Top Secret Features (leopard)

[icfireball]

OK -- Here is how this thread is going to work:

Post things in RED that you realisticly THINK will be one of those "Top Secret" Leopard Features. Or in other words, the prediction list.

Post things in BLUE that you HOPE will be a "Top Secret" feature, even if this feature is not likely. Or in other words, the wish list.

For all you wishfull thinkers out there who think their hope for a feature really will be a feature, I suppose you could post in PURPLE

And things you think WON'T be includded in GRAY

Have fun.

1, 2, 3... Go!

I'll bet you in the time it took me to count to three, Vista got delayed again.

Virtualization
Redesigned Finder / UI Overhaul
Resolution Independance
Stickty Widgets (widgets floating on screen without dashboard open
Heavily meta data based Finder

[hmurchison]

ZFS File System addition to HFS+
Resolution Independence
FTP features in the finder
Core Animation UI where you have a 3D view of file/folder hierarchy
Quartz Extreme 2D
Automator 2 beefed up controls. Easy and Pro modes
Core Text- Unified API for font control
Core Data 2
Core Audio Extreme
Core Image/Video 2
Built in Mapping
Built in GPS

[Gene Clean]

1. More iPhoto templates
2. More Dashboard widgets
3. A Not-To-Do list
4. iTunes 14.

[danielctull]

Automator 2 beefed up controls. Easy and Pro modes

More advanced Applescript integration.

Also something I hope for is Quartz Composer like layout. So you can have many different things happening in parallel, with many results being passed through and events taking in more than one value. To me it's been an obvious step since I played around with Quartz Composer...

[blackbird_1.0]

New Finder, with more/better metadata integration.
Updated UI.
Better FTP support in the Finder.
iChat supporting more services.
To finally be able to change system font in System Preferences.

[the kid 05]

whats ZFS that hmurchison wants?

[hmurchison]

the kid 05

Check this out.

http://www.sun.com/2004-0914/feature/

ZFS meets the needs of a file system for everything from desktops to data centers. Designed with the administrator in mind, ZFS is the only self-healing, self-managing general-purpose file system. It offers:

Simple administration
ZFS automates and consolidates complicated storage administration concepts, reducing administrative overhead by 80 percent.

Provable data integrity
ZFS protects all data with 64-bit checksums that detect and correct silent data corruption
.
Unlimited scalability
As the world's first 128-bit file system, ZFS offers 16 billion billion times the capacity of 32- or 64-bit systems.

Blazing performance
ZFS is based on a transactional object model that removes most of the traditional constraints on the order of issuing I/Os, which results in huge performance gains.

Apple feel free to add ZFS in 10.5.5

[the kid 05]

thats pretty cool, a self fixing file system :) yes apple include.

this quote is scary though

"Populating 128-bit file systems would exceed the quantum limits of earth-based storage. You couldn't fill a 128-bit storage pool without boiling the oceans."

[hmurchison]

LOL that is scary but that's all you can east seafood right there.

I think ZFS is pretty nice SUN is already using in in this Gonzo storage device they recently announced so it is in production.

Whether or not Apple decides to utilize it depends on how limiting HFS+ regarding where they want to go in the future vs how difficult getting ZFS to boot and meet all the freatures of HFS+.

I'm not filesystem fan but I do like data protection because every decade hard drive expand by a factor of 100x meaning by 2016 we're going to be routinely seeing desktops with 30-50TB storage systems. That's the avg so imagine what corporations will be managing. Petabytes.

[JakeTheRock]

Also something I hope for is Quartz Composer like layout. So you can have many different things happening in parallel, with many results being passed through and events taking in more than one value. To me it's been an obvious step since I played around with Quartz Composer...

Well, that would be AWESOME!!
When I first heard of automator, I thought of something like QC, even though I had not seen either.
I BELIVE, that something like QC would be included for widgets, at least that's what i heard from a freind...

[Celemourn]

eh, the LAST word on file systems? almost. Boil the oceans? What? Why is that a problem? I'd like to direct attention at this time to the book entitled, "Redemption Ark" by Alastair Reynolds. Actually, go read the prequel to that book. Yes, read the whole thing.

Yeah. Sci-Fi is fun. And it tends to predict the future, in a rather generic sort of way.

Why NOT use a planet or planetoid for data storage? Or as a whole computer? *Waves at Douglas*

:D

[SpamSandwich]

eh, the LAST word on file systems? almost. Boil the oceans? What? Why is that a problem? I'd like to direct attention at this time to the book entitled, "Redemption Ark" by Alastair Reynolds. Actually, go read the prequel to that book. Yes, read the whole thing.

Yeah. Sci-Fi is fun. And it tends to predict the future, in a rather generic sort of way.

Why NOT use a planet or planetoid for data storage? Or as a whole computer? *Waves at Douglas*

:D

There is a patent for a system called "radiated information" that is essentially a data storage method where data is bounced between two or more stations to increase storage. Imagine bouncing info between the moons of a planet or between the planets themselves... :)

As far as quantum entanglement for information storage or transfer, I don't think volume is the issue. If I understand correctly (and I'm not saying I do) the information is destroyed once it's observed, or the act of observing it changes it.

[drnat]

I would like better iCal integration with iMac, so I can view my callanders & edit them on-line from any computer, including a PC (which I have to use at work:( with a direct link from iMac

[icfireball]

I'd love to have better iCal integration with Cell Phones, Google Calendar and/or iCal online calendar viewing application that edits and saves .ics files (or whatever the iCal exention is).

[Vox Barbara]

Spring-loaded Dock folder:lol: :lol: :lol:
Uhh, its existence is confirmed already.

Seriously:
I'd love to label files within the save dialog.
I'd love to see a better/improved save to PDF function, say, much smaller files.
I'd love to see tabbed Finder windows

Do you guys remember the old classic functionality of dragging
an extension onto the system folder and the extension is put right
into the proper location automatically by the OS?
I'd love to see a similar functionality in Leopard.

I'd love to see/hear some awsome names like "Time Machine".

The name alone is amazing, and tells me a lot about the
ingenious suits, who came up with such an idea.
Hey "Time machine" sounds a lot better than
"restore from date blablabla", does it not?
It is marketing at its best, is it not?

Btw, adding an Empty button inside the new Trash window
is just lame. It is just a concession to long time Windows Users,
if you ask me.

[blackbird_1.0]

Does it seem like Apple is slowly moving ICal and Mail into like a PIM type suite (w/ iChat/iSight support)?

[Placebo]

To finally be able to change system font in System Preferences.
Ew no.

[meelash]

Do you guys remember the old classic functionality of dragging
an extension onto the system folder and the extension is put right
into the proper location automatically by the OS?
I'd love to see a similar functionality in Leopard.


HEAR, HEAR....8)

[icfireball]

Does it seem like Apple is slowly moving ICal and Mail into like a PIM type suite (w/ iChat/iSight support)?

NO! Apple made a point in the keynotes that these programs were better seperate.

