Apple close to unveiling guarded Snow Leopard UI overhaul

12357

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 122
    useroneuserone Posts: 55member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by satchmo View Post


    Steve's master plan is to bring this full circle and have Apple's neXT user interface, in monochromatic shades of grey.



    This thread is so Good! - on so many different levels.

    On one hand there is the argument over resolution independence and then on the other we are reminiscing over GIZMO. Now, what fantastic insight by @satchmo has revealed what could *actually* be the case... "monochromatic shades of grey".



    BTW does anyone remember the "Architect/NotePad" UI Scheme developed by Apple JAPAN?



    /usr01
  • Reply 82 of 122
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,503member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


    You do realize that as soon as the majority of Apple users switch to Intel Macs, Apple will want to enlist AMD.



    And steve can bring out AMD holding a wafer with the slogan, ``I just works.''
  • Reply 83 of 122
    msnlymsnly Posts: 378member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jimzip View Post


    Hey, as long as you can switch it back to the OS 9 sound set in the Appearance pane, I'm good.



    Jimzip



    Agreed.
  • Reply 84 of 122
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    I said that 28% of Mac users who are still using PPC's aren't too happy about that prospect.



    Even if your figures are correct, that's not the relevant statistic. The relevant statistic would be how many PPC owners would buy Snow Leopard.



    Typically, when computers get to about 4-5 years old, people stop upgrading them. Not always, but the percentage drops pretty quickly. So if Apple released 10.6 as Universal, the percentage of PPC owners buying it would be far less than the 28% of Macs that use PPC.



    It goes even further than that. If Apple releases 10.6 as Intel only, some percentage of those PPC owners might use that as an excuse to upgrade, so some incremental percentage of new hardware sales would be created by NOT supporting PPC.



    I certainly don't profess to know what those numbers are, but the end result is that supporting PPC would double Apple's work, greatly increase the size of the program, add a lot more bugs, increase the support costs and add something less than 28% of additional sales.



    If Apple decides it's not worthwhile, it wouldn't surprise me.
  • Reply 85 of 122
    greglogreglo Posts: 63member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JayInSF View Post


    FWIW, the only crashes I get in Safari are due to the Flash plugin. You can verify this by looking at the stack backtrace in CrashReporter.



    Super. I hope you enjoy you using your Safari.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JayInSF View Post


    As far as Safari's memory consumption goes, it's probably a safe assumption that the 'too much memory' is cached web content.



    No, that's not a safe assumption. I suggest you go and watch a single 400 MB+ flash movie (i.e. online TV) and watch as Safari ratchets up to over 1.5 GB of memory use, even with a restart and everything cleared.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JayInSF View Post


    How do you define 'too much', how are you making that assessment?



    Are you joking? Can't afford a dictionary? You know one comes with your Mac, right?



    It's 'too much' when I can 'assess' that the memory usage is:



    a.) Disproportionate to the tasks being performed.



    b.) Disproportionate to the time running.



    c.) See below.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JayInSF View Post


    If Safari wasn't doing that caching, would you be complaining instead that it's 'too slow'?



    I probably would, yes. Unfortunately Safari does that caching (see a.)) but is still slow. Eventually when the program hits over 1 GB generally its impossible to carry on with any sort reasonable responsiveness. So we have:



    c.) Increased memory consumption by Safari does not necessarily increase its speed or responsiveness.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JayInSF View Post


    A memory/time tradeoff is a pretty common software engineering issue.



    Yep. And evidently it still is.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JayInSF View Post


    Apple has decided to focus on speed.



    Apple hasn't focused on anything with Safari 3. They just need you to believe they did.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JayInSF View Post


    I think



    Woah, slow down there.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JayInSF View Post


    most people appreciate that.



    You're not most people. But evidently you 'think' (term used loosely) everyone else is also blind to Safari's failings.
  • Reply 86 of 122
    @greglo



    If you want people to respect your opinion, you can start by not acting like a total douche.
  • Reply 87 of 122
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    Would you really refer to GUI changes as a feature? I wouldn't.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by John Appleseed View Post


    Actually they did say this, in the original Snow Leopard press release: "... we hit the pause button on new features ..."



