PDA

View Full Version : Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard 9A343 Screenshots




MacRumors
Jan 24, 2007, 09:05 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

BabyGotMac posted (http://babygotmac.com/a/116/2/) some screenshots from the latest build of Leopard (9A343).

- 5 new screensavers using Core Animation: Arabesque, Retro, Security, Spectrum, and Word of the Day. Gallery (http://babygotmac.com/a/116)
- Terminal with Tabs. Gallery (http://babygotmac.com/a/113)
- Parental Controls. Gallery (http://babygotmac.com/a/114)

Leopard is expected in "Spring" 2007. A recent Page 2 Rumor (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/01/23/apple-special-event-on-february-20th/) suggests a Feb 20th Apple event, but this has not been confirmed.



killmoms
Jan 24, 2007, 09:07 AM
Wow! Awesome screenshots! I can't believe them!

Mostly because I can't SEE them. :rolleyes:

Pyrix
Jan 24, 2007, 09:07 AM
Guess BabyGotMac has been dotted or dugg, because all i get is 503 service unavailable!

AppleIntelRock
Jan 24, 2007, 09:09 AM
Service Temporarily Unavailable

The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later.
Apache/1.3.33 Server at babygotmac.com Port 80

MacBoobsPro
Jan 24, 2007, 09:09 AM
The first two screenies arent worth even mentioning after that the site went down. I cant see anything big or new being shown though.

Americanloti
Jan 24, 2007, 09:10 AM
Wow! Awesome screenshots! I can't believe them!

Mostly because I can't SEE them. :rolleyes:

lol! I guess we need to wait Feb 20th and see the whole thing!

spicyapple
Jan 24, 2007, 09:11 AM
Service Temporarily Unavailable

Anyone catch it? Does it use "Illuminous"? I hope it does. It would look sweat! :)

Compile 'em all
Jan 24, 2007, 09:11 AM
Mirrors anyone?

killmoms
Jan 24, 2007, 09:12 AM
Also, "Illuminous" is the fabrication of some fevered Mac fan.

Nothing to see folks, it's Aqua as usual, people just need to get over it now so we can avoid the wailing and gnashing of teeth come Leopard's release. If there was gonna be a new interface, we would've seen it already. All this build-up for the inevitable disappointment is just silly.

Chundles
Jan 24, 2007, 09:14 AM
Anyone catch it? Does it use "Illuminous"? I hope it does. It would look sweat! :)

No, same UI. New Save As dialogue shows a "Media" entry in the Finder sidebar located under a divider below the usual Home, Documents, Images etc. When you click on Media it offers an iTunes-like list of Music/Pictures/Movies with associated tags for artist etc.

The new screensavers looked cool but fairly unimportant and a little difficult to get from a static image.

Warbrain
Jan 24, 2007, 09:16 AM
Ah, great, been ****ed...

brad.c
Jan 24, 2007, 09:20 AM
Your site hath been strucketh down by the power of the Steve.

Snap!

wjdennen
Jan 24, 2007, 09:21 AM
Bleah. Boring!

brad.c
Jan 24, 2007, 09:22 AM
It would look sweat! :)

Hmm. Freudian slip? ;-)

iJawn108
Jan 24, 2007, 09:29 AM
I miss it :(

this is the punishment for installing windows xp last night in parallels

kainjow
Jan 24, 2007, 09:33 AM
Looks like the site got MR'd ;)

MacPanda
Jan 24, 2007, 09:35 AM
any mirrors - shine on me :P

Digital Fury
Jan 24, 2007, 09:39 AM
LOL! that site has been slash...macrumored. :p

AppleMan101
Jan 24, 2007, 09:40 AM
Errrm, I've just been checking out the extra WWDC keynote on ADConiTunes...there's something that worries me.
At 1:00:02 (ish) in the video...the guy says, "We want your applications to be ready for 2008". TBH I'm a little confused...is this gunna be an addition to Leopard next year?...or is it a clue for when the higher res. displays will debut? What do you think?

(You might want to check out the stuff before it to get the context; resolution independancy.)

Mgkwho
Jan 24, 2007, 09:40 AM
Nothing to see folks... If there was gonna be a new interface, we would've seen it already.

What makes you say we would've seen it already? What about the top secret features that we haven't seen? What about a new finder?

In your mind, where is the line drawn between what is coming that we won't see until it's announcement, opposed to what's coming that we would already have seen?

-=|Mgkwho

Mgkwho
Jan 24, 2007, 09:44 AM
Errrm, I've just been checking out the extra WWDC keynote on ADConiTunes...there's something that worries me.
At 1:00:02 (ish) in the video...the guy says, "We want your applications to be ready for 2008".

Apple didn't warn any developers of their switch to intel until 6 months before it actually happened (at Macworld, 9-12 months overall).

Say Leopard comes out March 24th, that would give developers 6-9 months of it's release into the wild before a deadline similar to the intel transition. Of course, developers have already been playing around with this one. But there are certain things you just can't rush. Changes are possible, but in this case gradual.

Face it, you can't just change the world in half of a year. The iphone took 2.5 years of planning, and another .5 before it's release!

-=|Mgkwho

Darkroom
Jan 24, 2007, 09:46 AM
Also, "Illuminous" is the fabrication of some fevered Mac fan.

Nothing to see folks, it's Aqua as usual, people just need to get over it now so we can avoid the wailing and gnashing of teeth come Leopard's release. If there was gonna be a new interface, we would've seen it already. All this build-up for the inevitable disappointment is just silly.

i disagree... an Illuminous UI (or any UI) isn't something that would have to be sent to developers... Apple could replace the UI themselves, and probably will... also, during last years conference Jobs mentioned that certain elements of 10.5 would be kept top secret until a final release...

killmoms
Jan 24, 2007, 09:46 AM
What makes you say we would've seen it already? What about the top secret features that we haven't seen? What about a new finder?

In your mind, where is the line drawn between what is coming that we won't see until it's announcement, opposed to what's coming that we would already have seen?

-=|Mgkwho

In my mind, a "new interface" would be a CRUCIALLY important thing to include in developer previews for developers early on, since so many developers use custom widgets (heck, even APPLE use a ton of custom widgets). Unless Apple want OS X to look any more Frankenstein-ish than it already does, it seems to me they'd want developers to be prepared so their UIs fit into the new look.

I think the ZOMG TOP SECRET stuff was related to maybe resolution independence or something (which we know about, but have never been shown publically). I have a feeling it's far more marketing than "big splashy changes." Plus, we're running out of time before Leopard's supposed to hit. I'd bank on a release between March and May sometime. I just don't see too many pointers that would indicate something as huge as a major interface overhaul that so many people here seem to expect.

Mgkwho
Jan 24, 2007, 09:48 AM
In my mind, a "new interface" would be a CRUCIALLY important thing to include in developer previews for developers early on, since so many developers use custom widgets (heck, even APPLE use a ton of custom widgets). I think the ZOMG TOP SECRET stuff was related to maybe resolution independence or something (which we know about, but have never been shown publically). I have a feeling it's far more marketing than "big splashy changes." Plus, we're running out of time before Leopard's supposed to hit. I'd bank on a release between March and May sometime. I just don't see too many pointers that would indicate something as huge as a major interface overhaul that so many people here seem to expect.

I guess I just flat-out disagree with you, then.

-=|Mgkwho

Rocketman
Jan 24, 2007, 09:49 AM
Errrm, I've just been checking out the extra WWDC keynote on ADConiTunes...there's something that worries me.
At 1:00:02 (ish) in the video...the guy says, "We want your applications to be ready for 2008". TBH I'm a little confused...is this gunna be an addition to Leopard next year?...or is it a clue for when the higher res. displays will debut? What do you think?

(You might want to check out the stuff before it to get the context; resolution independancy.)

It is the date range Apple already announced for the ATN (iPhone) follow-on device with resolution independence.

Rocketman

stoid
Jan 24, 2007, 09:52 AM
I got some off of the site, the screensaver one's mostly.

stoid
Jan 24, 2007, 09:52 AM
more

Mgkwho
Jan 24, 2007, 09:53 AM
So is the security one just a black screen?

I know that question sounds a little stupid...

-=|Mgkwho

mainstreetmark
Jan 24, 2007, 09:54 AM
Wow! Screensavers!!

This'll stick it to Vista.

edit: "Media"? hmm...

devman
Jan 24, 2007, 09:55 AM
Errrm, I've just been checking out the extra WWDC keynote on ADConiTunes...there's something that worries me.
At 1:00:02 (ish) in the video...the guy says, "We want your applications to be ready for 2008". TBH I'm a little confused...is this gunna be an addition to Leopard next year?...or is it a clue for when the higher res. displays will debut? What do you think?

(You might want to check out the stuff before it to get the context; resolution independancy.)

It's a clue (more than a clue really) for when high-dpi displays will be in use. The software support is being built into Leopard but all app developers will have to do work for RI (well they can do nothing and be ugly - zoomed).

arn
Jan 24, 2007, 09:55 AM
So is the security one just a black screen?

I know that question sounds a little stupid...

-=|Mgkwho

The note from the site said that the Security one didn't come across in a screenshot, but that it looked like a fuzz over the screen or something like that. said it was cool.

arn

aLoC
Jan 24, 2007, 09:58 AM
The area on the left of the screensaver settings should be changed to iTunes style. Those disclosure triangles don't belong.

stoid
Jan 24, 2007, 09:58 AM
terminal shots (1-4)

stoid
Jan 24, 2007, 09:59 AM
terminal shots (5-8)

stoid
Jan 24, 2007, 10:00 AM
terminal shots (9, 10, & 11)

tobias-digital
Jan 24, 2007, 10:01 AM
I got some of the pics on my flickr account: http://flickr.com/photos/tobias-digital/sets/72157594495430436/

Feel free to comment

aLoC
Jan 24, 2007, 10:02 AM
terminal shots (5-8)

What's that on the terminal icon? Looks like Matrix code...

Philsy
Jan 24, 2007, 10:02 AM
I'm disappointed that Apple isn't revising the appearance of the OS - it's going to look dated and bland next to Vista. :(

stoid
Jan 24, 2007, 10:02 AM
finally, the parental controls

stoid
Jan 24, 2007, 10:05 AM
There, now all the screenshots (I think I got 'em all) are mirrored here. I hope that the mods don't mind the server load it's likely to cause, but I'm sure that they'll remove them if that's the case. I'd love to see those new screensavers in action. It's the only thing in the shots that interests me, and without seeing them in motion, it's kinda hard to really understand what's going on.

stoid
Jan 24, 2007, 10:07 AM
What's that on the terminal icon? Looks like Matrix code...

Yeah, that's what it looks like, rather ugly IMHO! :eek:

aLoC
Jan 24, 2007, 10:09 AM
I'm disappointed that Apple isn't revising the appearance of the OS - it's going to look dated and bland next to Vista. :(

They still might, but I agree it's getting less and less likely the more builds we see. Maybe they won't change everything, but just come up with a new style but only use it on new apps.

mark88
Jan 24, 2007, 10:13 AM
Also, "Illuminous" is the fabrication of some fevered Mac fan.

Nothing to see folks, it's Aqua as usual, people just need to get over it now so we can avoid the wailing and gnashing of teeth come Leopard's release. If there was gonna be a new interface, we would've seen it already. All this build-up for the inevitable disappointment is just silly.

I agree, totally. The new Interfacebuilder who devs have right now has the same style aqua widgets as Tiger.

Perhaps we'll see a little tweak here and there but aqua will not be replaced.

job
Jan 24, 2007, 10:16 AM
I'm disappointed that Apple isn't revising the appearance of the OS - it's going to look dated and bland next to Vista. :(

So? Who cares about how it looks.

I'm more interested as to how it performs.

If shiny and glossy aesthetics play that much of a role in software, then Linux and Unix would have died a brutal and abrupt death sometime during the mid-90s.

mark88
Jan 24, 2007, 10:16 AM
more

Expose listed in the Applications folder??

stoid
Jan 24, 2007, 10:20 AM
Expose listed in the Applications folder??

Maybe it's there because it's being merged with Spaces (multi-desktop functionality)

Philsy
Jan 24, 2007, 10:20 AM
So? Who cares about how it looks.

I'm more interested as to how it performs.

If shiny and glossy aesthetics play that much of a role in software, then Linux and Unix would have died a brutal and abrupt death sometime during the mid-90s.

I think for most people, the way it looks IS important. After all, how many people use Linux and Unix in the great scheme of things? One of the attactions of Apple is its good-looking hardware and software - you only have to look at the fuss that has been made over the iPhone to see that.

