no way to get them to your iPod, unless you bought them again in iPod size. That seems... inelegant. Very un-Apple. I dunno, maybe if you buy it you're allowed to download whichever sizes for whichever devices you want.

rjwill246
Dec 21, 2006, 11:47 AM
Some look OS X like, others don't BUT, there is a grammatical error in the File Recovery shot:
"select the type of documents you want recover" I don't think so!!!

Non English speaker??? or just too hasty to get the Photoshop queue tidied up and completed?

bathysphere
Dec 21, 2006, 11:56 AM
Well, right, but short of resizing and re-encoding these, there'd be no way to get them to your iPod, unless you bought them again in iPod size. That seems... inelegant. Very un-Apple. I dunno, maybe if you buy it you're allowed to download whichever sizes for whichever devices you want.

true, and i'm not proposing that it happen (though i wouldn't complain personally if it did, and i might actually buy something from the itunes...). i was just referring to the original complaint of not offering high quality hd video on itunes, and pointing out that it is (tenuously) within technical reach.

personally i don't have a video ipod, and the 10 or so people that i know that do have them don't watch video on them because the screen is too small. however, a potential solution for that might be to have the video file download in some sort of package that contains both the hd version and a smaller file for the ipod; in this case your computer would play the hd version, while if you transferred it to the ipod, only the smaller version would transfer. the file size of the smaller file would just have to fit the ipod, so they could drop the res back to 320x240 or whatever it used to be, and the files would be, i dunno, about 700mb? and what's another 3/4GB when your already downloading 10?

Peace
Dec 21, 2006, 12:15 PM
I played with the new build last night and I'm in the "meh" camp. It's got nice little upgrades in features, but nothing that I see, for me at least, improves my workflow much. It's a beta, and one that is most likely being kept at half mast to not give away the farm to M$, so I'll wait.


It's Alpha btw ;)

Diatribe
Dec 21, 2006, 12:18 PM
from the same Wikipedia link:

1.7 How fast can you read/write data on a Blu-ray disc?


According to the Blu-ray Disc specification, 1x speed is defined as 36Mbps.

However, as BD-ROM movies will require a 54Mbps data transfer rate the minimum speed we're expecting to see is 2x (72Mbps).

Blu-ray also has the potential for much higher speeds, as a result of the larger numerical aperture (NA) adopted by Blu-ray Disc. The large NA value effectively means that Blu-ray will require less recording power and lower disc rotation speed than DVD and HD-DVD to achieve the same data transfer rate.

While the media itself limited the recording speed in the past, the only limiting factor for Blu-ray is the capacity of the hardware.

If we assume a maximum disc rotation speed of 10,000 RPM, then 12x at the outer diameter should be possible (about 400Mbps). This is why the Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA) already has plans to raise the speed to 8x (288Mbps) or more in the future.

54 Mbps -> ~7 MB/sec -> ~24GB/hr

Most of the Blu-ray discs that I have, though, are at average around 15-20 Mbps, or on the order of 10 GB/hr.

(Since single layer Blu-ray is 25 GB, that's OK for most movies - but they have to leave off the bonus material unless it's DL.)

Thanks for the info. :)


for what its worth (and i know this discussion is more focusoned on the size of a blu-ray or hd-dvd video file)...

an h264 encoded 1080p movie trailer (the new transformers trailer) is just over 2 minutes, and is just over 154.7MB. if the mb/s scales linearly, a 2 hour movie would be 9GB. while this is a much smaller data rate than what you're listing in the blu-ray spec, the quality is still very good, and far, far, far superior in quality when compared to the current itunes offerings.

and for a 2 hour 720p file (again based on the transformer trailer) your looking a 5.5GB. it's still alot, but not that huge of a deal for someone with a fast cable connection (though apples storage and bandwidth requirements would skyrocket).