[kenaustus]

After traveling a lot overseas on business I've learned that not all hotels have high speed internet. What I would love to see is a slower, reduced resolution for iSight chats using the dial up lines that are available in hotel rooms - even when you have to jury rig the connection. It would also appeal to potential customers who live in the country and don't have the ability to get a high speed line, as well as those that want to be able to attach their mobile phone now and then. Sadly, Apple is tending to forget that the world is not all high speed and they are moving away from the potential of this market.

[meelash]

After traveling a lot overseas on business I've learned that not all hotels have high speed internet. What I would love to see is a slower, reduced resolution for iSight chats using the dial up lines that are available in hotel rooms - even when you have to jury rig the connection. It would also appeal to potential customers who live in the country and don't have the ability to get a high speed line, as well as those that want to be able to attach their mobile phone now and then. Sadly, Apple is tending to forget that the world is not all high speed and they are moving away from the potential of this market.
text chat??

[Vox Barbara]

text chat??
:lol:

[shakerben]

new finder

surely it's time.

[othello]

location manager like the original OS 8/9 version: so i can change location and change settings (such as network port, appletalk, default printer, ichat/isight prefs) with one click.

sftp in the finder. actually, make that working ftp in the finder: i know this is a pet peeve of mine...

[Vox Barbara]

location manager like the original OS 8/9 version: so i can change location and change settings (such as network port, appletalk, default printer, ichat/isight prefs) with one click.
...
I am not sure, whether location manager as found in Classic is
needed any more. But by hearing location manager i'd had to think about
briefly how many lightyears ahead Mac OS 8/9 was compared to Windows
in these days.

cheers

[meelash]

location manager like the original OS 8/9 version: so i can change location and change settings (such as network port, appletalk, default printer, ichat/isight prefs) with one click.

sftp in the finder. actually, make that working ftp in the finder: i know this is a pet peeve of mine...
umm... we have a location menu in the Apple menu. It's controlled under Network Prefs.

:???:

[lundy]

I think there is little doubt that there is an all-new Finder. The Finder was basically not shown in the WWDC keynote at all.

Or could it be that the level of load/save/search in all the iApps and in the Open and Save dialogs makes the Finder obsolete and it does not exist as a separate app any more?


new finder

surely it's time.

[Amorph]

I think there is little doubt that there is an all-new Finder. The Finder was basically not shown in the WWDC keynote at all.

Or could it be that the level of load/save/search in all the iApps and in the Open and Save dialogs makes the Finder obsolete and it does not exist as a separate app any more?

That would be ironic, given that open and save dialogs only exist because the original Mac OS couldn't run the Finder and another app at the same time. With the advent of Mac OS X I wondered if the open and save dialog would go away now that the OS really could multitask, but I suppose the file dialogs are just too entrenched in user expectations, and in cross-platform code.

It could also be that they didn't show Finder because they have nothing to show, and we'll be greeted with the same old Finder we know and, uh, love. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, if Apple's intention is to make the Finder less and less necessary over time. The more metadata-rich files become, the less useful a general-purpose file manager is. Nevertheless I imagine Finder will be around for a while, simply because there will always be some tasks which require you to manipulate files on disk simply as files on disk, and the most sensible interface is one which sees all that rich content through that simple lens.

As for the thread topic: AppleScript 2.0, finally.

[Kickaha]

umm... we have a location menu in the Apple menu. It's controlled under Network Prefs.

:???:

Heh. OS X Location only controls the network settings. OS9's Location controlled... everything. You could set up your printers, audio, mounted drives, you name it, and they'd be set when you changed locations. It did a *lot* more.

[meelash]

Heh. OS X Location only controls the network settings. OS9's Location controlled... everything. You could set up your printers, audio, mounted drives, you name it, and they'd be set when you changed locations. It did a *lot* more.
That's like having a separate login, no? I never really used System 9 (except for Classico) having jumped from system 7 to Jaguar so I don't really have a feel for what location was like...

[Kickaha]

In a way, yes, it was rather like having a whole other login environment - without the file permissions hassles. It's one thing I kind of miss from 9.

There are a couple of solutions out there, for pay, but you can try this approach for free: http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20060613164904421&query=location

It's a rough way of triggering other actions (any actions) when you change Locations. Requires command line and script work, but it's doable.

[othello]

Heh. OS X Location only controls the network settings. OS9's Location controlled... everything. You could set up your printers, audio, mounted drives, you name it, and they'd be set when you changed locations. It did a *lot* more.

IMHO it was very cool and a big thing for laptop users.

[othello]

thanks Kickaha -- didn't know people had made versions location manager for OS X.

this (http://homepage.mac.com/locationmanager/screenshots.html) looks interesting, but i cannot help fell that apple should be doing it themselves. after all, they wrote location manager to serve the growing numbers of laptop owners in the first place!

[Mr Beardsley]

I'm guessing we won't see a new finder in Leopard. Why would they waste the time to add grid spacing to icons in the current finder if it was going to be replaced with something else? I may be wrong about this, but sadly I'm not expecting much to happen in finder land.

[JLL]

A new Finder = an upgraded Finder

There's nothing wrong by adding some features to the Finder in the WWDC seed and then add more later on.

[Vox Barbara]

Apple won't drop the name Finder. Although the functionality changes
a bit from time to time. Anyway, if Apple would get rid of the Finder as
it is now, and there will be only one Spotlight based well,... environment.
How would you call that ...er...environment...er... GUI. Let me guess: Finder?

[mrtotes]

Quicktime 8

and another £19 to go Pro.

[TenHanger]

Virtualization
Redesigned Finder / UI Overhaul
Resolution Independance
Stickty Widgets (widgets floating on screen without dashboard open
Heavily meta data based Finder[/QUOTE]



Wow, this was a great thread start, but I was totally disappointed with the answers. I think the problem is you are all Mac users. As a PC user, I can tell you exactly when Leopard needs to give Apple the big juicing it needs to stop being a geekland and go mainstream like the iPod.

VIRTUALIZATION: There's now 2 cores running x86, and maybe 4 in the near future. We already have Boot Camp and Parallels, niether of which is what non-Apple buyers want. Boot Camp requires the dreadful reboot, but good side is Windows runs native to processor. for instance, when a website doesn't work on safari, you're going to want to open IE (or Firefox) immediately to get the job done, but if you have to reboot, that's a lot of precious time wasted that non-geeks don't have. Reboots aren't an option for the masses, remember this all you geeks, and niether is a complicate installation such as Boot Camp. I don't care HOW easy it is, it's still a pain for the common simpleton like me.
Parallels doesn't run Windows properly, close, but no cigar. What new-to-Mac users want is the ability to go from Apple OS to Windows with the press of a "Switch" button on the keyboard that's big and green and simple. Can't get a website to work in Safari? SWITCH. The software you want only comes in Windows flavor? SWITCH. Boom, you are done. Apple became a real company again based on ONE single decision: Jobs finally got smart and ported the iTunes to run on Windows machines. This was the best decision he's made since the early 80s. So now he needs to take the final step, and allow all us Apple-phobiacs to be able to walk into the Apple store, and buy a very cool looking iMac fully knowing it can run either Windows (for Dad) and Apple (for the kids and Mom), and both at the same time. No reboots, no complicated installs, SWITCH. Right on the keyboard so my 75 year old father can do it without even knowing what he's doing. Maybe it doesn't have to be a button on the keyboard, but it better be damn easy, as easy as switching from Firefox to IE browser. Why else would Apple have waited until Vista is shipping a couple of months to release Leopard? It's not because he's trying to hide stuff from Microsoft, he's doing it so he can ship the dual-OS system to run Vista and QA the computer so its seemless. This is what I hope anyway, and I hope it for Apple, even though it's a company I've never liked, and run by a guy who never learned marketing until recently. If Apple pulls this off, you will see your world change quickly. If not, this board will continue to have geeky comments posted by the same APPostLE crowd that's always followed this company like a religion-- small beans.

