Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard 9A343 Screenshots

[Chef Medeski]

This case is a bit different than the other 10.X updates. There is much attention from media, pundits, and consumers alike because both Vista and Leopard are being released a about the same time. A sort of direct competition between the two major OS releases has been built up. Direct comparisons will be made more than ever before. I can picture it now in a CNN bit having a side by side comparison of the two. A show down for consumers so to speak.

Not saying I care about an new interface look or not. Doesn't matter to me.
Just saying this OSX update is a bit different than before. Apple and OS X have reached new heights in media and public attention. More than ever the world will be watching and comparing it to Windows (Vista). And unfortunately they easiest thing for the average person to use to compare to two by what they see(ie eye candy) A lot of people(mostly Windows users of course) WILL be impressed with Vista wether we like it or not.

I definetly agree. If you have the world stage, you dont want to be talking about stuff that has no bearing on non-OS X users such as how much faster, new File systems or Animation code. Nope, you want to show them something they all will say whoah that looks cool. So they go down to the local Apple store and try it out. People arent going to run down to the Apple Store to try out Spaces. They might have went to try out Expose (take the Mac Pro with the largest screen in the store, open up ALL the apps including Pro Apps. Make sure to click play on a couple videos on on slideshows in picture programs. And then hit Expose! That my friends is tight. I did that while waiting for a genius, a manager walked by stared and was like whoah!, who did this? I was like me, and he was like thats incredible. Evidently its a good way to catch people's eyes when they walk right in. I digress) But there was a point to that diatribe. Non-OS X users will be pulled in not buy how it works better or how there are no bugs, they really dont know that OS X works smoother and with less effort. What pulls them is incredible simple, good lookin cool things. Such as the minimize effect and expose. These things cause people to start playing with OS X. Then they realize how interesting it feels, in a good way. Like simpler and all that. Then a portion will go home and research a bit and after the good press on how OS X run smoother and costs less to manage; well my friends thats how a switcher is born. Expose was actually my gate way drug.

I think a commercial with a power user using OS X. Using Expose, Tab. Minimize. Slow Minimize. Dashboard. Would be really great cause people would be like holy crap! I cant do any of that on my computer and it doesn't look half as good. Thats what you need tos how them. The cool little things that awe people in order to grab their condition. Then you pull them in and slap em around a bit for using Vista.

 

[shyataroo]

the pictures are down off flickr, can someone upload them to a private server?

EDIT: I think reports of a new UI are only partially true, maybe apple has finally taken advantage of the fact that there is such a demand for upgradeable UI's that they decided to include a UI skin changer in 10.5 (prolly based on shapeshifter)

 

[pilotError]

I would recommend that those interested in Leopard really watch the Mac OS X State of the Union video on iTunes. I think you need an ADC membership to get it, but you can get it with the free membership.

Its a big download ~500Mb, but they do show off some of the cool stuff and do elude to a bunch of things that have been kicked around in this thread. The resolution independence was demonstrated in the video and various little comments throughout the presentations were made that more or less confirm certain rumors.

I think this will clear a lot of misconception up about what is and isn't coming.

Its about an hour and a half video, but if your really interested in whats coming or are interested in OS X development, its worth the watch.

This thread has the link to the ADC/iTunes login section in order to download the video:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/273038/

 

[mark88]

I saw it yesterday, I must admit to being slightly worried about core animation in the wrong hands.

You know when you put a DVD on to watch and you have to wait for the snazzy menu animation to finish between user input. I really hope we don't start seeing this in our apps. Everytime I press something I gotta watch some fancy transition finish rendering.

 

[steve_hill4]

the pictures are down off flickr, can someone upload them to a private server?

EDIT: I think reports of a new UI are only partially true, maybe apple has finally taken advantage of the fact that there is such a demand for upgradeable UI's that they decided to include a UI skin changer in 10.5 (prolly based on shapeshifter)

I really hope it is user changeable out of the box. Shapeshifter is great, but I would like to see Apple embrace this feature once more, (ala Mac OS 8).

