what features do you hope to see in OS X 10.6

[killmoms]

its a funny way to produce fact, isn't it? what study shows what you said are "facts"

You don't need a study to declare those facts—it's just common sense. Look at it this way:

What problems with current UIs would be solved by putting them into 3D space? We don't have any really good ways to interact with a 3D windowing environment—our mice operate two-dimensionally, as do our displays. Obviously 3D games are trying to imitate life, for the purpose of entertainment, so there 3D makes sense. But in a general OS interface, the point is to help arrange tasks and information, and most of the tricks and shortcuts we use to make these tasks more efficient in computers are hampered by tying them to real world metaphors. Would browsing a virtual 3D store somehow be more efficient than viewing Amazon webpages?

The only 3D desktops I've seen are Looking Glass (which uses 3D as eye candy) and Beryl/Compiz (same thing). Neither of them are fundamentally different from a 2D UI, they just use 3D elements to "dress it up," usually in ways that are either unintuitive or just silly. That's not progress. It doesn't accomplish anything useful. Even 3D virtual reality interfaces that have been toyed with in the past are impediments to usability.

Here's my question to you: how do you envision your so-called 3D interface? What problems are you trying to solve? How would it behave? Or are you just envisioning "more eye-candy?"

 

[Shotglass]

its a funny way to produce fact, isn't it? what study shows what you said are "facts"

Study? Are you kidding? You want me to tell you that "research has shown" what I said was true? Come on.

Here's what I was talking about.
1) 3D desktops are useless - I highly doubt you can come up with one thing that is useful about 3D desktops that can't be done with 2D environments. 3D is by definition eye candy and thus useless.
2) Font rendering on OS X is superior to Vista - Please just compare the two. Vista doesn't even come close.


P.S.: I don't actually mean to sound arrogant.

 

[clevin]

You don't need a study to declare those facts—it's just common sense. Look at it this way:

What problems with current UIs would be solved by putting them into 3D space? We don't have any really good ways to interact with a 3D windowing environment—our mice operate two-dimensionally, as do our displays. Obviously 3D games are trying to imitate life, for the purpose of entertainment, so there 3D makes sense. But in a general OS interface, the point is to help arrange tasks and information, and most of the tricks and shortcuts we use to make these tasks more efficient in computers are hampered by tying them to real world metaphors. Would browsing a virtual 3D store somehow be more efficient than viewing Amazon webpages?

The only 3D desktops I've seen are Looking Glass (which uses 3D as eye candy) and Beryl/Compiz (same thing). Neither of them are fundamentally different from a 2D UI, they just use 3D elements to "dress it up," usually in ways that are either unintuitive or just silly. That's not progress. It doesn't accomplish anything useful. Even 3D virtual reality interfaces that have been toyed with in the past are impediments to usability.

Here's my question to you: how do you envision your so-called 3D interface? What problems are you trying to solve? How would it behave? Or are you just envisioning "more eye-candy?"

Its interesting that you think only things that "solve some problems", or "accomplish something significant" should be addressed in the future OS.

The genie, or scale effect, what problem do they solve?

Animated drop down panel in safari, what problem does that solve?

"Common sense" is such a soft words that anybody can abuse it, You want to argue something is "useless"? then you need to realize "useful" is a very strange judgement that doesn't equal to "solve a mechanical problem" or "function fundamentally different".

You want to argue compiz-fusion is useless and meaningless? sorry, that is NOT a common sense.

Study? Are you kidding? You want me to tell you that "research has shown" what I said was true? Come on.

Here's what I was talking about.
1) 3D desktops are useless - I highly doubt you can come up with one thing that is useful about 3D desktops that can't be done with 2D environments. 3D is by definition eye candy and thus useless.
2) Font rendering on OS X is superior to Vista - Please just compare the two. Vista doesn't even come close.


P.S.: I don't actually mean to sound arrogant.

How else am I supposed to take anybody said as a fact? when I myself consider that a personal opinion?

Funny Im the only one who didn't compare vista's font AA to OSX's. "superior"? how? why?