10GB for 1080p or 5.5GB for 720p aren't too bad actually. Just a matter of high bandwidth becoming mainstream.

wrldwzrd89
Dec 21, 2006, 12:19 PM
It's Alpha btw ;)
Wait just a minute... if I was Apple, I wouldn't distribute Alpha builds to my developers - those, by their very nature, are feature-incomplete and unstable. Beta builds, on the other hand, are generally feature-complete, or at the very least, core feature-complete, and stable enough to use for application testing purposes.

Snowy_River
Dec 21, 2006, 12:24 PM
...
PS-Don't even get me started on how even when a Window isn't the active window it's cursor a text field is still blinking. In Windows the cursor stops when the window isn't active. Which is a tell-tail sign.

Uh... I've just been trying that. I don't see that behavior at all. Right now, I'm typing in a text field in Safari. If I switch to a different window in Safari, the cursor in this text field disappears. Same thing if I switch to a different application. And I see the same behavior in TextEdit, Mail, Pages, etc. So what application are you seeing the cursor still blinking in?

...I do like the universal menubar, but I do see two problem in it. First of all, it makes "focus follows mouse" impossible. I like a scheme where I can change the app that has focus by simply moving the cursor over the app. In OS X, that would simply not work, since it would make accessing the menubar impossible...

Well, impossible is overstating it. I've seen people who have the Codetek Virtual Desktop software installed, and use the Focus Follows the Mouse feature of it. It just means that the methodology of it has to be slightly different. For example, perhaps you need to let your mouse rest on a window for half a second (or a user configurable time period from 0 to 2 seconds, or whatever) before the focus switches. So, it can be done.

...The second problem I see is with large resolutions and multimonitor setups. In multimonitor setups, the menubar is available in just one screen, right? What if your app-window is in the other screen? You have to move the cursor all the way to the other screen, just so you could access the menubar...

Yes, here I agree with you. I've never understood why the menu bar isn't present on all monitors. Ideally, this should also give you the preference of having it be duplications of the existing menu bar, or one long menu bar (as if the multiple monitors are really just parts of one big monitor).

There have certainly been times when this has been a major irritation to me.

...Same thing if you have one hi-resolution screen. The bigger the resolution, the bigger the distance between the app and it's menubar.

Now, here I don't agree. Why I don't agree is because this is going against the reason for the methodology for having a universal menu bar, or at least one of them. The core idea is that the menu is always in the same place. No need to go looking for where on the screen it is. If you just shove your mouse in an upward direction, it'll stop at the menu bar.

I think that to some extent, we're struggling with an evolution problem. People who are not very computer savvy (and, yes, there are still a lot of them out there) like things simple and visual. The issue with the RISC OS that I saw immediately is that the menus aren't visually there. This might work for power and intermediate users, but the technophobes would have some significant problems with this. I suspect that the overall interface isn't going to change significantly until it is totally transformed, making use of new an innovative ways of interacting with the OS (i.e. voice recognition, gesture recognition, eye focus, etc.).

...Related to this: there is one feature that I had in Linux that I would like to see in OS X as well. In Linux I could launch apps (for example, my IM) when I logged in, and it would load in the background. It would be up and running, and I would be logged in, but there would be no app-window visible, it would just be in the systray. When I log in to OS X, I have set it up so that it loads iChat automatically. But I haven't found a way to load it so that it does NOT display the app-window. So I have to close the window manually every time (the app keeps on running in the background, however).

Why not set it to launch iChat, but hide it? That's what the check box is for. Ever since I started using Front Row, I set iTunes to launch, hidden, on start-up, to avoid the delay when I want to watch a video. (If I watched slideshows of my photos a lot, I'd do the same with iPhoto...)

50548
Dec 21, 2006, 12:26 PM
Some look OS X like, others don't BUT, there is a grammatical error in the File Recovery shot:
"select the type of documents you want recover" I don't think so!!!

Non English speaker??? or just too hasty to get the Photoshop queue tidied up and completed?

