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

'Marble' Interface to be Revealed in Next Snow Leopard Seed?

I like the old aqua (in mac os x v.10.0 or 10.1). It just really appeals to me. Sadly, I was about 6 around then and we had a PC so I never experienced using it.:(

But I like the idea of a new user interface in snow leopard simply for a change from the leopard look that my first and current mac has.

Slightly off topic, do you notice that dashboard looks kind of outdated. It would be cool if it was updated in snow leopard to look more like the iPhone.:p
 
I really don't understand all these comments about grey (and black) being "depressing".

First off, if minimalism and grey/black depresses you, you shouldn't be using a Mac at all because the hardware looks exactly like that - a drab slab of naked metal with some black on it. There are plenty of pink and lime green PC laptops from various vendors if color is your cup of tea.

Secondly, an operating system is supposed to sit quietly in the background, not hog the foreground like some attention whore. That's what professional tools are supposed to look like - distraction free. Just look at Adobe's Creative Suite that just keeps getting flatter and greyer for every version. Tool icons, palettes, everything is grey -- you can even set it to show the application icon in greyscale (the app icon up in the corner is the only colored part left in the interface).

If there are screaming colors all over your screen, you're probably looking at Windows Vista. I thought you guys wanted OS X to be everything that Vista is not, but I guess I was wrong.
 
yossim said:
would you pay for an upgrade in the UI though?


I like the water effect that leopard's dashboard has.
Click to expand...

You dont pay merely for that, a UI change would be just a great freebie compared to what SL is about.
 
Anuba said:
I really don't understand all these comments about grey (and black) being "depressing".

First off, if minimalism and grey/black depresses you, you shouldn't be using a Mac at all because the hardware looks exactly like that - a drab slab of naked metal with some black on it. There are plenty of pink and lime green PC laptops from various vendors if color is your cup of tea.

Secondly, an operating system is supposed to sit quietly in the background, not hog the foreground like some attention whore. That's what professional tools are supposed to look like - distraction free. Just look at Adobe's Creative Suite that just keeps getting flatter and greyer for every version. Tool icons, palettes, everything is grey -- you can even set it to show the application icon in greyscale (the app icon up in the corner is the only colored part left in the interface).

If there are screaming colors all over your screen, you're probably looking at Windows Vista. I thought you guys wanted OS X to be everything that Vista is not, but I guess I was wrong.
Click to expand...
Exactly!

The apple of late has been going for something they pull off beautifully, a sleek industrial look for all aspects of their products.
 
Anuba said:
I really don't understand all these comments about grey (and black) being "depressing".

First off, if minimalism and grey/black depresses you, you shouldn't be using a Mac at all because the hardware looks exactly like that - a drab slab of naked metal with some black on it. There are plenty of pink and lime green PC laptops from various vendors if color is your cup of tea.

Secondly, an operating system is supposed to sit quietly in the background, not hog the foreground like some attention whore. That's what professional tools are supposed to look like - distraction free. Just look at Adobe's Creative Suite that just keeps getting flatter and greyer for every version. Tool icons, palettes, everything is grey -- you can even set it to show the application icon in greyscale (the app icon up in the corner is the only colored part left in the interface).

If there are screaming colors all over your screen, you're probably looking at Windows Vista. I thought you guys wanted OS X to be everything that Vista is not, but I guess I was wrong.
Click to expand...

ya but i also dont want it to look 1980s ish. i understand how creative professionals dont want a lot of colors to mess up color perspective, etc. but os x could have like a "graphite" look, that provides a dull, non color bias, and an aqua/marble/whatever, theme for it to not be as dull, more eye candy etc.
oh wait! we already kinda have that.:p
 
NT1440 said:
Exactly!

The apple of late has been going for something they pull off beautifully, a sleek industrial look for all aspects of their products.
Click to expand...
Yep. And to make the OS look like the hardware is only in keeping with Apple tradition. The first couple of versions of OS X looked exactly like the hardware of the time. The greyish white pinstripes, round, flowing shapes and strong colors etc.

techfreak85 said:
ya but i also dont want it to look 1980s ish
Click to expand...
What's 80's-ish about greyscale? I lived through the 80's and let me assure you that COLORS were not in short supply. It was all one giant Miami Vice-inspired, neon-lit extravaganza. As for computers in the 80's, the manufacturers were so thrilled that they were able to produce color graphics they were practically unstoppable. Unless they were stuck with black & white, like the Sinclair ZX81.