 

[killmoms]

Its interesting that you think only things that "solve some problems", or "accomplish something significant" should be addressed in the future OS.

Well, since the whole point of the OS is to provide a user interface that allows users to accomplish tasks, yes I think that changes to that interface should be focused on making those tasks easier. Cosmetic changes are nice, but redefining the entire UI paradigm (going to some nebulous idea of a "3D desktop") for the sake of looks is not progress.

The genie, or scale effect, what problem do they solve?

Animated drop down panel in safari, what problem does that solve?

The genie and scale effects show users in a physical sense where their window just "went." They allow the user to see very clearly where the window they just minimized disappeared to. This sort of prompting helps the user remember where the window is.

Similarly, the animated sheets show a physical connection to their window. Instead of Save creating some floating dialogue in the middle of nowhere, that Save dialog is shown as clearly "belonging to," in fact physically "appearing from" the document being saved. In both cases, they are physical metaphors that help reinforce the concept underlying the task the user is performing.

You want to argue compiz-fusion is useless and meaningless? sorry, that is NOT a common sense.

It certainly has a use—to provide eye candy—but that's not the same as being useful. What does wobbling windows do besides "look cool?" What do "virtual desktops on a cube" (which are still 2D desktops) do that regular virtual desktops don't, besides "look cool?" In fact, the argument could be made that a 3D cube of virtual desktops further obfuscates the mental model of virtual desktops (since it ties the idea into a real-world physical metaphor and then ignores all real-world physical concerns entailed), making them even harder to use.

I have yet to hear you posit any actual uses for (or even vague description of) your mythical "3D desktop."

Funny Im the only one who didn't compare vista's font AA to OSX's. "superior"? how? why?

Often Mac fans claim OS X's font rendering is superior because its engine seeks to preserve the typographic elements of typefaces. OS X renders fonts much closer to how they would appear on the printed page. This is owed primarily to Apple's long history with the graphic design field. Both OS X and Vista utilize sub-pixel anti-aliasing (which helps increase perceptual horizontal resolution on conventional LCD displays), but Vista alters the shape and spacing of font glyphs to more closely align to a monitor's lower-res pixel boundaries, whereas OS X preserves font spacing and shape. I suppose it's a matter of opinion about which is "better." I certainly prefer that a typeface's appearance be preserved, and I've never had any trouble reading words in OS X. However, that debate is largely based on preference.

 

[clevin]

The genie and scale effects show users in a physical sense where their window just "went."
It certainly has a use—to provide eye candy.

Its fascinating how you manipulate this double standard.

I have yet to hear you posit any actual uses for (or even vague description of) your mythical "3D desktop."

Let me make a simple list

1. the windows thumb (of compiz-fusion) allows users to glance through the minimized windows without open them, easy to pick up which one to operate. The thumb size can be enlarge or shrink, which allows better read.

The thumbnails are dynamically updating, so users can easily pick up the one they want, such as one of the multiple browser windows that has content loaded.

2. minimize effect, which tells users where the windows went.

3. Desktop on a CUBE, or a triangle, or a n faces circle, allow users to spread windows on different surface, such that each desktop is clean and easy to operate.

FYI, there are more than one thing in compiz-fusion

* Animation
* Color filter
* Expo
* Enhanced Zoom Desktop
* JPEG
* Negative
* Opacify
* Put
* Resize info
* Ring Switcher
* Shift Switcher
* Scale Addons
* Snapping Windows
* Text
* Window Previews
* Viewport Switcher
* Desktop Wall
* Window Rules
* Workarounds

Extra Plugins:

* 3D Windows
* ADD Helper
* Benchmark
* Crash handler
* Cube Caps
* Cube Reflection
* Extra WM Actions
* Fade to Desktop
* Firepaint
* Cube Gears
* Group and Tab Windows
* Motion blur
* Reflection
* Scale Window Title Filter
* Show desktop
* Splash
* Trailfocus
* Widget Layer

Often Mac fans claim OS X's font rendering is superior because its engine seeks to preserve the typographic elements of typefaces. OS X renders fonts much closer to how they would appear on the printed page.

