Leopard Mac OS X 10.5 9A321 Screenshots

[Evangelion]

Here we're getting to a difference in perspective. Most users won't ever, or at worst will rarely ever face the situation you're describing. For the major power user apps (and even some not-so-power apps) I think you'd find they carry a lot of the functionality around with the window or in palettes that are typically much closer to the window, and most, if not all, the menu functionality can be accessed through keyboard short-cuts.

You could use keyboard-shrtcuts, but not everyone likes them. Some people prefer mousing around, while others like the keyboard.

Thus for the user who's most likely to have a huge display (power user)

Display-resolutions are getting bigger and bigger, so you could say that just about everyone these days has a "huge display". Resolution-independent UI might fix the problem, but then we lose the benefit of big resolutions (more screen real-estate)

it's not such an issue, and for people who don't have such a display, it's, obviously, also not an issue.

I have a 1280x1024 screen, and I would say that it's an issue on this resolution. And that resolution is quite typical these days.

So, from my perspective, you're asking to change something that's been fundamental to the Mac user experience for almost 23 years just to help an issue faced by a tiny minority of users. To me this makes no sense. Just MHO.

I'm not asking to change it. I just mentioned a real issue with the MacOS menubar. But if I had to choose between MacOS-menubar and Windows-menubar, I would choose the MacOS-menubar. But they each have their own strenghts and drawbacks.

 

[sjk]

Hard to believe (well, actually it's not ) that this thread has dragged on for 11 pages without anyone mentioning DejaMenu:

What is it?

DejaMenu will display the current application's main menu as a context menu when a key combination is pressed.

This is particularly useful for people using multiple monitors. Since the Menubar only appears on a single monitor, it is awkward to use applications on a different monitor. DejaMenu solves this - just press the configured key combo, and a copy of the Menubar is right there for your to use.

 

[Snowy_River]

I have a 1280x1024 screen, and I would say that it's an issue on this resolution. And that resolution is quite typical these days.

Wow. I have 1280x854, and I often feel like my screen is on the small side. I can't see the extra 170 vertical pixels changing that for me, either. So, even on this size screen it's not my perception that this is anywhere close to being an issue.

I'm not asking to change it. I just mentioned a real issue with the MacOS menubar. But if I had to choose between MacOS-menubar and Windows-menubar, I would choose the MacOS-menubar. But they each have their own strenghts and drawbacks.

Fair enough. I am aware, and fully agree, that each paradigm has it's advantages and drawbacks. In many ways the Mac way of doing things is more geared toward "everybody else", and not the power user (which was part of my point earlier). However, even the Windows (and most Linux types, too) way of doing this isn't that much better in this arena. Now, when you start looking at something like RISC OS where they've completely changed the paradigm of the menus, you get to something that power users can get more mileage out of, but most users would find difficult to adjust to. (Interestingly, at least some of the features of the RISC OS way of handling menus is offered by DejaMenu, which was just pointed out by sjk.)

In any event, I think that we do agree about the nature of the issue.

 

[SiliconAddict]

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

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

If I'm picking up on what you may mean, Apple's canned various "revolutionary" efforts in the past -- such as the 3D Finder project -- and I think we should understand why that might be. Project Looking Glass from Sun may be cool, but why do we need to flip a window around in 3D space to attach a note to the back of it? Xgl may be neat, but what is in Xgl that Apple can't implement with Quartz/the Core Foundation frameworks? I guess my question is -- if Apple isn't implementing UI changes, then who else is implementing revolutionary UI changes?