I think I would largely stick with an interface similar to 10.4, but would like to see an option for lots of black, preferably with a shiny metal finish to it, very much like the iPhone. Black with reflective edges would look very cool. Also, perhaps they also could start making transparency a little more user switchable. I know it is almost a little out of date on the Mac front, but hammering home a message like "Welcome back after 5 years" and letting those with lower system specs switch it on would stick one to Microsoft and their strange Aero Glass, (needs 128MB VRAM, 1GB RAM). I still wouldn't use these features, but nice for those attracted to Macs by visuals, but thinking twice with Blista around the corner.

On a slightly different note, I have still not seen too much that really gets me excited about Leopard since WWDC 06. Saw some nice touches here and there, but all those were minor. The only screen grab that really interested me a lot was of resolution independence, and that was already confirmed before the shots were released.

 

[lukeisme09]

february 20

FEBRUARY 20! that is my birthday maybe ill get a new mac with leapord that day.

 

[steve_hill4]

FEBRUARY 20! that is my birthday maybe ill get a new mac with leapord that day.

Not many, if indeed any, of the Macs will be shipping with Leopard on launch day. They will perhaps be available through the Apple online store and official stores at best. Official resellers and channels will almost certainly be still getting rid of remaining Tiger inventories. I remember Panther shipping with some models a month or two after Tiger was released, and that means new stock, not remaining stock.

 

[Lonon]

Maybe I'm the only one, but i recall that a few months before Tiger were released we already knew about all the *big* features. By April 29th when it was release (if I'm not wrong) there was not much of a surprise, still it was very impressive, especially compared with XP, but we already know that, right?

The new features doesn't have to be so tight to the core. Widgets, anyone? I just can't see developers needing to know everything before the keynote, before the release date fine, but not in the developers previews, where's the fun in the keynote then?

What I'm saying here is that if the February 20th rumor is true, then we are likely to see a SteveNote about Leopard with ALL the top secret features, and the new UI (ups sorry, "skins" for the sensitive ones ) wich i don't consider a feature btw. Steve will make the same he did with the iPhone: make crappy prototypes and give it to developers so they don't have a clue of what is really going on, and eventually show the real and amazing stuff in the keynote. What's the point of a Leopard keynote is there's nothing else to show? "So... there you have it. We now added a new Parental Controls pane and cool wallpapers. Imagine Redmond screaming now. That's it, enjoy it 'till 2009 when 10.6 is out." "-Awesome! Please Apple, take my U$S129!" Really, i think we need to remain a little realistic here, the rest is water in the rumor mill.

Plus if we take the rumor about the March 24th release date as a good source of information then i think it's a reasonable amount of time to prepare most of the shareware and "little" applications for the new interface, and btw if you have and application that uses non-standard controls then shut up, stop crying and replace the controls, can't be that much of an odyssey. Geesh...

John Sicarusa did say in the review of Tiger:
"Overall, Tiger is impressive. If this is what Apple can do with 18 months of development time instead of 12, I tremble to think what they could do with a full two years, let alone the length of time it took for Mac OS X 10.0 to first ship. The productivity of Apple's Mac OS X development team has increased tremendously since 10.0; they're now firing on all cylinders. While I dearly wish someone would steer them in the direction of the eternally neglected Finder, I can't help but be proud of the little OS team that could."

So, how long is Leopard taking by now? I think we we'll be very impressed with it.

 

[Anuba]

Not to sound like an Apple fanboy, but have you seen Vista? Vista is packed full of fairly impressive eye candy and graphics that would look very nice... except they are all molded around the same ugly, cluttered layout that Windows has had since 1995.

Yes and no. It's true that the Vista UI has more colors than an acapulco shirt, and the barrage of different colors may convey an impression of clutter at first glance - but paradoxically they have done some rather extensive cleaning up as far as the layout goes. Sure, they're sticking with their paradigm (Start button, taskbar, system tray etc) but that's to be expected. Some hate it, while others (including myself) prefer it over the MacOS paradigm.