[Celemourn]

Virtualization
Redesigned Finder / UI Overhaul
Resolution Independance
Stickty Widgets (widgets floating on screen without dashboard open
Heavily meta data based Finder



Wow, this was a great thread start, but I was totally disappointed with the answers. I think the problem is you are all Mac users. As a PC user, I can tell you exactly when Leopard needs to give Apple the big juicing it needs to stop being a geekland and go mainstream like the iPod.

VIRTUALIZATION: There's now 2 cores running x86, and maybe 4 in the near future. We already have Boot Camp and Parallels, niether of which is what non-Apple buyers want. Boot Camp requires the dreadful reboot, but good side is Windows runs native to processor. for instance, when a website doesn't work on safari, you're going to want to open IE (or Firefox) immediately to get the job done, but if you have to reboot, that's a lot of precious time wasted that non-geeks don't have. Reboots aren't an option for the masses, remember this all you geeks, and niether is a complicate installation such as Boot Camp. I don't care HOW easy it is, it's still a pain for the common simpleton like me.
Parallels doesn't run Windows properly, close, but no cigar. What new-to-Mac users want is the ability to go from Apple OS to Windows with the press of a "Switch" button on the keyboard that's big and green and simple. Can't get a website to work in Safari? SWITCH. The software you want only comes in Windows flavor? SWITCH. Boom, you are done. Apple became a real company again based on ONE single decision: Jobs finally got smart and ported the iTunes to run on Windows machines. This was the best decision he's made since the early 80s. So now he needs to take the final step, and allow all us Apple-phobiacs to be able to walk into the Apple store, and buy a very cool looking iMac fully knowing it can run either Windows (for Dad) and Apple (for the kids and Mom), and both at the same time. No reboots, no complicated installs, SWITCH. Right on the keyboard so my 75 year old father can do it without even knowing what he's doing. Maybe it doesn't have to be a button on the keyboard, but it better be damn easy, as easy as switching from Firefox to IE browser. Why else would Apple have waited until Vista is shipping a couple of months to release Leopard? It's not because he's trying to hide stuff from Microsoft, he's doing it so he can ship the dual-OS system to run Vista and QA the computer so its seemless. This is what I hope anyway, and I hope it for Apple, even though it's a company I've never liked, and run by a guy who never learned marketing until recently. If Apple pulls this off, you will see your world change quickly. If not, this board will continue to have geeky comments posted by the same APPostLE crowd that's always followed this company like a religion-- small beans.

Microsoft makes IE for Mac. Also there are FireFox and Opera available. Of those three, Safari has been found to be the most compatible with web pages which use web standards. Only the rogue pages who do stupid customized stuff tend to not work.... there was a post somewhere around here about that.... Go wiki Acid_2 test. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_2)

One of the wonderful aspects of BootCamp is that it walks us right through the process. It's really (no, I mean REALLY. Like, literally) just as easy as installing a fresh copy of windows. Oh, right. Ok, never mind then. :lol:

BTW, the more opinionated a post is around here, the more the writer gets flamed. :D Just thought I'd give ya a heads up. :D

[TenHanger]

I take the flames well.

First of all, I am not a geek, so I don't reload operating systems, that's something the people in the factories at Dell and HP and Apple do. If I EVER have to reload an operating system, the computer goes in the trash. This is a geek forum, I"m trying to give you all a view of what it is like to not spend 100% of my time trying to figure out technology, but 100% of my time USING technology. You already lose when you say Boot Camp is good enough, or the websites that don't work on Safari are stupid. They are NOT stupid, they optimize for a standard that hits 80-95% of us, and that standard is IE 6 & 7. What's stupid is if you think Apples work when you try to bastardize them with Office for Macs or IE for Macs. It's shaky stuff at best. However, putting Windows onto a Mac in the box shouldn't be shaky, and would address 80% of the market, just as iTunes did when they wrote the software for Windows. This isn't rocket science, but perhaps to a tech geek it is. Engineers get paid less than salesmen, because engineers don't listen to salesmen when they are told what the general public wants. THE GENERAL PUBLIC WILL NEVER LEARN WHAT YOU WANT THEM TO LEARN, STOP TRYING. This is the whole idea behind user-friendliness. Any ass can operate an iPod having never touched one before. The same must be true of the dual-OS Mac.

The bottom line is, Apple won't win the war until it "joins them". Without cuddling the general public by making a machine they can buy and not worry about all the Apple incompatibilities, Apple will stay at around 5% market share in computers. Eventually, MSFT will design hardware and software and services that work well, and that will be the end of Apple's run. But right now there's a wide open window for Apple to make a killing. But it must try to appeal to people like me, who refuse to buy a Mac until a Mac has no downside, i represent that 80%.

I was in an internet cafe and tried using the Mac to do some transactions on a website I use a lot. The pages wouldn't load properly. I couldn't complete my task, Apple and Safari left me high and dry. The website I was using was used by millions, and this was only a year ago. End of story people, I'd never buy a Mac for that reason alone. Who writes software for Mac first and then Windows, almost no one. Windows first, then Apple OS if your product is really killing it. Heck, even Google knows this. Everything comes out Windows first, Apple maybe later, MUCH later. The general public doesn't have the patience of an APPostLE. We want stupid simple, and we vote with our wallet. We buy iPods, and we connect them to Windows and we have no reason (right now) of changing. It's a shame really, cuz Apple makes a better looking machine, and maybe even it operates better, but if you allow me to buy both, run both at will, quickly, then I'll pay the extra $100 or $200 for a 2nd OS so that I can be the cool guy that has it all with no downside.

This whole thing reminds me of the band "The Cure". Tons of wierdos loved the Cure in the early 80s. Then the Cure created some pop music that the general public really liked. This was viewed as a sellout for the Cure devoted. However, the members of the Cure made a LOT of money, and made some really great "pop" songs that people love, and the guys/gals that were on the bandwagon early moved on to something else (probably U2, or the Grateful Dead). Apple is the Cure in the early 80s right now. They just need to right the pop music that the masses want. If the APPolytes want Apple to remain a 5-10% market share rogue state, that's great. But somehow I would think Jobs & Co would like to hit the big time one day, so they don't have to be so bitter towards Steve Ballmer.