    And Apple's Snow Leopard web page refers to "taking a break from adding new features".



  • Reply 88 of 122
    sc_marktsc_markt Posts: 1,397member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    What would you like to see in the Finder? I think a lot of people want more flexibility but often it's hard to find a consensus as to what features people want/need.



    I'd like the ability to shade just the folders (using the labels feature) like you could do in classic. I'd also like the ability to change the label colors.



    I'm not asking much...
  • Reply 89 of 122
    i'm guessing it will look something like this

  • Reply 90 of 122
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,358member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by football930 View Post


    i'm guessing it will look something like this







    Coming soon:



    "Removed at the request of Apple Legal"
  • Reply 91 of 122
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by emig647 View Post


    They will see those changes at WWDC and have roughly two months. For the most part their UI's will change along with the OS if they wrote a normal Cocoa Application. As much as I hate to say this, Apple can / will do whatever they want. They've screwed us devs many times over.



    What's the difference between you & the devs who rave about how great the Apple OS is for development? What product do you develop, I'm curious? Are the praisers all posers?
  • Reply 92 of 122
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by football930 View Post


    i'm guessing it will look something like this





    Oh my...I sure hope not cause that would be the worst interface makeover ever!
  • Reply 93 of 122
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hezekiahb View Post


    oh my...i sure hope not cause that would be the worst interface makeover ever!



    amen!!!
  • Reply 94 of 122
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,334member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by John Appleseed View Post


    Actually they did say this, in the original Snow Leopard press release: "... we hit the pause button on new features ..."



    And Apple's Snow Leopard web page refers to "taking a break from adding new features".



    That doesn't include all of his statement, in which he made clear that they would be adding new features, just not a load.



    Jobs had said the same thing.



    We've been over this before and I, in addition to others, had provided links to the relevant articles. I don't have them now, but they are there.



    Besides, from what we've been seeing lately, since 10.6 has first been shown, that there are new features popping up all over the place.
  • Reply 95 of 122
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,334member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by emig647 View Post


    I could go into countless times they screwed over the developers. I understand about the icons / fonts, but for a majority if they followed apple's human interface design guidelines there shouldn't be any problem.



    If Apple will be moving to light type over a dark background, that's not in the guidelines.



    In fact, that's OUT of guidelines overall, where in publishing, it's long been recognized that light type on a dark background is less legible, and less readable. I don't see how following Apple's OLD guidelines will help.



    Quote:

    Apple appears on the outside to help developers, when in reality they are just hurting themselves. For instance only providing coding headstarts and ADC on iTunes to developers willing to shell out $500 for a membership. That kind of stuff should be free so it promotes better development environments for the devs.



    Most major companies charge for that. Why should Apple be different? It cuts out the riffraff.



    Quote:

    I'm sure a very few of the top companies HAVE seen it... i.e. adobe and such. But that doesn't help 99.99% of the developers out there. At the last WWDC SJ insinuated it would be out in about a year. Supposedly WWDC will be a little early this year, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was released during WWDC, or shortly after.



    I doubt that helping everyone is actually helpful when Apple just beginning to alpha some features. Too much feedback is worse then too little then. Once these features get better fleshed out, and more usable, that when BETA testing should proceed. I'm sorry that some small developers feel left out. It doesn't seem to help MS and its legion of developers to have every single beta out to them. No reason why it would help there either.



    With so many developers saying that they can't even start until Apple releases the finished product, I don't mourn for them for not getting almost useless code so much earlier.
  • Reply 96 of 122
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,334member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    Even if your figures are correct, that's not the relevant statistic. The relevant statistic would be how many PPC owners would buy Snow Leopard.



    Typically, when computers get to about 4-5 years old, people stop upgrading them. Not always, but the percentage drops pretty quickly. So if Apple released 10.6 as Universal, the percentage of PPC owners buying it would be far less than the 28% of Macs that use PPC.



    It goes even further than that. If Apple releases 10.6 as Intel only, some percentage of those PPC owners might use that as an excuse to upgrade, so some incremental percentage of new hardware sales would be created by NOT supporting PPC.