What sucks about Vista is the insane system requirements. It's not like we're talking rocket science here. OK, some translucency FX, couple of dropshadows, smooth transitions, live thumbnails, vertical sync... these are tasks that Core animation has juggled for years and it works pretty well on my old G4 Mini 1.42 with a puny 32 MB VRAM (even if I don't get certain effects like water ripples on widgets etc). Vista wants a minimum of 128 MB VRAM and 1 GB RAM, or it won't enable the effects, and I'm sure it needs 2 GB RAM / 256 MB VRAM to pull it off without glitches. Core Animation runs circles around Vista's counterpart, and Vista reeks of poor optimization. Call me when Service Pack 1 is out... bye now.

 

[matticus008]

I'm not talking about just Apple, I'm talking about everyone else.

You're not making the connection here. Other people either use Apple's tools, or they have their own custom designs. In the first case, the work is done for them; in the second, they're unaffected by Apple's decisions because they use their own artwork anyway.

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.

I think you're using a different definition of "replaced." By your definition, Aqua will never be replaced, as if you require all developers to ditch their previous designs, Aqua-inspired elements will be around for years. Do you consider QuickDraw to have been replaced? I do. If you don't, that's fine, but that's just a simple difference of perspective.

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.

I made no such assumption. Read the section you quoted more carefully.

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.

Every widget and every glyph is just a graphic file. It can be replaced in situ exactly like an icon. That's not to say that sizes and shapes won't change, but that's the key advantage of using relative positioning in your software. Anything you change is easily readjusted.

It's abundantly clear that most people have an inadequate understanding of how the process works for building applications, and an even dimmer understanding of what the underlying changes mean for the OS as a whole. For a visual demonstration, take a look at csszengarden.com. That website is exactly the same page, restyled only with CSS. You can change the appearance without touching the content. By pushing resolution independence and getting developers on board, and by maintaining good coding practices, Apple's developers have something similar to CSS for applications. Apple can change the stylesheet and anyone who uses it will automatically ride the wave. Anyone not using Apple's won't be touched one iota. Their applications will look exactly as they do now.

There's not going to be a revolution. The menu bar will still be at the top, the Dock at the bottom, and the window control glyphs in the top left. That does not preclude redrawn lines, a new color palette, new textures, and visual cues. Compare Vista to Windows 2000. A lot has changed in six years, but it's still recognizable. You can look at a 1995 F-150 and a 2007 F-150--quite different, even dramatically different, but it's still a truck.

 

[mark88]

You're not making the connection here. Other people either use Apple's tools, or they have their own custom designs. In the first case, the work is done for them; in the second, they're unaffected by Apple's decisions because they use their own artwork anyway.

Other peoples 'artwork' as you call it, is inspired by aqua. When I create custom elements for my applications, like many others I'm simply re-plicating aqua(blue/graphite) or replicating something Apple has introduced in one of it's apps and not provided a standard widget for. iLife being a prime example.

It's not affected, quite right, but that's just the point I'm trying to get across. It's not affected by any system level UI change and will remain until the developer does something about it. How ugly is that going to look? Loepard style scroll bars, buttons etc and aqua style custom widgets?

Every widget and every glyph is just a graphic file. It can be replaced in situ exactly like an icon. That's not to say that sizes and shapes won't change, but that's the key advantage of using relative positioning in your software. Anything you change is easily readjusted.

Let me try and explain... Recently I created some aqua tabs, a custom widget. I have tabs for blue and graphite that fit the look of OS X/Aqua perfectly. I have like 12 different tiffs that make up the tabs.

*IF* Leopard comes along and Apple say 'surprise, we replaced aqua' then my aqua tabs are not going to be affected by the system UI change because they are specific to my app. I'll have to re-do them so they look right in Leopard. I can simply create new graphics and swap them over.

Then this creates me another problem, considering I have no plans at present to release a Leopard only version, my tabs when run under Tiger don't look right as I just replaced them to look right in Leopard. So this becomes more than a simple resource swap.

Every widget is a graphic file, no ****. But sadly every widget isn't at system level like a scroll bar or a table view, meaning its look cannot be changed like you can change the look of a website with CSS as you refered.

 

[matticus008]

When I create custom elements for my applications, like many others I'm simply re-plicating aqua(blue/graphite) or replicating something Apple has introduced in one of it's apps and not provided a standard widget for.