Microsoft makes IE for Mac. Also there are FireFox and Opera available. Of those three, Safari has been found to be the most compatible with web pages which use web standards. Only the rogue pages who do stupid customized stuff tend to not work.... there was a post somewhere around here about that.... Go wiki Acid_2 test. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_2)

One of the wonderful aspects of BootCamp is that it walks us right through the process. It's really (no, I mean REALLY. Like, literally) just as easy as installing a fresh copy of windows. Oh, right. Ok, never mind then. :lol:

BTW, the more opinionated a post is around here, the more the writer gets flamed. :D Just thought I'd give ya a heads up. :D

[meelash]

You've obviously never actually tried Parallels. It does do exactly what you claim "80-95% of us" (:???::rolleyes:) need. I'm especially pleased with the latest release and it's development in the area of seamless interaction between OS's.

[lfe2211]

TenHanger, you make some very excellent points, particularly with regard to the success of the Ipod and the need for simplicity of use of PCs. I work productively in both the OSX and XP universes. Though I much prefer Apple/OSX, I like it when windows folk point out obvious marketing realities and "blind spots" to Apple devotees. Forums like this need counterpoints presented articulately so that Apple Geekdom can expand its horizons and better understand the rest (95%) of the pc world. Thanks for that TH.

Since this forum is about predictions for top secret features in Leopard, my wish is for full support for Multi-Touch technology (MT) which was previewed in a very understated way by Jobs in the iPhone part of the keynote. This technology, apparently now wholly owned and patented by Apple, will revolutionize the way users interact with computers. See my posts on MT and FingerWorks technology here (towards the end of page 1 and on page 2):

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=70695

Also see the posts here:

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=70688

[audiopollution]

Microsoft makes IE for Mac.

Nope.

Development ceased in 2003 and it was pulled from the MS website in January 2006.

[TenHanger]

You've obviously never actually tried Parallels. It does do exactly what you claim "80-95% of us" (:???::rolleyes:) need. I'm especially pleased with the latest release and it's development in the area of seamless interaction between OS's.

You are right that I've never tried Parallels, and I never will. That fact that you HAVE tried it, means you are obviosly an Apple devotee, or as I'd call it an "Appostle". Therefore, your eye-rolling makes no sense, as 80-95% of 5% is in reality 4-4.75% of what consumers as-a-whole need. You are in that 4%, I am in the 96%-- listen to me, or rather LISTEN to me. The avg Joe doesn't want to have to purchase Parallels or VMWare or even be required to say those words. He just wants to open the box, plug the device into the wall, throw the directions in the trash, and begin running two operating systems at the same time. At MOST, maybe Apple would require the consumer to buy his own copy of Vista and put the CDs into the CD bay, answering "OK" with a mouse click one, maybe two times after that. Any more complicated than that, and Apple can simply subtract market share from any future projections.

[wirc]

As a PC user, I can tell you exactly when Leopard needs to give Apple the big juicing it needs to stop being a geekland and go mainstream like the iPod.
Wow. You must be new here. How is the iPod not geeky? How is the Mac geeky? Go over to Slashdot (http://www.slashdot.com) and see what real geeks think about Macs.

We already have Boot Camp and Parallels, niether of which is what non-Apple buyers want. Boot Camp requires the dreadful reboot, but good side is Windows runs native to processor.
You know this for sure? Market data suggest otherwise - sales suggest otherwise.

for instance, when a website doesn't work on safari, you're going to want to open IE (or Firefox) immediately to get the job done, but if you have to reboot, that's a lot of precious time wasted that non-geeks don't have. Reboots aren't an option for the masses, remember this all you geeks, and niether is a complicate installation such as Boot Camp. I don't care HOW easy it is, it's still a pain for the common simpleton like me.
There are at least 8 web browsers that operate on the Macintosh. Safari's WebKit is arguably the best engine out there. And there is Firefox and it's more Mac-like cousin, Camino. I don't consider my aunt to be a geek, and she has absolutely no problem with Boot Camp.

Actually bundling Vista with a Mac is stupid and misses the whole point of buying a Mac. Apple won't do it, and if they did it would suggest a lack of confidence in their product. Plus, Computers would cost a lot more, since they have to buy Vista anyway. I don't want to pay for that POS when I move to Intel. Moreover, the computer essentially would no longer be a Mac, it would be an "Apple (with mac)." Why prostitute the brand like that?

Parallels doesn't run Windows properly, close, but no cigar.
Please explain.

Apple became a real company again based on ONE single decision: Jobs finally got smart and ported the iTunes to run on Windows machines.
Half-true. it did boost the marketshare, as well as all the attention the company was getting, as well as having a prominent position in thousands of malls across the country. People saw, and tried.

This was the best decision he's made since the early 80s. So now he needs to take the final step, and allow all us Apple-phobiacs to be able to walk into the Apple store, and buy a very cool looking iMac fully knowing it can run either Windows (for Dad) and Apple (for the kids and Mom), and both at the same time.
First off, looks are only a small part of the reason people buy Macs for the second time. It's the OS, the interface, and the design. The aesthetics/cool factor are only a part. Why you are Apple-phobic is beyond me, as is my own Apple phobia from before I used one.

Why else would Apple have waited until Vista is shipping a couple of months to release Leopard? It's not because he's trying to hide stuff from Microsoft, he's doing it so he can ship the dual-OS system to run Vista and QA the computer so its seemless.
Because it takes a long time to write code and get it right. Once you've used OS X long enough, you'll understand why people think Parallels, VMWare, and CrossOver are satisfactory. And can you imagine the RAM wasted to keep a whole separate OS working all the time?
This is what I hope anyway, and I hope it for Apple, even though it's a company I've never liked, and run by a guy who never learned marketing until recently. If Apple pulls this off, you will see your world change quickly.
Steve Jobs has always been a master marketer. That is the so-called Reality Distortion Field. And actually, most of his advertising was better before the "Get a Mac" ads.

And it's better not to flame meelash's signature, and just ignore it, or else I'll have to start throwing some kittens around.

[lundy]

How would you propose that this be done?

The majority of Mac users who are recent switchers appreciate the fact that they have Windows available for those one or two apps that are vertical market Windows-only, or required for their work. They do not intend to run mainly Windows on their Mac machines.

Apple isn't going to sell a system that comes preloaded with Vista. Dream on. They need to expand the installed base of their OS, not become another Wintel maker.

As far as websites that won't work on Mac OS, that is the fault of the website. Safari is W3C compliant, and IE is not. If a webmaster is not concerned about cutting off his website from 35 million potential viewers, to hell with him.


The avg Joe doesn't want to have to purchase Parallels or VMWare or even be required to say those words. He just wants to open the box, plug the device into the wall, throw the directions in the trash, and begin running two operating systems at the same time.

