Regarding "people have lots more files on their HDs making organization hard":
One of the largest attributing factors to this is versions. People tend to want a back up of the file before continuing work in case the file gets corrupted. A classical example lots of people have on their computers is a combination of several of the following:
- resume.doc
- resume1.doc
- resume2.doc
- resume3.doc
- resume.bak
- resume.bak1
- resume.bak2
- \\old\
esume.doc
- \\old2\
esume.doc
- \\bak\
esume.doc
- etc.
- etc.
I'd arugue that using metadata for versioning and somehow giving easy to use version control to end users would be a big win for the number and organization of files that we have.
Just look at an iPhoto library. It uses xml for a control database with lots and lots of files in a folder hierarchy to simulate versioning. iPhoto would take much less space if the filesystem stored the different saves of a file as binary diffs (like SVN does) between versions. And if the filesystem/finder could let a user grab any version of a file she chose, nobody would have to worry about needing special tools to extract older versions.
Another win would be having spotlight aware of the versioning system as well. You could search for a key word and spotlight could tell you that a year ago, the word was in file X. You could look at that old version or open up the current one...
Did you guys ever use VMS? It did OS level file versioning, and it was a complete life saver.
Say I saved a new file as MyFile, made some changes, saved it, made some more and saved it, made some more changes and saved those then realised I had cocked it up and wanted to go back a version.
Well with VMS I could open MyFile and by default I would get the latest saved version or I could open MyFile:2 or MyFile:3 etc to get back the version I wanted. IIRC the default option was to save 10 generations.
It still bugs me today when I am writing documents that I manually have to version stamp my files and preserve previous versions when this functionalilty should be there at the OS level. How many systems would have difficulty in storing up to 10 versions of your documents, presentations and pictures. Video would present a storage nightmare but for general docuemnts and code the storage needs are tiny.
This is what the (no offense intended, as I sometimes am one) clueless end user needs!
Hiding the operating system further from the user. The desktop was only the beginning. Look around at your physical desk and try to imagine what you would like incorporated into a computer's OS.
By the way, we have had mice and trackpads. The Next Big Thing will have to do away with that... but not right away...
Remember in the old Inside Macintosh programmer reference books, it used to say don't do anything with a keyboard command that you can't do with a mouse, and vice versa. The Next Big Thing will have to do with how you communicate with the computer. The mouse was a great intermediate step, but the time is coming where it will be replaced with something better.
Going back to Inside Macintosh, think about modal and modeless dialog boxes. What makes more sense?
I don't think there's going to be a "next big step" for a while, maybe years (maybe years and years). I think there's going to be incremental (but very cool) improvements as UI people figure out how to adapt the technology to making a better user experience.
Quartz --> Exposé, Finder + Mail slideshows
WebKit --> Safari, Dashboard
So, where will Tiger's (mostly) implemented technologies lead?
BTW: If you want a reason why I don't believe in 3D-GUIs, check out Microsoft Bob, one of the worst desasters in MS' history. It wasn't only ugly, but also completely confusing and always in the way. AFAIK it was the first and at the same time the last 3D-GUI ever...
Well, thank you for the link. I didn't know yet.
Regarding the topic (Mac OS: Next big step?) - as some
posters pointed out, the most important enhancement (metadata and
everything which is related to this technology)
will work under the hood. I know this is a trivial statement.
In the Apple OS world the spatial finder thing is so much
learned, it is a given that the (hierachical) finder will last
a long time to come. There is no other (visual) concept
on the horizon which can substitute the finder.
A trash is a trash, isn't it? A document is a document, isn't it?
Apple needs the finder, although i see the need to become
more and more Independent of the Finder, say, iTunes, iPhoto,
Spotlight accompanied with smart folders and so on...
In the Apple OS world the spatial finder thing is so much
learned, it is a given that the (hierachical) finder will last
a long time to come. There is no other (visual) concept
on the horizon which can substitute the finder.