Of course, it need to perform well, but Vista, like it or not, has plenty of 'eye-candy', to use an American expression, that will tempt people away from Apple.

reckless_0001
Jan 24, 2007, 10:21 AM
Just remember one thing... "Progress is progress." :p

Palad1
Jan 24, 2007, 10:22 AM
I guess I just flat-out disagree with you, then.

-=|Mgkwho

We're on the same page here.
Apple releases a new skin / updated toolkit.

It either causes minor glitches with third-party apps which use custom widgets, or needs a recompile to be used. Big deal, most 3rd party apps will be recompiled in under a week to use the latest eye-candy with updated bitmaps.

Resolution-independence on the other hand has a much steeper learning curve and affects more than simple resources.

Now I'm crossing fingers for this new skin to be innovative _and_ viable in the long run. Please let it be that iTune's skin has nothing to do with the next skin...

Chaszmyr
Jan 24, 2007, 10:22 AM
I'm disappointed that Apple isn't revising the appearance of the OS - it's going to look dated and bland next to Vista. :(

Not to sound like an Apple fanboy, but have you seen Vista? Vista is packed full of fairly impressive eye candy and graphics that would look very nice... except they are all molded around the same ugly, cluttered layout that Windows has had since 1995.

Philsy
Jan 24, 2007, 10:26 AM
Not to sound like an Apple fanboy, but have you seen Vista? Vista is packed full of fairly impressive eye candy and graphics that would look very nice... except they are all molded around the same ugly, cluttered layout that Windows has had since 1995.

Oh, I quite agree, it's a bit tacky and tasteless, which is why I think Apple could really raise the ante here, by showing how to do it properly.

slffl
Jan 24, 2007, 10:26 AM
So it seems like Leopard is going to be about the same type of upgrade as Tiger was. A few new and improved built in apps? I'm hoping they have something up their sleeve, but I don't think it could be anything too big.

ChrisA
Jan 24, 2007, 10:39 AM
i disagree... an Illuminous UI (or any UI) isn't something that would have to be sent to developers... Apple could replace the UI themselves, and probably will... also, during last years conference Jobs mentioned that certain elements of 10.5 would be kept top secret until a final release...

People keep saying that Apple could replace the "UI". As if "UI" were some object you could see or point to. The User Interface is the overall design of an application and includes things like the decision to present the user with a control or not and if so where to place it For example the UI in Final Cut is a set of tracks and a couple viewers and then a whole mess of controls. What I think people here are talking about is what some call "skins" which is just the color and texture of the controls and visible objects. If so then this is trivial to change

I'd be very disappointed if Steve "super secret" stuff was just a change in the "look". I think we have to guess now that those secret features are something that developers don't need to know about so they will not be core features but user level applications perhaps a new finder or a more pervasive use of spotlight or possible user selectable "skins" I'm guessing VOIP telephony integration with iChat and iPhone

Object-X
Jan 24, 2007, 10:45 AM
Also, "Illuminous" is the fabrication of some fevered Mac fan.

Nothing to see folks, it's Aqua as usual, people just need to get over it now so we can avoid the wailing and gnashing of teeth come Leopard's release. If there was gonna be a new interface, we would've seen it already. All this build-up for the inevitable disappointment is just silly.

I agree with you totally. I went to the Leopard Tech Talk and I certainly didn't get the impression that Leopard's UI is going to "dramatically" change. Oh, Core Animation is amazing and will certianly show up in various ways that will improve the overall experiance, but don't expect a complete redesign. I expect a lot of very intelligent incremental improvements that won't impress immediately, but will shine over time as you use the system.

I expect individual applications will get the Core Animation treatment as required by that application. Apple has been pounding the point home that each application needs to have it's own individual interface that makes sense for it.

Think Time Machine. It's the most perfect example of how Core Animation is being used not to just provide eye candy, but to create a UI that is intelligent and intuitive.

guzhogi
Jan 24, 2007, 10:55 AM
Ever since 10.3, support for certain computers were taken away.
10.3: Needed USB (no more beige G3s)
10.4: Needed Firewire (no more early G3 iMacs)
From what I've heard, for 10.5, G3 support is dropped. In some ways, that's a good thing. I have a bunch of iMac & iBook G3s at work and they run dead slow in Mac OS X. However, where I work, we've been able to run 10.4 on non-firewire iMacs. Slow as hell though.

Something I'd like to know is when they'll drop classic support?

And hopefully Apple will ditch Carbon and go Cocoa all the way. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Carbon basically a carryover from classic so a developer can have 1 codebase for OS X & classic? I remember hearing that somewhere. I feel Cocoa has much more power and use than Carbon. I feel that sometimes, you have to break backwards compatibility to move forward. I work in an elementary school and the special ed department uses software from this organization that uses primarily classic software. It's a pain in the neck running those in classic mode while also running OS X programs.

DavidLeblond
Jan 24, 2007, 10:58 AM
And hopefully Apple will ditch Carbon and go Cocoa all the way. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Carbon basically a carryover from classic so a developer can have 1 codebase for OS X & classic? I remember hearing that somewhere. I feel Cocoa has much more power and use than Carbon. I feel that sometimes, you have to break backwards compatibility to move forward. I work in an elementary school and the special ed department uses software from this organization that uses primarily classic software. It's a pain in the neck running those in classic mode while also running OS X programs.

Don't think they'll ditch Carbon... isn't iTunes coded in Carbon?

guzhogi
Jan 24, 2007, 10:59 AM
Not to sound like an Apple fanboy, but have you seen Vista? Vista is packed full of fairly impressive eye candy and graphics that would look very nice... except they are all molded around the same ugly, cluttered layout that Windows has had since 1995.

I've been using Vista RC2 and I agree, it does look nice. I like the translucence. Kinda like how in some Apple programs like Front Row have the mopped floor look where it reflects what's above it. Very cool! The only reason I'd use Windows is for the games that aren't out for Mac. I do hope Apple upgrades the UI.

Philsy
Jan 24, 2007, 11:02 AM
I've been using Vista RC2 and I agree, it does look nice. I like the translucence. Kinda like how in some Apple programs like Front Row have the mopped floor look where it reflects what's above it. Very cool! The only reason I'd use Windows is for the games that aren't out for Mac. I do hope Apple upgrades the UI.

Ironically, OS X has pretty much ditched its translucency, which I think is a shame.

bretm
Jan 24, 2007, 11:09 AM
They still might, but I agree it's getting less and less likely the more builds we see. Maybe they won't change everything, but just come up with a new style but only use it on new apps.

There's a reason we haven't seen the iLife apps. I'm sure they are reliant on the new look or have the new look. I'd be happy if they just gave the 10.4 look across the board. I would like the iTunes/iPhoto/iWeb/Mail look across the board. Lose the finder/safari brushed metal already. It was tired the day they showed it. Pin stripes were better than brushed metal.

Philsy
Jan 24, 2007, 11:13 AM
Is there a definite date for the launch of Leopard yet?

bretm
Jan 24, 2007, 11:13 AM
Ironically, OS X has pretty much ditched its translucency, which I think is a shame.

I don't recall OSX ever having translucency, except for menus, which made them harder to read just like the problems vista has with translucent menus.

If you're talking about mopped floor look then the word you're looking for is reflection. Apple is doing more and more of the reflection look in EVERYTHING. Look at cover flow on the iTunes website and of course in the new iPhone and iTunes itself of course.

guzhogi
Jan 24, 2007, 11:13 AM
Don't think they'll ditch Carbon... isn't iTunes coded in Carbon?

Well, at least upgrade the code and make it a part of Cocoa. I think Apple's text to speech technology is still in Carbon and it's terrible. It still sounds very… computerish. They really need to upgrade it so it sounds more human. What's kind of scary is some people say the "Fred" voice sounds just like me. Though some people say I sound like Steven Hawking or Barry White. Just imagine what Stephen Hawking would sound like making love. :p

Philsy
Jan 24, 2007, 11:17 AM
I don't recall OSX ever having translucency, except for menus, which made them harder to read just like the problems vista has with translucent menus.

If you're talking about mopped floor look then the word you're looking for is reflection. Apple is doing more and more of the reflection look in EVERYTHING. Look at cover flow on the iTunes website and of course in the new iPhone and iTunes itself of course.

That's a good look, I agree. Yes, translucent menus weren't great (they still are there, incidentally, if you look hard enough) but it seems a shame that the technology is there, yet is only used for the Dock.

Some_Big_Spoon
Jan 24, 2007, 11:18 AM
meh.

Here's to hoping there's something compelling underwraps or else there's gonna be lots and lots of folks pitching a fit, and the press will be all over it.

killmoms
Jan 24, 2007, 11:18 AM
Well, at least upgrade the code and make it a part of Cocoa. I think Apple's text to speech technology is still in Carbon and it's terrible. It still sounds very… computerish. They really need to upgrade it so it sounds more human. What's kind of scary is some people say the "Fred" voice sounds just like me. Though some people say I sound like Steven Hawking or Barry White. Just imagine what Stephen Hawking would sound like making love. :p

Disregarding that the API upon which the text to speech technology has NOTHING to do with its relative quality, they are upgrading it. Or did you miss the whole 5 or minutes devoted to that in the WWDC keynote?

That's a good look, I agree. Yes, translucent menus weren't great (they still are there, incidentally, if you look hard enough) but it seems a shame that the technology is there, yet is only used for the Dock.
And the panels for controls in Motion/iPhoto/Aperture.

The reason for a lack of translucency is that, honestly, it makes things harder to read. That's my biggest complaint with all the overused translucence in Vista. My other complaint with Vista is all the blurring, which just takes up graphics card resources unnecessarily. My other OTHER complaint with Vista is that it has NO cohesiveness. It's even worse than OS X in that regard.

reckless_0001
Jan 24, 2007, 11:19 AM
People keep saying that Apple could replace the "UI". As if "UI" were some object you could see or point to. The User Interface is the overall design of an application and includes things like the decision to present the user with a control or not and if so where to place it For example the UI in Final Cut is a set of tracks and a couple viewers and then a whole mess of controls. What I think people here are talking about is what some call "skins" which is just the color and texture of the controls and visible objects. If so then this is trivial to change

I'd be very disappointed if Steve "super secret" stuff was just a change in the "look". I think we have to guess now that those secret features are something that developers don't need to know about so they will not be core features but user level applications perhaps a new finder or a more pervasive use of spotlight or possible user selectable "skins" I'm guessing VOIP telephony integration with iChat and iPhone

Would you be satisfied if people put a G in front of UI? to make GUI? j/k :p

elppa
Jan 24, 2007, 11:19 AM
No, same UI. New Save As dialogue shows a "Media" entry in the Finder sidebar located under a divider below the usual Home, Documents, Images etc. When you click on Media it offers an iTunes-like list of Music/Pictures/Movies with associated tags for artist etc.

The new screensavers looked cool but fairly unimportant and a little difficult to get from a static image.

This is something that is a little overdue, but very welcome.

It was the logical next step after the iLife Media Browser.

Also, back to the appearance of the GUI, I think it is perfectly possible Apple is developing a new version but keeping these builds private.

Think about it, they are probably tinkering with things themselves, so it makes little sense to let the developers see it yet. Otherwise developers would probably end up making incremental revisions to their own apps custom elements just to keep up with the latest build coming from Cupertino.

If they show it to the developers when they are actually finished, then the developers can update their apps to look nice with the finalised version of the GUI.

Of course it is perfectly possible that they are not working on a new look for the GUI (I'm still happy with Aqua), but what really got me thinking was an article which pointed out some of the Aqua elements in the previews didn't have the same "spit and polish" that you would expect, in fact they look more like placeholders for what is to come.

killmoms
Jan 24, 2007, 11:25 AM
Think about it, they are probably tinkering with things themselves, so it makes little sense to let the developers see it yet. Otherwise developers would probably end up making incremental revisions to their own apps custom elements just to keep up with the latest build coming from Cupertino.

If they're still tinkering with a NEW FREAKING LOOK for their ENTIRE OS a mere 3 - 6 months from release, on an OS that has had builds out to developers as early as 6 months ago, there is something SERIOUSLY wrong at Apple.

Glad to hear that you're still satisfied with Aqua, I am too. I'm just tired people keep pointing out circumstantial evidence while ignoring the flat-out realities of software development. :rolleyes:

Philsy
Jan 24, 2007, 11:28 AM
And the panels for controls in Motion/iPhoto/Aperture.

The reason for a lack of translucency is that, honestly, it makes things harder to read. That's my biggest complaint with all the overused translucence in Vista. My other complaint with Vista is all the blurring, which just takes up graphics card resources unnecessarily. My other OTHER complaint with Vista is that it has NO cohesiveness. It's even worse than OS X in that regard.