Either one of two things:

1 - it's a fake;

2 - spell checking still in its beta stages...:rolleyes:

AppliedVisual
Dec 21, 2006, 12:43 PM
fccording to the Blu-ray Disc specification, 1x speed is defined as 36Mbps.

However, as BD-ROM movies will require a 54Mbps data transfer rate the minimum speed we're expecting to see is 2x (72Mbps).

Heh. The Wiki is wrong essentially wrong... :eek:

BD-Video has a max rate of 40Mbps (which is in actuality 39.7Mbps if you read the fine print). This is for the video standard, but data transfers can actually reach 54.4Mbps. I'm guessing that the Wiki entry is just outdated.

Blu-ray also has the potential for much higher speeds, as a result of the larger numerical aperture (NA) adopted by Blu-ray Disc. The large NA value effectively means that Blu-ray will require less recording power and lower disc rotation speed than DVD and HD-DVD to achieve the same data transfer rate.

Yep, but in reality the aperture makes little difference... Think of it as if you're trying to read a newspaper. However, you have to read it through a 1" wide, 1 line high slit in another piece of paper you have sitting on top, which you can move only in forward, linear fashion. Pretend that's HD-DVD. Now, make that slit another 1/4" wider... That's BluRay. You're still only reading a max of 39.7Mbps for video in a standard player (or 54Mbps for data). You can get a 25% jump on the first data read, but after that the sustained rate still governs the transfer. ...BluRay is still faster than HD-DVD... HD-DVD has a base rate of 36.2Mbps (18Mbps slower) and the HD-DVD video spec is limited to 35Mbps. BluRay's higher transfer rate mostly comes from the higher data density (25GB vs. 15GB per layer).

I can't comment on power use... I haven't seen the data for power used to burn a BD disc. But it seems logical that BD media would require less power since the track point size is smaller.

However, you will probably find, even with 50GB BD discs, that most HD-DVD and BD releases of the same feature will use the same video transfer. No reason for the studios to re-encode and rebuild a title more than once (other than the different menu systems) when they use the same codecs and in most situations, the max rates of either can't be approached and still keep enough room for a 2+ hour film. In some ways, the convenience for studios in this regard as more adopt both formats (and they are), may cause BD quality to suffer a bit.. Or at least we won't see too much in the way of that extra 20GB being used.

While the media itself limited the recording speed in the past, the only limiting factor for Blu-ray is the capacity of the hardware.

??? Not sure what that's all about. BD media record speeds are still limited by both hardware and media, and contrary to Sony Fanboy beliefs, the laws of physics too. For example, current BD blank media available from Sony is 2X rated. From Philips and other makers, they're selling both 1X (a bit cheaper) and 2X media. Current writers are all 1X capable except for the 2X|DL model from Sony. Sony is hoping to have a 4X writer and 8X readers (with support for 4 layers on those readers) by the end of next year.

[quote]If we assume a maximum disc rotation speed of 10,000 RPM, then 12x at the outer diameter should be possible (about 400Mbps). This is why the Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA) already has plans to raise the speed to 8x (288Mbps) or more in the future.[/INDENT]

Just as we welcomed faster CD and DVD drives, we will also see faster HD-DVD and BluRay drives. This statement deserves a "Well, duh!" award.

.....
...Why am I dissecting a crappy, outdated and incomplete Wiki entry? Oh, I know.. It's because I'm stuck inside and don't feel like going outside to shovel the 3ft. of snow we've had over the last 24 hours. Heh.

Oh well... On the bright side, I've noticed that both the Philips and Samsung BluRay players (arguably the worst two available) are now both under $699. My local ListenUp has the Sony BDP-S1 for $899 and the Panasonic player for $1099. Still expensive, but prices are falling already. I have a Toshiba HD-A1 and it's an OK player... I'll buy a BluRay player once I can buy a good one (like the Panasonic, Sony or Pioneer) at $500. Probably late spring / early summer I would guess.

shawnce
Dec 21, 2006, 12:46 PM
All those people saying they don't see any reason to upgrade will have a shock when they see the number of new applications coming out that will ONLY run on 10.5.

