I would think that now is the time to hit some overdrive with the OS innovation, not to slow down. Every delay of Longhorn gives X the advantage of raising the bar of expectations, especially with the rapid code development that the X team is capable of. The acceleration of IBM's chip delivery should also fuel the effort.
I do see a problem of innovation, and from where the fresh ideas will arise. It was one thing to greatly improve the standard interface, but now how to continue to clear the path? Expose is some tasty frosting but somehow frothy as well; if only Apple could be the Frank Gehry to OS architecture, not simply the Michael Graves.
I agree with this, 3 updates in as many years is probably as much as the Mac faithful can take which is why I think we may never see a 10.4. If I remember correctly there was never an 8.4 or 8.8 or 8.9.
There was a year between 8.0 and 8.5, 8.5 and 9.0 - they just used a different numbering scheme back then and the .1 updates (8.1, 8.6, 9.1, 9.2) where free updates with little or no new features.
Just to second Barto and Kickaha. I love the current update scheme. Or would you like to wait 4 or 5 years for the next major update, like it happens now with MS? There are of course the intermediate solutions, but with the current software development level and Apple's implication in the open source projects, the one year round is what seems to me right.
I do see a problem of innovation, and from where the fresh ideas will arise. It was one thing to greatly improve the standard interface, but now how to continue to clear the path? Expose is some tasty frosting but somehow frothy as well; if only Apple could be the Frank Gehry to OS architecture, not simply the Michael Graves.
I think there's still room for improvement. The OSX UI is already very nice and advanced, but there are still things OS 9 could do that X couldn't. Hec, they can even borrow one or two things from XP ! Why not ? And then there's the speed (screen redraw) issue.
On top of that they can improve and invent new things (like minimize in place).
And if there's a company closest to Frank Gehry in UI design, then it's Apple. MS is, er... Who designes the Wall-Mart stores ?
Apple=Volkswagen Design maybe (and I say that in a good way-Volkswagen is clean but non threatening.)
Gehry still scares a lot of people and is much more edgy. With OSX looking like 1998 design-wise I wouldn't conisder that edgy.
I hear ya, but I mean you have to look at it in perspective. Or relative. What would a 'real' Frank Gehry GUI look like ? It must of the same quality like the Bilbao museum. But a GUI has a far greater useability need than a building: you can experiment more and still get away with it. Do that with an interface and everyone runs away (to Windows).
A computer also has a much greater and wider public who first of all use it as a tool. It's a conservative bunch. You have to do it one step at a time. I think that what Apple did with OSX is one of the largest leaps a GUI can take while still keeping it's public. It was sure threatening for a lot of folks. But you can't make a 'threatening' computer, because no-one but a few geeks will buy it.
Basically, you can't have a real equivalent for an 'artist' with a commercial company, even Apple. Not if you take it quite literally.
I hear ya, but I mean you have to look at it in perspective. Or relative. What would a 'real' Frank Gehry GUI look like ?
Scary, that's what is would look like!
You're right though, the transposition of disciplines probably isn't valid from a physical point of view but the some of the underlying approaches might be. What makes Gerhy's work so thought provoking is that it does just that, makes you think about what a building could be. But as you say, it only has to work once. A UI has to work daily with many, many people. Work has to get done without the ponderance of "what does this interface really mean to me"? I just hope that Apple can stay up to date with the graphic design aspect of the UI which as I say, is already out of date.
But a GUI has a far greater useability need than a building
God I hope you're not an architect
Quote:
What makes Gerhy's work so thought provoking is that it does just that, makes you think about what a building could be. But as you say, it only has to work once.
I was under the impression that many different people used buildings and at many different times of the day.
The main difference between a building and a GUI is that a building is a static, standalone, three dimensional physical thing, and a GUI is a means to organize, access and display arbitrary data on a two-dimensional screen. Gehry can make the statements he makes because he controls content and presentation. A GUI architect controls only some aspects of presentation (what widgets are available, what they look like, how they act), but not how they're assembled or what content they're used with. That is why GUIs have to be a lot more conservative than buildings: They can't assume or control nearly as much about the final result (really, there is no final result of a GUI - it changes every time you open a window).
Not to get further off topic, but a building is also bound by some fairly strict limits as well, like program, gravity, budget and owners. Many buildings also have a large subset of infrequent users, to which transparency is important. Besides knowing very little of Gehry's MO (which is to rigourously meet all functional demands first and foremost), the previous posters assertion that Gehry would design a UI like he would design a building is also absurd. Which is to say that both UI design and architecture are very difficult, but have very different constraints and degrees of freedom.
Unless Apple's gone bonkers again, 10.4 or 11.0 will be the next version.