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

Lixivial,

I think you are putting words into my post that I never said. First off I’m not calling for an outright switch in the UI. Apple has done enough full-blown transitions over the last half decade to rattle developers. No what I’m talking about is a gradual upgrade to the GUI and no; dashboard, spotlight, and Expose don’t count. . .OK maybe Expose does. The other two does not change how you interact with your computer’s UI. It would be like saying that Garage Band changes how you interact with your Mac. It simply adds functionality. Adding functionality isn’t what we are talking about. . . although Expose does shift window management.
What I’m talking about is refinement of the GUI. How? I’m not a GUI researcher. I never claimed to have the answers. All I do know is that your post “sounds” like you are suggesting that there is no room for improvement in the GUI of OS X which would be a stupid statement if so. There is always room for improvement in any GUI. And again I stand behind my statement that Apple’s GUI really hasn’t changed, color shifts aside, since 10.0 came out. That is 5 “major”, depending on who you talk to, releases and 7 years. I’m sorry but if Apple has put any money into R&D for Mac OS’s GUI I have a hard time believing that there aren’t elements that aren’t fully baked after 6 years. Heck if nothing else where is piles?

 

[Diatribe]

Lixivial,

I think you are putting words into my post that I never said. First off I’m not calling for an outright switch in the UI. Apple has done enough full-blown transitions over the last half decade to rattle developers. No what I’m talking about is a gradual upgrade to the GUI and no; dashboard, spotlight, and Expose don’t count. . .OK maybe Expose does. The other two does not change how you interact with your computer’s UI. It would be like saying that Garage Band changes how you interact with your Mac. It simply adds functionality. Adding functionality isn’t what we are talking about. . . although Expose does shift window management.
What I’m talking about is refinement of the GUI. How? I’m not a GUI researcher. I never claimed to have the answers. All I do know is that your post “sounds” like you are suggesting that there is no room for improvement in the GUI of OS X which would be a stupid statement if so. There is always room for improvement in any GUI. And again I stand behind my statement that Apple’s GUI really hasn’t changed, color shifts aside, since 10.0 came out. That is 5 “major”, depending on who you talk to, releases and 7 years. I’m sorry but if Apple has put any money into R&D for Mac OS’s GUI I have a hard time believing that there aren’t elements that aren’t fully baked after 6 years. Heck if nothing else where is piles?

So you wouldn't say spaces is big change for the UI? You also don't think that the little spotlights in the preferences when you search for things were a change to the UI?

I mean, I am not quite sure what you want to change. Sure Apple could go the route to some radical changes like turning windows, 3D, etc. but what for? Would it really add to the usability? I doubt it. Apple is gradually enhancing the usability and I don't see any areas where Apple really falls short and needs to change something radically.

I don't think I understand you.

 

[Evangelion]

So you wouldn't say spaces is big change for the UI?

It is a big-ish change that gives OS X a feature that has been available in some other UI's for about 20 years. And still, even with Spaces, the UI running inside those Spaces would still be the same ol' UI we have had since 10.0. In some ways it like Windows NT vs. Windows XP. Things have changed and the UI has received a layer of candy. But it's still the same ol' UI.

In short: Apple should make the new OS to feel like a new OS. What concrete changes did I see when I moved from Panther to Tiger? Well, I got the Spotlight-icon, but that's about it.

You also don't think that the little spotlights in the preferences when you search for things were a change to the UI?

So Spotlight made _some_ changes to the way we access preferences (I don't use Spotlight in preferences, but still). So that covers about 0.5% of OS X GUI, how about that remaining 99.5%?

I mean, I am not quite sure what you want to change.

The problem is that since we are not GUI-designers, it might be very hard to say with specifics as to what should be changed. But we would know the moment we saw it . But as things are right now, it seems that we have been standing still, with few minor features added here and there.

Sure Apple could go the route to some radical changes like turning windows, 3D, etc. but what for?

Turning windows and the like are just a layer of candy, they do not change the way we use the UI.

Apple is gradually enhancing the usability and I don't see any areas where Apple really falls short and needs to change something radically.

The problem is that OS X is about 6 years old, and OS X is built on ideas and paradigms that can trace their roots back 20 years.

Note: I'm not saying that Aqua sucks as such. I'm saying that it's getting old and it could use a serious overhaul, instead of just getting a new layer of paint.

 

[killmoms]

Note: I'm not saying that Aqua sucks as such. I'm saying that it's getting old and it could use a serious overhaul, instead of just getting a new layer of paint.