So far this includes Delicious Library 2.0 and Textmate but I imagine there will be others too.

10.5 is a dream come true for developers so expect applications to drive upgrades and NOT gimmick features.

Yeah I generally chuckle at all of the comments about 10.4 or 10.5 not looking like it has many worth while features... Apple has added and is adding a lot of great features that allow developers to make compelling, good looking, and functional applications. In fact I would say a majority of what 10.5 is bringing to the table is targeted at developers and will allow development of some great applications and ones that well be better prepared to the multi-core world we have been in for a few years now.

Apple in the last few years has been working hard to make it easier to develop applications by providing rich frameworks of Apple's own making as well as including 3rd party "frameworks" so that application developers have a good foundation to build their applications on. ...WebKit, QTKit, PDFKit, ImageKit, Core Image, Core Data, Core Video, Core Animation, Accelerate Framework, 64 bit, Objective-C 2.0, DTrace, Resolution Independence (Core Graphic, etc.), Calendar Store, Address Store, IM framework, Spotlight framework, Multi-thread OpenGL, KPIs, etc. (and several items that I cannot yet talk about)

shawnce
Dec 21, 2006, 01:02 PM
Wait just a minute... if I was Apple, I wouldn't distribute Alpha builds to my developers - those, by their very nature, are feature-incomplete and unstable. Beta builds, on the other hand, are generally feature-complete, or at the very least, core feature-complete, and stable enough to use for application testing purposes.

It is a developer preview... doesn't have to be feature complete (early previews seldom are)... it is available to developers so they can begin playing with features that are being developed so developers can provide feedback before things are locked down.

50548
Dec 21, 2006, 01:10 PM
Totally off-topic, but...has anyone seen the new iPhone leaks published at MacNN? If that's real, it's got to be coolest phone ever...simply awesome...:rolleyes:

MonkeyClaw
Dec 21, 2006, 01:42 PM
Totally off-topic, but...has anyone seen the new iPhone leaks published at MacNN? If that's real, it's got to be coolest phone ever...simply awesome...:rolleyes:

Looks pretty cool, not so sure about the square bad concept, guess i would have to try it out in person before i make a decision, providing its real, lol.

Pieira
Dec 21, 2006, 01:50 PM
Totally off-topic, but...has anyone seen the new iPhone leaks published at MacNN? If that's real, it's got to be coolest phone ever...simply awesome...:rolleyes:

I can't find any pics, you got a link?

Edit: Found it, http://www.electronista.com/articles/06/12/20/convincing.apple.phone/

Want one!

Nar1117
Dec 21, 2006, 01:54 PM
When I log in to OS X, I have set it up so that it loads iChat automatically. But I haven't found a way to load it so that it does NOT display the app-window. So I have to close the window manually every time (the app keeps on running in the background, however).

You can.

Sys prefs > Accounts > Login Items > Select the programs you want to open at login by clicking the + button at the bottom of the window. > Select which programs you want open, but hidden, by checking the box next to each application.

Your programs will now be open, but their respective windows will not be visible, unless you click on their icons on the dock.

Problemo solved.


EDIT: Note to self: Read comments to see if anyone has already answered this question. My apolgies. Ill leave it up just in case nobody saw the previous answer.

killmoms
Dec 21, 2006, 02:00 PM
I can't find any pics, you got a link?

Edit: Found it, http://www.electronista.com/articles/06/12/20/convincing.apple.phone/

Want one!

You guys are nuts. You want to dial a number on an input device that has NO indication of where you're clicking? What are you supposed to do, gesture between buttons? WAY inefficient. I can't see Apple ever releasing something this absurd. Plus, on-screen keyboard and no predictive spelling for texting? This prototype screams "I want no one to buy me."