Yep, I forgot about those. I dunno, there must be a way of using transparency in a useful and attractive way. Or am I (and Microsoft) just flogging a dead horse? :rolleyes:

twoodcc
Jan 24, 2007, 11:31 AM
looking pretty nice.....but i can't wait til the big improvements.....can't.....wait......

zblaxberg
Jan 24, 2007, 11:47 AM
Service Temporarily Unavailable

The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later.
Apache/1.3.33 Server at babygotmac.com Port 80

i dont know what your talking about I can see the pix

amagus
Jan 24, 2007, 11:54 AM
The reason for a lack of translucency is that, honestly, it makes things harder to read. That's my biggest complaint with all the overused translucence in Vista. My other complaint with Vista is all the blurring, which just takes up graphics card resources unnecessarily. My other OTHER complaint with Vista is that it has NO cohesiveness. It's even worse than OS X in that regard.

Yup those are my thoughts exactly. I installed Vista on my home computer and the first thing that jumped out at me was how "busy" the interface looked. It was very distracting, and I initially couldn't put my finger on why it bothered me so much. I eventually concluded it was that they didn't combine what individually probably sounded like cool effects in a cohesive manner. I'm talking about the translucency effects, the "glowing" text (which makes text harder to read IMO), the glass shading, all the friggin' buttons in the new Windows Explorer, glowing buttons, etc.

I turned off the translucency effects and chose an off-white color for the borders to minimize the "glowing" text effect (which I couldn't figure out how to turn off), and I think it looks better now. I wish I could turn off the glass shading, which I think looks ugly. I have other gripes about the Vista interface that I won't even get into. Vista reminds me of all those attempts from the Linux guys to make their GUI look pretty, which often end up looking like a Frankenstein combination of special effects and gloss.

I also don't get why some people think Vista looks like Mac OS X as they look nothing like each other, even with all the gloss Microsoft added. I don't think Mac OS X always gets it right (I hate metal shading), but I still think they have the most visually pleasing AND usable GUI of any OS.

SiliconAddict
Jan 24, 2007, 11:54 AM
YAWNNNNN. *mumbles something about top secret features and goes back to sleep.*

eenu
Jan 24, 2007, 11:59 AM
If they're still tinkering with a NEW FREAKING LOOK for their ENTIRE OS a mere 3 - 6 months from release, on an OS that has had builds out to developers as early as 6 months ago, there is something SERIOUSLY wrong at Apple.

Glad to hear that you're still satisfied with Aqua, I am too. I'm just tired people keep pointing out circumstantial evidence while ignoring the flat-out realities of software development. :rolleyes:

Don't take this the wrong way but in what way are you qualified in software development?

I don't think a new UI is out of the question at all, tinkering with it now is probably a bad sign. However i can see them having a new or im proved UI and not releasing it in the dev builds.

iomar
Jan 24, 2007, 12:09 PM
Anyone catch it? Does it use "Illuminous"? I hope it does. It would look sweat! :)


Excuse my reply, but you already look sweet! :)

killmoms
Jan 24, 2007, 12:14 PM
Don't take this the wrong way but in what way are you qualified in software development?

Well, I worked in configuration management on a program contracted by the Air Force to CSC for two years. But, you know, whatever. I guess calling out people for qualifications is standard practice on the Internet. :rolleyes:

I have since moved in more creative directions. ;)

SiliconAddict
Jan 24, 2007, 12:17 PM
Is there a definite date for the launch of Leopard yet?

Nope.

mark88
Jan 24, 2007, 12:23 PM
I don't think a new UI is out of the question at all, tinkering with it now is probably a bad sign. However i can see them having a new or im proved UI and not releasing it in the dev builds.

Do you realise that devs currently have Xcode 3.0 and the new Interface Builder?

Do you really think Apple would shaft all it's developers by doing this in a few weeks:

"Hey guys, SURPRISE!! Here is the new interface for Leopard. Forget about all the stuff you've done with the new dev tools we supplied you with months ago, we were just fooling you."

I just don't get why everyone is expecting a whole new interface, it's never happened between any of the other 10.X releases and this one is no different.

When apple moved to Intel they gave developers months to create universal binaries before the first Intel mac shipped. I'm sure they'd give them time if they were planning major interface changes.

There's just no way at all that Apple would release Leopard and leave developers scrambling just so that their applications looked OK in Leopard.

I personally think we can expect to see what we have seen before, just minor tweaks of standard interface elements.

- Brushed metal texture replaced
- Pinstripe replaced
- Few new icons
- New wallpapers

stuff like that....all the things that would not ruin the look of someone app. (ie, like changing the look of the scrollbars would)

I actually don't mind. OS X still looks great and I'll be happy with a tiddying up and unifying.

eenu
Jan 24, 2007, 12:49 PM
Do you realise that devs currently have Xcode 3.0 and the new Interface Builder?

Yes i have it



Do you really think Apple would shaft all it's developers by doing this in a few weeks:

I'd hardly call it shafting



When apple moved to Intel they gave developers months to create universal binaries before the first Intel mac shipped. I'm sure they'd give them time if they were planning major interface changes.

I also remember apple making the transition so very easy for devs that a lot of them did not require the months that they were alloted. To be honest i think a UI change is a FAR smaller transition that moving platform!

It's amazing how i can use Windows 95/98 apps in XP and they look fine! The same could be done in Leopard for Legacy Tiger apps until the Devs update their software to fit into the Leopard UI

iSee
Jan 24, 2007, 01:05 PM
Something I'd like to know is when they'll drop classic support?

And hopefully Apple will ditch Carbon and go Cocoa all the way. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Carbon basically a carryover from classic so a developer can have 1 codebase for OS X & classic? I remember hearing that somewhere. I feel Cocoa has much more power and use than Carbon. I feel that sometimes, you have to break backwards compatibility to move forward. I work in an elementary school and the special ed department uses software from this organization that uses primarily classic software. It's a pain in the neck running those in classic mode while also running OS X programs.

I used to be a developer for educational software, and OS X was tough (although necessary). From a monetary point of view, we could only justify upgrading certain apps from Classic to OS X. And, of course, schools were in the same boat--they really weren't in a position to pay to upgrade all of the classic apps they had, even if they were available.

But I don't think Carbon is dead, or at least I don't think it should killed off. And not for the sake of Classic. It's the OS X API for C++, which makes it most suitable for cross-platform apps (Mac/Win/*nix). I haven't looked, but I'm pretty sure a lot of significant apps (Just a guess, but everything from Adobe/Macromedia, for example) use Carbon -- not to mention iTunes.

I've heard of some cross-platform developers using a platform specific API for the front end (Cocoa on OS X, .NET on Windows, for example), a platform neutral middle layer (C/C++). But you still need a platform abstraction layer that talks to the host OS, and since your platform neutral layer is C/C++, it is usually best to implement this in C/C++ on top of Carbon.

Errr... Sorry for rattling on :o , but I hope Carbon does not go away because it is a very valuable API for anyone doing cross-platform apps.

apb3
Jan 24, 2007, 01:09 PM
terminal shots (1-4)

looks like transparent/translucent menu pulldowns may get someone in trouble...

And he was sooo careful with the actual terminal window's identifying info....

scott523
Jan 24, 2007, 01:22 PM
I looked at the screenshots and the menu drop downs, the screensaver menu, etc and they look the same in terms of its appearances to Tiger. Is there something I'm missing (I've heard resolution independence but I don't know what that is either)?

akac
Jan 24, 2007, 01:33 PM
So it seems like Leopard is going to be about the same type of upgrade as Tiger was. A few new and improved built in apps? I'm hoping they have something up their sleeve, but I don't think it could be anything too big.

Remember an OS is an OPERATING SYSTEM. Its not just a collection of apps. Sure with OS X we've become reliant on all the built in apps and all of them are getting some nice updates. But what the OS provides are APIs. Look how many apps now require 10.4 - why? Because of the APIs. Things like CoreData in 10.4 and CoreAnimation in 10.5. Plus a whole lot more.

If Apple greatly improves the core OS, Appkit, Kernel, and more - then its worth an upgrade as we'll get better core functionality and built in apps. Yes with 10.1 to 10.2 to 10.3 we saw major improvements, but they were needed just to get to a basic level of usability. From now on you'll mainly see major core improvements and APIs that allow the OS's own apps and third party apps to shine more and more.

MXDT
Jan 24, 2007, 01:36 PM
I just don't get why everyone is expecting a whole new interface, it's never happened between any of the other 10.X releases and this one is no different.




This case is a bit different than the other 10.X updates. There is much attention from media, pundits, and consumers alike because both Vista and Leopard are being released a about the same time. A sort of direct competition between the two major OS releases has been built up. Direct comparisons will be made more than ever before. I can picture it now in a CNN bit having a side by side comparison of the two. A show down for consumers so to speak.

Not saying I care about an new interface look or not. Doesn't matter to me.
Just saying this OSX update is a bit different than before. Apple and OS X have reached new heights in media and public attention. More than ever the world will be watching and comparing it to Windows (Vista). And unfortunately they easiest thing for the average person to use to compare to two by what they see(ie eye candy) A lot of people(mostly Windows users of course) WILL be impressed with Vista wether we like it or not.

akac
Jan 24, 2007, 01:39 PM
Don't take this the wrong way but in what way are you qualified in software development?

I don't think a new UI is out of the question at all, tinkering with it now is probably a bad sign. However i can see them having a new or im proved UI and not releasing it in the dev builds.

Considering that most of OS X can work just fine with major look changes through UNO or ShapeShifter which are hacks - I'm sure Apple can make some major look changes without having to show developers anything until a few months before release.

MacsRgr8
Jan 24, 2007, 01:50 PM
We know Steve bragged about "Top Secret" features in Leopard which would not be demonstrated @ the WWDC (nor MWSF for that matter...), and I am pretty sure there will be one ore more "tadda!!!" features in Leopard which will probably only be revealed shortly before the GM.

But is a "new skin" really a top secret feature? I wonder what you guys expect from this supposedly "new UI".....
Is a brand new Finder something that must be seeded to developers? I'm sure that a new GUI-skin is not of any importance to them.

But, the users like some refreshments... We have had this Aqua interface since the Mac OS X Client DP 3. I personally would welcome a new interface, like I welcome not just new clothes, but different clothes aswell when I buy new ones... not that one is better than the other, but it feels new and fresh ;)

AppleMan101
Jan 24, 2007, 01:55 PM
looks like transparent/translucent menu pulldowns may get someone in trouble...

And he was sooo careful with the actual terminal window's identifying info....

and that person might just be called "sam". but who says he used his real name when upgrading? and he has an iBook G4, lucky him :)

Stridder44
Jan 24, 2007, 02:17 PM
I've been using Vista RC2 and I agree, it does look nice. I like the translucence. Kinda like how in some Apple programs like Front Row have the mopped floor look where it reflects what's above it. Very cool! The only reason I'd use Windows is for the games that aren't out for Mac. I do hope Apple upgrades the UI.


I'm not gonna lie. Aqua is really starting to look old. It was cool back in the day (like 5-6 years ago), but bubble-land Aqua needs change. I've been using Uno lately just because a change is nice. Vista looks much nicer and more refined, if nothing else it is something different. Aqua is just getting stale. I'm going to be very disappointed if there aren't any UI changes with 10.5.

Could a UI change be considered "top secret"? For a company like Apple, heck yes. Apple is all about aesthetics. We'll see though I guess. Also, I like how some of you are comparing a UI change to the switch to Intel. Do you really need months to get used to it?

lewchenko
Jan 24, 2007, 02:19 PM
Erm ... Woo! (Not)

So far I havent read about 1 killer new must have feature that leopard has over Tiger, and certainly not one which is worth the 100 notes Apple is asking for it. Im sticking with Tiger.

Atleast with Vista, they are bringing DX10 to the party which (if you are a gamer) will eventually mean a hell of a lot to you.

Fukui
Jan 24, 2007, 02:19 PM
But I don't think Carbon is dead, or at least I don't think it should killed off. And not for the sake of Classic. It's the OS X API for C++, which makes it most suitable for cross-platform apps (Mac/Win/*nix). I haven't looked, but I'm pretty sure a lot of significant apps (Just a guess, but everything from Adobe/Macromedia, for example) use Carbon -- not to mention iTunes.

Errr... Sorry for rattling on :o , but I hope Carbon does not go away because it is a very valuable API for anyone doing cross-platform apps.

I could say apple's stance on this (or what they are working on towards cross-platform compatiblity), but since its under NDA, I can't say anything.

BUT, what I would do is upgrade carbon to be "modernized" and leave it at that. Apple can't keep adding features to both API "sets" and expect to get reasonable time-to-market. Apple has to pick one API set for the future, and I would hope its Cocoa, or something better. Some individual "carbon" frameworks may be just fine and dandy and easy to use, but for the most part, the whole of what is known as carbon is quite old and duplicates a lot of what Cocoa is doing.