I don't understand this, do most people compare the printed stuff and screen display? or do most of them just want to read easier on screen?

I sure know I would rather my eye doesn't hurt. Personal Opinion is fine. but shouldn't we consider the "majority" of users?

 

[killmoms]

Its fascinating how you manipulate this double standard.

It's not a double standard at all. Those "effects" have clear, intentioned purposes within the context of the UI.

Let me make a simple list

1. the windows thumb (of compiz-fusion) allows users to glance through the minimized windows without open them, easy to pick up which one to operate. The thumb size can be enlarge or shrink, which allows better read.

The thumbnails are dynamically updating, so users can easily pick up the one they want, such as one of the multiple browser windows that has content loaded.

So, it's like the Dock. Or Exposé. Neither of which are 3D, merely accelerated by the 3D card. I'm arguing against a 3D desktop, not a 3D composited 2D desktop—which OS X already has, and had long before any other commercial OS on the market (OS X 10.2 Jaguar, to be precise). Please be accurate with your terminology.

2. minimize effect, which tells users where the windows went.

So, copied from OS X. Got it.

3. Desktop on a CUBE, or a triangle, or a n faces circle, allow users to spread windows on different surface, such that each desktop is clean and easy to operate.

Which, as I already pointed out, actually further complicates the concept and use of virtual desktops. How is putting 2D desktops on a cube (or any other shape), which then obscures faces not currently rotated towards the viewer's 2D display "viewport," more efficient than, say, OS X's Spaces, which can instantly scale down all virtual desktops so that all of them are visible at once, allowing a user to easily select the one they want? Not that Spaces is perfect—its application-based (rather than task-based) organization hampers power users. However it certainly makes more sense than "desktops on a cube."

Putting windows on a cube does look neat, but it's not more efficient, or more usable. It's slower, more complicated, and more difficult to use—not just for newbies, but power users as well.

FYI, there are more than once thing in compiz-fusion

Of course there are. And most of the non eye-candy things you cited in that list are already possible or implemented in OS X's Quartz Extreme UI engine or its associated parts (Core Image/Video/Animation). Beryl/Compiz effectively replicates the functionality that has been present in OS X for years, but it's not creating anything fundamentally new.

A 3D desktop != a 3D composited 2D desktop. The latter is very useful in many ways. The former has yet to have any real use besides novelty.

 

[clevin]

Of course there are. And most of the non eye-candy things you cited in that list are already possible or implemented in OS X's Quartz Extreme UI engine or its associated parts (Core Image/Video/Animation). Beryl/Compiz effectively replicates the functionality that has been present in OS X for years, but it's not creating anything fundamentally new.

Im not sure how you call these from compiz/beryl (which does not exist anymore) are just copying OSX....

A 3D desktop != a 3D composited 2D desktop. The latter is very useful in many ways. The former has yet to have any real use besides novelty.

Thats something agreeable. But as you can see from last screenshot (group several app windows on different sides of a virtual board, flip back and forth to operate), compiz-fusion, and metis both actually have something that is kinda in the realm of "3D desktop" already. How useful will that be? IDK, we will have to wait and see, but somebody gotta innovate, right?

 

[killmoms]

Im not sure how you call these from compiz/beryl (which does not exist anymore) are just copying OSX....

Because while it looks different, the underlying technology and concepts are pretty much identical. There's nothing in Beryl today that could not be accomplished with OS X's display engine. However, as I've said before, just because something can be done does not necessarily mean that it should, at least not in a broadly targeted commercial OS.

Thats something agreeable. But as you can see from last screenshot (group several app windows on different sides of a virtual board, flip back and forth to operate), compiz-fusion, and metis both actually have something that is kinda in the realm of "3D desktop" already. How useful will that be? IDK, we will have to wait and see, but somebody gotta innovate, right?

Certainly I don't begrudge new ideas being tried. But for the most part, none of these engines were even considered until Apple went "Hmm, you know, we could speed things up and allow for a lot of flexibility by moving desktop compositing off to the GPU." I'd say that was the innovation. And obviously the open source world is the place to do whatever, regardless of relative usefulness—it never hurts to try and all that.