    I certainly don't profess to know what those numbers are, but the end result is that supporting PPC would double Apple's work, greatly increase the size of the program, add a lot more bugs, increase the support costs and add something less than 28% of additional sales.



    If Apple decides it's not worthwhile, it wouldn't surprise me.



    I'm not saying that Apple WILL do this, only that's it's not yet been made clear that they won't, despite a lot of people making assumptions.



    It took years for Apple to stop supporting Classic on NEW machines.



    Apple always points out how easy it is to do Universal apps. A click of the button! I know that optimizations are more work than that, but most software out there is Universal now. Or, there are two versions.



    I admit that the 28% stat is not entirely useful, but it does show that more than one out of four Mac users is still not on an Intel machine. Will Apple want to be seen abandoning them yet again?



    My thought on this is that many of the "features" that Apple is adding, Quicktime X, the Cocoa Finder, and numerous others, will work perfectly well on a late dual cpu G4, and on G5 machines. Apple could have a release for them, without the Intel, multicore features, and announce that it will be the last PPC release, except for bug, and security fixes.



    That would make the older user population feel better.



    Too many times they are not happy when Apple moves older machines out of support. We've had many of those people post angrily here. Quite a few people posted that it was too soon for Apple to be ending new OS support from PPC machines. It will only be about 3 years. This would extend it to five. It would tell them that Apple still cares about them. It would not affect what Apple is doing for the Intel machines. Everyone would be happy.
  • Reply 97 of 122
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,334member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by greglo View Post


    Super. I hope you enjoy you using your Safari.



    No, that's not a safe assumption. I suggest you go and watch a single 400 MB+ flash movie (i.e. online TV) and watch as Safari ratchets up to over 1.5 GB of memory use, even with a restart and everything cleared.



    Are you joking? Can't afford a dictionary? You know one comes with your Mac, right?



    It's 'too much' when I can 'assess' that the memory usage is:



    a.) Disproportionate to the tasks being performed.



    b.) Disproportionate to the time running.



    c.) See below.



    I probably would, yes. Unfortunately Safari does that caching (see a.)) but is still slow. Eventually when the program hits over 1 GB generally its impossible to carry on with any sort reasonable responsiveness. So we have:



    c.) Increased memory consumption by Safari does not necessarily increase its speed or responsiveness.



    Yep. And evidently it still is.



    Apple hasn't focused on anything with Safari 3. They just need you to believe they did.



    Woah, slow down there.



    You're not most people. But evidently you 'think' (term used loosely) everyone else is also blind to Safari's failings.



    I can't agree with a lot of this.



    First of all, he's right about the crashes. Almost every time it crashes, it's due to some improperly written Flash ad. You can tell from the reporter. I've not had a Safari crash for a long time that wasn't related to Flash.



    I've now had Safari 4 on for five days running, and used it a lot (I've had it since it first came out). I've gone to very many sites, played videos, displayed PDF's, gone to Flash sites etc. Memory is at 492.22 MB. It's been about that for some while. sometimes it goes up a bit, and then goes down a bit. It's easy to monitor.



    Safari 4 is definitely NOT slow. I don't know what you're seeing, but it could be a problem with your installation. The browser tests show that Safari 3 gets about a 11XX, and that Safari gets a 1851 in overall speed rating on my machine. That's a lot faster than 3, which wasn't slow.



    It's now at 491.95 and dropping.
  • Reply 98 of 122
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,334member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TBell View Post


    Would you really refer to GUI changes as a feature? I wouldn't.



    Yes, if they're additions, or better ways of doing things.
  • Reply 99 of 122
    hiimamachiimamac Posts: 584member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Yes, if they're additions, or better ways of doing things.



    with snow having rumored no changes and 10.7 Round the corner, is any one truly surprised. y
  • Reply 100 of 122
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,334member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hiimamac View Post


    with snow having rumored no changes and 10.7 Round the corner, is any one truly surprised. y



    I'm not so sure how "round the corner" 10.7 is.
Sign In or Register to comment.