P.S I don't think "illuminous" is a whole new UI. What does "Illuminous" mean? It means the ability to show or reveal something not currently easily seen. I think it will probably be some augmentation to Aqua that helps to find parts of the UI... maybe something like the System Preferences app where it "spotlights" the items when searching....

matticus008
Jan 24, 2007, 02:33 PM
In my mind, a "new interface" would be a CRUCIALLY important thing to include in developer previews for developers early on, since so many developers use custom widgets (heck, even APPLE use a ton of custom widgets).
If they use custom widgets, nothing Apple does will affect them. This is precisely why it doesn't matter whether or not developers have access to the new UI widgets, so long as common layouts are generally preserved. Anything using the default set will simply be updated to reflect the new look, just as a properly-styled website will when switching stylesheets.

I think the ZOMG TOP SECRET stuff was related to maybe resolution independence or something (which we know about, but have never been shown publically).
Resolution independence requires all-new widgets. None of those have surfaced yet...so by that theory, resolution independence has been dropped from Leopard as well.

I agree, totally. The new Interfacebuilder who devs have right now has the same style aqua widgets as Tiger.
Of course they do. Why would there be different ones than used by the OS itself? Interface Builder provides access to the core components of the OS--they have to be created first, though.

If they're still tinkering with a NEW FREAKING LOOK for their ENTIRE OS a mere 3 - 6 months from release, on an OS that has had builds out to developers as early as 6 months ago, there is something SERIOUSLY wrong at Apple.
Why? The developers are irrelevant. The large ones have the resources to update their applications almost immediately, and the small ones don't have prerelease software, so we'll be waiting months for those products either way.

I'm just tired people keep pointing out circumstantial evidence while ignoring the flat-out realities of software development. :rolleyes:
The reality is that UI widgets are just about the easiest thing to change in software. They take a lot of time and effort to create, especially when you're doing a coordinated theme, but it's a simple resource swap in the end. You don't have to test it until the very end, so why release it before that? With just graphics designers working on it, there's a distinct Apple 'wow' effect when it's unveiled. We've been promised a new Finder, which so far doesn't exist at all; resolution independence certainly isn't finished, because almost none of the widgets scale properly; there have been ZERO changes to the appearance so far, which has never happened in a previous OS X release.

Something new is coming. It might not be the visage of God that some people seem to expect, but all the signs point in the right direction.

Stridder44
Jan 24, 2007, 02:57 PM
If they use custom widgets, nothing Apple does will affect them. This is precisely why it doesn't matter whether or not developers have access to the new UI widgets, so long as common layouts are generally preserved. Anything using the default set will simply be updated to reflect the new look, just as a properly-styled website will when switching stylesheets.

Resolution independence requires all-new widgets. None of those have surfaced yet...so by that theory, resolution independence has been dropped from Leopard as well.

Of course they do. Why would there be different ones than used by the OS itself? Interface Builder provides access to the core components of the OS--they have to be created first, though.

Why? The developers are irrelevant. The large ones have the resources to update their applications almost immediately, and the small ones don't have prerelease software, so we'll be waiting months for those products either way.

The reality is that UI widgets are just about the easiest thing to change in software. They take a lot of time and effort to create, especially when you're doing a coordinated theme, but it's a simple resource swap in the end. You don't have to test it until the very end, so why release it before that? With just graphics designers working on it, there's a distinct Apple 'wow' effect when it's unveiled. We've been promised a new Finder, which so far doesn't exist at all; resolution independence certainly isn't finished, because almost none of the widgets scale properly; there have been ZERO changes to the appearance so far, which has never happened in a previous OS X release.

Something new is coming. It might not be the visage of God that some people seem to expect, but all the signs point in the right direction.


Thank you :) That makes me happy to hear. I'm not a dev myself but I would think something like a UI change would be the least of a devs concerns, and could be changed quickly and easily. It didn't makes sense reading how some of them need months to prepare for something like that.

eenu
Jan 24, 2007, 03:06 PM
If they use custom widgets, nothing Apple does will affect them. This is precisely why it doesn't matter whether or not developers have access to the new UI widgets, so long as common layouts are generally preserved. Anything using the default set will simply be updated to reflect the new look, just as a properly-styled website will when switching stylesheets.


Resolution independence requires all-new widgets. None of those have surfaced yet...so by that theory, resolution independence has been dropped from Leopard as well.


Of course they do. Why would there be different ones than used by the OS itself? Interface Builder provides access to the core components of the OS--they have to be created first, though.


Why? The developers are irrelevant. The large ones have the resources to update their applications almost immediately, and the small ones don't have prerelease software, so we'll be waiting months for those products either way.


The reality is that UI widgets are just about the easiest thing to change in software. They take a lot of time and effort to create, especially when you're doing a coordinated theme, but it's a simple resource swap in the end. You don't have to test it until the very end, so why release it before that? With just graphics designers working on it, there's a distinct Apple 'wow' effect when it's unveiled. We've been promised a new Finder, which so far doesn't exist at all; resolution independence certainly isn't finished, because almost none of the widgets scale properly; there have been ZERO changes to the appearance so far, which has never happened in a previous OS X release.

Something new is coming. It might not be the visage of God that some people seem to expect, but all the signs point in the right direction.

This is exactly what i have been trying to say. Thanks

BillyShears
Jan 24, 2007, 03:30 PM
Resolution independence requires all-new widgets.

Why is that? The widgets could look exactly the same as they do now.

Why? The developers are irrelevant. The large ones have the resources to update their applications almost immediately, and the small ones don't have prerelease software, so we'll be waiting months for those products either way.

Large developers tend to be pretty slow at major changes from what I've seen (see: Adobe, Microsoft transitioning to Intel).

The reality is that UI widgets are just about the easiest thing to change in software. They take a lot of time and effort to create, especially when you're doing a coordinated theme, but it's a simple resource swap in the end.

Easy to change, maybe. But since they're used all throughout the system they could negatively effect things they shouldn't. They'd be easy to change, but how easy would the changes be to test?

For example, picture a media playing application which displays a black screen when nothing is present. Now, if Apple makes their Windows all black, the "screen" no longer shows up. There are little things like that. It's not just colors, but dimensions of widgets and so on.

Another thing is that some developers use custom widgets. I think a lot of widgets in iTunes are custom-made for the application. Would these still look good if the system changed it's look dramatically?

BillyShears
Jan 24, 2007, 03:35 PM
I think Illuminous, if it exists, isn't an Aqua replacement, but is instead complementary to Aqua.

I think we already have Illuminous, in the form of Front Row, Time Machine, etc. The darker elements seem to be how it was described in the rumour. We can also see it in the iPhone somewhat, where they switch between a "black" theme and a "white" theme.

I've posted on this before, but essentially I think "Illuminous" applies to using your computer outside the contexts of "normal computing". Or something like an interface for when you're not using a keyboard and mouse.

So apps like Safari, Word, Mail stay in Aqua, while apps like Front Row (sit back and use the remote), Time Machine (explore "through time"? kind of weak), slideshows (remote), iChat Video Conference (using camera).

elppa
Jan 24, 2007, 03:39 PM
there have been ZERO changes to the appearance so far, which has never happened in a previous OS X release.

This is a very good point.

It is certainly a lot better arguement than “well they haven't changed it radically before so they won't change it now” arguement which is being so frequently trotted out…

synth3tik
Jan 24, 2007, 03:44 PM
Some of the best screen shots of 10.5. thank you for sharing:D

Cougarcat
Jan 24, 2007, 04:16 PM
This is a very good point.

It is certainly a lot better arguement than “well they haven't changed it radically before so they won't change it now” arguement which is being so frequently trotted out…

But apps such as iChat, Preview, and iCal now look like mail. Why bother to change the look if you're just going to replace everything in a few months?

Also, they've vectorized Aqua already (http://img108.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture23dp3.png) for resolution independence. Again, why bother to do this if you are just going to use a new UI? It just doesn't make any sense.

I for one don't think Aqua looks outdated. I'm all for a new interface though if they go in the direction of their pro apps (instead of iTunes, which I use UNO with).

oceanmonster
Jan 24, 2007, 04:22 PM
But apps such as iChat, Preview, and iCal now look like mail. Why bother to change the look if you're just going to replace everything in a few months?

Also, they've vectorized Aqua already (http://img108.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture23dp3.png) for resolution independence. Again, why bother to do this if you are just going to use a new UI? It just doesn't make any sense.

I for one don't think Aqua looks outdated. I'm all for a new interface though if they go in the direction of their pro apps (instead of iTunes, which I use UNO with).

They can still change and or update the UI without replacing aqua. For example they could just update the bright blue buttons and scroll bar get rid of the brushed metal, update the finder interface, ad more of the new Quick View and to most people it would be content and believe it was an entirely different ui

mark88
Jan 24, 2007, 04:48 PM
If they use custom widgets, nothing Apple does will affect them. This is precisely why it doesn't matter whether or not developers have access to the new UI widgets, so long as common layouts are generally preserved. Anything using the default set will simply be updated to reflect the new look, just as a properly-styled website will when switching stylesheets.


This I agree with, but the reality is quite different. If everyone stuck to the standard widgets and followed the HIG then totally overhauling the look of the OS would be a walk in the park. Devs wouldn't have to do nothing at all and the whole system would get a shiny new look.

But the fact is, for Tiger especially the HIG is out of the window. Custom widgets are everywhere and these will remain in place after Apple changes the 'default set' in Leopard.

It's easy to replace Brushed metal, scrollbars, round aqua buttons etc but changing these does not automatically change the countless other aqua elements on your system.

Just look inside the resource folder of Mail.app, hundreds of custom aqua graphics that are outside the 'default set'.

My point is that it's impossible to remove Aqua in one release. And even if Apple does switch the standard widgets, it's not as simple as developers just have to update their custom widgets to the new style. If they do that, then their apps will look screwed up in Tiger.

This is the problem, and it's one Apple has created itself. And I personally do not think Apple want their shiny new OS littered with apps that look half new style Leopard and half Aqua.

hotdamn
Jan 24, 2007, 04:50 PM
Anything using the default set will simply be updated to reflect the new look, just as a properly-styled website will when switching stylesheets.

The reality is that UI widgets are just about the easiest thing to change in software. They take a lot of time and effort to create, especially when you're doing a coordinated theme, but it's a simple resource swap in the end.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.

Has no one ever heard of or used UNO?

mark88
Jan 24, 2007, 04:52 PM
They can still change and or update the UI without replacing aqua. For example they could just update the bright blue buttons and scroll bar get rid of the brushed metal, update the finder interface, ad more of the new Quick View and to most people it would be content and believe it was an entirely different ui

I think they will do that.

Brushed Metal is easy to replace, as is updating the finder window, as is removing pinstripe.

All the above I think are dead certs. Btw, did someone earlier say we have been 'promised a new Finder'?...I never heard anyone from Apple say that?

hotdamn
Jan 24, 2007, 04:53 PM
Btw, did someone earlier say we have been 'promised a new Finder'?...I never heard anyone from Apple say that?

yeah, I was wondering that as well. It's not like I've soaked up every article about Apple in the past 2 years.

BabyGotMac
Jan 24, 2007, 04:55 PM
Some of the best screen shots of 10.5. thank you for sharing:D

You're welcome.
:)

Sorry about the site going down. Macnews.de, MacRumors and some Japanese sites all hit at once.

I have some more stuff I will be posting late tonight/tomorrow.

matticus008
Jan 24, 2007, 05:56 PM
Why is that? The widgets could look exactly the same as they do now.
Look the same, but not be the same. The current widgets do not scale well. They still have a lot of artwork to recreate in a suitable vector format. The current components are strongly lacking (buttons and text are ready, as they're simple fixes), but the window glyphs, select arrows, and a number of other components are not scalable.
Large developers tend to be pretty slow at major changes from what I've seen (see: Adobe, Microsoft transitioning to Intel).
That's not really the case. They tend to roll major changes into their major version releases, which are intentionally spread out. There's rarely an extra delay because of anything happening at Apple. Any such delay is political in nature and therefore independent of technical changes.
For example, picture a media playing application which displays a black screen when nothing is present. Now, if Apple makes their Windows all black, the "screen" no longer shows up. There are little things like that. It's not just colors, but dimensions of widgets and so on.
All of which are easily fixed by competent programmers. In order to convert everything for resolution independence, there has to be a migration from fixed positioning, so the groundwork is already done. Apple is not going to make their windows all black; even if they did, the screen would remain as visible as it does in Tiger. The only problem would be with a black wallpaper, which is a voluntary user action. Furthermore, why would anyone define a black, borderless window?
Another thing is that some developers use custom widgets. I think a lot of widgets in iTunes are custom-made for the application. Would these still look good if the system changed it's look dramatically?
Apple can handle its own applications; developers, if they've done their jobs properly, will have very little to change. If they're using a custom set, the set is embedded in the application; it would look just as it does now. If they are using a default arrangement, the app would update to the new look automatically. Only the icons would remain the same, and there's nothing inherently incompatible with that. The number of rendering glitches would be extremely limited and discovered right away, just as with new layouts made to Aqua applications.