But you created the artwork, and your application is (or should be) visually consistent with itself. It seems like you think that all applications should be forced to take on a prescribed appearance based on a reference design, or that Aqua being replaced would somehow prohibit applications from still looking like Aqua.

How ugly is that going to look? Loepard style scroll bars, buttons etc and aqua style custom widgets?

Why on earth would you mix components? If you're making modifications at all, you should be embedded all the necessary artwork in your resources folder. If you make custom blue gel buttons, but someone is using Graphite or a custom theme, your app looks like crap. Apple guidelines urge internal consistency, which means not mixing and matching.

I'll have to re-do them so they look right in Leopard. I can simply create new graphics and swap them over.

If you want to switch from Aqua to Leopard, absolutely. If you don't, your app would still look like an Aqua app, just as it does today.

Then this creates me another problem, considering I have no plans at present to release a Leopard only version, my tabs when run under Tiger don't look right as I just replaced them to look right in Leopard. So this becomes more than a simple resource swap.

Not if you did your job correctly from the beginning.

But sadly every widget isn't at system level like a scroll bar or a table view, meaning its look cannot be changed like you can change the look of a website with CSS as you refered.

Yes, it can, regardless of type level implementation. You might have to make appropriate artwork, but that's an aesthetic problem and not a technical one--the technical side is simple. With CSS websites, you can't use the same set of accent graphics, either--you still have to create the alternate styles, but the actual introduction of a completed style takes a single line of code on your page. Likewise, the introduction of a new UI is an act that requires minimal testing and can be done right at the end.

If you added more than one or two minor custom widgets without following good practices and without including all required resources with your app, then you might be a little screwed. But that's your own fault. Even Apple doesn't cut that corner with its own applications.

 

[mark88]

But you created the artwork, and your application is (or should be) visually consistent with itself. It seems like you think that all applications should be forced to take on a prescribed appearance based on a reference design, or that Aqua being replaced would somehow prohibit applications from still looking like Aqua.

Some of your answers an insanely ignorant. Do you not realise that for the most part developers care about consistancy between apps? that is why apps mimic the look of iLife apps and other Apple apps. Look at these widgets:

http://www.indiehig.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/bottom_bar.png
http://www.indiehig.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/selection_bars.png
http://www.indiehig.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/polished_metal_corners.png

This is merely a tiny example of people copying apples widgets. Apple sets the reference, developers follow Apple.

Why on earth would you mix components? If you're making modifications at all, you should be embedded all the necessary artwork in your resources folder. If you make custom blue gel buttons, but someone is using Graphite or a custom theme, your app looks like crap. Apple guidelines urge internal consistency, which means not mixing and matching.

You don't listen. I always make blue/graphite versions of my widgets, Apple on the other hand do not, take a look at iWork while using the graphite theme. So if you think Apple always adheres to any standards, you are misguided. See attachment.

If you want to switch from Aqua to Leopard, absolutely. If you don't, your app would still look like an Aqua app, just as it does today.
p

How would it look like an aqua app in the new Leopard UI? It seems we are reading off different pages. Like I said before I'm refering to the blue/graphite elements of aqua.

Therefore, if an app has some custom blue/graphite widgets. Those widgets will remain in Leopard, despite the fact the look of the toolbars, scrollbars and other standard widgets has changed at the system level. It will not look like an aqua app. It will look like a Leopard app but with the odd bit of aqua gel.

Not if you did your job correctly from the beginning.

I'm 100% sure we create custom widgets just like anyone else does.

Even Apple doesn't cut that corner with its own applications.

clearly, judging from you statements about apple not cutting corners you do not know what you are talking about. Apple wrote the HIG then left it to rot.

http://indiehig.com/blog/

"The IndieHIG Wiki is a place where developers and UI designers can come together to create a new set of Human Interface Guidelines to supplement Apple’s guidelines. Apple has neglected to update their HIG with modern UI designs and controls, so developers have been forced to replicate these UI elements on their own to keep their applications from looking dated. Since each developer has slightly different implementations of these elements, it has resulted in a fairly inconsistent look and feel for Mac OS users."