<snip>
I agree - what is a city without streets? What you have in the Finder is a representation of a conventional office which has been functional for at least a couple of hundred years. However since we exist in this new "internet office space" where we deal (sometimes unknowingly) with vast amounts of tagged bits of information linked together in a manner not suited to the Finder metaphor, we are becoming (to our credit -well done us) quite accustomed to this way of working. You will find then, that what was quite crude will adopt or be given an interface which aids its usability as we see again and again in the iconic consumer software from Apple.
It might be helpful to clarify that limited information i.e address book has a different interface from iTunes and again from Spotlight, all three dealing with different outcomes and volumes of information so are required to access and breakdown content into meaningful chunks for us to understand and use.
Also
It is fascinating to see interface technology "leaders" are being introduced to us gradually where: when we know how to play the game we will get the prize!...
iTunes interface > ipod
meta data in spotlight > perhaps new global information interface alt to Finder?
Dashboard > new modular interface for portable computing
Mighty Mouse/multidirectional scrolling > new scrollable interface?
first of all, I'm not a technician? I don't know nothing about hfs+, Unix, Java, OSes? I'm just for 20 years a user?
so, my point of view is more the user interface/user metaphor?
desktop metaphor:
it is really? silly, to try to simulate a desktop on 17" space?_I don't work at a coffee table? I've seen that 2x30" - THAT is a desktop simualtion!
cultural aspects:
the first time I've seen such a trashcan, I was 12y old, we used Sesamestreet to learn english at school? trashbins over here look different, folders look different? what I've seen so far about Longhorn/Vista, that is made for 14y old collegegirls in the US midwest? the .mac hp themes don't offer any "serious" business look (as in keynote)?_ANY GUI reflects some local cutural aspects? the more you refine it, the more you exclude people? ok, Bach & Bauhaus are even respected in Japan? but not by everyone?
3D:
one simple reason why not: long ways! I don't want to "travel" to a file's location, I want my files instantly?
Spotlight/Indexing/"letter centric":
many of us here have some academic experience?_we have tried to find infos in a library, browsing hours in endless card indexes, just to find out, that Ephraim Lessing isn't spelled with an F?
The main, most convincing effect of Spotlight is speed - instantly you get your list? but 90% of my Photos are still named "DSC00200108", and not "me, the girls, at the beach"
So - no idea how, but? - one Next Big Thing would be a "non letter centric" indexing? (see below fro details?) What happend to Fuzzy Logic??
The Invisble Machine/Zero Read Usage
"A Mac is not a Computer!" - for 20y, our prefered Computer manufacturer tries to "vanish" the machine? have a "look" at Cube, mini and iMac? Have a look in your bookstore, Word Dept and compare to the "Pages" manual?_ok, ok, the support forum is full of questions so basic you can loose your mind? the people. sitting in front of a Mac, do expect a "zero read usage"? which is sometimes a little too less?
Remember the old Jeff Godblum Ads? unpack it, plug it in, "boom!" you go?
The "vanshing dock" and context menus are a first steps, to hide the UI? and it is not just a gimmick, it is - my p.o.v - human nature to see just the relevant aspects of a thing, my perception is selective, the computer shouldn't overwhelm me?_(problem with lots of DOS apps: too much options!)
-------------
as menitoned in other postings:
we still try to handle Terabytes of mp3, QTVR, h264, html, ideas, versions with a 40 (200?)y old metaphor, a beige folder, written "photos" on it.
my real life is organized very different? I remember stuff as "we showed the pics last time our neighbours were with us?", I store unsued stuff in the farest corner of my cellar, and my tax records on the kitchen table, because I need it tommorow.
the biggest problem we have to solve is Indexing ? a long time ago, I've read some article about "timeline indexing" and "crater metaphor"? I'm sure, outside the MIT, outside our Western characterized thinking some wise guy is working on that problem?
simplicity is a basic need to do complex things?
but habitualness is the hardest thing to change?
Computer users have a routine for "folders" and "desktops"?
I think, you can notice a tiny step-by-tiny step process, how Apple wants to re-educate us? but is a long way to a 60" desktop for all of us!
What if the entire OS was built using a 3D metaphor instead of trying to add 3D manipulation to the current 2D desktop (like Sun's Looking Glass). The OS could be like a 1st person shooter 3D game (think something like UT2004) and interacting with the 3D environment would be analogous to manipulating 2D windows.