Here's what I say when I hear this: what is so broken about the desktop/windows/menus/dialogs UI paradigm that we have to change it? Yes, these UI concepts are founded on old principles—the reason they haven't changed much is because they WORK. We've learned them and refined them by adding small changes or enhancements, but for the most part, this interface works really well.

The real "revolution" you speak of will come when we change how we interact with our computers. As processor power increases and things like voice recognition/synthesis or handwriting recognition really become more natural (I'm talking orders of magnitude better than today), that may in fact change how our UIs look and operate. Or, if 3D display devices (or even 2D multi-touch sensitive screens) become a reality, that too might severly impact our UIs. But until revolutionary things happen with our input methods, I doubt we'll see too much change about the UI as we know it, and that's good—don't fix what isn't broken. As long as we're clacking away on keyboards, "rubbing that plastic bar of soap on the desk" and looking at conventional 2D screens, the UI we've got now is pretty much our best bet.

 

[Diatribe]

It is a big-ish change that gives OS X a feature that has been available in some other UI's for about 20 years. And still, even with Spaces, the UI running inside those Spaces would still be the same ol' UI we have had since 10.0. In some ways it like Windows NT vs. Windows XP. Things have changed and the UI has received a layer of candy. But it's still the same ol' UI.

In short: Apple should make the new OS to feel like a new OS. What concrete changes did I see when I moved from Panther to Tiger? Well, I got the Spotlight-icon, but that's about it.



So Spotlight made _some_ changes to the way we access preferences (I don't use Spotlight in preferences, but still). So that covers about 0.5% of OS X GUI, how about that remaining 99.5%?



The problem is that since we are not GUI-designers, it might be very hard to say with specifics as to what should be changed. But we would know the moment we saw it . But as things are right now, it seems that we have been standing still, with few minor features added here and there.



Turning windows and the like are just a layer of candy, they do not change the way we use the UI.



The problem is that OS X is about 6 years old, and OS X is built on ideas and paradigms that can trace their roots back 20 years.

Note: I'm not saying that Aqua sucks as such. I'm saying that it's getting old and it could use a serious overhaul, instead of just getting a new layer of paint.

So basically, if I understand you correctly, you want some big UI changes to make it better but you have no idea how or what exactly it is you want.

Talk about constructive criticism

I think Apple's UI is pretty much perfect. And if you(people) don't have anything concrete to criticize besides it looking old then I think we should stop this discussion. You don't go around and want the Mona Lisa to change just because it has been looking the same your entire life right?

 

[Snowy_River]

So Spotlight made _some_ changes to the way we access preferences (I don't use Spotlight in preferences, but still). So that covers about 0.5% of OS X GUI, how about that remaining 99.5%?

Hm. Sounds like you're not using Spotlight very much. I've found that Spotlight is a tremendous enhancement to the way that I interact with the system. There's an application that I use, but I can never remember where it is. Sure, I could go through and find it, create an alias to it, and put that on my Desktop, or in my Dock, or whatever. But that's the 'old' way of doing things, and I only ever need this application maybe once every other month. So, instead, I activate Spotlight, type the first five or six letters, and there it is. Similarly, there was a document that I was looking for. It wasn't in any of the folders that I thought it should be in. I used Spotlight, and BOOM! (to quote Steve ), there it was. Again, Spotlight is a major change to how you work with your computer, if you use it.

The problem is that since we are not GUI-designers, it might be very hard to say with specifics as to what should be changed. But we would know the moment we saw it . But as things are right now, it seems that we have been standing still, with few minor features added here and there.

I'd be willing to disagree with you here. We wouldn't know it if we saw it. Put a new style of GUI in front of 10 people, and I'd be willing to bet you'd get 10 different opinions on it, ranging from "this is terrible, give me back my _______ OS", to "this is the most awesome UI I've ever seen!". Finding the right UI that will work well for everyone is not so simple.

Turning windows and the like are just a layer of candy, they do not change the way we use the UI.

Here, again, I'll disagree, to a point. It really depends on how and why turning windows is implemented. It could just be "candy" as you say. But I saw a video some time back that included windows that you could turn over. So what? More "candy"? No. There was a point to it. On the back of a window you could write notes, etc. Imagine putting meta data associated with a directory by simply turning the directory window over and starting to type. It was really quite cool, and something that could fit in well with the Mac OS paradigm. So, a give feature could be "candy" or it could be useful, depending on how it's implemented.