 

[matticus008]

Some of your answers an insanely ignorant. Do you not realise that for the most part developers care about consistancy between apps?

Of course they do, but by your own admission and a simple perusal of Tiger, that consistency is gone. This is precisely what would be solved by a new, consistent UI and default set of IB components. If you're using a default set, all of those resources will be available to you; if you're using a heavily customized set, you've invested in that particular layout, whether you were inspired by Georgia O'Keefe, BeOS, or Apple. Apple should clean house and release a modern, fresh, consistent, new UI. Doing so would greatly reduce the disarray of styles for developers to match.

You can't have consistency between applications as it currently stands. There are three (or four, depending on your perspective) visual variations within Apple itself, and literally thousands of variations in third-party software. In terms of "face time" with the user, if Apple consolidated its OS and most of its applications, it would eliminate most of the inconsistency that would ever be remedied (Photoshop et al. and Office are never going to adopt Apple conventions hook, line, and sinker). Developers would stop having multiple styles to emulate and would have just one. They would, of course, have the option of keeping their old designs around as well.

I think you are trying to find an argument where none exists by making a number of excessive assumptions. First, the replacement of a visual style does not break the old one; think 'supersede' and not 'destroy'. Second, Apple replacing its UI does not force developers to do anything. Aqua will not vanish into thin air in your non-Apple application, since resources are bundled directly into the apps (checkboxes, radio boxes, expand glyphs, buttons, scroll bars, etc. with the exception of system dialogs and the title bar). Third, the appearance of a new UI in one of the final beta builds does not leave developers high and dry; most will have no real work to do, most of those who do would not rush to get it done mid-cycle, and those with prerelease access will have at least a week or two. Recoloring and reshaping some widgets isn't even a day's work for one adept Photoshop user if they're copying a style already created. The lengthy part of the process is creating the style and layout; the longest part of copying is the tweaking. Fourth, Apple can easily wipe out Aqua in its OS out of the box, but I think you're taking that to mean that I claim Apple can single-handedly and instantaneously redesign every third party's application. That isn't the case. Fifth, with a choice between a "shock and awe" intro and giving developers months more than needed, Apple is going to go with the former, something you seem to think works the other way around.

Third-party apps would look exactly the same until the developers choose to change it. For most small developers, that change would be effortless and nearly instantaneous. For most of those with more work to do, they'd be looking at a complete overhaul which they wouldn't do until the next scheduled major release anyway--and since they don't match OS X to begin with, they're not losing anything.

 

[mark88]

Of course they do, but by your own admission and a simple perusal of Tiger, that consistency is gone. This is precisely what would be solved by a new, consistent UI and default set of IB components. If you're using a default set, all of those resources will be available to you; if you're using a heavily customized set, you've invested in that particular layout, whether you were inspired by Georgia O'Keefe, BeOS, or Apple. Apple should clean house and release a modern, fresh, consistent, new UI. Doing so would greatly reduce the disarray of styles for developers to match.

HOLY ****, we agree on something!!! ;-)

You can't have consistency between applications as it currently stands. There are three (or four, depending on your perspective) visual variations within Apple itself, and literally thousands of variations in third-party software.

But you can have conistency within those 4 groups. As is the purpose of the indie HIG, ie follow certain rules for unifed apps, certain rules for metal apps etc.. The idea is to make the best of a bad situation which the current one is. Apple is at fault, not 3rd party developers.

I think you are trying to find an argument where none exists by making a number of excessive assumptions. First, the replacement of a visual style does not break the old one; think 'supersede' and not 'destroy'.

My argument is that there are simply too many custom widgets accross a huge number of applications for Apple to wipe away gel aqua in Leopard, that's my argument from the start.

Second, Apple replacing its UI does not force developers to do anything. Aqua will not vanish into thin air in your non-Apple application, since resources are bundled directly into the apps (checkboxes, radio boxes, expand glyphs, buttons, scroll bars, etc. with the exception of system dialogs and the title bar).

What?? let me get this straight, you're saying the standard widgets are bundled into each application?