I'm not sure I understand the "different sides of a virtual board" thing though. Again, what is that supposed to represent from a UI perspective? What does that accomplish that "overlapping windows" does not? What if you wanted to see both "sides?"

Like I said, I don't begrudge open-source windowing engines from trying lots of different things. I just question how useful the vast majority of those things are, especially in the context of designing user interfaces that are both powerful AND easy to grasp (or at least as easy to grasp as possible, considering that any computer GUI is a set of metaphors) for the bulk of users.

 

[saltyzoo]

Its interesting that you think only things that "solve some problems", or "accomplish something significant" should be addressed in the future OS.

The genie, or scale effect, what problem do they solve?

Animated drop down panel in safari, what problem does that solve?

Interesting that you want a smaller OS.

It's features such as these that don't "solve some problem or accomplish something significant" that result in > 10G OS's.

 

[clevin]

Interesting that you want a smaller OS.

It's features such as these that don't "solve some problem or accomplish something significant" that result in > 10G OS's.

I don't think there is such a clear linear relationship, or a silver line there.

its not here or there, there are alot in between.

Because while it looks different, the underlying technology and concepts are pretty much identical. There's nothing in Beryl today that could not be accomplished with OS X's display engine. However, as I've said before, just because something can be done does not necessarily mean that it should, at least not in a broadly targeted commercial OS.

Certainly I don't begrudge new ideas being tried. But for the most part, none of these engines were even considered until Apple went "Hmm, you know, we could speed things up and allow for a lot of flexibility by moving desktop compositing off to the GPU." I'd say that was the innovation. And obviously the open source world is the place to do whatever, regardless of relative usefulness—it never hurts to try and all that.

I think thats a over-simplification of the whole situation. I say "oh, invention of a wheel is an innovation", that doesn't mean inventing a car is not an innovation.

Furthermore, OSS had problem with big brand graphic card producers to offer the drivers to their product. Im not even sure if apple is the first to "think about moving compositing to GPU". (you are welcome to provide some links if you have any )

I'm not sure I understand the "different sides of a virtual board" thing though. Again, what is that supposed to represent from a UI perspective? What does that accomplish that "overlapping windows" does not? What if you wanted to see both "sides?"

The purpose is to clean up the desktop, How to use it? you probably need to try out for yourself, I can only say its a smart way of arranging windows, and its indeed inside the "3D realm"

Like I said, I don't begrudge open-source windowing engines from trying lots of different things. I just question how useful the vast majority of those things are, especially in the context of designing user interfaces that are both powerful AND easy to grasp (or at least as easy to grasp as possible, considering that any computer GUI is a set of metaphors) for the bulk of users.

Useful, IMHO, is a very subjective term, and without these "different things", there might not be next "big thing".

 

[killmoms]

The purpose is to clean up the desktop, How to use it? you probably need to try out for yourself, I can only say its a smart way of arranging windows, and its indeed inside the "3D realm"

Is it possible to un-peel these grouped windows to see what's in them at the same time quickly and at a glance?

Generally the purpose of the UI is to facilitate a user's access to information and applications. Hiding windows by putting them on the back of OTHER windows without a clear, delineated purpose doesn't make much sense. "A cleaner desktop" isn't really a goal. Or, it's not one that isn't already decently addressed via tabs (grouping similar items within a single window with always-visible hooks), Exposé (instantly but modally revealing all/an application's windows for easy selection or providing quick access to the Desktop while still preserving primary states), or virtual desktops (reducing single-desktop "clutter" by allowing the user to partition apps onto other virtual desktops, all of which can be revealed)... or the combination of all three (for instance, Spaces+All Windows Exposé, which allows a user to instantly see all open windows in all Spaces).

Again, new concepts aren't bad, but when it comes to UI design the guiding principle should always be the facilitation of easy access, and too often these ill-considered concepts end up obscuring that goal.

 

[clevin]

Again, new concepts aren't bad, but when it comes to UI design the guiding principle should always be the facilitation of easy access, and too often these ill-considered concepts end up obscuring that goal.