Files could be organized in various ways. They could be grouped into different kinds of buildings or different locations within the 3D world. Instead of remembering which folder contains your files, you could remember a spacial location within the 3D world. (A sophisticated search might be in order to prevent any files from being lost.) The files themselves could be represented as "statues" where a different type of statue represents a different type of file. To access a file you'd simply "walk" up to the statue and press a button to interact with it.
I know this idea is out there, but I figure that in order to replace the desktop, the replacement is going to have to be very radical. I also realize that you can't completely remove all 2D elements of the OS and that applications would still run in a 2D mode.
My imagination has been working overtime on this one. Thoughts?
\ what's the point? Does it make the OS easier to use or more understandable? Not really.
Regarding "people have lots more files on their HDs making organization hard":
One of the largest attributing factors to this is versions. People tend to want a back up of the file before continuing work in case the file gets corrupted. A classical example lots of people have on their computers is a combination of several of the following:
- resume.doc
- resume1.doc
- resume2.doc
- resume3.doc
- resume.bak
- resume.bak1
- resume.bak2
- \\old\
esume.doc
- \\old2\
esume.doc
- \\bak\
esume.doc
- etc.
- etc.
I'd arugue that using metadata for versioning and somehow giving easy to use version control to end users would be a big win for the number and organization of files that we have.
Just look at an iPhoto library. It uses xml for a control database with lots and lots of files in a folder hierarchy to simulate versioning. iPhoto would take much less space if the filesystem stored the different saves of a file as binary diffs (like SVN does) between versions. And if the filesystem/finder could let a user grab any version of a file she chose, nobody would have to worry about needing special tools to extract older versions.
Another win would be having spotlight aware of the versioning system as well. You could search for a key word and spotlight could tell you that a year ago, the word was in file X. You could look at that old version or open up the current one...
Comments
Originally posted by rrabu
Regarding "people have lots more files on their HDs making organization hard":
One of the largest attributing factors to this is versions. People tend to want a back up of the file before continuing work in case the file gets corrupted. A classical example lots of people have on their computers is a combination of several of the following:
- resume.doc
- resume1.doc
- resume2.doc
- resume3.doc
- resume.bak
- resume.bak1
- resume.bak2
- \\old\
esume.doc
- \\old2\
esume.doc
- \\bak\
esume.doc
- etc.
- etc.
I'd arugue that using metadata for versioning and somehow giving easy to use version control to end users would be a big win for the number and organization of files that we have.
Just look at an iPhoto library. It uses xml for a control database with lots and lots of files in a folder hierarchy to simulate versioning. iPhoto would take much less space if the filesystem stored the different saves of a file as binary diffs (like SVN does) between versions. And if the filesystem/finder could let a user grab any version of a file she chose, nobody would have to worry about needing special tools to extract older versions.
Another win would be having spotlight aware of the versioning system as well. You could search for a key word and spotlight could tell you that a year ago, the word was in file X. You could look at that old version or open up the current one...
Did you guys ever use VMS? It did OS level file versioning, and it was a complete life saver.
Say I saved a new file as MyFile, made some changes, saved it, made some more and saved it, made some more changes and saved those then realised I had cocked it up and wanted to go back a version.
Well with VMS I could open MyFile and by default I would get the latest saved version or I could open MyFile:2 or MyFile:3 etc to get back the version I wanted. IIRC the default option was to save 10 generations.
It still bugs me today when I am writing documents that I manually have to version stamp my files and preserve previous versions when this functionalilty should be there at the OS level. How many systems would have difficulty in storing up to 10 versions of your documents, presentations and pictures. Video would present a storage nightmare but for general docuemnts and code the storage needs are tiny.
Owen
Originally posted by Owen
...OS level file versioning...
This is what the (no offense intended, as I sometimes am one) clueless end user needs!
Hiding the operating system further from the user. The desktop was only the beginning. Look around at your physical desk and try to imagine what you would like incorporated into a computer's OS.
By the way, we have had mice and trackpads. The Next Big Thing will have to do away with that... but not right away...