Sorry, but you are simply WRONG. If tomorrow Apple changed the frameworks to make the scrollbar colors Green and Pink. *ALL* applications would get green and pink scrollbars.

Third-party apps would look exactly the same until the developers choose to change it.

I can't quite believe what I'm hearing. You're saying if Apple changed the UI, then an my.app would look *exactly* the same in Leopard as it does in Tiger unless I make changes?

This is absurd!

 

[matticus008]

Apple is at fault, not 3rd party developers.

If third party developers wanted consistency at the expense of freedom, they would have made a convention to select one of the available styles and all worked with that style alone. The developers choose to engage in the same disarray as Apple.

My argument is that there are simply too many custom widgets accross a huge number of applications for Apple to wipe away gel aqua in Leopard, that's my argument from the start.

A huge number which does or does not include third-party applications? Apple's in-house teams can handle the task of updating its own artwork. They've had well over a year to create a new design and begin realizing it. Out of the box, it's entirely possible for Leopard and iLife to have a new look and for there to be no Aqua remnants.

What?? let me get this straight, you're saying the standard widgets are bundled into each application?

No, I'm saying the references to the system components are the same, and as long as Apple doesn't touch them, nothing breaks.

Sorry, but you are simply WRONG. If tomorrow Apple changed the frameworks to make the scrollbar colors Green and Pink. *ALL* applications would get green and pink scrollbars.

Only if the resources were identically called, which again implies the deletion of Aqua rather than the supersession of Aqua, which again gets back to your mistaken assumptions. If Apple replaces the UI on its apps (with 'scrollbar_new' instead of the deprecated 'scrollbar'), nothing happens to third party apps unless those third-party developers switch to it. Apple replaces Aqua, they don't wipe it from existence in every application past, present, and future.

I can't quite believe what I'm hearing. You're saying if Apple changed the UI, then an my.app would look *exactly* the same in Leopard as it does in Tiger unless I make changes?

Yes!

It's seems to me that you're not taking the time to realize that you are talking about a far greater scope than I applied. You're just taking statements and running with them without actually seeing the consequences. I've grown tired of repeating my own statements because they're not sinking in.

 

[mark88]

No, I'm saying the references to the system components are the same, and as long as Apple doesn't touch them, nothing breaks.

lol, you said "since resources are bundled directly into the apps (checkboxes, radio boxes, expand glyphs, buttons, scroll bars, etc. with the exception of system dialogs and the title bar). "

now you're changing your mind to 'references to components' after I disagreed.

Only if the resources were identically called, which again implies the deletion of Aqua rather than the supersession of Aqua, which again gets back to your mistaken assumptions. If Apple replaces the UI on its apps (with 'scrollbar_new' instead of the deprecated 'scrollbar'), nothing happens to third party apps unless those third-party developers switch to it. Apple replaces Aqua, they don't wipe it from existence in every application past, present, and future.

Jeez, you really think Apple would introduce a new style UI for the scrollbars and leave the old one in place? so that appA has aqua scrollbars and appB has new style Leopard scrollbars?

It would be a total mess, whatever you say about OS X, one thing that is consistent is scrollbars, checkboxes etc etc.

It's seems to me that you're not taking the time to realize that you are talking about a far greater scope than I applied. You're just taking statements and running with them without actually seeing the consequences. I've grown tired of repeating my own statements because they're not sinking in.

They're not sinking in because in general it seems you talk a load of garbage. One minute you say standard widgets are bundled directly into apps, the next you say they aren't etc..

I guess we'll see what happens come Leopard. I'll look out for the new UI frameworks that sit happily alongside the current ones giving people a choice.

 

[matticus008]

lol, you said "since resources are bundled directly into the apps (checkboxes, radio boxes, expand glyphs, buttons, scroll bars, etc. with the exception of system dialogs and the title bar). "

Custom visual resources are bundled directly into the application; system resources are bundled as references. In order to use a system component, it must be specified in the application by name. Thus, as long as different names are used for new resources, the resources associated with (perhaps a better word choice than 'bundled') existing applications go unaffected.