Also, they've vectorized Aqua already (http://img108.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture23dp3.png) for resolution independence.
No, they haven't. They've created the system functionality and provided a few test widgets. Much of the UI lacks production-ready artwork, and even some of the test artwork is still bitmapped, just at a larger size. See above, or look at the horrible blurry regions in the image you posted.

RoboCop001
Jan 24, 2007, 06:51 PM
While a new interface is always a nice thing, would it not make sense to have a drastic interface change take place in OS 11 instead of now?

That way OS 10 will have it's look, and then when OS 11 comes out (my guess is around 2015) they'll change the look because it's a whole number change, not just a decimal update. It would even make more sense to change it then since perhaps OS 11 will be quite different in terms of how you use it (maybe using a lot of multi-touch, or maybe 2015 is too soon for that, who knows).

I'm going to take a guess and say they'll change Finder, maybe not so much the overall thing.

We'll see soon enough!

Project
Jan 24, 2007, 08:06 PM
While a new interface is always a nice thing, would it not make sense to have a drastic interface change take place in OS 11 instead of now?

That way OS 10 will have it's look, and then when OS 11 comes out (my guess is around 2015) they'll change the look because it's a whole number change, not just a decimal update. It would even make more sense to change it then since perhaps OS 11 will be quite different in terms of how you use it (maybe using a lot of multi-touch, or maybe 2015 is too soon for that, who knows).

I'm going to take a guess and say they'll change Finder, maybe not so much the overall thing.

We'll see soon enough!

Nah... OSX is the brand now. Just like Windows is the brand. Tiger/Leopard is to XP/Vista

Bregalad
Jan 24, 2007, 08:14 PM
I really think it was crazy of Apple to announce forthcoming "top secret" features because no matter what they come out with it's going to draw criticism for not being worthy of the term. If it's core technology then the developers will whine that Apple is pulling a Microsoft and withholding the best stuff for themselves. If it's merely a new "skin" then everyone else is going to be asking "is that it?".

RoboCop001
Jan 24, 2007, 08:38 PM
Nah... OSX is the brand now. Just like Windows is the brand. Tiger/Leopard is to XP/Vista

Well I suppose it would still be OS X, just v11. Not 10.x. Right?

SeaFox
Jan 24, 2007, 08:50 PM
I got some off of the site, the screensaver one's mostly.

That "retro" one is really dumb. It's just a sepia toned screen. They should had the screen and all the icons change into a sepia-toned OS9 Platinum theme! :D

psingh01
Jan 24, 2007, 09:06 PM
Well I suppose it would still be OS X, just v11. Not 10.x. Right?

I think they would keep the OS X name. How they differentiate will be interesting....

OS X 10.10
OS X 10^2 :)
iPod OS Desktop Version 1.0 ....

BillyShears
Jan 24, 2007, 09:12 PM
[Widgets could] Look the same, but not be the same. The current widgets do not scale well. They still have a lot of artwork to recreate in a suitable vector format. The current components are strongly lacking (buttons and text are ready, as they're simple fixes), but the window glyphs, select arrows, and a number of other components are not scalable.

Right, but what I'm saying is the fact that they'd have to rewrite the widgets does not necessarily mean they'd have to introduce a "new look."

That's not really the case [about larger developers being slower]. They tend to roll major changes into their major version releases, which are intentionally spread out. There's rarely an extra delay because of anything happening at Apple. Any such delay is political in nature and therefore independent of technical changes.

So would they be slow rolling out the change in interface? Even if the reason they take a long time is "political" we're still left waiting.

Moreover, I don't think it's entirely political. Bigger apps tend to be more complex. Photoshop would have to be QA tested -- and that's a lot of work on such a big app. Would their custom icons look good? Maybe they'd have to remake them all.

When I changed Safari from brushed metal to "Aqua" I didn't like the look of it, mostly because the icons in Safari didn't look good on a whitish background (to me, anyway).

In order to convert everything for resolution independence, there has to be a migration from fixed positioning, so the groundwork is already done.

Really? I'm not that good with math, and I don't know much about resolution independence, but it seems the positioning of elements on a window would be easy to "scale" from fixed positioning to resolution independent.

I mean, Exposé seems to scale the windows properly. I think all you'd need to do is make the graphics vector-based so they scale prettier, and text remains readable.

[Re: Custom widgets] Apple can handle its own applications; developers, if they've done their jobs properly, will have very little to change. If they're using a custom set, the set is embedded in the application; it would look just as it does now. If they are using a default arrangement, the app would update to the new look automatically. Only the icons would remain the same, and there's nothing inherently incompatible with that. The number of rendering glitches would be extremely limited and discovered right away, just as with new layouts made to Aqua applications.

But that's not right. Take a given window, and change the background to another color. It won't look right. Look at the borders in iTunes: they're all black. If you make the background black, or even just significantly darker, they wouldn't stand out any more.

Likewise, a dark window color would mess up Time Machine, since the background is black in that (and that's not user-defined). Apps would become basically invisible behind Dashboard's dark black translucent background. Apps like Adium are almost entirely skinned -- they would stand out a lot without a new skin. They'd have to make a new skin to suit the new look.

I'm not saying Apple couldn't update the look, I'm saying it would be kind of a big deal to do so.

kylos
Jan 24, 2007, 09:14 PM
The Flickr mirror seems to have been removed.

matticus008
Jan 24, 2007, 09:29 PM
So would they be slow rolling out the change in interface? Even if the reason they take a long time is "political" we're still left waiting.
You're left waiting either way, whether they update the interface or not. So it has no bearing on what does or does not happen at Apple with their own products.
Photoshop would have to be QA tested -- and that's a lot of work on such a big app. Would their custom icons look good? Maybe they'd have to remake them all.
Photoshop wouldn't be Leopard-ized any more than the current version is Tiger-ized. Poor example. Microsoft and Adobe would do what they planned to do regardless of what visual style Apple puts on its OS.
Really? I'm not that good with math, and I don't know much about resolution independence, but it seems the positioning of elements on a window would be easy to "scale" from fixed positioning to resolution independent.
If elements are fixed in position, they can't scale. That's the definition of fixed/absolute positioning. If you set it to be 30px from some arbitrary point, it will always be 30px from that point, regardless of pixel size. That's why relative positioning has to be used.
I mean, Exposé seems to scale the windows properly. I think all you'd need to do is make the graphics vector-based so they scale prettier, and text remains readable.
That's not scaling; that's zooming.
If you make the background black, or even just significantly darker, they wouldn't stand out any more.
Why is the background getting darker? Even if that is the case, why wouldn't you use a lighter color to replace the current dark borders? You'd have to be a pretty stupid graphics artist not to be able to handle working with dark colors.
Apps like Adium are almost entirely skinned -- they would stand out a lot without a new skin. They'd have to make a new skin to suit the new look.
Why? There are hundreds of Adium skins--all they'd have to do is select a new one as the default.
My point is that it's impossible to remove Aqua in one release.
If they're going to do it, it has to be done at once, or they wind up carrying too much dead weight and transitional elements. Windows XP overhauled the system all at once, as did Vista. Very few software titles had to be updated for UI issues, except for those that didn't observe proper coding practices.
And even if Apple does switch the standard widgets, it's not as simple as developers just have to update their custom widgets to the new style. If they do that, then their apps will look screwed up in Tiger.
No, they won't. If they use a custom set and update the appearance, it'll look the same on either OS; the resources are packaged with the app itself. If they are taking advantage of Core Animation and other Leopard-only features, then they'll have to release a Leopard-only version (whether or not they change the UI design at all), so it's a moot point in that regard.

I doubt there will be any radical rethinking of the way we interact with computers. But a styling update is certainly overdue with the kind of distinction we see in Vista--nothing radical, but something plainly new and evolved. It truly is not the Herculean task some want to make it. KDE, MythTV, Windows, Gnome, and every properly coded website can handle visual restyles without a fuss. So can OS X.

BillyShears
Jan 24, 2007, 09:36 PM
I think "OS 11" is probably so far off it's kind of pointless to speculate about it. So far they've basically done one "point release" per year, but they've slowed recently:

10.0 (Cheeta): March 21, 2001
10.1 (Puma): September 25, 2001
10.2 (Jaguar): August 24 2002
10.3 (Panther): October 24, 2003
10.4 (Tiger): April 29, 2005
10.5 (Leopard): "Spring" 2007

(Source: Mac OS X (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X), Wikipedia)

Also, I believe Jobs has publicly said they are slowing down the release schedules.

Even if they only release once every two years, we'd have:

10.6: 2009
10.7: 2011
10.8: 2013
10.9: 2015
11: 2017?


That's assuming that the schedule never changes, and also that they go all the way to 10.9. They could go from 10.5 to 11 if they wanted. Of course, they could go 10.10, 10.11 since these are version numbers and not "proper" numbers.

Since they're probably planning on milking the OS X name, the earliest probable years they would change would be 2015-2017.

Technology is going to change so much between now and ten years from now! Look at what we had ten years ago: for Mac users, Mac OS 8 had just come out. For Windows users, Windows 98 was out the next year, with everyone using Windows 95. Think of the difference between Windows 98 and Vista, and OS 8 and OS 10.5. That's how big of a change it should be to OS 11 from now.

Who knows what kinds of interfaces we'll even be using. Multitouch? Will speech-to-text come fully into fruition? Will everything be on a network that can be accessed from everywhere? Will we even have desktops and notebooks, or will we get things done on iPhone like devices.

I don't mean to sound like the guy promising $10 laser-equipped, nuclear-powered hovercrafts for everyone, but I think it's pretty obvious "OS 11" will have a new interface, because the way we interact with our computers will change drastically.

So what I mean is, even calling it "OS 11" is too much thought for right now. We don't know what technology will really be like ten years from now. We may not even be concerned with an "OS" at all. So the (lighthearted) debate over what "OS 11" will be called is moot to me.

(Also there are plenty of other options: Maybe Apple will go the Microsoft way and release their operating systems with "names" instead of numbers. Ten years ago they'd be talking about what Windows 2007 would be like, little did they know it would be called Vista. Or they might, like I said, keep going: 10.10, 10.11...)

MrCrowbar
Jan 24, 2007, 09:38 PM
Just imagine what Stephen Hawking would sound like making love. :p

They did that in the episode of Family Guy "Brian goes to college". The voice in Leopard is awesome. Only one male voice, but I made it read one complete Book (Chase from Dean Koontz) into an audio file and I listened to that "audiobook". The only thing that bothered me was that it says "Yes." a little too enthousiastically. Other than that it's great, it makes breathing pauses, can tell if "read" is present or paste tense and pronounce accordingly etc.

AppleIntelRock
Jan 24, 2007, 09:38 PM
I think "OS 11" is probably so far off it's kind of pointless to speculate about it. So far they've basically done one "point release" per year, but they've slowed recently:

10.0 (Cheeta): March 21, 2001
10.1 (Puma): September 25, 2001
10.2 (Jaguar): August 24 2002
10.3 (Panther): October 24, 2003
10.4 (Tiger): April 29, 2005
10.5 (Leopard): "Spring" 2007

(Source: Mac OS X (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X), Wikipedia)

Also, I believe Jobs has publicly said they are slowing down the release schedules.

Even if they only release once every two years, we'd have:

10.6: 2009
10.7: 2011
10.8: 2013
10.9: 2015
11: 2017?



You forgot the public beta ;)

BillyShears
Jan 24, 2007, 10:12 PM
You're left waiting either way, whether they update the interface or not. So it has no bearing on what does or does not happen at Apple with their own products.

If Apple released the OS to developers with the updated look early enough before release, users wouldn't be left waiting. That's the point of pre-release software.

Photoshop wouldn't be Leopard-ized any more than the current version is Tiger-ized. Poor example. Microsoft and Adobe would do what they planned to do regardless of what visual style Apple puts on its OS.

If Leopard had a new look, Photoshop would need to be "Leopard-ized." Otherwise it wouldn't look right.

If elements are fixed in position, they can't scale. That's the definition of fixed/absolute positioning. If you set it to be 30px from some arbitrary point, it will always be 30px from that point, regardless of pixel size. That's why relative positioning has to be used.