Remember in the old Inside Macintosh programmer reference books, it used to say don't do anything with a keyboard command that you can't do with a mouse, and vice versa. The Next Big Thing will have to do with how you communicate with the computer. The mouse was a great intermediate step, but the time is coming where it will be replaced with something better.
Going back to Inside Macintosh, think about modal and modeless dialog boxes. What makes more sense?
Quartz --> Exposé, Finder + Mail slideshows
WebKit --> Safari, Dashboard
So, where will Tiger's (mostly) implemented technologies lead?
Quartz2d Extreme --> ?
CoreImage + CoreVideo --> ?
resolution independence --> ?
Originally posted by Smircle
...
BTW: If you want a reason why I don't believe in 3D-GUIs, check out Microsoft Bob, one of the worst desasters in MS' history. It wasn't only ugly, but also completely confusing and always in the way. AFAIK it was the first and at the same time the last 3D-GUI ever...
Well, thank you for the link. I didn't know yet.
Regarding the topic (Mac OS: Next big step?) - as some
posters pointed out, the most important enhancement (metadata and
everything which is related to this technology)
will work under the hood. I know this is a trivial statement.
In the Apple OS world the spatial finder thing is so much
learned, it is a given that the (hierachical) finder will last
a long time to come. There is no other (visual) concept
on the horizon which can substitute the finder.
A trash is a trash, isn't it? A document is a document, isn't it?
Apple needs the finder, although i see the need to become
more and more Independent of the Finder, say, iTunes, iPhoto,
Spotlight accompanied with smart folders and so on...
my2cents
Originally posted by niji
whatever happened to heaps or piles concept?
Microsoft took it
Originally posted by Vox Barbara
<snip>
I know this is a trivial statement.
In the Apple OS world the spatial finder thing is so much
learned, it is a given that the (hierachical) finder will last
a long time to come. There is no other (visual) concept
on the horizon which can substitute the finder.
<snip>
I agree - what is a city without streets? What you have in the Finder is a representation of a conventional office which has been functional for at least a couple of hundred years. However since we exist in this new "internet office space" where we deal (sometimes unknowingly) with vast amounts of tagged bits of information linked together in a manner not suited to the Finder metaphor, we are becoming (to our credit -well done us) quite accustomed to this way of working. You will find then, that what was quite crude will adopt or be given an interface which aids its usability as we see again and again in the iconic consumer software from Apple.
It might be helpful to clarify that limited information i.e address book has a different interface from iTunes and again from Spotlight, all three dealing with different outcomes and volumes of information so are required to access and breakdown content into meaningful chunks for us to understand and use.
Also
It is fascinating to see interface technology "leaders" are being introduced to us gradually where: when we know how to play the game we will get the prize!...
iTunes interface > ipod
meta data in spotlight > perhaps new global information interface alt to Finder?
Dashboard > new modular interface for portable computing
Mighty Mouse/multidirectional scrolling > new scrollable interface?
/uo
first of all, I'm not a technician? I don't know nothing about hfs+, Unix, Java, OSes? I'm just for 20 years a user?
so, my point of view is more the user interface/user metaphor?
desktop metaphor:
it is really? silly, to try to simulate a desktop on 17" space?_I don't work at a coffee table? I've seen that 2x30" - THAT is a desktop simualtion!
cultural aspects:
the first time I've seen such a trashcan, I was 12y old, we used Sesamestreet to learn english at school? trashbins over here look different, folders look different? what I've seen so far about Longhorn/Vista, that is made for 14y old collegegirls in the US midwest? the .mac hp themes don't offer any "serious" business look (as in keynote)?_ANY GUI reflects some local cutural aspects? the more you refine it, the more you exclude people? ok, Bach & Bauhaus are even respected in Japan? but not by everyone?
3D:
one simple reason why not: long ways! I don't want to "travel" to a file's location, I want my files instantly?
Spotlight/Indexing/"letter centric":
many of us here have some academic experience?_we have tried to find infos in a library, browsing hours in endless card indexes, just to find out, that Ephraim Lessing isn't spelled with an F?