[iPeon]

I"m trying to give you all a view of what it is like to not spend 100% of my time trying to figure out technology, but 100% of my time USING technology.

If that is the case, why are you using Windows?

[KD86]

Actually bundling Vista with a Mac is stupid and misses the whole point of buying a Mac. Apple won't do it, and if they did it would suggest a lack of confidence in their product. Plus, Computers would cost a lot more, since they have to buy Vista anyway. I don't want to pay for that POS when I move to Intel. Moreover, the computer essentially would no longer be a Mac, it would be an "Apple (with mac)." Why prostitute the brand like that?

Exactly! If Apple preloaded Vista, they wouldn't really be Macs, and they'd be more expensive. Then they are just another Dell, HP, Gateway, etc. Plus it sends the message that Apple is admitting defeat and surrendering to PC's to all the ignorant noobs who think Bill Gates is the brains and innovator behind the computer industry. If someone can't deal with a vast minority of websites that aren't compatible with Safari and are too lazy to either use a different browser or utilize Boot Camp or Parallels, then by all means, just stick with a PC. I'm not gonna lose sleep over it :)

[Kickaha]

No kidding, iPeon. As someone who works on XP at work, and MacOS X at home and for my private CS research, I think I can firmly say... XP feels like a toy. More so, it feels like a half-assed, cobbled together monstrosity that is lacking any attention to detail or thought in its design. I spend most of my time fighting the idiotic thing *instead* of getting work done. If it's not doing something completely at odds with itself, it's acting like a hyper three year old trying to be helpful.

To make my employer happy, I use the XP machine. For real work, I use my Mac... because it stays out of my way, and it just works.

And TenHanger, isn't that exactly what you'd rather be doing, instead of dealing with Windows?

[dacloo]

I disagree that it feels like a toy. It's a very responsive system in general, more responsive than MacOS which has quite some delays even with 2GB of memory. Also file management is far more effective.
However, MacOS feels more stable, and when something crashes, MacOS doesn't go beserk like Windows (strangely the harddrive is going beserk, paging stuff I guess). Also, sound is much better on MacOSX, much more responsive.

They both give a different experience, I think it's easy to bash OS #1 and praise OS #2.

[Kickaha]

I disagree that it feels like a toy. It's a very responsive system in general, more responsive than MacOS which has quite some delays even with 2GB of memory. Also file management is far more effective.

I agreed with you on the former, (as long as you don't tax the poor thing - OS X is much better at handling a couple dozen open apps at once) but whaaaa? File mgmt is *effective*? How so? There's no rhyme nor reason to the where things go on the disk. It's like dealing with Mac OS9 in that regards, but without the obvious clues as to why things are where they are. User accounts are obviously an after-thought, and it feels even worse at trying to hide 'the real disk' from you than even OS9 did.

Or are you speaking of moving files around?

They both give a different experience, I think it's easy to bash OS #1 and praise OS #2.

Every OS has issues, and problems, no doubt. What I'm talking about is the complete lack of craftsmanship and attention to detail that I run into in XP on a daily basis. It *feels* like something slapped together by committee, without a unified design plan. For instance...

I read a review of Vista that said that Windows (XP an Vista both) is like a hyper 3 yr old, endlessly wanting to make sure you know how helpful they are, and apparently terrified you might forget that they're there, while MacOS X is like a gentleman's gentleman, standing silently on the side until an opportunity for assistance is noted, given, and then shrugged off as simply business as normal. I couldn't agree more. I am constantly barraged by notices on my XP laptop that serve zero useful purpose. My favorite one on Friday was plugging in a USB 2.0 USB key, and having it tell me 1) New hardware had been detected. 2) New hardware was now ready for use. 3) The USB device would work faster if plugged into a USB 2.0 port.

1) Thank you for stating the obvious - it should always be detected. I would not expect you to tell me that a key on my keyboard had been pressed every time I did it, nor would I expect this. Unless the standard situation is that hardware is *not* detected, ie, it fails, then this shouldn't be a notification. Notify me when the unexpected occurs, not when things are as normal. The fact that anyone thought this was a necessary notification puts a chill up my spine. It reads like something you have in there while you're debugging, and don't expect it to work.

2) How very odd. You said it was detected, then you make a second notice to tell me it's ready... why not just... let me use it? Bring up an Explorer window showing the data device, or otherwise give me *any* visual feedback that it has been mounted? To be fair, it does bring up a dialog asking how I want to interact with the data device, giving me a list of possibilities like "View pictures as slideshow", and in there is "View device in Explorer". This just strikes me as that hyper 3 yr old again though - the tools to show slideshows, etc, are already in Explorer, (and *very* prominent in that silly task bar on the left, I might add,) so why add an unnecessary barrier to interacting with the device I just plugged in? Note also that *any* feedback here, even the original notification, makes the notice in #1 utterly superfluous.

3) Here's the icing on the cake. Okay, this is kind of useful, in a way, even though most users won't have a clue what it means. I think to myself "Ok, so there's a USB1.x bus, and a USB 2.0 bus on this machine. Common enough. But I only saw two USB ports... hmm..." Into the Hardware panel I go, and find out... the machine *has no USB 2.0 ports*. So please, explain why it gave me the useless notice? Can't the OS tell what hardware it has underneath?

It's precisely this sort of thing that drives me nuts. It's just a complete lack of attention to detail in places that matter, leading to an explosion of semi-useful or downright false information being thrown at the user. I don't care if it's a computer, a car, or any other kind of tool, lack of design detail makes my brain boil over.

And that's just the user experience. As a developer, it's much, much worse.

[meelash]

3) Here's the icing on the cake. Okay, this is kind of useful, in a way, even though most users won't have a clue what it means. I think to myself "Ok, so there's a USB1.x bus, and a USB 2.0 bus on this machine. Common enough. But I only saw two USB ports... hmm..." Into the Hardware panel I go, and find out... the machine *has no USB 2.0 ports*. So please, explain why it gave me the useless notice? Can't the OS tell what hardware it has underneath?


I thought I was the only one. This drives me absolutely insane every time I plug in a flash drive. It's just SO STUPID. It just happened to you last Friday? I have to deal with this every freakin' day and it gets more irritating as time goes on, not less, believe me....

[lundy]

RE: Please Do Not Feed the Trolls
I will handle the moderation, if you don't mind. Your post is off-topic.

[physguy]

Had a thought and dug up this thread as being appropriately titled. What if one of the secret features was an Apple polished and spruced up Open Office??? This might make sense given the way that Jobs/Apples seems to have opened up the taunting factor against MSFT/Vista. People here have worried in the past about alienating the Mac BU and MSFT and them cancelling the Office product for Mac. With the ongoing progress with ODF adoption and even MSFT's ODXML and Apple participation in the open source software this might make a lot of sense. ?????