I can't tell too much about it since I now do not have linux box anymore....pity, I might need to get one soon.

Easy access is an interesting word, altho I agree with that, I do think "easy" is a unpredictable term and we don't really know the meaning. A simple example, mice person and keyboard person, their judgement on "easy" is quite different.

Other than that, guiding principle is not the only principle, and sometimes they don't apply (such as when you have no measurable changes under that principle).

I, for one, do not think "easy of access" is a significant principle that trump all other stuff. Since, IHMO, windows provides more "easy of access" stuff than OSX (border re-size, e.g.,).

 

[pastrychef]

I just want the old Spotlight back...

 

[GimmeSlack12]

You know reinventing the desktop is a pretty tired concept because the scope is always waaay too limited. The desktop won't be advanced any further, and to consider a 3D desktop is foolish.

A new concept of computer is needed if 3D visuals are to be mixed in, and I mean from the visuals to the input devices. The Desktop works great because you have the keyboard and mouse which were designed for use with a 2D desktop. When you go 3D you also have to refine, re-invent, or re-create a totally new approach to input devices.

The only way that I can see a 3D GUI being introduced is by using input devices that are your hands. And that isn't super efficient. So what else can you do? Well you can continue to evolve the 2D desktop. Add depth or whatever you want but 3D, true 3D will just not happen without a revolution in input devices.

 

[saltyzoo]

I don't think there is such a clear linear relationship, or a silver line there.

its not here or there, there are alot in between.

Well, perhaps, but personally I would certainly pull out features that "don't solve a problem or provide something significant" before pulling out features that do solve problems or provide something significant.

Do you think more space is wasted from poor coding, or from "useless" features? I don't know the answer to that for sure, but I'd put a good bit of money on "useless" features it if I were to bet on it. I'd even be willing to give you a gig spread on it.

 

[GimmeSlack12]

As for 10.6, it really matters on new gimmicks to launch the platform and considerable refinements to the existing platform.

How about animated Finder windows that interact with your icons, think Waterfalls pouring over your icons and as you drag something the water reacts (eye candy really).

What about an application that is the successor to iTunes and iPhoto (or iLife for that matter). And start phasing out the "i" apps.

Let's unify all computers together on the network, so any idle computers automatically contribute to distributed computing power kinda like smart memory management between apps but Processor power between networked computers.

We gotta think gimmicks first, and refinements second. Cause would you have bothered with Tiger or Leopard without Time Machine or Spaces or Spotlight or Quicklook? I wouldn't have.

 

[72930]

I'd like to see true resolution independence, with a slider scale in System Preferences to set how big everything is.

I seem to remember built in data recovery (Like Data Rescue, no backup needed) in the dev builds of Leopard. Even if not, it should definitely be included.

More advanced extracting should be at OS level, no need for Stuffit, Unarchiver etc.

 

[clevin]

Do you think more space is wasted from poor coding, or from "useless" features? I don't know the answer to that for sure, but I'd put a good bit of money on "useless" features it if I were to bet on it. I'd even be willing to give you a gig spread on it.

talk about waste of space, do we need 2G+ for printer drivers a user might never use?

Multilingual. another big guy

I means, There are much more totally wasted space apple can do better, Does iTuns need to be 120MB? safari needs to be 60MB? Address book 24MB? Calculator 7MB? iPhoto 500MB?

Make me wonder how much of the system can be done more space-effectively.

 

[saltyzoo]

talk about waste of space, do we need 2G+ for printer drivers a user might never use?

Multilingual. another big guy

I means, There are much more totally wasted space apple can do better, Does iTuns need to be 120MB? safari needs to be 60MB? Address book 24MB? Calculator 7MB? iPhoto 500MB?

Make me wonder how much of the system can be done more space-effectively.

Technically, nothing you mentioned is OS.

 

[killmoms]

talk about waste of space, do we need 2G+ for printer drivers a user might never use?

Multilingual. another big guy

I means, There are much more totally wasted space apple can do better, Does iTuns need to be 120MB? safari needs to be 60MB? Address book 24MB? Calculator 7MB? iPhoto 500MB?

