Everyone's going nuts about 'marble' and the new GUI. Personally, I like Aqua and I always have. I was disappointed when they got rid of the horizontal stripes in Tiger. Everyone's talking about the new scrollbars looking like they do in iTunes.... uh, what? The iTunes scrollbars look dull and boring, like someone took a windows 95 theme and made it curvy. The aqua theme is elegant. What's wrong with Aqua besides the fact that it's a few years old?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Am I the only one that likes aqua?
- Thread starter bryantm3
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Aqua's alright, but I don't know if I'd use the term 'elegant'.
I personally like the slate/"marble" look of the new iTunes, but having theme options would be nice.
I personally like the slate/"marble" look of the new iTunes, but having theme options would be nice.
The problem is the blue is too contrasting from the overall dark and silver theme that Apple has going. It does not match at all. Aqua was good for the theme that it originated from, but not in the current theme.
I don't see what's to like with this in iTunes. The scroll bars are a dull dark blue to me. There's no sheen to them like in aqua.
I believe they did this in iTunes because the standard aqua highlight color is such a large (long) selection and somebody thought it didn't provide enough visual separation from the scroll bars. I really doubt iTunes represents any new color scheme throughout OSX. And why do people call it "marble"? This is marble to me:
What does Apple have to do with it? Apple did not call it Marble or never mention an existence of it. Just because some site claimed that Apple called it Marble doesn't mean anything.
oh really? I could have sworn Apple referred to the new iTunes UI style as 'Marble'. Hmmm ... I'll have to do some Googling when I get a moment.
EDIT - yeah, I can't really find anything. Must have just been the rumour sites pushing that term/codename around. I guess we'll have to wait and see what Apple calls their new UI when the time comes, if they ever decide to do one in the 10.X series.
why does it matter what its called?
and to my understanding about aqua:
aq·ua (kw, äkw)
n. pl. aq·uae (kw, äkw) or aq·uas
1. Water.
2. An aqueous solution.
3. A light bluish green to light greenish blue.
Aqua theme doesnt look like water or even light bluish/green to me. why is it called aqua?
who cares....
I like Aqua too. I think if they want a change the UI in iTunes would NOT be the way to go. It looks terrible. Maybe something shiny black like the new Quicktime (I think. I've only seen one pic of it a while ago).
They didn't. A while ago there were rumors that Apple would be releasing a new GUI called "illuminous" when that fell through there were rumors of "marble". Now whenever people see a new look for an element they say it's part of Apple's transition to marble. Of course it's all just speculation.
I'd love it if Apple transitioned back to their roots and we had woodgrain iMacs, Macbook Pros, etc.
I agree. I always liked the lines, colour and the cartoonish quality of Aqua. Now it seems Apple is more keen on pushing a more subtle, grey, corporate image that it feels we should all aspire to. Like it or like it not, what you may consider to look modern and appealing feels that way because of market forces and fashion all designed to get you to buy into a lifestyle illusion. Aqua, though lead by the same rules, retained a more palpable air of being different at the time.
I really like Aqua too - I've only been on Macs for about 1.5 years now though, so that's probably why I'm not tired of it.
If "Marble" is the new iTunes look, then it's awful. Richard has it right - that's a "marble" interface, and I'd love to have something like that...or even better, woodgrain!
If "Marble" is the new iTunes look, then it's awful. Richard has it right - that's a "marble" interface, and I'd love to have something like that...or even better, woodgrain!
Aqua is tasty, but in a retro cool tasty way. Got to roll with the times, the new look is equally tasty and more relevant.
What more reason do you need besides that?
Would you like your new Mac to look like this?
Probably not, so why do you want to look at an interface all day that was tailor made to match that hardware design?
Aqua is very 2001. I don't wear clothes from 2001, I don't have a TV from 2001, I don't have wallpaper from 2001, I've replaced most of my furniture since 2001, so why should my aluminum MBP's desktop have to look like some tacky outdated garbage from 2001 (juxtaposed with much more recent UI elements that Apple keep adding because the word consistency isn't in their dictionary)?
Haha - perhaps not the best example of Apple's early millenium styling
Other than that, the original iMacs were wonderful, and I still use an OS9 wallpaper:
Because just changing the "look" doesn't affect how your apps run? Ya think?
(And some people are just plain ugly no matter what they wear).
You're kidding yourself if you're trying to play the "function over form" card in any context remotely connected to Apple. It's a company that thrives on aesthetics, and the CEO's favorite adjectives for describing the products are "gorgeous" and "thin", not "your apps will run great on this". When he ordered Aqua to be designed, he didn't say "I want a clean and uncluttered interface that emphasizes function and workflow". His design goal was that it should look so good you wanted to lick it.
Well, we wanted to lick it in 2001, but now we want a modern, clean, uncluttered and simple look with less bevels, gloss, shadows and colors. It's OK if it's gorgeous, too. Aqua is neither gorgeous nor modern. Things that were designed the same year as Windows XP was released usually aren't.
I personally love Aqua. Apple gave Aqua a horrible look in 10.5, the blues look like they were mixed with dirt. Tiger looks great.