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.
Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard 9A343 Screenshots
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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?
yeah, I was wondering that as well. It's not like I've soaked up every article about Apple in the past 2 years.
Some of the best screen shots of 10.5. thank you for sharing
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!
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
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?".
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!
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 ....
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."
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).
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.
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.
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 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 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.
That's not scaling; that's zooming.
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.
Why? There are hundreds of Adium skins--all they'd have to do is select a new one as the default.
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.mark88 said:
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.
"OS 11" may be too far off to worry about
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:
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:
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...)
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
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...)
Just imagine what Stephen Hawking would sound like making love.
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.
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.
If Leopard had a new look, Photoshop would need to be "Leopard-ized." Otherwise it wouldn't look right.
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?
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), the positioning of elements remain the same. Maybe you could explain what I'm missing here.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No, it would be 30px from the edge. Fixed means fixed.
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.
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.
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
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.
Wine
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
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
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.
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.