I was thinking of what Apple could do with OS 11, and I was bored this afternoon so I decided to mockup Apple's next OS (Click for larger on all pics):
Nice work OP, at least the graphic part. I must admit I've been thinking of the seeming "cleanliness" of the "bright-on-dark" GUI (like in Aperture).
At the same time, I remember when Apple used to be (all) about usability. Back in the last millennium, when I started creating UI's and got interested in ergonomics and usability, Apple was one of the few companies which cared about Usability, and in many products, this legacy is still strong. Sadly, some divisions nowadays seem to place purely visual design above usability design. These "bright-on-dark" -texts and prompts, while visually appealing are in fact hardly legible for people with even mild visual impairments.
What befuddles me is this trend of making OS X more like iOS. As far as I can see, a huge part of Apple's strength lies in the tight integration of hardware, software and services. The IDEA assumedly being that software and services can be tailored to match the device and it's intended use.
I acknowledge that many laptop users use their computers to do basically the same things as what they use their tablets for. I also acknowledge that a big part of Apple users are computer newbies and would benefit from a GUI, which is easy to adopt. But unless your computer use is limited to only consuming iTunes content or sharing party photos, you need an operating system, which gives you room to grow.
BUT, I do not regard the alternative to do away with files and folders as the right way to do that. In fact, I think it's a horrible idea. File Systems (and their visible existence) is critical for any advanced user. You do not need to be a hacker, programmer or creative professional to need to dabble with details, which are only available on a filesystem level.
Yes sure, relying on File systems steepens the learning curve (I've taught newbies using computers - professionally) and it's sometimes difficult, but everyone gets it sooner or later, and with that comes an understanding on how computers work - also implying what can be done and what can not.
Some commenters here have posted examples of what a filesystem is needed for, I could list a multitude of examples - all relevant to my day-to-day computer use. Just to name a few:
- I, like many other long-time computer users, have a huge archive - most of which just lies around, being used only once in a while. To exemplify: I have close to 3 TB of digital images from three decades, only the last 3 years of these are managed in Aperture. How would I manage this without archive without a File System?
- Also highly relevant: What happens to Application-managed files if the Application disappears? Do they disappear, or do they become (essentially) unmanageable orphan files?
I remember, that during my studies of usability I repeatedly came upon the most basic rule: "the user's data is sacred", implying that it may not be changed without the user's knowing consent and allowing it to be corrupted or lost is the ultimate sin of system design. IMNSHO, the obfuscation of the file system would in fact brake this rule on a system-wide level.
I would not mind an optional "newbie-layer" in OS X (with virtual FS) and I'm sure it could be done with a lot less change to how applications work than switching to a totally obfuscated File System. But the day Apple removes my ability to control my files, I'll switch back to Windows (or Linux).
Pekka