10.4. Apple has officially changed to this number naming system.
Quote:
Originally posted by Moogs
I really doubt they've even started developing it yet, seeing as there is a lot of work yet to do to make Panther as stable as it needs to be for a wide array of users.
I'd like to bet 100 dollars, that development of 10.4 started at least 2 months before Panther made it to GM.
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank777
10.4 will be the showcase software at WWDC next Spring. The upcoming MacOS release always is.
I was thinking that SanFran might give us a glimpse, but that would definitely take the shine off Panther. And Apple wants your $129.
Put it this way: if Picasso designed a GUI, a cat couldn't find it's own kittens in a computer like that. Things would be at totaly illogical places and shifting randomly from one place to another.
...Panther is full of features, so many that i cannot think of what to add to it...
Ummm... what are you talking about? How about...
1) Improved networking, particularly sharing volumes across a network (the current system sucks as many have pointed out).
2) FTP upload and SFTP upload/download support from within the finder.
3) Snaphot/Rewind feature like Windows XP.
4) A remote desktop facility that works from within any internet browser (like Windows XP).
5) Classic-like implementation of X86 software emulation based on VirtualPC-like technology, but with support for graphics hardware (Oh I wish).
6) A ton of under-the-hood enhancements to appeal to various niche groups (e.g. software developers, web administrators, unix heads, etc.).
...to name but a few.
And other than fast user switching (which I don't use), filevault (which I don't use) and expose (which rules!), what new features did Panther add really?
Mostly it was about performance improvements, something which I'm sure still has room for improvement since it's still nowhere near as snappy as OS 9 (though I appreciate it can't ever be *quite* as fast as 9 because of preemptive multitasking, which is a fair trade imho).
I really doubt they've even started developing it yet, seeing as there is a lot of work yet to do to make Panther as stable as it needs to be for a wide array of users. I don't think there's any doubt it will be 32-bit. For one thing not that many apps and aspects of the system would benefit from 64-bit, and for another there are tens of millions of Macs out there that are 32-bit only and which constitute the VAST majority of Mac users.
???
Development projects for it have undoubteldy been in progress for over a year. Remember, the software that you think is new is old hat to the developer.
Once, before one of our user conferences, the head of software development pulled a bunch of developers at my company aside and said "I know that you have all been working on the next version for the last two years, but keep in mind that our users don't know about that and that the current version of the product works well too, so solve their probelms with the current version of the software, not the future version of the software."
Developers were working on 10.4 long before the marketers figured out what to name 10.3.
Put it this way: if Picasso designed a GUI, a cat couldn't find it's own kittens in a computer like that. Things would be at totaly illogical places and shifting randomly from one place to another.
Comments
~tommy
I do see a problem of innovation, and from where the fresh ideas will arise. It was one thing to greatly improve the standard interface, but now how to continue to clear the path? Expose is some tasty frosting but somehow frothy as well; if only Apple could be the Frank Gehry to OS architecture, not simply the Michael Graves.
Originally posted by Addison
I agree with this, 3 updates in as many years is probably as much as the Mac faithful can take which is why I think we may never see a 10.4. If I remember correctly there was never an 8.4 or 8.8 or 8.9.
There was a year between 8.0 and 8.5, 8.5 and 9.0 - they just used a different numbering scheme back then and the .1 updates (8.1, 8.6, 9.1, 9.2) where free updates with little or no new features.
Originally posted by mugwump
I do see a problem of innovation, and from where the fresh ideas will arise. It was one thing to greatly improve the standard interface, but now how to continue to clear the path? Expose is some tasty frosting but somehow frothy as well; if only Apple could be the Frank Gehry to OS architecture, not simply the Michael Graves.
I think there's still room for improvement. The OSX UI is already very nice and advanced, but there are still things OS 9 could do that X couldn't. Hec, they can even borrow one or two things from XP ! Why not ? And then there's the speed (screen redraw) issue.
On top of that they can improve and invent new things (like minimize in place).
And if there's a company closest to Frank Gehry in UI design, then it's Apple. MS is, er... Who designes the Wall-Mart stores ?
Originally posted by BigBlue
And if there's a company closest to Frank Gehry in UI design, then it's Apple.
Apple=Frank Gehry? I hardly think so!
Apple=Volkswagen Design maybe (and I say that in a good way-Volkswagen is clean but non threatening.)
Gehry still scares a lot of people and is much more edgy. With OSX looking like 1998 design-wise I wouldn't conisder that edgy.
Originally posted by delete
Apple=Frank Gehry? I hardly think so!
Apple=Volkswagen Design maybe (and I say that in a good way-Volkswagen is clean but non threatening.)
Gehry still scares a lot of people and is much more edgy. With OSX looking like 1998 design-wise I wouldn't conisder that edgy.