No way it's real. I call fake right now.

Pieira
Dec 21, 2006, 02:01 PM
At first glance I thought it might be difficult tally up the position of the button and the position of your hand, but I use a wacom and this is exactly the same idea, I think this could be another stroke of interface genius if its real.

Admittedly the keyboard buttons look a bit small for fat fingers, but how do you know there's no predictive

AppliedVisual
Dec 21, 2006, 02:03 PM
No way it's real. I call fake right now.

And the fact that "iPhone" appears next to the product image... That was enough for me to label it as a fake before I even studed the lame-o gesture pad idea. Oh, and if this thing were real, it would be kinda big... Like iPod size, maybe a bit slimmer, but taller than the 5G iPod. Not ideal for an all purpose phone unless it's a fairly robust PDA / smartphone.

AppliedVisual
Dec 21, 2006, 02:05 PM
At first glance I thought it might be difficult tally up the position of the button and the position of your hand, but I use a wacom and this is exactly the same idea, I think this could be another stroke of interface genius if its real.

And the phone is nearly useless in situations where you need to dial without watching what you're doing. How does 1-button speed dial work? Or do I have to tap the pad in one corner to bring up my contacts and then stroke it to scroll down the list to entry #9 and then tap twice or something like that? No that sucks.

Diatribe
Dec 21, 2006, 02:06 PM
Can we please stay on topic here and move the phone discussion to the appropriate thread please? Thank you :)

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=262407

Pieira
Dec 21, 2006, 02:08 PM
Actually yeah the blue highlighted button indicates focus, so it must be gesture based, cack then and hopefully not real, nice fake though.

guzhogi
Dec 21, 2006, 02:43 PM
For all those complaining that there aren't any major UI changes: who cares? It might be "under the hood" kind of stuff. Remember 10.2 introduced rendevouz (now bon jour) as a major feature, even though it didn't have any graphical changes to the OS.

killmoms
Dec 21, 2006, 02:44 PM
For all those complaining that there aren't any major UI changes: who cares? It might be "under the hood" kind of stuff. Remember 10.2 introduced rendevouz (now bon jour) as a major feature, even though it didn't have any graphical changes to the OS.

There were several subtle changes to the UI between 10.1 and 10.2. But the BIG story with Jaguar was Quartz Extreme—made OS X a lot faster of any system with an AGP graphics card.

Evangelion
Dec 21, 2006, 02:53 PM
Now, here I don't agree. Why I don't agree is because this is going against the reason for the methodology for having a universal menu bar, or at least one of them. The core idea is that the menu is always in the same place. No need to go looking for where on the screen it is. If you just shove your mouse in an upward direction, it'll stop at the menu bar.

True, but the app is NOT in the edge of the screen. While you could use the menubar by simply throwing the cursor upwards, you can't do the same with the app itself. If you want to click some items inside the app, as well as items in the menubar, you could have a long distance between the two.

Why not set it to launch iChat, but hide it? That's what the check box is for.

I do have that checkbox checked. And I still get an iChat-window every time I log in. So there seems to be something wrong.

koobcamuk
Dec 21, 2006, 03:09 PM
I just get that nasty "oh my god, leave me alone, I don't need a help with everything!" kind of feeling that normally only Windows can deliver. I would hate to see Apple do the same. I think a Time Machine preference pane would be excellent. :)

You should choose when a device is a Time Machine device - not have it auto pop up to ask you. Very annoying. You should go to prefs and make it so - not have the OS expect it! Plug and play baby.

someguy
Dec 21, 2006, 03:17 PM
You should choose when a device is a Time Machine device - not have it auto pop up to ask you. Very annoying.
Couldn't agree more.

killmoms
Dec 21, 2006, 03:25 PM
I'd imagine it'd only ask the first time you connect a new volume, and then not ask afterwards. This makes sense because Time Machine (as well as the concept of backing up) is new and a bit foreign to many many users. Not really a big deal if you ask me. Say no, and it won't bug you again.