If you put an element at 30px from the edge of the window, then double the size of the window, it'd be 60px from the edge, wouldn't it?

[Re: Exposé] That's not scaling; that's zooming.

Erm, okay? I'm not sure I see the distinction here. Like I said, I'm not too sure of how resolution independence works, so maybe I'm way off. But from the demos I've seen (e.g. this (http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10.4.ars/20#scalable-ui)), the positioning of elements remain the same. Maybe you could explain what I'm missing here.

Why is the background getting darker? Even if that is the case, why wouldn't you use a lighter color to replace the current dark borders? You'd have to be a pretty stupid graphics artist not to be able to handle working with dark colors.

I didn't say you wouldn't or couldn't update the borders (and other images used in the app). Of course you could, and would if you needed to. What I'm saying is, Apple should show off this interface before they release so developers can plan to change their app.

I'm saying you shouldn't radically update the look of the OS the day it's released. I guess it depends on when you think they'd announce the changes and when they'd release the OS.

Of course they could change the look of OS X, and I fully expect them to at some point. I just don't think you could do it as quickly as you seem to be suggesting.

Why? There are hundreds of Adium skins--all they'd have to do is select a new one as the default.

The current Adium skin looks a lot like the current OS X "theme." So they wouldn't just have to "select" a new one as the default, they'd have to design a new one from the ground up.

fawlty
Jan 24, 2007, 10:48 PM
For me, the issue is not the colour or texture or scalability of the interface elements, it's whether they are going to fix the clunky mixed-metaphor that underlies the Finder.

There have been hints (e.g. job postings) that something was going to happen, but these screen shots do not make me optimistic, at least not for 10.5.

ThunderLounge
Jan 24, 2007, 11:27 PM
So after all this bickering over the "look" of it, I'm with the guy back on page 1.

An updated look would be OK, but what's it going to do?

Core animation looks promising but what else can an average end user, that has not a clue what a kernel is, notice that is better? Certainly something is coming along that's going to reaffirm that regardless of market share OS X is the better solution.

But what is it going to be? Looking back, Leopard could have been popped out sooner than it is. They intentionally moved it back because ms pushed back vista. Is it no coincidence that it just happens to be coming out shortly after? Nope. I don't think it does.

They'll let vista get a little attention, and then show em what a real OS does.

Top Secret won't be missing, and it won't be something released in a seed either. Why? Well duh, look at this thread. Screenshots. Technically a no no, but yet they show up with every seed. What's coming is being tightly wrapped, so we'll just have to wait to see what it is.

New apps? New features? Who knows, but they do know what they have to live up to, and are sure to make a splash.

bousozoku
Jan 25, 2007, 12:05 AM
So after all this bickering over the "look" of it, I'm with the guy back on page 1.

An updated look would be OK, but what's it going to do?

Core animation looks promising but what else can an average end user, that has not a clue what a kernel is, notice that is better? Certainly something is coming along that's going to reaffirm that regardless of market share OS X is the better solution.

But what is it going to be? Looking back, Leopard could have been popped out sooner than it is. They intentionally moved it back because ms pushed back vista. Is it no coincidence that it just happens to be coming out shortly after? Nope. I don't think it does.

They'll let vista get a little attention, and then show em what a real OS does.

Top Secret won't be missing, and it won't be something released in a seed either. Why? Well duh, look at this thread. Screenshots. Technically a no no, but yet they show up with every seed. What's coming is being tightly wrapped, so we'll just have to wait to see what it is.

New apps? New features? Who knows, but they do know what they have to live up to, and are sure to make a splash.

Increased GUI functionality for the firewall is one of the biggest things that's supposedly been added. We've been waiting for 5+ years for the firewall control to be a lot more than on/off. It's gained control over ports in a minimal way but that's all.

I don't care about Parental Controls but someone will. My parents could certainly use some control when they use the computer.

Doesn't the virtual workspaces appeal to you? I always found dual monitors useful.

I think the Intel-based machines will perform a lot better, too, and that's definitely a bonus.

matticus008
Jan 25, 2007, 12:26 AM
If Apple released the OS to developers with the updated look early enough before release, users wouldn't be left waiting. That's the point of pre-release software.
Yes they would, because no major firm is going to schedule a mid-cycle update because Apple announced a revised UI. It would get updated in the next major revision, just as we are seeing with CS3 and Office 2007/8. Users will be waiting after Leopard is released; releasing a visual style early has zero impact on that schedule.
If Leopard had a new look, Photoshop would need to be "Leopard-ized." Otherwise it wouldn't look right.
Why? Photoshop has looked the roughly the same for the past six years (if not longer) and looks just like the Windows version. It is no more tuned to OS X visually than this website is.
If you put an element at 30px from the edge of the window, then double the size of the window, it'd be 60px from the edge, wouldn't it?
No, it would be 30px from the edge. Fixed means fixed.
Erm, okay? I'm not sure I see the distinction here. [...] Maybe you could explain what I'm missing here.
Zooming simply takes the composited surface and makes it a different size. Scaling takes individual items and adjusts the size and position dynamically based on the inputs and is much more complicated, with a great deal more math calculations being performed.

Resolution independence uses scaling and requires software to be written with relative positioning. Most of it already is relatively positioned, which in turn makes it effortless to change the UI or the size. The flexibility required for resolution independence is 90% of the work needed for being able to replace the UI almost as easily as a CSS sheet. Getting rid of hard-coded absolute locations and weird UI hacks almost single-handedly eliminates visual glitches when replacing UI widgets. There's no simpler analogy than CSS, so if you're not familiar with web design, I'm at a loss as to how to illustrate the process in a way you can understand.
What I'm saying is, Apple should show off this interface before they release so developers can plan to change their app.
Developers usually fall into two camps. Either they use the default set, in which case they have no work to do but perhaps an odd bug-fix, or they use their own set of glyphs and widgets, in which case they've no concern for what Apple does because they don't use Apple's components. This latter type won't change their UI just for the sake of changing it, because they've already invested in their own designs.
Of course they could change the look of OS X, and I fully expect them to at some point. I just don't think you could do it as quickly as you seem to be suggesting.
There's nothing quick about the work involved at Apple to create a new look. But from a technical standpoint, it is nothing more than a resource swap and *is* an extremely quick change (go to a Vista machine and switch the style back to Windows Classic; that's how fast and easy the process is once the artwork is finished). When XP came out, you didn't need to wait for XP-styled versions of software built using Microsoft's tools, and it's exactly the same for Vista (visually speaking--all the changes and updates for Vista are in new frameworks and APIs which Leopard is providing to developers). Releasing the UI widgets doesn't impact developers. Vista's Aero look has worked (again, visually speaking) since day one with all apps, even ones written in 2000. It would be no different for OS X
The current Adium skin looks a lot like the current OS X "theme." So they wouldn't just have to "select" a new one as the default, they'd have to design a new one from the ground up.
They wouldn't have much work if the aim was simply to copy the style. Adium skins are simple affairs, and all the creative effort would be done for them by Apple. That said, there's no reason they'd have to change the skin at all. If users wanted a different look, there's a whole collection to choose from.

dopeytree
Jan 25, 2007, 04:15 AM
Does any1 remember hearing about a wine style app (linux) for osx so that people on the intel macs could run windows apps straight in osx. Basicaly taking boot camp another step.

Ed
www.dopeytree.com

FDX
Jan 25, 2007, 04:34 AM
Does any1 remember hearing about a wine style app (linux) for osx so that people on the intel macs could run windows apps straight in osx. Basicaly taking boot camp another step.

Ed
www.dopeytree.com

You mean something like this :www.codeweavers.com/

mark88
Jan 25, 2007, 04:47 AM
If they're going to do it, it has to be done at once, or they wind up carrying too much dead weight and transitional elements. Windows XP overhauled the system all at once, as did Vista. Very few software titles had to be updated for UI issues, except for those that didn't observe proper coding practices.



I'm not talking about just Apple, I'm talking about everyone else. I'm not sure if you're even reading what people type.

Apple can replace aqua in their apps, lots of work but they can do it in one go, if they re-release them all at Leopard release. I'm simply saying unless Apple inform developers about a new interface Leopard when released will still have Aqua in it. So by definition aqua will not be fully replaced in one go.


No, they won't. If they use a custom set and update the appearance, it'll look the same on either OS; the resources are packaged with the app itself. If they are taking advantage of Core Animation and other Leopard-only features, then they'll have to release a Leopard-only version (whether or not they change the UI design at all), so it's a moot point in that regard.


You're assuming people will be creating Leopard only versions of their apps. Even if they do, people can still run the 10.4 version on Leopard.

And your point about it just being a resource swap is just simply wrong. I can change the look of my icons by simply swapping them out, that's a simple resource swap.

Changing how our custom widgets look in both Leopard and Tiger to match whatever theme requires more work than simply pasting over a graphic. And this all relates to whether blue/graphite aqua remains or not.

Chef Medeski
Jan 25, 2007, 07:32 AM
This case is a bit different than the other 10.X updates. There is much attention from media, pundits, and consumers alike because both Vista and Leopard are being released a about the same time. A sort of direct competition between the two major OS releases has been built up. Direct comparisons will be made more than ever before. I can picture it now in a CNN bit having a side by side comparison of the two. A show down for consumers so to speak.

Not saying I care about an new interface look or not. Doesn't matter to me.
Just saying this OSX update is a bit different than before. Apple and OS X have reached new heights in media and public attention. More than ever the world will be watching and comparing it to Windows (Vista). And unfortunately they easiest thing for the average person to use to compare to two by what they see(ie eye candy) A lot of people(mostly Windows users of course) WILL be impressed with Vista wether we like it or not.

I definetly agree. If you have the world stage, you dont want to be talking about stuff that has no bearing on non-OS X users such as how much faster, new File systems or Animation code. Nope, you want to show them something they all will say whoah that looks cool. So they go down to the local Apple store and try it out. People arent going to run down to the Apple Store to try out Spaces. They might have went to try out Expose (take the Mac Pro with the largest screen in the store, open up ALL the apps including Pro Apps. Make sure to click play on a couple videos on on slideshows in picture programs. And then hit Expose! :eek: :cool: That my friends is tight. I did that while waiting for a genius, a manager walked by stared and was like whoah!, who did this? I was like me, and he was like thats incredible. Evidently its a good way to catch people's eyes when they walk right in. I digress) But there was a point to that diatribe. Non-OS X users will be pulled in not buy how it works better or how there are no bugs, they really dont know that OS X works smoother and with less effort. What pulls them is incredible simple, good lookin cool things. Such as the minimize effect and expose. These things cause people to start playing with OS X. Then they realize how interesting it feels, in a good way. Like simpler and all that. Then a portion will go home and research a bit and after the good press on how OS X run smoother and costs less to manage; well my friends thats how a switcher is born. Expose was actually my gate way drug.

I think a commercial with a power user using OS X. Using Expose, Tab. Minimize. Slow Minimize. Dashboard. Would be really great cause people would be like holy crap! I cant do any of that on my computer and it doesn't look half as good. Thats what you need tos how them. The cool little things that awe people in order to grab their condition. Then you pull them in and slap em around a bit for using Vista.

shyataroo
Jan 25, 2007, 07:36 AM
the pictures are down off flickr, can someone upload them to a private server?

EDIT: I think reports of a new UI are only partially true, maybe apple has finally taken advantage of the fact that there is such a demand for upgradeable UI's that they decided to include a UI skin changer in 10.5 (prolly based on shapeshifter)

pilotError
Jan 25, 2007, 08:10 AM
I would recommend that those interested in Leopard really watch the Mac OS X State of the Union video on iTunes. I think you need an ADC membership to get it, but you can get it with the free membership.

Its a big download ~500Mb, but they do show off some of the cool stuff and do elude to a bunch of things that have been kicked around in this thread. The resolution independence was demonstrated in the video and various little comments throughout the presentations were made that more or less confirm certain rumors.

I think this will clear a lot of misconception up about what is and isn't coming.

Its about an hour and a half video, but if your really interested in whats coming or are interested in OS X development, its worth the watch.

This thread has the link to the ADC/iTunes login section in order to download the video:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=273038

mark88
Jan 25, 2007, 08:40 AM
I saw it yesterday, I must admit to being slightly worried about core animation in the wrong hands.

You know when you put a DVD on to watch and you have to wait for the snazzy menu animation to finish between user input. I really hope we don't start seeing this in our apps. Everytime I press something I gotta watch some fancy transition finish rendering.

steve_hill4
Jan 25, 2007, 08:48 AM
the pictures are down off flickr, can someone upload them to a private server?