I hear ya, but I mean you have to look at it in perspective. Or relative. What would a 'real' Frank Gehry GUI look like ? It must of the same quality like the Bilbao museum. But a GUI has a far greater useability need than a building: you can experiment more and still get away with it. Do that with an interface and everyone runs away (to Windows).
A computer also has a much greater and wider public who first of all use it as a tool. It's a conservative bunch. You have to do it one step at a time. I think that what Apple did with OSX is one of the largest leaps a GUI can take while still keeping it's public. It was sure threatening for a lot of folks. But you can't make a 'threatening' computer, because no-one but a few geeks will buy it.
Basically, you can't have a real equivalent for an 'artist' with a commercial company, even Apple. Not if you take it quite literally.
Originally posted by BigBlue
I hear ya, but I mean you have to look at it in perspective. Or relative. What would a 'real' Frank Gehry GUI look like ?
Scary, that's what is would look like!
You're right though, the transposition of disciplines probably isn't valid from a physical point of view but the some of the underlying approaches might be. What makes Gerhy's work so thought provoking is that it does just that, makes you think about what a building could be. But as you say, it only has to work once. A UI has to work daily with many, many people. Work has to get done without the ponderance of "what does this interface really mean to me"? I just hope that Apple can stay up to date with the graphic design aspect of the UI which as I say, is already out of date.
Originally posted by tommy_thompson
I would like minimize in place though...that'd be sweet.
Here you go: http://www.haxies.com/wsx/
But a GUI has a far greater useability need than a building
God I hope you're not an architect
What makes Gerhy's work so thought provoking is that it does just that, makes you think about what a building could be. But as you say, it only has to work once.
I was under the impression that many different people used buildings and at many different times of the day.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Unless Apple's gone bonkers again, 10.4 or 11.0 will be the next version.
10.4. Apple has officially changed to this number naming system.
Originally posted by Moogs
I really doubt they've even started developing it yet, seeing as there is a lot of work yet to do to make Panther as stable as it needs to be for a wide array of users.
I'd like to bet 100 dollars, that development of 10.4 started at least 2 months before Panther made it to GM.
Originally posted by Frank777
10.4 will be the showcase software at WWDC next Spring. The upcoming MacOS release always is.
I was thinking that SanFran might give us a glimpse, but that would definitely take the shine off Panther. And Apple wants your $129.
Now.
My guess would be summer... Wait and see.
And do you really want an OS that leaks in the rain and costs a fortune because it's _really_ shiny.
It would be great to look at, though ...
Originally posted by ThunderPoit
...Panther is full of features, so many that i cannot think of what to add to it...
Ummm... what are you talking about? How about...
1) Improved networking, particularly sharing volumes across a network (the current system sucks as many have pointed out).
2) FTP upload and SFTP upload/download support from within the finder.
3) Snaphot/Rewind feature like Windows XP.
4) A remote desktop facility that works from within any internet browser (like Windows XP).
5) Classic-like implementation of X86 software emulation based on VirtualPC-like technology, but with support for graphics hardware (Oh I wish).
6) A ton of under-the-hood enhancements to appeal to various niche groups (e.g. software developers, web administrators, unix heads, etc.).
...to name but a few.
And other than fast user switching (which I don't use), filevault (which I don't use) and expose (which rules!), what new features did Panther add really?
Mostly it was about performance improvements, something which I'm sure still has room for improvement since it's still nowhere near as snappy as OS 9 (though I appreciate it can't ever be *quite* as fast as 9 because of preemptive multitasking, which is a fair trade imho).
Originally posted by Moogs
I really doubt they've even started developing it yet, seeing as there is a lot of work yet to do to make Panther as stable as it needs to be for a wide array of users. I don't think there's any doubt it will be 32-bit. For one thing not that many apps and aspects of the system would benefit from 64-bit, and for another there are tens of millions of Macs out there that are 32-bit only and which constitute the VAST majority of Mac users.
???
Development projects for it have undoubteldy been in progress for over a year. Remember, the software that you think is new is old hat to the developer.
Once, before one of our user conferences, the head of software development pulled a bunch of developers at my company aside and said "I know that you have all been working on the next version for the last two years, but keep in mind that our users don't know about that and that the current version of the product works well too, so solve their probelms with the current version of the software, not the future version of the software."
Developers were working on 10.4 long before the marketers figured out what to name 10.3.
Originally posted by BigBlue
Put it this way: if Picasso designed a GUI, a cat couldn't find it's own kittens in a computer like that. Things would be at totaly illogical places and shifting randomly from one place to another.
It would be great to look at, though ...
Picasso will own a mac for sure, let's say a Cube
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Picasso will own a mac for sure, let's say a Cube
Probably a very spherical cube...