[meelash]

er.. what would happen to iWork

[kansukee hasegawa]

You are right that I've never tried Parallels, and I never will. That fact that you HAVE tried it, means you are obviosly an Apple devotee, or as I'd call it an "Appostle". Therefore, your eye-rolling makes no sense, as 80-95% of 5% is in reality 4-4.75% of what consumers as-a-whole need. You are in that 4%, I am in the 96%-- listen to me, or rather LISTEN to me. The avg Joe doesn't want to have to purchase Parallels or VMWare or even be required to say those words. He just wants to open the box, plug the device into the wall, throw the directions in the trash, and begin running two operating systems at the same time. At MOST, maybe Apple would require the consumer to buy his own copy of Vista and put the CDs into the CD bay, answering "OK" with a mouse click one, maybe two times after that. Any more complicated than that, and Apple can simply subtract market share from any future projections.

You bitch and whine about wanting a dual OS machine yet you won't even consider trying Parallels or Bootcamp???That right there takes away any credibility you may have had.

[physguy]

er.. what would happen to iWork

To me iWork offers other things, or better things, or different things. I'm not sure but if the Mac NEEDs office for compatibility with the Window's world then this could be a way. It may be tat the OO source base is to bloated and convoluted for this to happen, or not? I really don't know but if ODF takes off as a standard, like Texas and Mass. and Minn. are leaning then this might be a was to break this dependency.

[Macintosh_Next]

I would like better iCal integration with iMac, so I can view my callanders & edit them on-line from any computer, including a PC (which I have to use at work:( with a direct link from iMac

It's called .mac syncing. I have done this with Tiger. Sure, it's not free, but nothing is now in days.

I'm guessing we won't see a new finder in Leopard. Why would they waste the time to add grid spacing to icons in the current finder if it was going to be replaced with something else? I may be wrong about this, but sadly I'm not expecting much to happen in finder land.
I think Finder will be updated -- it needs to be with Explore being updated. i find the search functionaitly in it being very, very unuseful. Maybe it's just me not being able to use it correctly. Will it be "new and improved"? Who knows.


Virtualization
Redesigned Finder / UI Overhaul
Resolution Independance
Stickty Widgets (widgets floating on screen without dashboard open
Heavily meta data based Finder



Wow, this was a great thread start, but I was totally disappointed with the answers. I think the problem is you are all Mac users. As a PC user, I can tell you exactly when Leopard needs to give Apple the big juicing it needs to stop being a geekland and go mainstream like the iPod.

VIRTUALIZATION: There's now 2 cores running x86, and maybe 4 in the near future. We already have Boot Camp and Parallels, niether of which is what non-Apple buyers want. Boot Camp requires the dreadful reboot, but good side is Windows runs native to processor. for instance, when a website doesn't work on safari, you're going to want to open IE (or Firefox) immediately to get the job done, but if you have to reboot, that's a lot of precious time wasted that non-geeks don't have. Reboots aren't an option for the masses, remember this all you geeks, and niether is a complicate installation such as Boot Camp. I don't care HOW easy it is, it's still a pain for the common simpleton like me.
Parallels doesn't run Windows properly, close, but no cigar. What new-to-Mac users want is the ability to go from Apple OS to Windows with the press of a "Switch" button on the keyboard that's big and green and simple. Can't get a website to work in Safari? SWITCH. The software you want only comes in Windows flavor? SWITCH. Boom, you are done. Apple became a real company again based on ONE single decision: Jobs finally got smart and ported the iTunes to run on Windows machines. This was the best decision he's made since the early 80s. So now he needs to take the final step, and allow all us Apple-phobiacs to be able to walk into the Apple store, and buy a very cool looking iMac fully knowing it can run either Windows (for Dad) and Apple (for the kids and Mom), and both at the same time. No reboots, no complicated installs, SWITCH. Right on the keyboard so my 75 year old father can do it without even knowing what he's doing. Maybe it doesn't have to be a button on the keyboard, but it better be damn easy, as easy as switching from Firefox to IE browser. Why else would Apple have waited until Vista is shipping a couple of months to release Leopard? It's not because he's trying to hide stuff from Microsoft, he's doing it so he can ship the dual-OS system to run Vista and QA the computer so its seemless. This is what I hope anyway, and I hope it for Apple, even though it's a company I've never liked, and run by a guy who never learned marketing until recently. If Apple pulls this off, you will see your world change quickly. If not, this board will continue to have geeky comments posted by the same APPostLE crowd that's always followed this company like a religion-- small beans.

Maybe the key to your problems is not Virtualization, but emulation. Meaning, Safari 3.0 being able to emulate an IE environment. Meaning that Apple's OS will be powerful enough to emulate some, if not all, programs that run on Windows. Linux has been doing some of this for quite some time, anf if they can pull of broswer emulation...that would be great.


And guys, you MUST have Finder. Go into Safe Boot and try to use Spotlight. it's disabled. Why? I don't know. So yea...

[dutch pear]

Parallels doesn't run Windows properly, close, but no cigar. What new-to-Mac users want is the ability to go from Apple OS to Windows with the press of a "Switch" button on the keyboard that's big and green and simple. Can't get a website to work in Safari? SWITCH. The software you want only comes in Windows flavor? SWITCH. Boom, you are done.

Uhm, dude, that is EXACTLY what parallels allows you to do :???: :no:

[max_naylor]

Microsoft makes IE for Mac. Also there are FireFox and Opera available. Of those three, Safari has been found to be the most compatible with web pages which use web standards. Only the rogue pages who do stupid customized stuff tend to not work.... there was a post somewhere around here about that.... Go wiki Acid_2 test. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_2)

One of the wonderful aspects of BootCamp is that it walks us right through the process. It's really (no, I mean REALLY. Like, literally) just as easy as installing a fresh copy of windows. Oh, right. Ok, never mind then. :lol:

BTW, the more opinionated a post is around here, the more the writer gets flamed. :D Just thought I'd give ya a heads up. :D

Microsoft made IE for Mac. Made IE for Mac. Piece of shit it was, too.

[meelash]

re: this post and especially the previous post>> ummm... deja vu? :\

[physguy]

re: this post and especially the previous post>> ummm... deja vu? :\

meelash, is this worth moving to a new thread to get out of the meaningless background, or not worth it? what do you think?

[Macintosh_Next]

Uhm, dude, that is EXACTLY what parallels allows you to do :???: :no:

Yea...I didn't say that...for some reason TenHanger's post didn't quote properlly..it should be fixed now.

Microsoft made IE for Mac. Made IE for Mac. Piece of shit it was, too.

Yes it was, and yes it was...it won't even load quickly...its like dial up even if you have cable internet....I had it...but its just not worth it.

re: this post and especially the previous post>> ummm... deja vu? :\

And if u are referring back to my and dutch pear's post, your right. I quoted someone (TenHanger) and it didn't quote or I did so,ething..not sure. Then dutch pear said the exact same thing someone said to the other guys post....soooo....yea. "deja vu?"

[agent_orange]

Who writes software for Mac first and then Windows, almost no one.

I believe Adobe would fall into this category.