The main, most convincing effect of Spotlight is speed - instantly you get your list? but 90% of my Photos are still named "DSC00200108", and not "me, the girls, at the beach"
So - no idea how, but? - one Next Big Thing would be a "non letter centric" indexing? (see below fro details?) What happend to Fuzzy Logic??
The Invisble Machine/Zero Read Usage
"A Mac is not a Computer!" - for 20y, our prefered Computer manufacturer tries to "vanish" the machine? have a "look" at Cube, mini and iMac? Have a look in your bookstore, Word Dept and compare to the "Pages" manual?_ok, ok, the support forum is full of questions so basic you can loose your mind? the people. sitting in front of a Mac, do expect a "zero read usage"? which is sometimes a little too less?
Remember the old Jeff Godblum Ads? unpack it, plug it in, "boom!" you go?
The "vanshing dock" and context menus are a first steps, to hide the UI? and it is not just a gimmick, it is - my p.o.v - human nature to see just the relevant aspects of a thing, my perception is selective, the computer shouldn't overwhelm me?_(problem with lots of DOS apps: too much options!)
-------------
as menitoned in other postings:
we still try to handle Terabytes of mp3, QTVR, h264, html, ideas, versions with a 40 (200?)y old metaphor, a beige folder, written "photos" on it.
my real life is organized very different? I remember stuff as "we showed the pics last time our neighbours were with us?", I store unsued stuff in the farest corner of my cellar, and my tax records on the kitchen table, because I need it tommorow.
the biggest problem we have to solve is Indexing ? a long time ago, I've read some article about "timeline indexing" and "crater metaphor"? I'm sure, outside the MIT, outside our Western characterized thinking some wise guy is working on that problem?
simplicity is a basic need to do complex things?
but habitualness is the hardest thing to change?
Computer users have a routine for "folders" and "desktops"?
I think, you can notice a tiny step-by-tiny step process, how Apple wants to re-educate us? but is a long way to a 60" desktop for all of us!
Originally posted by baranovich
Here's an imaginative idea:
What if the entire OS was built using a 3D metaphor instead of trying to add 3D manipulation to the current 2D desktop (like Sun's Looking Glass). The OS could be like a 1st person shooter 3D game (think something like UT2004) and interacting with the 3D environment would be analogous to manipulating 2D windows.
Files could be organized in various ways. They could be grouped into different kinds of buildings or different locations within the 3D world. Instead of remembering which folder contains your files, you could remember a spacial location within the 3D world. (A sophisticated search might be in order to prevent any files from being lost.) The files themselves could be represented as "statues" where a different type of statue represents a different type of file. To access a file you'd simply "walk" up to the statue and press a button to interact with it.
I know this idea is out there, but I figure that in order to replace the desktop, the replacement is going to have to be very radical. I also realize that you can't completely remove all 2D elements of the OS and that applications would still run in a 2D mode.
My imagination has been working overtime on this one. Thoughts?
It fails the first test.
Does it make it faster to operate? No.
Then there is really no point.
Originally posted by rrabu
Regarding "people have lots more files on their HDs making organization hard":
One of the largest attributing factors to this is versions. People tend to want a back up of the file before continuing work in case the file gets corrupted. A classical example lots of people have on their computers is a combination of several of the following:
- resume.doc
- resume1.doc
- resume2.doc
- resume3.doc
- resume.bak
- resume.bak1
- resume.bak2
- \\old\
esume.doc
- \\old2\
esume.doc
- \\bak\
esume.doc
- etc.
- etc.
I'd arugue that using metadata for versioning and somehow giving easy to use version control to end users would be a big win for the number and organization of files that we have.
Just look at an iPhoto library. It uses xml for a control database with lots and lots of files in a folder hierarchy to simulate versioning. iPhoto would take much less space if the filesystem stored the different saves of a file as binary diffs (like SVN does) between versions. And if the filesystem/finder could let a user grab any version of a file she chose, nobody would have to worry about needing special tools to extract older versions.
Another win would be having spotlight aware of the versioning system as well. You could search for a key word and spotlight could tell you that a year ago, the word was in file X. You could look at that old version or open up the current one...
Now there's a good idea.