It wasn't until the 90's they had finally worked up the confidence to tone down the interface and go with greyscale.

UI design trends are cyclical... in the mid 90's it was all like "wohoo, we've discovered AlienSkin's bevel and drop shadow plugins, let's use that on everything". In 1997 or thereabouts the 3D stuff went stale, and suddenly graphics were supposed to be super flat with no hint of depth. Then in 2001 came OS X with Aqua, and kablam, the drop shadows and bevels we'd been flatly rejecting for the last few years were back again.

Now we've been doing that for several years and it's gotten to a point where the glossy plastic effect that's on everything from Dashboard widgets to the Vista taskbar is getting really old. Someone's gotta break into new territory (or revisit an old one), and Apple thrives on starting trends, not following them, so...
 
Ha. Two years ago a lot of people would have booed this news. Now, it's the opposite. A lot of people embracing the iTunes 7/8 look.
 
i have to say, im actually really geniunely excited for SL now, i thought it was all about under the hood eh?? pfft apple fools everyone agaaaain :D what is ironic, is if im to believe what MS is now doing, its all about the shiny stuff, just as apple are giving up on shiny stuff and going with sleek and minimilist..

I personally really quite like the silver look, the first thing i did when i got both my macs was put it in graphite not blue.. goes alot better with the stuff i have..crikey i even went n chose an ipod nano (chromatic) when i got the lappie just so they matched!!

I have since spent 3 months trying to unify the look of the OS so i can get it looking sawweet. I dont personally think the OS look is boring in the slightest, asides from the fact its not supposed to be bright red with blue font anyways..

The only thing i think they could do to improve the OS, is generally unify it, (itunes, or iLife, or go backwards, i dunno but they need to choose one, and stick with it!)

Im also quite liking the idea of this auto-hide scroll bar, so long as they do it well, then its all goooood :)

On the other hand im quite enjoying the run-up to this SL release, daarn apple know how to keep us on our toes eh??
heh

PTP out ;-)
 
Slurpy2k8 said:
Can they just go ahead and round ALL corners of dialog boxes, windows, etc already? It looks ass-ugly and confused when the top corners are rounded, the bottom are sharp edges, and the buttons have much a larger rounded radius. Destroys all unity.
Click to expand...

The concept behind dialogs in OS X is a scroll or sheet, like a piece of paper that slides down from the top. Imagine someone taking a scroll and unrolling it downward. The bottom edges would be square and the top would be rounded. I don't find that at all out of place in OS X. In fact, I'd never even taken note of it before you'd pointed it out. Just seems to fit. I disagree 100% with your opinion of this.
 
Am I the only person who feels that the shade of grey used in the marble/iTunes/MobileMe scrollbars clashes rather nastily with the neutral tones used in other areas of the UI? I have iTunes open as I write this and something just doesn't quite seem to sit right for me. First of all, there is the standard neutral grey of the top area of the application (which is fine and unobtrusive). Then there is the pale lilac/grey of the sidebar on the left side of the interface - a neutral-ish colour but with definite warm overtones. Then there is the slightly blue/grey of the scroll bars - once again neutral-ish, but with definite cold overtones. They're both blue-ish, but they're from completely different families of blue, and it feels confusing and awkward to me. To compound this issue in iTunes, the top area of the iTunes store uses yet another blue which clashes with the distinctly royal blue of the colour used to denote a highlighted list item. I really feel that if they are going to consolidate the interface on a system-wide level, then they could really benefit from revisiting the colour palette used and ironing out some of these niggling colour psychology issues.

Or maybe it's just me.
 
if you don't like a 'scroll bar' think about this...


how do you know where something is placed on a long website or large document?
because you remembered the relative place of the scrollbar.
Not because you have read the entire document or webiste
Not because you have read the title where it's under. (It can help to specify...)

But because you remembered visually the place of the scroll bar.

A scrollbar that fades in and fades out whenever is too distracting.

