May I just remind all those that are complaining about ugliness/clutter etc, that these are patent filings, not the actual designs... Come on people, you've seen all this before. These are proof of concept sketches, if you're taking them literally, then you're not really seeing what's going on here. Apple is exploring alternate ways to represent the desktop, this is big.
I think the smarter ones among the group (you and I) have already realized this. I was going to say something, but I knew someone would catch on eventually.
I think the smarter ones among the group (you and I) have already realized this. I was going to say something, but I knew someone would catch on eventually.
no. I was complaining about the concept of a 3D desktop, not the drawings in this patent filing. I ask the question again: when have you ever been using a 2D desktop and thought "this would work so much better if it was 3D"? There are no problems with a 2D desktop that can be solved with a "virtual" 3D desktop on a 2D monitor.
no. I was complaining about the concept of a 3D desktop, not the drawings in this patent filing. I ask the question again: when have you ever been using a 2D desktop and thought "this would work so much better if it was 3D"? There are no problems with a 2D desktop that can be solved with a "virtual" 3D desktop on a 2D monitor.
Time Machine comes to mind... 3D presents the backup information in a simple and intuitive way that just couldn't be matched in 2D.
I'm not saying EVERYthing needs a 3D interface, but for some things it IS better.
no. I was complaining about the concept of a 3D desktop, not the drawings in this patent filing. I ask the question again: when have you ever been using a 2D desktop and thought "this would work so much better if it was 3D"? There are no problems with a 2D desktop that can be solved with a "virtual" 3D desktop on a 2D monitor.
Except for the fact that a 3-D desktop gives you more desktop space. Spaces shows that Apple has been thinking about desktop space for a while.
Time Machine comes to mind... 3D presents the backup information in a simple and intuitive way that just couldn't be matched in 2D.
I'm not saying EVERYthing needs a 3D interface, but for some things it IS better.
Indeed. I already said that. Time Machine was/is a new application, it's not part of the standard desktop; the machine's interface is not permanently 3D.
Human beings aren't good with 3D. Most of us are uncomfortable manipulating things in 3D because our eyes take the 3D world and make a 2D representation of it.
Yes, folks, we're 2D beings. We live in a 3D world but that doesn't mean we're comfortable with it. We can't go through solid 3D objects. We can't see things behind solid opaque objects. 3D is somewhat of a curse to us because we can't see everything and we have no choice but to go around things to move in 3D space.
A being that lives in the 4th dimension would be able to see and move through everything within the 3D space and would feel totally comfortable manipulating things in 3D but would struggle with 4D.
Someone here said it first...the current OS X (all the way down to System 1) is already 3D in the sense that you can stack a window on top of another and you can stack an icon on top of another. The interface in the patent diagrams would just amplify the 3Dness.
But really...we all know that 3D isn't a human being's forté. If it was, we wouldn't need things like 'Exposé' and 'Clean Up'.
Human beings aren't good with 3D. Most of us are uncomfortable manipulating things in 3D because our eyes take the 3D world and make a 2D representation of it.
Humans don't have x-ray vision so they are bad with 3D???
You have problems walking over to a table and picking up your mug of coffee???
Playing beachvolleyball is an impossible skill for a human ???
Humans and every ancestor before us evolved in a 3D world and our entire body and brain is wired with 3 dimensionality. 3D vision as in depth and distance perception is even hard-wired into our visual system.
Yeah it looks awful from the patent application but you see elements of it in the current OS.
It makes sense now about Apple's push for OpenCL. The OS will need the GPU power to render the OS landscape. Snow Leopard is laying the foundations but this 3D OS in full form will probably be the version afterwards and dropping all legacy ties.
Hence why all new Mac's, starting with the portable line will have two GPU's instead of one. The current Mac OS cannot handle using them in parallel but with Snow Leopard (....and beyond!), one GPU will be used for the OS and the second will be used as it is today.
Mark my words, the next iMac will have two GPU's as we well!
I personally don't want to waste either my GPU or my CPU for waste like this.
This was one of the major problems with Aero (MS Vista Desktop). It is a waste of resources that can be better spent allowing me to Work/Browse/Watch a Movie etc faster.
Leopard is already slow enough without wasting more processing power on a Mock 3D environment.
no. I was complaining about the concept of a 3D desktop, not the drawings in this patent filing. I ask the question again: when have you ever been using a 2D desktop and thought "this would work so much better if it was 3D"? There are no problems with a 2D desktop that can be solved with a "virtual" 3D desktop on a 2D monitor.
I think I see this differently than you. Maybe I am misinterpreting, or letting my imagination get the better of me, but I do not see a 3-D desktop as simply making everything look like the dock only moreso. Instead, I see it as a way to have less clutter. Because you will be able to move in and out in of the screen as opposed to just up/down and left/right the screen, things can be accessed or made visible just by moving in or out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
Spaces does the job better than a 3D desktop.
I'm not sure how you can say this when you have only seen one of the two.
Nobody was clamoring for a GUI when the Mac came out. In fact, I remember dozens of my friends--partisans of the command line all--deriding it as cutsy and limiting...