intlplby
Dec 21, 2006, 03:30 PM
can we get a screenshot that confirms whether or not there is FLAC support?

matticus008
Dec 21, 2006, 03:32 PM
Mac OS X, on the other hand, is meant to be booted from other devices (hence the Startup Disk system preference pane), and even boots from non-writable devices (though this requires a few hacks, as Mac OS X, like most OSes, expects certain directories to be writable, and freaks out if they're not).
Which is why I continue to say, "why is anyone suprised about USB booting for OS X?" I've used USB booting on my PC for years for all kinds of OSes and OS X is by far the most friendly in this regard, so USB booting just seems like a natural progression.

someguy
Dec 21, 2006, 03:50 PM
I'd imagine it'd only ask the first time you connect a new volume, and then not ask afterwards. This makes sense because Time Machine (as well as the concept of backing up) is new and a bit foreign to many many users. Not really a big deal if you ask me. Say no, and it won't bug you again.
It's not a big deal at all. A big deal is the number of things you have to say "no" to in Windows before you can finally have some peace and quiet.

madmaxmedia
Dec 21, 2006, 04:01 PM
That being said I like the way its integrated into the menubar because IMHO its a waste to have the same menus spread across multiple windows. There are pros and cons to both ways of doing it. I haven't decided which I like the best. There must be a happy medium between the two designs but what? :confused:

Maybe to have the menu bar in between the top of the window, and the top of the screen?

;)

As far as UI changes, I think some people want cosmetic changes, and others want overall GUI changes. I don't think either is going to happen.

A) Most people are fine with Aqua, heck I still like brushed metal. Tweaks, yes, but total revamp? Probably not (although I still don't know what that Illuminous thing is about, maybe OSX 11.) It's not exciting, but it works and I am very comfortable with OSX, which is the most important thing for actually getting things done. Otherwise, Shapeshifter is a nice app for playing around with.

B) Any major re-design of the overal GUI is not going to come in a dot update. You don't re-work the GUI just like that anyways, it takes years of fine-tuning. Maybe Illuminous is for the next version of OSX, and will feature both a new look and new interface...

OldTimey
Dec 21, 2006, 04:37 PM
Yes, that's right - they don't look much different, if at all, and that is the problem! We need a NEW (different) UI than tiger, and I'm not seeing that in these leaked pics. :mad: :mad: :mad:


Why do we need a NEW (different) UI? Is it a purely aesthetical gripe? or is there some sort of functionality we are missing out on by having a blue bubbly scroll bar as opposed to a greyish rectangle?:confused: :confused: :confused:

whatever
Dec 21, 2006, 04:43 PM
I sure hope someone from Apple reads these Mac forums, preferably Steve Jobs himself. Otherwise how will they know what we want? Does anyone know if there's any better/official way to get our point across to Apple?

Yeah, first get a life and then learn how to live it.

If Apple read your posts they would just disregard it. A vast majority of Apple's customer base like the OS X interface. It's 1000 times better than OS 9.

Now let's compare it the other guys.

Is there a version of MS Windows better?

Is there something better on UNIX?

You keep saying Apple can do better, but that's like me saying that the automobile industry can do better. Yeah, they can do better, but there are factors which prevent them from doing so. And again, "better" would need to be defined (is it better milage or flying cars?). In Apple's case would better be further streamlining their OS, without alienating their customer core or is it redesigning everything and breaking what already works?

killmoms
Dec 21, 2006, 04:45 PM
Just try to ignore MacVault—his complaints about the OS X UI are almost as annoying as DHM's bitching about integrated graphics. Many of his complaints will never be addressed, because they're fundamental to the Mac interface—such as the menu bar being at the top of the screen instead of in the application, a la Windows. If you want a more Windows-like UI, USE WINDOWS.

whatever
Dec 21, 2006, 04:49 PM
Yea, same here. Micro-updates ? Major upgrade. Now ZFS I would say is a major update, but that by itself does not warrant a Major upgrade. Wake me up when Apple decides to get serious.