Jeez, you really think Apple would introduce a new style UI for the scrollbars and leave the old one in place? so that appA has aqua scrollbars and appB has new style Leopard scrollbars?

It's all just conjecture, but absolutely. This is exactly what they did when they went to Cocoa, when they switched to Intel, when they added Core technologies, and even when they switched to OS X itself (writing in classic mode). This is also what W3C does for web standards, what DirectX does (except DX10), and what Adobe does with revisions to its file types. Beyond this, it's exactly what Apple has done thus far with visual revisions for the most part (the 'unified' style replaced the older style in most places, but the older style remained available and had zero impact on preexisting applications).

It would be a total mess, whatever you say about OS X, one thing that is consistent is scrollbars, checkboxes etc etc.

Wrong! iTunes doesn't match, nor do many Java-based apps. Checkboxes in Adobe products don't all match, nor do Audacity's elements. I could go on, but I can't keep up with your arbitrary selection about what consistency means and what it should mean, and I never intended this to be a back-and-forth exchange in the length it has become.

Suffice it to say that completing an internal reworking and a late UI launch is entirely within the realm of possibility, developers don't need a year to prepare for it, and it would go a long way toward reducing the clutter and visual conflict in the daily use of OS X. Since the most common third-party applications don't match the rest of the OS already, there's nothing to lose. As someone who has worked in graphics and created custom artwork to mimic an established style, I can attest that on the level of simplicity of UI widgets, the time required is minimal.

 

[mark88]

Custom visual resources are bundled directly into the application; system resources are bundled as references.

I know this already, as I've been jabbering on about it all thread as the reason gel aqua won't vanish all at once. You said standard elements were bundled into each apps, ie scrollbars, check boxes. The quote is right there so it's hard to argue against it. The fact that you even said it kinda proves what you actually know about this whole situation and does your argument no favours:

"Aqua will not vanish into thin air in your non-Apple application, since resources are **bundled directly into the apps** (checkboxes, radio boxes, expand glyphs, buttons, scroll bars, etc. with the exception of system dialogs and the title bar). "

Big difference between the above and referencing external frameworks.

Wrong! iTunes doesn't match, nor do many Java-based apps.

Oh gimme a break. I have 87 apps on my system, 1 of them, namely iTunes features scrollbars that don't fit the look of the other 86, and iTunes has always been the bastard of the family.

And p-lease, Java :-/.

Blue aqua gel is pretty much consistent throughout the OS, yes if you want to be uber picky 1 app out of a 1000 might deviate and try to be different and use purple metal scroll bars but there's so so few of them for anyone to get the impression that blue gel/graphite isn't the norm.

 

[matticus008]

I know this already, as I've been jabbering on about it all thread as the reason gel aqua won't vanish all at once. You said standard elements were bundled into each apps, ie scrollbars, check boxes. The quote is right there so it's hard to argue against it.

It's a poorly constructed sentence written early in the morning, I'll give you that. But the fact that you're gravitating to it shows that you're not concerned with the overarching issue and can't respond to a complementary schema approach because you've been using a bogus definition for "replace" to hawk your doom and gloom. I never said it would disappear altogether from day one from every application in existence--if you'd read anything, you'd see that. It could easily disappear from OS X itself and all bundled applications.

Oh gimme a break. I have 87 apps on my system, 1 of them, namely iTunes features scrollbars that don't fit the look of the other 86, and iTunes has always been the bastard of the family.

So I suppose you don't use Photoshop, GarageBand, InDesign, Microsoft Office, Google Earth, Illustrator, Acrobat, Dreamweaver, EyeTV, Mythfrontend, NeoOffice, Flash Professional, Realplayer...either that, or having blue gel highlights and default scroll bars is all that it takes to match OS X. If consistency means scroll bars and drop-down boxes latched onto whatever UI you want, then yeah, I suppose a new UI would be less consistent.

I take it to mean by your response that since you've not responded to my last paragraph, which is a restatement of the argument I've made since the beginning, that we finally agree. Nitpick all you want; I hope you enjoy yourself.

 

[BilltheCat]

wow. a tennis match!

who's serve is it?