Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

mcarnes

macrumors 68000
Mar 14, 2004
1,928
0
USA! USA!
I've seen hdtv, it does look sharper than regular tv. And? To me, standard definition tv delivers about 95% of the entertainment that hdtv does, and most downloaded video gives me about 95% also, just using a different mix of variables. I have a very strong visual sense, but beyond a certain point you reach diminishing returns in terms of entertainment.

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

Mr. DG

macrumors regular
Jan 16, 2006
101
0
My biggest complaint about the menu bar is that when you have 6+ windows on screen there have been times I've gone to the menubar to do [insert action here] and I've had the wrong window\app active. when its integrated into the window its just there. That being said I like the way its integrated into the menubar because IMHO its a waste to have the same menus spread across multiple windows. There are pros and cons to both ways of doing it. I haven't decided which I like the best. There must be a happy medium between the two designs but what? :confused:

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

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

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

Bregalad

macrumors 6502
Jul 22, 2002
432
65
Vancouver
No, Apple does not listen

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

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

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

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

Diatribe

macrumors 601
Original poster
Jan 8, 2004
4,256
44
Back in the motherland
So Diatribe, if for some reason you feel like now that you've seen hdtv that standard definition tv is no longer entertaining enough to you, then that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. But if you look at the fast increasing rate at which people are choosing to use highly compressed media and then look at the rate at which old uncompressed media are declining and the slow rate of adoption for new high definition mediums, then you'll see that most people don't share the same opinion. So if iTunes downloads aren't high definition enough for you, then that's a perfectly acceptable opinion to hold, but that doesn't mean Apple is doing anything wrong in the quality it offers.

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

motulist

macrumors 601
Dec 2, 2003
4,234
611
No offense, but you do not have a "very strong visual sense" if you think standard def gives "95% of the entertainment that hdtv does" (whatever that means). This is true for little kids or people who just don't care, which is fine. But if you knew how to judge quality you would not make an absurd comment like that.

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

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

guzhogi

macrumors 68040
Aug 31, 2003
3,725
1,804
Wherever my feet take me…
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?

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

081440

macrumors regular
Mar 14, 2006
161
33
New Jersey
No offense, but you do not have a "very strong visual sense" if you think standard def gives "95% of the entertainment that hdtv does" (whatever that means). This is true for little kids or people who just don't care, which is fine. But if you knew how to judge quality you would not make an absurd comment like that.

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

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

iGuy

macrumors member
Mar 12, 2004
79
0
No offense, but you do not have a "very strong visual sense" if you think standard def gives "95% of the entertainment that hdtv does" (whatever that means). This is true for little kids or people who just don't care, which is fine. But if you knew how to judge quality you would not make an absurd comment like that.

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

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

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

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

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

~iGuy
 

Evangelion

macrumors 68040
Jan 10, 2005
3,374
147
:rolleyes:
And why is AeroXP posting such pics, if it is a Windows-fanboy website? Is it to enable copying of features by Microsoft?

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

matticus008

macrumors 68040
Jan 16, 2005
3,330
1
Bay Area, CA
Back on topic though... what do people think about Quick Look? It seems like a much more elegant version of something Microsoft did a number of years back. That being said, it certainly speaks to Apple's continued interest in that window look, as it appears in iPhoto, iTunes, and now Finder.
I think it's more of a sign of things to come. Notice that all the new features that have been coming out lately have involved the use of floating "shadow" boxes or rich black backgrounds (iLife from '05, Quicktime 7, Coverflow, Front Row, Quick Look, my Adium theme ;), Time Machine, etc.)? All the long-standing features are still the same, as one would expect this far out in development. The poorly scaling UI widgets and the puzzling lack of Finder improvements also seem to point to this. If you look at Quick Look in particular, you can see a strong embodiment of what Illuminous potentially will be--light use of transparency, consistent rich smoke and black colors (but not overbearing--bright, vibrant colors still pop in the previews), and the use of Core Animation and Core Image effects to accent, but not upstage, the UI.

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

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

kitki83

macrumors 6502a
Mar 31, 2004
804
0
Los Angeles
That sucks they didnt have a screenshot of the virtual monitors where you can click and drag windows into any four so its like having 4 monitors in one, you cant see them at once but its good to organize, Online screen, Design, Music, Files Screens.


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

dernhelm

macrumors 68000
May 20, 2002
1,649
137
middle earth
You've got that right, unfortunately. These Leopard pics better not represent the UI of the final release or I'm gonna run my new Mac through I wood chipper and post the video on YouTube and send it to Steve Jobs.

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

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

Project

macrumors 68020
Aug 6, 2005
2,297
0
How old are these builds? I mean, is there any way of knowing when this particular build was compiled? I know Microsoft were on builds much further ahead of what was released for Beta 2, RC1 etc internally.
 

Sharkus

macrumors member
Apr 1, 2005
87
10
Apologies in advance if someone else has mentioned this. Whilst looking around, I noticed when I created a new account that I had three options "User Account", "Sharing Account" and "Group". It got me wondering as to what a Sharing Account could be for.

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

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

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

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

MrCrowbar

macrumors 68020
Jan 12, 2006
2,232
519
Wasn't this a foregone conclusion? Why shouldn't Macs be able to boot to USB?

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

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

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

Manuel Moreno

macrumors member
Jun 13, 2003
36
0
Lisbon, VRSA,...
there's the secret to the new GUI!
leopard_cd.jpg
+
3d-glasses.jpg


:cool:
 

kroko

macrumors newbie
Nov 4, 2006
22
0
Latvia / Austria
bit

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

mkrishnan

Moderator emeritus
Jan 9, 2004
29,776
15
Grand Rapids, MI, USA
How old are these builds? I mean, is there any way of knowing when this particular build was compiled? I know Microsoft were on builds much further ahead of what was released for Beta 2, RC1 etc internally.

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

tonyvz

macrumors newbie
Sep 12, 2006
23
0
in regard to it looking exactly like tiger...

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

???

I don't know, just a thought.
 

motulist

macrumors 601
Dec 2, 2003
4,234
611
He didn't say that it give 95% of the visual quality, he said it give 95% of the entertainment value. The two are quite different things.

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

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

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

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

~iGuy

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

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

shidoshi

macrumors regular
Jun 28, 2004
188
0
Back on topic though... what do people think about Quick Look?

I'm glad they put it in, because it makes me look like a smarty when I pulled it idea out of my ass and called it "Finder Peek" for my entries for the 10.5 fake screenshot contest back last summer. *heh* Now I can lie to myself and say that they did it after seeing my entries.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.