I personally don't want to waste either my GPU or my CPU for waste like this.
This was one of the major problems with Aero (MS Vista Desktop). It is a waste of resources that can be better spent allowing me to Work/Browse/Watch a Movie etc faster.
Leopard is already slow enough without wasting more processing power on a Mock 3D environment.
What it comes down to is a game of one-upmanship between Apple and Microsoft, regardless of how users efficiency suffers. I'd rather not have dimension and shading on every dang thing in my UI. 2D is perfectly good. Reminds me of the absurd touch screens they are now using on CNN to illustrate concepts that a plain old slide could do faster and better.
...we all know that 3D isn't a human being's forté. If it was, we wouldn't need things like 'Exposé' and 'Clean Up'.
You make a good point, but me thinks you extrapolate from your own personal experience too much. Many people excel at 3D visualisation and kinda suck at 2D. All over the world people are different, funnily enough.
Just as an example, my housemate is a logician and "thinks" in numbers and words. They never forget anything they heard and can repeat it back including the date and time they heard it. On the other hand, they have trouble with face recognition and have several times walked right past their own relatives in the street, failing to recognise them.
Me on the other hand, I think in pictures and never, ever forget a face. I sometimes see people I knew in Grade school and recognise them 20 or 30 years later, but I rarely know what day of the week it is or even the calendar year and can't do math to save my life. I can also remember colours I saw years ago, whereas my housemate can't tell the difference between red and orange half the time.
People are different. What works for one is not going to work for all.
Human beings aren't good with 3D. Most of us are uncomfortable manipulating things in 3D because our eyes take the 3D world and make a 2D representation of it.
Not true. Humans understand things in 3D better than in 2D even on 2D surfaces. I am an architectural engineer and I work with plans, sections, elevations, and 3D rendering of structures on both paper and computers and there is nothing better than 3D for visual communications. Almost every structural engineer I know uses 3D to better model their structures for analysis. It is true that we start building models in 2D but that only because the current software interface limitations not because we uncomfortable manipulating things in 3D.
When me and my fellow architects prepare a presentation we always have plenty of 3D renderings on paper and computers because clients have hard time relating plans to sections and elevations (2D objects). If perspectives done properly, 3D objects will look realistic.
For example, imagine if objects on the desktop can change perspective when the user moves his head.
3d makes sense for the file management app (and others?) but not necessarily the whole computer. Sometimes people just want their current app, 2D, filling the whole screen. No windows at all.
Yeah, I still struggle with the 3D Dock, never mind 3D everything else! I thought I would have gotten used to the 3D Dock by now ? but you know what? Some things are just WRONG!
The only possible good reason for Apple filing these patents is to ensure that nobody else subjects us to this kind of interface ? can you imagine the abortion that Microsoft or Adobe would come up with?
Not necessarily the whole kit-and-kaboodle but there are some great ideas here that expand the desktop as we know it. Sure all of it together would be a mess but bits and pieces would be great. I like the idea of the 3D desktop with expansion galore, assuming you could customize things out that you didn't want there, but with Apple it may be more of a all-or-nothing approach.
Anyway, what I want to know is...
Why don't we ever see Microsoft coming out with patents that challenge the imagination? Is it just because they are Microsoft and no one cares so we don't hear about them or is it that they don't really try to think outside of the box? \ \
Comments
May I just remind all those that are complaining about ugliness/clutter etc, that these are patent filings, not the actual designs... Come on people, you've seen all this before. These are proof of concept sketches, if you're taking them literally, then you're not really seeing what's going on here. Apple is exploring alternate ways to represent the desktop, this is big.
I think the smarter ones among the group (you and I) have already realized this. I was going to say something, but I knew someone would catch on eventually.
I think the smarter ones among the group (you and I) have already realized this. I was going to say something, but I knew someone would catch on eventually.
Time Machine comes to mind... 3D presents the backup information in a simple and intuitive way that just couldn't be matched in 2D.
I'm not saying EVERYthing needs a 3D interface, but for some things it IS better.
Personally, I prefer the cubic shape of the 3-D desktop.
Except for the fact that a 3-D desktop gives you more desktop space. Spaces shows that Apple has been thinking about desktop space for a while.
Except for the fact that a 3-D desktop gives you more desktop space. Spaces shows that Apple has been thinking about desktop space for a while.
Spaces does the job better than a 3D desktop.
Time Machine comes to mind... 3D presents the backup information in a simple and intuitive way that just couldn't be matched in 2D.
I'm not saying EVERYthing needs a 3D interface, but for some things it IS better.
Indeed. I already said that. Time Machine was/is a new application, it's not part of the standard desktop; the machine's interface is not permanently 3D.
Human beings aren't good with 3D. Most of us are uncomfortable manipulating things in 3D because our eyes take the 3D world and make a 2D representation of it.
Yes, folks, we're 2D beings. We live in a 3D world but that doesn't mean we're comfortable with it. We can't go through solid 3D objects. We can't see things behind solid opaque objects. 3D is somewhat of a curse to us because we can't see everything and we have no choice but to go around things to move in 3D space.