EDIT: I think reports of a new UI are only partially true, maybe apple has finally taken advantage of the fact that there is such a demand for upgradeable UI's that they decided to include a UI skin changer in 10.5 (prolly based on shapeshifter)

I really hope it is user changeable out of the box. Shapeshifter is great, but I would like to see Apple embrace this feature once more, (ala Mac OS 8).

I think I would largely stick with an interface similar to 10.4, but would like to see an option for lots of black, preferably with a shiny metal finish to it, very much like the iPhone. Black with reflective edges would look very cool. Also, perhaps they also could start making transparency a little more user switchable. I know it is almost a little out of date on the Mac front, but hammering home a message like "Welcome back after 5 years" and letting those with lower system specs switch it on would stick one to Microsoft and their strange Aero Glass, (needs 128MB VRAM, 1GB RAM). I still wouldn't use these features, but nice for those attracted to Macs by visuals, but thinking twice with Blista around the corner.

On a slightly different note, I have still not seen too much that really gets me excited about Leopard since WWDC 06. Saw some nice touches here and there, but all those were minor. The only screen grab that really interested me a lot was of resolution independence, and that was already confirmed before the shots were released.

lukeisme09
Jan 25, 2007, 09:26 AM
FEBRUARY 20! that is my birthday maybe ill get a new mac with leapord that day.:)

steve_hill4
Jan 25, 2007, 10:19 AM
FEBRUARY 20! that is my birthday maybe ill get a new mac with leapord that day.:)

Not many, if indeed any, of the Macs will be shipping with Leopard on launch day. They will perhaps be available through the Apple online store and official stores at best. Official resellers and channels will almost certainly be still getting rid of remaining Tiger inventories. I remember Panther shipping with some models a month or two after Tiger was released, and that means new stock, not remaining stock.

Lonon
Jan 25, 2007, 12:49 PM
Maybe I'm the only one, but i recall that a few months before Tiger were released we already knew about all the *big* features. By April 29th when it was release (if I'm not wrong) there was not much of a surprise, still it was very impressive, especially compared with XP, but we already know that, right? :p

The new features doesn't have to be so tight to the core. Widgets, anyone? I just can't see developers needing to know everything before the keynote, before the release date fine, but not in the developers previews, where's the fun in the keynote then?

What I'm saying here is that if the February 20th rumor is true, then we are likely to see a SteveNote about Leopard with ALL the top secret features, and the new UI (ups sorry, "skins" for the sensitive ones :rolleyes:) wich i don't consider a feature btw. Steve will make the same he did with the :apple: iPhone: make crappy prototypes and give it to developers so they don't have a clue of what is really going on, and eventually show the real and amazing stuff in the keynote. What's the point of a Leopard keynote is there's nothing else to show? "So... there you have it. We now added a new Parental Controls pane and cool wallpapers. Imagine Redmond screaming now. That's it, enjoy it 'till 2009 when 10.6 is out." "-Awesome! Please Apple, take my U$S129!" Really, i think we need to remain a little realistic here, the rest is water in the rumor mill.

Plus if we take the rumor about the March 24th release date as a good source of information then i think it's a reasonable amount of time to prepare most of the shareware and "little" applications for the new interface, and btw if you have and application that uses non-standard controls then shut up, stop crying and replace the controls, can't be that much of an odyssey. Geesh...

John Sicarusa did say in the review of Tiger:
"Overall, Tiger is impressive. If this is what Apple can do with 18 months of development time instead of 12, I tremble to think what they could do with a full two years, let alone the length of time it took for Mac OS X 10.0 to first ship. The productivity of Apple's Mac OS X development team has increased tremendously since 10.0; they're now firing on all cylinders. While I dearly wish someone would steer them in the direction of the eternally neglected Finder, I can't help but be proud of the little OS team that could."

So, how long is Leopard taking by now? I think we we'll be very impressed with it. :cool:

Anuba
Jan 25, 2007, 01:12 PM
Not to sound like an Apple fanboy, but have you seen Vista? Vista is packed full of fairly impressive eye candy and graphics that would look very nice... except they are all molded around the same ugly, cluttered layout that Windows has had since 1995.

Yes and no. It's true that the Vista UI has more colors than an acapulco shirt, and the barrage of different colors may convey an impression of clutter at first glance - but paradoxically they have done some rather extensive cleaning up as far as the layout goes. Sure, they're sticking with their paradigm (Start button, taskbar, system tray etc) but that's to be expected. Some hate it, while others (including myself) prefer it over the MacOS paradigm.

What sucks about Vista is the insane system requirements. It's not like we're talking rocket science here. OK, some translucency FX, couple of dropshadows, smooth transitions, live thumbnails, vertical sync... these are tasks that Core animation has juggled for years and it works pretty well on my old G4 Mini 1.42 with a puny 32 MB VRAM (even if I don't get certain effects like water ripples on widgets etc). Vista wants a minimum of 128 MB VRAM and 1 GB RAM, or it won't enable the effects, and I'm sure it needs 2 GB RAM / 256 MB VRAM to pull it off without glitches. Core Animation runs circles around Vista's counterpart, and Vista reeks of poor optimization. Call me when Service Pack 1 is out... bye now.

matticus008
Jan 25, 2007, 04:26 PM
I'm not talking about just Apple, I'm talking about everyone else.
You're not making the connection here. Other people either use Apple's tools, or they have their own custom designs. In the first case, the work is done for them; in the second, they're unaffected by Apple's decisions because they use their own artwork anyway.
I'm simply saying unless Apple inform developers about a new interface Leopard when released will still have Aqua in it. So by definition aqua will not be fully replaced in one go.
I think you're using a different definition of "replaced." By your definition, Aqua will never be replaced, as if you require all developers to ditch their previous designs, Aqua-inspired elements will be around for years. Do you consider QuickDraw to have been replaced? I do. If you don't, that's fine, but that's just a simple difference of perspective.
You're assuming people will be creating Leopard only versions of their apps. Even if they do, people can still run the 10.4 version on Leopard.
I made no such assumption. Read the section you quoted more carefully.
Changing how our custom widgets look in both Leopard and Tiger to match whatever theme requires more work than simply pasting over a graphic. And this all relates to whether blue/graphite aqua remains or not.
Every widget and every glyph is just a graphic file. It can be replaced in situ exactly like an icon. That's not to say that sizes and shapes won't change, but that's the key advantage of using relative positioning in your software. Anything you change is easily readjusted.

It's abundantly clear that most people have an inadequate understanding of how the process works for building applications, and an even dimmer understanding of what the underlying changes mean for the OS as a whole. For a visual demonstration, take a look at csszengarden.com. That website is exactly the same page, restyled only with CSS. You can change the appearance without touching the content. By pushing resolution independence and getting developers on board, and by maintaining good coding practices, Apple's developers have something similar to CSS for applications. Apple can change the stylesheet and anyone who uses it will automatically ride the wave. Anyone not using Apple's won't be touched one iota. Their applications will look exactly as they do now.

There's not going to be a revolution. The menu bar will still be at the top, the Dock at the bottom, and the window control glyphs in the top left. That does not preclude redrawn lines, a new color palette, new textures, and visual cues. Compare Vista to Windows 2000. A lot has changed in six years, but it's still recognizable. You can look at a 1995 F-150 and a 2007 F-150--quite different, even dramatically different, but it's still a truck.

mark88
Jan 25, 2007, 06:02 PM
You're not making the connection here. Other people either use Apple's tools, or they have their own custom designs. In the first case, the work is done for them; in the second, they're unaffected by Apple's decisions because they use their own artwork anyway.


Other peoples 'artwork' as you call it, is inspired by aqua. When I create custom elements for my applications, like many others I'm simply re-plicating aqua(blue/graphite) or replicating something Apple has introduced in one of it's apps and not provided a standard widget for. iLife being a prime example.

It's not affected, quite right, but that's just the point I'm trying to get across. It's not affected by any system level UI change and will remain until the developer does something about it. How ugly is that going to look? Loepard style scroll bars, buttons etc and aqua style custom widgets?


Every widget and every glyph is just a graphic file. It can be replaced in situ exactly like an icon. That's not to say that sizes and shapes won't change, but that's the key advantage of using relative positioning in your software. Anything you change is easily readjusted.


Let me try and explain... Recently I created some aqua tabs, a custom widget. I have tabs for blue and graphite that fit the look of OS X/Aqua perfectly. I have like 12 different tiffs that make up the tabs.

*IF* Leopard comes along and Apple say 'surprise, we replaced aqua' then my aqua tabs are not going to be affected by the system UI change because they are specific to my app. I'll have to re-do them so they look right in Leopard. I can simply create new graphics and swap them over.

Then this creates me another problem, considering I have no plans at present to release a Leopard only version, my tabs when run under Tiger don't look right as I just replaced them to look right in Leopard. So this becomes more than a simple resource swap.

Every widget is a graphic file, no ****. But sadly every widget isn't at system level like a scroll bar or a table view, meaning its look cannot be changed like you can change the look of a website with CSS as you refered.

matticus008
Jan 25, 2007, 08:41 PM
When I create custom elements for my applications, like many others I'm simply re-plicating aqua(blue/graphite) or replicating something Apple has introduced in one of it's apps and not provided a standard widget for.
But you created the artwork, and your application is (or should be) visually consistent with itself. It seems like you think that all applications should be forced to take on a prescribed appearance based on a reference design, or that Aqua being replaced would somehow prohibit applications from still looking like Aqua.
How ugly is that going to look? Loepard style scroll bars, buttons etc and aqua style custom widgets?
Why on earth would you mix components? If you're making modifications at all, you should be embedded all the necessary artwork in your resources folder. If you make custom blue gel buttons, but someone is using Graphite or a custom theme, your app looks like crap. Apple guidelines urge internal consistency, which means not mixing and matching.
I'll have to re-do them so they look right in Leopard. I can simply create new graphics and swap them over.
If you want to switch from Aqua to Leopard, absolutely. If you don't, your app would still look like an Aqua app, just as it does today.
Then this creates me another problem, considering I have no plans at present to release a Leopard only version, my tabs when run under Tiger don't look right as I just replaced them to look right in Leopard. So this becomes more than a simple resource swap.
Not if you did your job correctly from the beginning.
But sadly every widget isn't at system level like a scroll bar or a table view, meaning its look cannot be changed like you can change the look of a website with CSS as you refered.
Yes, it can, regardless of type level implementation. You might have to make appropriate artwork, but that's an aesthetic problem and not a technical one--the technical side is simple. With CSS websites, you can't use the same set of accent graphics, either--you still have to create the alternate styles, but the actual introduction of a completed style takes a single line of code on your page. Likewise, the introduction of a new UI is an act that requires minimal testing and can be done right at the end.

If you added more than one or two minor custom widgets without following good practices and without including all required resources with your app, then you might be a little screwed. But that's your own fault. Even Apple doesn't cut that corner with its own applications.

mark88
Jan 26, 2007, 03:44 AM
But you created the artwork, and your application is (or should be) visually consistent with itself. It seems like you think that all applications should be forced to take on a prescribed appearance based on a reference design, or that Aqua being replaced would somehow prohibit applications from still looking like Aqua.


Some of your answers an insanely ignorant. Do you not realise that for the most part developers care about consistancy between apps? that is why apps mimic the look of iLife apps and other Apple apps. Look at these widgets:

http://www.indiehig.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/bottom_bar.png
http://www.indiehig.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/selection_bars.png
http://www.indiehig.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/polished_metal_corners.png

This is merely a tiny example of people copying apples widgets. Apple sets the reference, developers follow Apple.



Why on earth would you mix components? If you're making modifications at all, you should be embedded all the necessary artwork in your resources folder. If you make custom blue gel buttons, but someone is using Graphite or a custom theme, your app looks like crap. Apple guidelines urge internal consistency, which means not mixing and matching.


You don't listen. I always make blue/graphite versions of my widgets, Apple on the other hand do not, take a look at iWork while using the graphite theme. So if you think Apple always adheres to any standards, you are misguided. See attachment.


If you want to switch from Aqua to Leopard, absolutely. If you don't, your app would still look like an Aqua app, just as it does today.
p



How would it look like an aqua app in the new Leopard UI? It seems we are reading off different pages. Like I said before I'm refering to the blue/graphite elements of aqua.

Therefore, if an app has some custom blue/graphite widgets. Those widgets will remain in Leopard, despite the fact the look of the toolbars, scrollbars and other standard widgets has changed at the system level. It will not look like an aqua app. It will look like a Leopard app but with the odd bit of aqua gel.


Not if you did your job correctly from the beginning.


I'm 100% sure we create custom widgets just like anyone else does.