The problem is that OS X is about 6 years old, and OS X is built on ideas and paradigms that can trace their roots back 20 years.

Note: I'm not saying that Aqua sucks as such. I'm saying that it's getting old and it could use a serious overhaul, instead of just getting a new layer of paint.

Okay, now let me draw some comparisons. If I put an automobile in front of you from the 1920s (80+ years ago), how much different would you think that it was, from a UI standpoint? Sure, the bodystyle might be significantly different than cars today, but that's just "a new layer of paint", right? What about a jet fighter from 40 years ago? Yes, there's more computer integration, but those are just added functionality, and don't change how the pilot interacts with the plane that much.

My point is that once a paradigm that works is found, changes naturally go toward smaller things. Improve the minor areas where there are "rough edges". Add some functionality here and there. New UI changes are necessarily slow to come, but they do come. The fact that 10.5 isn't incredibly different is a testament to the fact that the GUI in its current form is so right, not that things are stalling and going wrong.

 

[AppliedVisual]

Display-resolutions are getting bigger and bigger, so you could say that just about everyone these days has a "huge display". Resolution-independent UI might fix the problem, but then we lose the benefit of big resolutions (more screen real-estate)

True resolution independence will allow scale / resolution to be set for individual applications and OS elements. You get the screen real estate you're looking for while also being able to enlarge certain elements to fit your optical needs. IMO, there is little need for resolution independence at this time. Most LCD displays these days are still ~100 dpi, which seems to work out just about right. However, upcoming 8K res displays and other new products to hit the market over the next year or so will change this.

I have a 1280x1024 screen, and I would say that it's an issue on this resolution. And that resolution is quite typical these days.

1280x1024? Really? Man... I threw out my 1280x1024 monitors years ago. Dual 2560x1600 displays all the way! Anyway, most 1280x1024 monitors as well as the current crop of 30" 2560x1600 all fall into the 95~100 dpi category. I set about 3.5ft from my primary 30", with the secondary on angle to the left. It's very convenient and easy on the eyes. I also have good eyesight so I don't have to strain myself to see pixels when I'm doing imaging work. But I'd be all for doubling the resolution on these screens if possible.

 

[AppliedVisual]

I think Apple's UI is pretty much perfect.

Hmmm.... I can think of several things that could improve, but I'm not going to start getting into that here. I could write pages and pages. But I will say that my opinion of Apple's UI is this: It kinda sucks... But it's still better than everything else out there. I also don't want to see them change too much because it would be a lot easier for them to break it than it would be to improve it.

 

[nukiduz]

i don't like you

 

[buckyballs]

What I'd like

What I'd like, is just for once somebody to say..."oh, yes we said we'd release this software product in Spring, but we finished it early....so have it now!"

People like Microsoft look really bad when they delay stuff. Can't they just say that they'll release it later than they know they're going to and give everybody a nice surprise?

 

[rd001]

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

Microsoft just failed to deliver its new database filesystem for Vista that they promised five years ago. And Apple is going to deliver a solid 128-bit filesystem, one so large that even the enterprise shouldn't need anything bigger for at least 20 years. (The largest current enterprise datasets are in the range of 46-50 bits, nearing their 64-bit filesystem limit. Given that expansion doubles every 9-12 months, they will start running out of filesystem space within five years.) So ZFS is so big, it will last until we have quantum-based storage or another new radical technology. NTFS is creaking and horrible by comparison.

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

One of the real appeals is the self-correction features. The checksums for files are stored as a leaf in the branch above, ensuring that checksums are known to be accurate when you load the file (or they are corrected). Under current filesystems, you have no way to know whether you really got the same data back that you put on the disk because we're seeing a lot of silent data corruption on these huge hard drives from causes like bad drives or bad power supplies. ZFS solves this elegantly. And the reconstruction of flawed sectors is transparent but awesome. In addition, the ability to mount/dismount portions of the ZFS filesystem (think swapping in/out drives for your movies and MP3s) and maintain transparent mapping of the filesystem is another wonderful feature.