Yea, it's a Mac Pro 16-Core Quad 500GB RAM 100 TB Hard drive. But it's no good without a good UI. Vista sucks. Tiger sucks. And Leopard, well we'll see soon, but I'm warmin up the old Fargo wood chipper!
Basically if you depend on a good interface to make your fictional machine work well, then I recommend that you get Palm Pilot or something.

Wait here's an idea. Load up the Developers kit and create your own user interface (it's not impossible and would be a fun project for you). And then when you're done, you can post some screenshots and we'll review it for you.

kresh
Dec 21, 2006, 05:04 PM
Yea, now you're gettin it. I don't like the look of the menu bar or the fonts it uses, and I don't really like the idea of the menus being in the menu bar as opposed to in the windows themselves. And I don't like the dock, the scroll bars, the round bubbly buttons, the scroll bar arrows, etc. etc. etc.

WOW, I wondered why Apple's sales were getting worse quarter after quarter. It's the UI, it's driving people away in droves. They are in serious trouble, novody will ever buy another Apple designed computer because of the Aqua UI.

Seriously, why should Apple change Aqua. From their point of view things are great. Sales are up, and OSX is being talked about everywhere. Why make a radical change in the way OSX looks, just for the sake of change?

kalisphoenix
Dec 21, 2006, 05:30 PM
Yes, I can't imagine why Apple wouldn't include the functionality that would allow its users to play ripped DVDs (still illegal to do in the US if they have copy protection) with their software. I mean, it's not like that'd be a conflict of interest, what with them trying to court the movie industry for digital distribution on the iTunes Store. :rolleyes:

I mean, come on. At some point your needs become more esoteric than 90% of the Apple userbase. Or, at least, the userbase Apple is targeting with features like Front Row.

As I was saying (before I was so rudely interrupted), DVD Player already plays VIDEO_TS folders. But Front Row doesn't. This is what vexes me.

Snowy_River
Dec 21, 2006, 05:53 PM
True, but the app is NOT in the edge of the screen. While you could use the menubar by simply throwing the cursor upwards, you can't do the same with the app itself. If you want to click some items inside the app, as well as items in the menubar, you could have a long distance between the two.

Here we're getting to a difference in perspective. Most users won't ever, or at worst will rarely ever face the situation you're describing. For the major power user apps (and even some not-so-power apps) I think you'd find they carry a lot of the functionality around with the window or in palettes that are typically much closer to the window, and most, if not all, the menu functionality can be accessed through keyboard short-cuts. Thus for the user who's most likely to have a huge display (power user), it's not such an issue, and for people who don't have such a display, it's, obviously, also not an issue. So, from my perspective, you're asking to change something that's been fundamental to the Mac user experience for almost 23 years just to help an issue faced by a tiny minority of users. To me this makes no sense. Just MHO. ;)

I do have that checkbox checked. And I still get an iChat-window every time I log in. So there seems to be something wrong.

That's strange. I'll try it on my computer and tell you what happens.

Hmm. I checked it, and sure enough, iChat won't stay hidden. I suspect that it has to do with the 'hide' command coming through before the process of initializing the connection and starting up iChat is complete. I get an error chime during start up, which contributes to this theory. In any event, you're right, something's wrong. You might try using Start Up Items to start iChat very early in the start up process, then have an Apple Script that will hide iChat at the end of the start up process. It might work...

WildPalms
Dec 21, 2006, 07:13 PM
Yea, now you're gettin it. I don't like the look of the menu bar or the fonts it uses, and I don't really like the idea of the menus being in the menu bar as opposed to in the windows themselves. And I don't like the dock, the scroll bars, the round bubbly buttons, the scroll bar arrows, etc. etc. etc.