Make me wonder how much of the system can be done more space-effectively.

But how are you figuring that those are "bloated," exactly? Do you just have some kind of idea about what size a program should be? Do you know WHY they are as "large" as they are from a technical standpoint?

Also, I'd consider the presence of multiple languages in an OS a huge benefit. Gone are the days when we needed localized versions of OSes sold in other countries. Have someone who speaks Japanese who needs to use your laptop in a pinch? Change the language and they can go, in their native tongue.

As for printer drivers, they're certainly easy to remove if you don't need them, but at the end of the day hard drives are cheap, and their capacity is increasing all the time. Hardly anyone cares about how much space their OS and its associated components takes on their drive unless it's truly excessive—and when hundred GB hard drives and up are readily available and even standard, I'd say even 10GB for system software (the OS, its support files and included applications) is very reasonable.

The point of increased specifications is to enable uses that were not previously possible. In other words, if that space can be used to make a user's life easier (providing drivers for many printers so it's less likely they'll have to worry about it, for instance), why not utilize it?

 

[clevin]

But how are you figuring that those are "bloated," exactly? Do you just have some kind of idea about what size a program should be? Do you know WHY they are as "large" as they are from a technical standpoint?

Its quite easy actually.
take a look ate firefox 3, 44MB, remove ppc part, 22MB. Why intel chip users would want to waste extra space for ppc part of the app?

Also, I'd consider the presence of multiple languages in an OS a huge benefit. Gone are the days when we needed localized versions of OSes sold in other countries. Have someone who speaks Japanese who needs to use your laptop in a pinch? Change the language and they can go, in their native tongue.

As for printer drivers, they're certainly easy to remove if you don't need them, but at the end of the day hard drives are cheap, and their capacity is increasing all the time. Hardly anyone cares about how much space their OS takes on their drive unless it's truly excessive.

The point of increased specifications is to enable uses that were not previously possible. In other words, if that space can be used to make a user's life easier (providing drivers for many printers so it's less likely they'll have to worry about it, for instance), why not utilize it?

Reasonable use is quite different from waste of space. A user might only have one printer in 4 years, 2G+ for that is obviously excessive. Whats a better way? I don't know, but 2G+ for that tiny printer, is excess, no matter how I look at it...

 

[smythey]

I can't believe that resolution independent UI hasn't been mentioned yet. That would really be nice.

This is the biggy for me. Will become even more of a biggy when (if) Apple refreshes the displays to have markedly higher pixel densities. I dont want to have to sit 6 inches from the screen!!

 

[killmoms]

This is the biggy for me. Will become even more of a biggy when (if) Apple refreshes the displays to have markedly higher pixel densities. I dont want to have to sit 6 inches from the screen!!

The underlying technology for this has been in OS X since Tiger, actually—it just hasn't been activated. I get the feeling that it's something that Apple wants application developers to account for before they finally make it a selling point for the OS.

 

[GimmeSlack12]

Those picking apart multi-lingual and printer drivers just are being selfish. How in the heck does Apple know what printer you have? And just remove them if you don't want them. This isn't advancing the "10.6 features" discussion one bit. And multi-lingual? Imagine what the German MacRumors forums are bitching about? Probably removing English support. Ridiculous. As if a measly 2gigs is so precious to everyone. If you're down to your last 2 gigs on your Mac then its time for a new HDD.

Regardless I would find the advent of a successor to iTunes be the next flagship feature/program to be in 10.6. Or change the the Finder to include media viewing programs (an evolution of Quicklook), I haven't seen many innovative ideas in this thread, just features that aren't quite complete in our existing iterations of Mac OS Ten.
Where are the crazy ideas?

 

[clevin]

Those picking apart multi-lingual and printer drivers just are being selfish. How in the heck does Apple know what printer you have?

So thats why each every users should spend 2G+ space on something they don't need? Just because apple can't think of a better way of doing this?

Selfish, selfish to who?

As "smart" as apple, there is really no better way of doing this? I kinda doubt that.