I know we're all tired of the worn-out old Finder. But ZFS is a major advance in UNIX filesystems. And Apple is moving well into the future with it. Whether people want ZFS now or when they get a future upgrade, it's nice to know that Apple is moving ahead in the realm of pure computer science.

As for this bitching about Time Machine, I don't agree. Some people like using their proprietary Firewire enclosures with its built-in Retrospect or other proprietary software, typically costing about $100 more for that functionality from manufacturers like Seagate or Western Digital. With Time Machine, your grandma can run down to Wallyworld, buy any Firewire drive, plug it in, tell the pop-up to use it for Time Machine and back up every night at midnight. And that's all Grandma needs. And Time Machine is simple enough for Grandma to use too. And she didn't have to spend that extra hundred bucks for proprietary backup software on her Firewire drive either, making her purchase of Leopard more cost effective!

 

[rd001]

....Sure Apple could go the route to some radical changes like turning windows, 3D, etc. but what for? Would it really add to the usability? I doubt it.

Actually, the new CoreAnimation services coming in Leopard are going to do flipping windows and fancy visual effects of all sorts within the OS. And multithreaded OpenGL will make it all work smoothly, the more cores the better. It sounds like they'll have all the CoreImage effects implemented with a framework to animate them. Menus, windows, dialogs, all will be subject to these effects. It'll be very compelling visually, I think, once the developers upgrade their binaries. Things like the Cube flip in Parallels will become common services in any Cocoa app, no more unusual than offering Copy/Paste and no harder for the developer to include in their programs.

I think CoreAnimation and ZFS are among the features that will be used to exploit these new multicore CPUs, offering new functionality and shine to OS X. Those of us with Mac Pros will probably benefit most but all multicore machines will see improvements.

Something I'd like to see as a secret feature of Leopard is full skinability for all apps. It's long past time to have programmers and marketers dominating the look and feel of all our programs. Implement a framework with a well-designed default skin for Finder and the iLife apps and turn the fanbois loose on making their own skins. Include a skin editor to help them do it.

 

[Shadow]

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

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

I think you're missing the point here a little bit. Theres a difference between looks good (Aqua, for the most part) and annoying (XGL). XGL is a bit like Vista-for the first few mins you feel the "WOW thats soooo cool!" effect, but after it gets annoying. However Aqua has more of a refined feel, its not (overly) distracting and looks good (although XGL looks "cool", its still too bland and grey for my liking).

 

[Snowy_River]

I think you're missing the point here a little bit. Theres a difference between looks good (Aqua, for the most part) and annoying (XGL). XGL is a bit like Vista-for the first few mins you feel the "WOW thats soooo cool!" effect, but after it gets annoying. However Aqua has more of a refined feel, its not (overly) distracting and looks good (although XGL looks "cool", its still too bland and grey for my liking).

To be fair, XGL is merely a toolset. How it's used is up to developers. Aqua and Vista, on the other hand, are implemented front end GUIs. I think a better comparison would be between XGL and Apple Core Services (graphics and animation, at least). At least by my understanding, which is, admittedly, limited.

 

[kalisphoenix]

Something I'd like to see as a secret feature of Leopard is full skinability for all apps. It's long past time to have programmers and marketers dominating the look and feel of all our programs. Implement a framework with a well-designed default skin for Finder and the iLife apps and turn the fanbois loose on making their own skins. Include a skin editor to help them do it.

I wish. I wouldn't mind if it were a bit "tough" to find (like something enabled through the terminal). Make it a poweruser thing. Fine. But I'd like to at least have the power to control my own UI without having to hack the system to do it. I'd also like to be able to have a decent dark theme that doesn't make text invisible.

I understand that most themes look terrible to the Jobster. They look terrible to me too. To be perfectly honest, no theme I've seen yet looks as good to me as Aqua (sometimes, I don't even bother changing the background). But I've always hated being told what to do, and I hate the feeling that I'm renting my computer.