Finder-improvements in Leopard

Discussion in 'macOS' started by Somebee, Nov 23, 2006.

  1. Somebee macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2006
    #1
    I've just recently switched to mac (this week), but have been a fan for years. Apple is well known for great design and ui, so therefore I was a tad surprised seeing lots of ugly gui-stuff in tiger. Especially all the brushed metal. Tell me it's gone in Leopard!? It's especially anyoing with such an ugly gui on the finder, which one happen to use very often.

    I know it's not going to happen now, but I really hope Apple would take the mail/itunes approach and redesign the finder (for Leopard). It would be sooo much slicker. I would easily pay 100 bucks for a finder-app like this (some sketches I made):

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Wouldn't this be a better approach than the current finder?
     
  2. Josias macrumors 68000

    Josias

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    #2
    God that's so Windoze like with all the thin text. please apple, never do that
     
  3. Mal macrumors 603

    Mal

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2002
    Location:
    Orlando
    #3
    The layout isn't too bad, but only the sidebar is really different (aside from the uglification of using the wrong fonts, too square, etc). I'd expect an approach like that to the sidebar organization, and probably no more brushed metal, but not really very similar looking to what you did, fortunately. I understand that's just a mockup though, and probably better than what I could do in your place.

    jW
     
  4. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #4
    The core idea is cute, but I find it surreal that you would pay $100 for that. :eek: :( That's basically exactly like now functionally except that the sidebar and look are revised...functionally, there's nothing there that's new. I'd more like to see them make smart folders more sophisticated and useable. I love the concept, but I don't really use them much yet.
     
  5. Somebee thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2006
    #5
    The thin fonts are only a result of me doing the sketch on a windows-box (I@m not all that crazy about Rosetta PS just yet :) Anyways, that is another thing I actually disliked in OS X. The font-rendering looks smashing on larger fonts, but they should really have gotten to license ClearType from Microsoft. On the smaller fonts its so smudgy and unclear. ClearType is really superior on lowres fonts!

    Just to make sure I don't start a flamewar here, overall I really love it, and I would never switch back :)

    mkrishnan: I know $100 is a little 'steep' for a GUI-improvement, but I really despise the finder. I would gladly pay an amount in that area for a GUI-overhaul of OS X. But I just found 'Uno' and will try it now :)
     
  6. gekko513 macrumors 603

    gekko513

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    #6
    Well, it is a matter of taste. I quite like the brushed metal.
     
  7. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #7
    You might try out PathFinder... it seems awfully busy to me, and its look is based more on iTunes 6.x, but if you can turn off a few of those features in the prefs, maybe you can end up with something you like?
     
  8. Somebee thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2006
    #8
    I installed UNO now. WOW! It fixed all the gui-inconsistencies. Tiger just became alot more beautiful (for me that is)!
     
  9. Nym macrumors 6502a

    Nym

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2006
    Location:
    Porto, Portugal
    #9
    Yep, UNO is a great app, I'm not a big fan of the brushed metal too so I downloaded UNO and everything feels great and consistent :) Although the system font in OSX is much better looking than the one in Windows (Arial or some crap), the thing is that OSX GUI is a candy wrapped up in coloured paper compared to Windows GUI (which is more like a turd wrapped in kitchen oil) , I use bootcamp and everytime I switch to Windows I think "damn, this is ugly" :D
     
  10. decksnap macrumors 68040

    decksnap

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    #10
    OS X handles font smoothing better than Cleartype. Cleartype uses sub-pixel rendering, but OS X blends sub-pixel rendering with anti-aliasing to get a more accurate representation.
     
  11. aLoC macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2006
    #11
    I like your design, a big improvement.

    The current Finder sidebar is something I really don't like. I especially don't like the way the icons resize to fit as the window size decreases.

    The icons are supposed to represent your file, so what does it mean when the icon shrinks? What is happening to your file? It is being compressed with zip?
     
  12. thewhitehart macrumors 6502a

    thewhitehart

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Location:
    The town without George Bailey
    #12
    I'd never imagine that the file were being compressed because the icon shrinks. I'm not knocking you for thinking that, I'd be curious to know if most new mac users or new computer users in general would think that would happen.
     