Do you guys actually work with large documents on big screens? :p
 
Don't want maximize to behave like Windows

RMo said:
I actually like the behavior of this button in OS X better than the maximize button in Windows. In Windows, a maximized window will always take up all of your screen, regardless of its contents; in OS X, the window is (supposed to be...) sized to best fit its contents. There's no point in, for example, the iChat contact list to take up all the screen horizontally when a smaller amount of space is needed. (Of course, I don't always agree with what the application thinks, but it's easy enough to resize on your own. :) I don't think I've ever made any app on my Mac take up all of my screen.)
Click to expand...

I completely agree - I don't want Maximize like Windows. A window should take only the space it needs to display its contents. It seems to me maximize on Windows was done so that people that were used to one program at a time in DOS would feel comfortable. Also, since there is only one menu bar in the Mac (much better from a usability standpoint, muscle memory and all that stuff), there is no need to have a window take full-screen.
 
volfreak said:
I completely agree - I don't want Maximize like Windows.
Click to expand...
There are lots of things I don't want in OS X and Windows, but that shouldn't dictate what others can or can't have. What harm would a tiny Maximize button next to the tiny 'traffic lights' buttons do? Would it steal space? Would it make you cry?

A window should take only the space it needs to display its contents.
Click to expand...
No, a window should take up whatever space the user wants it to take up. It's called freedom of choice. We don't need some communist system that dictates window size for us like OS X does, with its lack of a Maximize button and resistance to window resizing.

It seems to me maximize on Windows was done so that people that were used to one program at a time in DOS would feel comfortable.
Click to expand...
No, it was done to reduce desktop clutter so that you don't have to look at your desktop icons, your desktop wallpaper and bits and pieces of other applications while you're focusing on your work. That sort of clutter was inevitable on Mac until Apple introduced Spaces to cover their arses. Microsoft tried the Mac paradigm in Office, eliminating the main program window and putting all documents in separate windows floating around, but users hated it with a passion so M$ quickly moved back to the traditional window structure in the following version.

Also, since there is only one menu bar in the Mac
Click to expand...
Yes, and that's one of the main reasons why some people puke all over Mac and would never switch to one. The single menu bar is a retarded solution which dates back to an age when desktop real estate was in short supply.

Apple wanted to ditch the single-menu solution and give OS X a fresh start, but narrow-minded Mac luddites started bawling their little eyes out so the menu had to stay. So now we're stuck with this neanderthal solution that makes working with a dual screen setup a PITA, because whatever application you place on the secondary screen will have its menu on the primary screen. If these are two 30" screens, it won't stop at carpal tunnel syndrome, your arm will fall off from making the mouse cursor travel 6 miles roundtrip every time you want to access a menu item.

Text menus are an outdated solution anyway. Microsoft started eliminating them (or at least hiding them) in IE, WMP, Office 2007 and other applications. Apple did the same in Safari 4 for Windows, which is actually better than Safari 4 on my Macs...

Also, the menu bar in OS X is a total waste of screen space. The middle part is always empty because no app has that many menus. Here's an example where Windows is much more efficient - it fits both the menus and the min/max/close buttons into the same space where OS X only has the traffic lights buttons, and thus needs a separate menu bar in addition to that.

Man, the OS X menu font is heee-uge when you see them side-by-side like that, looks like some sort of accessibility mode for the visually impaired...
 

Attachments

  • itunes.jpg
    itunes.jpg
    43.2 KB · Views: 239
Anuba said:
There are lots of things I don't want in OS X and Windows, but that shouldn't dictate what others can or can't have. What harm would a tiny Maximize button next to the tiny 'traffic lights' buttons do? Would it steal space? Would it make you cry?

No, a window should take up whatever space the user wants it to take up. It's called freedom of choice. We don't need some communist system that dictates window size for us like OS X does, with its lack of a Maximize button and resistance to window resizing.

No, it was done to reduce desktop clutter so that you don't have to look at your desktop icons, your desktop wallpaper and bits and pieces of other applications while you're focusing on your work. That sort of clutter was inevitable on Mac until Apple introduced Spaces to cover their arses. Microsoft tried the Mac paradigm in Office, eliminating the main program window and putting all documents in separate windows floating around, but users hated it with a passion so M$ quickly moved back to the traditional window structure in the following version.