You could run in X11 mode if you hate the entire (as I read it) GUI so much. Sounds like you are running OS X only for the underlying *nix layer, but then if thats the case, save yourself the ire and run Linux.

kalisphoenix
Dec 21, 2006, 07:55 PM
blah blah

Because Lord Knows we needed another cheesy wannabe Versiontracker.

WildPalms
Dec 21, 2006, 08:06 PM
MacVault, I've seen you state here several times that the UI of Tiger is less than you'd approve of, to put it mildly. Generally speaking, when one protests so vehemently against something like the UI, there exists in mind, an alternative that does please the writer.

That said, perhaps it's time for you to provide examples to readers of this forum of your ideal UI. Personally, I'd like to see what you'd do so differently that would warrant shredding your Mac and posting it on YouTube if it wasn't implemented.


LOL, well said. Perhaps MacVault is a Windows man in disguise :cool: :D

WildPalms
Dec 21, 2006, 08:14 PM
Am I the only one here that doesn't really have a problem with the UI, per se, but is much more interested in a unification of the design? I mean, I'd appreciate a simple, clean approach to the look (say, like how the new product description pages in the online store look), but more than anything I'd like to see what's already here organized. The OS is quickly becoming more and more bloated.

Personally I'd like to see Apple continue to simplify rather than complicate. And a more logical organization of what already exists within the finder would be ideal. (C'mon, what's the deal with the Image Capture program and needing to get into the preferences there? That doesn't make any sense at all.)

I also love the OS X gui, and I, too, would love to see the UI simplified. My new direction: MINIMILIZATION :D

WildPalms
Dec 21, 2006, 08:18 PM
Compile 'em all:
why should This (http://www.marcmoini.com/f3_en.html) run on top of the finder?

Dude, it (3D-VFS) doesnt run on top of Finder. Finder is the initial shell interface that ships with OS X. Last time I looked, 3D-VFS doesnt ship with OS X.

maxrobertson
Dec 21, 2006, 08:52 PM
Which is why I continue to say, "why is anyone suprised about USB booting for OS X?" I've used USB booting on my PC for years for all kinds of OSes and OS X is by far the most friendly in this regard, so USB booting just seems like a natural progression.

Exactly. I mean, my iMac DV can boot off of a flash drive (OS 9.) It's not a new feature by any means.

WildPalms
Dec 21, 2006, 09:19 PM
I would gladly buy ALL my movies and music in the iTunes Store IF they were without DRM! Down with DRM! Down with DRM! Down with DRM!


....are you sure you're in the right forums? You seem to hate everything Apple. ....or are you just in here to bait?

MikeTheC
Dec 21, 2006, 09:55 PM
You've got that right, unfortunately. These Leopard pics better not represent the UI of the final release or I'm gonna run my new Mac through I wood chipper and post the video on YouTube and send it to Steve Jobs.

Could we just run you through a wood chipper instead? Then Steve could keep his people focused on improving the underpinnings of the OS, and maybe he'd then be doing that long enough for him to realize perhaps he should be using a different kernel.

(J/K about the chipper part)

Seriously, I understand everyone's different, but what's your problem with Aqua? I happen to like it. Yes, I know it doesn't offer the flexibility or the extensibility of, say, Gnome or KDE, et al, but thank the gods it isn't that piece of felgercarb from the hinterlands of Washington State.

Evangelion
Dec 22, 2006, 12:11 AM
Is there something better on UNIX?

Maybe, depending on how you define "better". If by "better" you mean such things as ease of use and consistency, I would say that GNOME (for example) gives OS X a serious run for it's money. My wife has less probems with Linux + GNOME than she has with OS X. If by "better" you mean "a layer of candy", then OS X is indeed "better". Then again, they do have 3D-accelerated desktops in Linux-land these days, so even that layer of candy is debatable.

Note: I'm not saying that Aqua is bad. What I am saying is that you guys shouldn't blindly believe that OS X is better than everything else, in all areas.