Even Apple doesn't cut that corner with its own applications.

clearly, judging from you statements about apple not cutting corners you do not know what you are talking about. Apple wrote the HIG then left it to rot.

http://indiehig.com/blog/

"The IndieHIG Wiki is a place where developers and UI designers can come together to create a new set of Human Interface Guidelines to supplement Apple’s guidelines. Apple has neglected to update their HIG with modern UI designs and controls, so developers have been forced to replicate these UI elements on their own to keep their applications from looking dated. Since each developer has slightly different implementations of these elements, it has resulted in a fairly inconsistent look and feel for Mac OS users."

matticus008
Jan 26, 2007, 06:17 AM
Some of your answers an insanely ignorant. Do you not realise that for the most part developers care about consistancy between apps?
Of course they do, but by your own admission and a simple perusal of Tiger, that consistency is gone. This is precisely what would be solved by a new, consistent UI and default set of IB components. If you're using a default set, all of those resources will be available to you; if you're using a heavily customized set, you've invested in that particular layout, whether you were inspired by Georgia O'Keefe, BeOS, or Apple. Apple should clean house and release a modern, fresh, consistent, new UI. Doing so would greatly reduce the disarray of styles for developers to match.

You can't have consistency between applications as it currently stands. There are three (or four, depending on your perspective) visual variations within Apple itself, and literally thousands of variations in third-party software. In terms of "face time" with the user, if Apple consolidated its OS and most of its applications, it would eliminate most of the inconsistency that would ever be remedied (Photoshop et al. and Office are never going to adopt Apple conventions hook, line, and sinker). Developers would stop having multiple styles to emulate and would have just one. They would, of course, have the option of keeping their old designs around as well.

I think you are trying to find an argument where none exists by making a number of excessive assumptions. First, the replacement of a visual style does not break the old one; think 'supersede' and not 'destroy'. Second, Apple replacing its UI does not force developers to do anything. Aqua will not vanish into thin air in your non-Apple application, since resources are bundled directly into the apps (checkboxes, radio boxes, expand glyphs, buttons, scroll bars, etc. with the exception of system dialogs and the title bar). Third, the appearance of a new UI in one of the final beta builds does not leave developers high and dry; most will have no real work to do, most of those who do would not rush to get it done mid-cycle, and those with prerelease access will have at least a week or two. Recoloring and reshaping some widgets isn't even a day's work for one adept Photoshop user if they're copying a style already created. The lengthy part of the process is creating the style and layout; the longest part of copying is the tweaking. Fourth, Apple can easily wipe out Aqua in its OS out of the box, but I think you're taking that to mean that I claim Apple can single-handedly and instantaneously redesign every third party's application. That isn't the case. Fifth, with a choice between a "shock and awe" intro and giving developers months more than needed, Apple is going to go with the former, something you seem to think works the other way around.

Third-party apps would look exactly the same until the developers choose to change it. For most small developers, that change would be effortless and nearly instantaneous. For most of those with more work to do, they'd be looking at a complete overhaul which they wouldn't do until the next scheduled major release anyway--and since they don't match OS X to begin with, they're not losing anything.

mark88
Jan 26, 2007, 08:38 AM
Of course they do, but by your own admission and a simple perusal of Tiger, that consistency is gone. This is precisely what would be solved by a new, consistent UI and default set of IB components. If you're using a default set, all of those resources will be available to you; if you're using a heavily customized set, you've invested in that particular layout, whether you were inspired by Georgia O'Keefe, BeOS, or Apple. Apple should clean house and release a modern, fresh, consistent, new UI. Doing so would greatly reduce the disarray of styles for developers to match.



HOLY ****, we agree on something!!! ;-)



You can't have consistency between applications as it currently stands. There are three (or four, depending on your perspective) visual variations within Apple itself, and literally thousands of variations in third-party software.


But you can have conistency within those 4 groups. As is the purpose of the indie HIG, ie follow certain rules for unifed apps, certain rules for metal apps etc.. The idea is to make the best of a bad situation which the current one is. Apple is at fault, not 3rd party developers.



I think you are trying to find an argument where none exists by making a number of excessive assumptions. First, the replacement of a visual style does not break the old one; think 'supersede' and not 'destroy'.


My argument is that there are simply too many custom widgets accross a huge number of applications for Apple to wipe away gel aqua in Leopard, that's my argument from the start.


Second, Apple replacing its UI does not force developers to do anything. Aqua will not vanish into thin air in your non-Apple application, since resources are bundled directly into the apps (checkboxes, radio boxes, expand glyphs, buttons, scroll bars, etc. with the exception of system dialogs and the title bar).



What?? let me get this straight, you're saying the standard widgets are bundled into each application?

Sorry, but you are simply WRONG. If tomorrow Apple changed the frameworks to make the scrollbar colors Green and Pink. *ALL* applications would get green and pink scrollbars.


Third-party apps would look exactly the same until the developers choose to change it.

I can't quite believe what I'm hearing. You're saying if Apple changed the UI, then an my.app would look *exactly* the same in Leopard as it does in Tiger unless I make changes?

This is absurd!

matticus008
Jan 26, 2007, 08:11 PM
Apple is at fault, not 3rd party developers.
If third party developers wanted consistency at the expense of freedom, they would have made a convention to select one of the available styles and all worked with that style alone. The developers choose to engage in the same disarray as Apple.

My argument is that there are simply too many custom widgets accross a huge number of applications for Apple to wipe away gel aqua in Leopard, that's my argument from the start.
A huge number which does or does not include third-party applications? Apple's in-house teams can handle the task of updating its own artwork. They've had well over a year to create a new design and begin realizing it. Out of the box, it's entirely possible for Leopard and iLife to have a new look and for there to be no Aqua remnants.

What?? let me get this straight, you're saying the standard widgets are bundled into each application?
No, I'm saying the references to the system components are the same, and as long as Apple doesn't touch them, nothing breaks.

Sorry, but you are simply WRONG. If tomorrow Apple changed the frameworks to make the scrollbar colors Green and Pink. *ALL* applications would get green and pink scrollbars.
Only if the resources were identically called, which again implies the deletion of Aqua rather than the supersession of Aqua, which again gets back to your mistaken assumptions. If Apple replaces the UI on its apps (with 'scrollbar_new' instead of the deprecated 'scrollbar'), nothing happens to third party apps unless those third-party developers switch to it. Apple replaces Aqua, they don't wipe it from existence in every application past, present, and future.

I can't quite believe what I'm hearing. You're saying if Apple changed the UI, then an my.app would look *exactly* the same in Leopard as it does in Tiger unless I make changes?
Yes!

It's seems to me that you're not taking the time to realize that you are talking about a far greater scope than I applied. You're just taking statements and running with them without actually seeing the consequences. I've grown tired of repeating my own statements because they're not sinking in.

mark88
Jan 27, 2007, 04:54 AM
No, I'm saying the references to the system components are the same, and as long as Apple doesn't touch them, nothing breaks.


lol, you said "since resources are bundled directly into the apps (checkboxes, radio boxes, expand glyphs, buttons, scroll bars, etc. with the exception of system dialogs and the title bar). "

now you're changing your mind to 'references to components' after I disagreed. :rolleyes:



Only if the resources were identically called, which again implies the deletion of Aqua rather than the supersession of Aqua, which again gets back to your mistaken assumptions. If Apple replaces the UI on its apps (with 'scrollbar_new' instead of the deprecated 'scrollbar'), nothing happens to third party apps unless those third-party developers switch to it. Apple replaces Aqua, they don't wipe it from existence in every application past, present, and future.



Jeez, you really think Apple would introduce a new style UI for the scrollbars and leave the old one in place? so that appA has aqua scrollbars and appB has new style Leopard scrollbars?

It would be a total mess, whatever you say about OS X, one thing that is consistent is scrollbars, checkboxes etc etc.


It's seems to me that you're not taking the time to realize that you are talking about a far greater scope than I applied. You're just taking statements and running with them without actually seeing the consequences. I've grown tired of repeating my own statements because they're not sinking in.

They're not sinking in because in general it seems you talk a load of garbage. One minute you say standard widgets are bundled directly into apps, the next you say they aren't etc..

I guess we'll see what happens come Leopard. I'll look out for the new UI frameworks that sit happily alongside the current ones giving people a choice. :eek:

matticus008
Jan 27, 2007, 06:51 AM
lol, you said "since resources are bundled directly into the apps (checkboxes, radio boxes, expand glyphs, buttons, scroll bars, etc. with the exception of system dialogs and the title bar). "
Custom visual resources are bundled directly into the application; system resources are bundled as references. In order to use a system component, it must be specified in the application by name. Thus, as long as different names are used for new resources, the resources associated with (perhaps a better word choice than 'bundled') existing applications go unaffected.

Jeez, you really think Apple would introduce a new style UI for the scrollbars and leave the old one in place? so that appA has aqua scrollbars and appB has new style Leopard scrollbars?
It's all just conjecture, but absolutely. This is exactly what they did when they went to Cocoa, when they switched to Intel, when they added Core technologies, and even when they switched to OS X itself (writing in classic mode). This is also what W3C does for web standards, what DirectX does (except DX10), and what Adobe does with revisions to its file types. Beyond this, it's exactly what Apple has done thus far with visual revisions for the most part (the 'unified' style replaced the older style in most places, but the older style remained available and had zero impact on preexisting applications).

It would be a total mess, whatever you say about OS X, one thing that is consistent is scrollbars, checkboxes etc etc.
Wrong! iTunes doesn't match, nor do many Java-based apps. Checkboxes in Adobe products don't all match, nor do Audacity's elements. I could go on, but I can't keep up with your arbitrary selection about what consistency means and what it should mean, and I never intended this to be a back-and-forth exchange in the length it has become.

Suffice it to say that completing an internal reworking and a late UI launch is entirely within the realm of possibility, developers don't need a year to prepare for it, and it would go a long way toward reducing the clutter and visual conflict in the daily use of OS X. Since the most common third-party applications don't match the rest of the OS already, there's nothing to lose. As someone who has worked in graphics and created custom artwork to mimic an established style, I can attest that on the level of simplicity of UI widgets, the time required is minimal.

mark88
Jan 27, 2007, 01:07 PM
Custom visual resources are bundled directly into the application; system resources are bundled as references.


I know this already, as I've been jabbering on about it all thread as the reason gel aqua won't vanish all at once. You said standard elements were bundled into each apps, ie scrollbars, check boxes. The quote is right there so it's hard to argue against it. The fact that you even said it kinda proves what you actually know about this whole situation and does your argument no favours:

"Aqua will not vanish into thin air in your non-Apple application, since resources are **bundled directly into the apps** (checkboxes, radio boxes, expand glyphs, buttons, scroll bars, etc. with the exception of system dialogs and the title bar). "

Big difference between the above and referencing external frameworks.


Wrong! iTunes doesn't match, nor do many Java-based apps.

Oh gimme a break. I have 87 apps on my system, 1 of them, namely iTunes features scrollbars that don't fit the look of the other 86, and iTunes has always been the bastard of the family.

And p-lease, Java :-/.

Blue aqua gel is pretty much consistent throughout the OS, yes if you want to be uber picky 1 app out of a 1000 might deviate and try to be different and use purple metal scroll bars but there's so so few of them for anyone to get the impression that blue gel/graphite isn't the norm.

matticus008
Jan 27, 2007, 08:40 PM
I know this already, as I've been jabbering on about it all thread as the reason gel aqua won't vanish all at once. You said standard elements were bundled into each apps, ie scrollbars, check boxes. The quote is right there so it's hard to argue against it.
It's a poorly constructed sentence written early in the morning, I'll give you that. But the fact that you're gravitating to it shows that you're not concerned with the overarching issue and can't respond to a complementary schema approach because you've been using a bogus definition for "replace" to hawk your doom and gloom. I never said it would disappear altogether from day one from every application in existence--if you'd read anything, you'd see that. It could easily disappear from OS X itself and all bundled applications.

Oh gimme a break. I have 87 apps on my system, 1 of them, namely iTunes features scrollbars that don't fit the look of the other 86, and iTunes has always been the bastard of the family.
So I suppose you don't use Photoshop, GarageBand, InDesign, Microsoft Office, Google Earth, Illustrator, Acrobat, Dreamweaver, EyeTV, Mythfrontend, NeoOffice, Flash Professional, Realplayer...either that, or having blue gel highlights and default scroll bars is all that it takes to match OS X. If consistency means scroll bars and drop-down boxes latched onto whatever UI you want, then yeah, I suppose a new UI would be less consistent.

I take it to mean by your response that since you've not responded to my last paragraph, which is a restatement of the argument I've made since the beginning, that we finally agree. Nitpick all you want; I hope you enjoy yourself.

BilltheCat
Jan 27, 2007, 09:22 PM
wow. a tennis match!

who's serve is it? :p