  13. matticus008 macrumors 68040

    matticus008

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    #13
    How are the sidebar icon sizes any different from the icon sizes anywhere else in the system? No one using giant icons thinks that they've blown up their file by using a large icon. Dynamic resizing gives you optimal trajectory for drag and drop operations (four small icons in the top third of a Finder window is no good, likewise, 10 giant icons requiring all manner of scrolling is equally useless). The left pane of the Finder isn't a tree directory; it's a set of easy drag and drop "landing pads" for your frequently used folders.

    In Leopard, I anticipate having task-centric sidebars (which allow you multiple arrangements of shortcuts). For a taste of task-based reorganization, look at Overflow.
     
  14. ero87 macrumors 65816

    ero87

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    Location:
    New York City
    #14
    woah, that design is so windows!! I'm impressed that you made it, but it kinda made me shiver with bad memories.

    Brushed metal is awesome, i don't like the new itunes :eek:
     
  15. aLoC macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2006
    #15
    Because as you drag the window corner they resize in real time which is very suggestive of a thing being shrunk. It's like watching a balloon deflate. It's not the same as them simply being fixed at a smaller size.
     
  16. Catfish_Man macrumors 68030

    Catfish_Man

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2001
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #16
    Nice shops :)

    I like it overall, although I can think of plenty of other areas for improvement.
     
  17. matticus008 macrumors 68040

    matticus008

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    #17
    Except that it's not. You know what else resizes as you adjust the window? Pictures and movies. Am I compressing them as I adjust their size? The number of rows and columns displayed in any grid-based application changes when you resize windows as well. Am I moving my files? The dock icons will also shrink if you put too many of them in the bar. When you adjust the size of iPhoto, the spacing among the thumbnails changes. Honestly, nobody confuses icon sizes with representing any sort of modification to their files.

    This is especially true in this case, because resizing the window is a deliberate act and anything that happens while resizing the window cannot logically be connected with any action other than your in-progress window resizing. Even the novice computer user is above that particular level of inanity.
     
  18. elppa macrumors 68040

    elppa

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2003
    #18
    I have seen Clear Type and in my opinion it is very much inferior to the for smoothing in OS X.
     
  19. Catfish_Man macrumors 68030

    Catfish_Man

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2001
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #19
    ClearType vs. Quartz AA is an argument that annoys me. Both of them are TERRIBLE, and the true solution is high res text. Quartz is blurry, ClearType messes up letterforms, and both of them introduce color halos from the subpixel AA.
     
  20. maxrobertson macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2006
    Location:
    Jakarta
    #20
    Considering the fact that the dock does that almost every time you move the mouse over it, I don't think that's a fair argument.
     
  21. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #21
    Too bad it does not work the way he thinks....imagine no more need for male enhancement drugs or surgeries. Take a picture, upload it and streeeeech....there that is better!
     
  22. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #22
    I learned about Pathfinder, from this site, not long after Tiger came out. I bought a 'family plan' for all my Mac's and have been very pleased with the product.
     
  23. Moof1904 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    #23
    Despite paying for 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, and 10.4, I still don't have a Finder that opens windows in Column view every single time.

    All I want is a Finder that opens windows in Column view, every time. Not most of the time. Not 99% of the time. Every f***ing time.
     
  24. decksnap macrumors 68040

    decksnap

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    #24
    Please explain. Are you saying that to improve on the current methods we'd need higher dpi monitors? Because that's kinda of a big 'duh'. On the screens we have now, how is OS X smoothing 'terrible'? And how would you improve on it? Currently the 'color halos' are less in OS X because it is anti-aliasing on top of sub-pixel rendering... whereas the Cleartype 'halo' is more pronounced because it does not.
     

    Attached Files:

  25. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #25
    I'll offer a double duh... The fonts OS X uses for system display are *rendered* fonts based on vector data, aren't they? Meaning that they are already as high resolution as the screen allows. Bring on the 200 or 300 DPI monitors with res-indep OSes, but fonts will still need to be rendered onto those displays, and I don't think they'll look all that excellent if they aren't rendered using some kind of smoothing algorithm, even with the high resolution. In printers, 300 DPI didn't look that perfect, remember?
     

Share This Page