A being that lives in the 4th dimension would be able to see and move through everything within the 3D space and would feel totally comfortable manipulating things in 3D but would struggle with 4D.
Someone here said it first...the current OS X (all the way down to System 1) is already 3D in the sense that you can stack a window on top of another and you can stack an icon on top of another. The interface in the patent diagrams would just amplify the 3Dness.
But really...we all know that 3D isn't a human being's forté. If it was, we wouldn't need things like 'Exposé' and 'Clean Up'.
Let me just say this:
Human beings aren't good with 3D. Most of us are uncomfortable manipulating things in 3D because our eyes take the 3D world and make a 2D representation of it.
Humans and every ancestor before us evolved in a 3D world and our entire body and brain is wired with 3 dimensionality. 3D vision as in depth and distance perception is even hard-wired into our visual system.
Yeah it looks awful from the patent application but you see elements of it in the current OS.
It makes sense now about Apple's push for OpenCL. The OS will need the GPU power to render the OS landscape. Snow Leopard is laying the foundations but this 3D OS in full form will probably be the version afterwards and dropping all legacy ties.
Hence why all new Mac's, starting with the portable line will have two GPU's instead of one. The current Mac OS cannot handle using them in parallel but with Snow Leopard (....and beyond!), one GPU will be used for the OS and the second will be used as it is today.
Mark my words, the next iMac will have two GPU's as we well!
This was one of the major problems with Aero (MS Vista Desktop). It is a waste of resources that can be better spent allowing me to Work/Browse/Watch a Movie etc faster.
Leopard is already slow enough without wasting more processing power on a Mock 3D environment.
I think I see this differently than you. Maybe I am misinterpreting, or letting my imagination get the better of me, but I do not see a 3-D desktop as simply making everything look like the dock only moreso. Instead, I see it as a way to have less clutter. Because you will be able to move in and out in of the screen as opposed to just up/down and left/right the screen, things can be accessed or made visible just by moving in or out.
Spaces does the job better than a 3D desktop.
I'm not sure how you can say this when you have only seen one of the two.
Nobody was clamoring for a GUI when the Mac came out. In fact, I remember dozens of my friends--partisans of the command line all--deriding it as cutsy and limiting...
I personally don't want to waste either my GPU or my CPU for waste like this.
This was one of the major problems with Aero (MS Vista Desktop). It is a waste of resources that can be better spent allowing me to Work/Browse/Watch a Movie etc faster.
Leopard is already slow enough without wasting more processing power on a Mock 3D environment.
What it comes down to is a game of one-upmanship between Apple and Microsoft, regardless of how users efficiency suffers. I'd rather not have dimension and shading on every dang thing in my UI. 2D is perfectly good. Reminds me of the absurd touch screens they are now using on CNN to illustrate concepts that a plain old slide could do faster and better.
"It's a UNIX system. I know this!"
That dorky scene was the very first thing that popped into my head as well. I think I need to move to the woods and write a manifesto.
...we all know that 3D isn't a human being's forté. If it was, we wouldn't need things like 'Exposé' and 'Clean Up'.
You make a good point, but me thinks you extrapolate from your own personal experience too much. Many people excel at 3D visualisation and kinda suck at 2D. All over the world people are different, funnily enough.
Just as an example, my housemate is a logician and "thinks" in numbers and words. They never forget anything they heard and can repeat it back including the date and time they heard it. On the other hand, they have trouble with face recognition and have several times walked right past their own relatives in the street, failing to recognise them.
Me on the other hand, I think in pictures and never, ever forget a face. I sometimes see people I knew in Grade school and recognise them 20 or 30 years later, but I rarely know what day of the week it is or even the calendar year and can't do math to save my life. I can also remember colours I saw years ago, whereas my housemate can't tell the difference between red and orange half the time.
People are different. What works for one is not going to work for all.
Let me just say this:
Human beings aren't good with 3D. Most of us are uncomfortable manipulating things in 3D because our eyes take the 3D world and make a 2D representation of it.
Not true. Humans understand things in 3D better than in 2D even on 2D surfaces. I am an architectural engineer and I work with plans, sections, elevations, and 3D rendering of structures on both paper and computers and there is nothing better than 3D for visual communications. Almost every structural engineer I know uses 3D to better model their structures for analysis. It is true that we start building models in 2D but that only because the current software interface limitations not because we uncomfortable manipulating things in 3D.
When me and my fellow architects prepare a presentation we always have plenty of 3D renderings on paper and computers because clients have hard time relating plans to sections and elevations (2D objects). If perspectives done properly, 3D objects will look realistic.
For example, imagine if objects on the desktop can change perspective when the user moves his head.
The only possible good reason for Apple filing these patents is to ensure that nobody else subjects us to this kind of interface ? can you imagine the abortion that Microsoft or Adobe would come up with?
Anyway, what I want to know is...
Why don't we ever see Microsoft coming out with patents that challenge the imagination? Is it just because they are Microsoft and no one cares so we don't hear about them or is it that they don't really try to think outside of the box?