Yes, and that's one of the main reasons why some people puke all over Mac and would never switch to one. The single menu bar is a retarded solution which dates back to an age when desktop real estate was in short supply.

Apple wanted to ditch the single-menu solution and give OS X a fresh start, but narrow-minded Mac luddites started bawling their little eyes out so the menu had to stay. So now we're stuck with this neanderthal solution that makes working with a dual screen setup a PITA, because whatever application you place on the secondary screen will have its menu on the primary screen. If these are two 30" screens, it won't stop at carpal tunnel syndrome, your arm will fall off from making the mouse cursor travel 6 miles roundtrip every time you want to access a menu item.

Text menus are an outdated solution anyway. Microsoft started eliminating them (or at least hiding them) in IE, WMP, Office 2007 and other applications. Apple did the same in Safari 4 for Windows, which is actually better than Safari 4 on my Macs...

Also, the menu bar in OS X is a total waste of screen space. The middle part is always empty because no app has that many menus. Here's an example where Windows is much more efficient - it fits both the menus and the min/max/close buttons into the same space where OS X only has the traffic lights buttons, and thus needs a separate menu bar in addition to that.
Click to expand...

Wow. I don't think any of this would make me cry but aren't you a wee bit defensive?

Let's see. No one says you can't maximize a screen. Drag it to full screen. Or should we have 4 buttons. Is maximize the Mac max or the Windows max? If it's added, it wouldn't hurt my feelings. You said you wanted maximize like Windows as opposed to the Mac version. So, your version of a dictatorship is different how? :) And a window (Mac, Windows or Linux) can take up the exact amount of space that a user wants. Just resize it. I do wish the Mac allowed resizing using any edge/corner of the window but I still prefer the Mac's maximize philosophy.

Actually a single menu bar is a better UI than a menu bar for each app. Talk about wasted space. Also, muscle memory. I know I can throw my mouse to the top of the screen and always hit the menu bar. I don't have to pay close attention to "which" menu bar I'm choosing (oops clicked the wrong app because I don't have everything maximized and can see multiple apps at once :) ). And if people don't want to use the Mac, that's fine. Let them puke. Every time Windows does something that I think is stupid, I want to puke but I don't. I just work through it. I have a 17" laptop and a 30" external monitor and I seem to have no problem with it.

Actually Windows doesn't put the menu bar and the windows title bar in the same space. There's the title bar, the control box and the min/max buttons. Below that is the menu bar. Below that is the Ribbon (if using Office).
 
volfreak said:
Wow. I don't think any of this would make me cry but aren't you a wee bit defensive?

Let's see. No one says you can't maximize a screen. Drag it to full screen. Or should we have 4 buttons. Is maximize the Mac max or the Windows max? If it's added, it wouldn't hurt my feelings. You said you wanted maximize like Windows as opposed to the Mac version. So, your version of a dictatorship is different how? :) And a window (Mac, Windows or Linux) can take up the exact amount of space that a user wants. Just resize it. I do wish the Mac allowed resizing using any edge/corner of the window but I still prefer the Mac's maximize philosophy.

Actually a single menu bar is a better UI than a menu bar for each app. Talk about wasted space. Also, muscle memory. I know I can throw my mouse to the top of the screen and always hit the menu bar. I don't have to pay close attention to "which" menu bar I'm choosing (oops clicked the wrong app because I don't have everything maximized and can see multiple apps at once :) ). And if people don't want to use the Mac, that's fine. Let them puke. Every time Windows does something that I think is stupid, I want to puke but I don't. I just work through it. I have a 17" laptop and a 30" external monitor and I seem to have no problem with it.

Actually Windows doesn't put the menu bar and the windows title bar in the same space. There's the title bar, the control box and the min/max buttons. Below that is the menu bar. Below that is the Ribbon (if using Office).
Click to expand...

Too bad that you're not using Windows 7 in this discussion....

There are many improvements in Windows 7 in navigation between windows and apps - and much of what is being discussed is no longer true (e.g. many apps hide the menu bar by default - a tap on <Alt> makes it appear).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back