[SpinDrift]

ZFS File System addition to HFS+
Resolution Independence
FTP features in the finder
Core Animation UI where you have a 3D view of file/folder hierarchy
Quartz Extreme 2D
Automator 2 beefed up controls. Easy and Pro modes
Core Text- Unified API for font control
Core Data 2
Core Audio Extreme
Core Image/Video 2
Built in Mapping
Built in GPS


I agree with the above and also add the folowing:

Piles - New way of organising groups of files
Multi Touch - Ready for a new breed of touch displays later in the year
Virtualization - Install and run Windows apps in OS X

I really hope the built in mapping and GPS functionality do happen.

[krispie]

There aren't any secret features.

The whole point of Beta testing is that features get tested.

So you don't suddenly do a release with loads of stuff that wasn't in the test versions.

IF (IF IF) there are secret features, then the release of Leopard will be put back for MONTHS.

[physguy]

There aren't any secret features.

The whole point of Beta testing is that features get tested.

So you don't suddenly do a release with loads of stuff that wasn't in the test versions.

IF (IF IF) there are secret features, then the release of Leopard will be put back for MONTHS.

Not if they're applications.

[Flounder]

There aren't any secret features.

The whole point of Beta testing is that features get tested.

So you don't suddenly do a release with loads of stuff that wasn't in the test versions.

IF (IF IF) there are secret features, then the release of Leopard will be put back for MONTHS.


Well, Jobs came right out and said at WWDC they weren't showing us everything....... I fail to see why apple would say that if it wasn't true.

[icfireball]

I agree with the above and also add the folowing:

Piles - New way of organising groups of files
Multi Touch - Ready for a new breed of touch displays later in the year
Virtualization - Install and run Windows apps in OS X

I really hope the built in mapping and GPS functionality do happen.

I don't know how many times we have to go over this. There will be no new display from Apple that has Multi-touch unless that display is tablet, and Jobs has given his opinion of an Apple tablet, now hasn't he?

[meelash]

I don't know how many times we have to go over this. There will be no new display from Apple that has Multi-touch unless that display is tablet, and Jobs has given his opinion of an Apple tablet, now hasn't he?
haha, as he gave his opinion of the video on the iPod, and TV shows on Macs and the Newton.....

Bottom line is, he is a reasonable man that will change his mind if conditions change and the implementation of something becomes practical. I think Multi-touch does this for tablets in a huge way, now that it's been established that they actually exist...

[lundy]

As said, separate applications can be tested on their own.
Also, those of us who are Select/Premier do not get the uber-secret builds that the big third-party developers get. And even above that can be internal Apple testing. For example, none of the iApps are released to Select/Premier for testing - all of that is done by Apple QA and by a small list of trusted groups.

There aren't any secret features.

The whole point of Beta testing is that features get tested.

So you don't suddenly do a release with loads of stuff that wasn't in the test versions.

IF (IF IF) there are secret features, then the release of Leopard will be put back for MONTHS.

[kcmac]

Not if they're applications.
Now we're talkin'! I think you're right on target.

[SpinDrift]

There aren't any secret features.

The whole point of Beta testing is that features get tested.

So you don't suddenly do a release with loads of stuff that wasn't in the test versions.

IF (IF IF) there are secret features, then the release of Leopard will be put back for MONTHS.

Far from it. I used to work for a software development company and we would never release full versions for public Beta testing. Core functionality would go out, but any new developments, or so called secret features would be tested in-house. Public Betas are only really needed to test robustness on a large scale. It wouldn't be the first time that Apple have introduced a few new features on launch.

[icfireball]

As said, separate applications can be tested on their own.
Also, those of us who are Select/Premier do not get the uber-secret builds that the big third-party developers get. And even above that can be internal Apple testing. For example, none of the iApps are released to Select/Premier for testing - all of that is done by Apple QA and by a small list of trusted groups.

Or more example of Apps that don't have public Betas:

iTunes
iLife
Aperture

But Secret Features are not indicative of no public beta testing. The features could be announced before the release and thus are subject to public beta testing, but they just haven't been announced yet.

The primary reason for a beta (in my mind at least) is development. In OS betas it's development of Apps that run on the new OS. In software it is to get feedback from users to the software can be better developed, and I mean developed in the broad sense of the word, not the technical sense, per se.

[tink]

So we'll see.
;)

[Macintosh_Next]

I don't know how many times we have to go over this. There will be no new display from Apple that has Multi-touch unless that display is tablet, and Jobs has given his opinion of an Apple tablet, now hasn't he?

iPhone has a version of Leopard. It has multi-touch. I think that alone tells you it's possible that Leopard will have multi-touch.

[SS3 GokouX]

Wouldn't programs need to take advantage of a multi-touch API in order to use it well? I'm sure Apple could add some basic functionality through the magic of Cocoa that all Cocoa apps would receive, but I doubt the cooler aspects of multi-touch could be utilized until apps were updated. And by the look of things, Apple won't be revealing this multi-touch API until after Leopard ships.

[Hobbes]

Since this forum is about predictions for top secret features in Leopard, my wish is for full support for Multi-Touch technology (MT) which was previewed in a very understated way by Jobs in the iPhone part of the keynote. This technology, apparently now wholly owned and patented by Apple, will revolutionize the way users interact with computers.

It's an absolutely fascinating technology, though I'm not convinced that it's wholly owned and patented by Apple. Jeff Han has been working on this for a few years now.

MR posted an extraordinary demo from Perceptive Pixel (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/02/12/more-multitouch-from-jeff-han/). Check it out and drool.

I'm convinced Leopard will feature some of this stuff, but I'm not sure about the feasibility of bringing multi-touch to existing displays. The big question, to my mind: is a single iSight powerful/savvy enough to detect user movement without the necessity of a touch-sensitive screen? If so, then Apple bundling in iSights for every Mac w/ a display for the past two years begins to look like part of a much larger, interesting, and ambitious plan.

Also, Apple has to deal with Kickaha's patent. ;)

[physguy]

Is there a good description/definition of Multi-Touch technology (MTT)? I thought MTT referred to the hardware capability to simultaneously detect two or more points of interaction with the screen. On that video (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/02/12/more-multitouch-from-jeff-han/) I could only identify a few gesture derived from that capability

- point (basic mouse gesture)
- zoom (in or out)
- rotate (in screen or out of screen (tilt))
- anchor and move (keep one area or object stationary while moving another)

Beyond that what is seen is a whole lot of UI ideas implemented with these basic gestures. What are people asking for in Leopard, these gestures or a whole new UI based on them? The later is much much tougher to make something good.

Or am I missing the whole point here?? :)

[Hobbes]

Beyond that what is seen is a whole lot of UI ideas implemented with these basic gestures. What are people asking for in Leopard, these gestures or a whole new UI based on them? The later is much much tougher to make something good.

Agreed -- I'm expecting a refreshed UI for Leopard: a less bubbly, more minimal and sleeker look & feel that uses perspective, light, shadow, and some dramatic and snazzy animations via CoreAnimation... plus major Spotlight, and smaller Finder, Dock, and general UI enhancements.

I'm not expecting a revolutionary new gesture/multi-touch/voice recognition-based UI... at least not just yet (Leopard+1, anyone?).

But one can dream. ;)

* * *

More on Han and Perceptive Pixel here (http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/112/open_features-canttouchthis.html).

Of interest is that MSR (Microsoft Research) has also been working on this -- they call it TouchLight -- and are selling high-end versions (50K+) for medical 3D imaging.

As usual, though, Apple seems to be the first to take it, in a popular, usable form, to the mainstream consumer market.

It will be interesting to see just how far back Apple's patents extend.

[fisha]

On that video I could only identify a few gesture derived from that capability

- point (basic mouse gesture)
- zoom (in or out)
- rotate (in screen or out of screen (tilt))
- anchor and move (keep one area or object stationary while moving another)


Pretty much exactly my thoughts. What more do you need to handle the simple things? There are already common universal methods that devices use to manage commands into the OS ( such as a mouse wheel and scrolling ) so why not simply apply a gesture to the same command.

I dont think it would be hard to do. In fact, i reckon you could even make it possible to implement simple gesture at the iSight. For example, in iChat and the moving backgrounds dont you just have to let it take a snapshot as a reference?, and then it'll figure out the moving sections and paint the image on the non-moving sections based on its snapshot.

It wouldn't be too hard for it to take a few reference samples of a hand gesture / movement and recognise them. Imagine scrolling... hand up towards ( not right on the screen though ) top corner, move smoothly down to bottom corner. motion tracking could follow that easily. it only has to be a gesture . . . not exact for the command to be recognised.


... a slightly further idea ... hand up towards the corner and with a finger pointed outwards, a little wiggle of the finger first which indentifies a gesture command ( OS could even place a red gesture icon/pointer glowing circle on screen as overlay to shows its picked up the gesture ) and then computer can track the original source point of the *wiggle* and see what the gesture is.

Then you could have 2 hand gestures for the zooming and rotating . . . 2 fingers, 2 wiggles, 2 red circles, 2 movements . . . 1 implemented action.

[meelash]

Pretty much exactly my thoughts. What more do you need to handle the simple things? There are already common universal methods that devices use to manage commands into the OS ( such as a mouse wheel and scrolling ) so why not simply apply a gesture to the same command.

I dont think it would be hard to do. In fact, i reckon you could even make it possible to implement simple gesture at the iSight. For example, in iChat and the moving backgrounds dont you just have to let it take a snapshot as a reference?, and then it'll figure out the moving sections and paint the image on the non-moving sections based on its snapshot.

It wouldn't be too hard for it to take a few reference samples of a hand gesture / movement and recognise them. Imagine scrolling... hand up towards ( not right on the screen though ) top corner, move smoothly down to bottom corner. motion tracking could follow that easily. it only has to be a gesture . . . not exact for the command to be recognised.


... a slightly further idea ... hand up towards the corner and with a finger pointed outwards, a little wiggle of the finger first which indentifies a gesture command ( OS could even place a red gesture icon/pointer glowing circle on screen as overlay to shows its picked up the gesture ) and then computer can track the original source point of the *wiggle* and see what the gesture is.

Then you could have 2 hand gestures for the zooming and rotating . . . 2 fingers, 2 wiggles, 2 red circles, 2 movements . . . 1 implemented action.
It's not really that easy to implement this using a camera. You are thinking it's simple because it comes so naturally to a human or animal, but we actually have very complicated "computers" and two eyes that enable us to perform gesture recognition and generally pick out and isolate solid objects in three dimensions. If Apple was able to easily implement this kind of recognition using only a single camera, it would be a huge deal in the robotics field...

[fisha]

It's not really that easy to implement this using a camera. You are thinking it's simple because it comes so naturally to a human or animal, but we actually have very complicated "computers" and two eyes that enable us to perform gesture recognition and generally pick out and isolate solid objects in three dimensions. If Apple was able to easily implement this kind of recognition using only a single camera, it would be a huge deal in the robotics field...


Its been perfectly possible with the eyeToy device for the PS2. A very simple example of the eyeToy was one where all you had to do was stand in front of the camera on top of the TV The screen showed a very faint overlay of what the camera saw ( i.e. you ) and then loads of bubbles floating around on the screen. All you had to do was wiggle your finger beside a bubble and it'd pop and make a little sound. This worked in full screen mode.

You example of having to co-ordinate onto a 3d point is too extreme and too accurate. All the camera has to do is to identify a relatively appropriate movement area which is changing rapidly in relation to its surroundings, the wiggle, which is fairly simple to implement in terms of image comparison. ( iChat already does similar by having the changable backgrounds - its comparing moving sections against realtive stationary sections )

Then once its identified a movement area, it just has to a very basic track of the direction of movement. The area of movement to track ( the hand ) wont visually change too much from the perstpective of the camera, so simple template and motion track along with some obvious knowledge of up, down, left and right motion tracks which it can choose from, it should be easy to guess the gesture.

Accurate tracking for super precise scrolling may be much more difficult, but in simple gesture principles of flicking between images in a slideshow, going back and forward between pages on a web browser etc, it should not be that hard.

[Kickaha]

It's not really that easy to implement this using a camera.

Actually, it took me 45 minutes to write a prototype using QuickTime back in 2002...

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~smithja/facetop

Gestures hooked into Cocoa, 'mouse' events, the whole bit. Surpasses the eyeToy by quite a bit, and predated it.

fisha is right, you don't have to do any 3D mapping - that's the beauty of this system... it completely eliminates the need for expensive 3D spatial recognition or registration hardware. Instead, it uses what's between our ears to do all the heavy lifting.

[fisha]

Kickaha,

Thats really cool . . . very similar to what i was thinking . . . including hooking to the mouse or keyboard events.

How accurate could you make the system? Down to what size . . . your finger tip?



oops:

I should have read all that in more detail. . . i see the green box now around your fingertip.

How come you didn't take it any further? or have you?

[Kickaha]

Actually, I haven't worked on it appreciably since 2004, but a couple of other students ran with it. It was a fun side-project, but I needed to get back to my dissertation. :)

We had it accurate to about a 4x4 pixel area on the camera, which translated to about a 10x10 spot on the screen. Then we used some simple heuristics to keep it from jumping around in that area... was really quite smooth. Another student put many of the gestures in, and he was able to select blocks of text to a character accuracy, and click, double-click, you name it. He was *good* with it.

The green block was just a visual feedback indicator during development so we could see the local search region.

[meelash]

Actually, it took me 45 minutes to write a prototype using QuickTime back in 2002...

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~smithja/facetop

Gestures hooked into Cocoa, 'mouse' events, the whole bit. Surpasses the eyeToy by quite a bit, and predated it.

fisha is right, you don't have to do any 3D mapping - that's the beauty of this system... it completely eliminates the need for expensive 3D spatial recognition or registration hardware. Instead, it uses what's between our ears to do all the heavy lifting.
You're right, I believe we've even discussed this on this forum before and I'd forgotten about it. Cool stuff :)