vista ramblings.

[Lt Major Burns]

Right, i know that's it's just graphical bloat etc etc, but i can't help thinking that Vistas new GUI makes OS X finally look dated after all these years.

I'm not on about underlying funcionality, or usability, or security or anything like that, it's purely aesthetic.

We, as mac users, are now using the same arguments that windows users have used for years when we've harped on about Aqua's amazing graphical effects (werl, it's just graphical bloat innit), and making everything this universal dull grey in leopard just seems half arsed to me. i can't help feeling that OS X looks dated. and will do until apple pulls something impressive out again, some fundamental GUI improvment that really uses the power computers nearly a decade into this century can kick out, like Aqua did 6 years ago.

We have computers shipping now with really advanced GPU's, multiple cores of processing power at speeds like we've never seen, and gigabytes of memory. i know the fundamentals utilise this power (spotlight, for example), but the actual windowing system is still based around a look possible 10 years ago. i don't know... i think i just really like the dark shiny subtle translucency of the new windows task bar. after 12 years, MS have finally made the damn thing look nice, even if the start button is still horrendous. i want apple to pull something really ground breaking out the bag, GUI-wise, not this unified crap which seems is just, frankly, a cop-out, an MS-ish approach to their inconsistency problems...

discuss.

[Mikuro]

I kind of agree. Granted, I haven't actually used Vista, but from screenshots, the appearance seems shockingly non-half-assed for a Microsoft product. Like, at least 3/4-assed.

This is really to be expected. Both Microsoft and Apple created their interfaces for hardware that was not common at the time. Apple did this 7 years ago. Microsoft is doing it now, so naturally it's more technologically advanced. Vista uses the equivalent of OS X's Core Image, which didn't exist until Tiger and was not supported all across the board until the Intel Macs came out.

I had previously assumed Leopard would make greater use of Core Image (for better or worse). I'm still not convinced it won't. There's still plenty of time.

I've always been a critic of Apple's design philosophy. I still think OS X has too much pointless glitz, and I'm not eager to see more. Even with Quartz Extreme and Core Image, the fact is that these things do NOT come "for free". They're simply a helluva lot faster than they'd be without the technologies, which really isn't saying much. For proof, try using ShadowKiller for a few minutes. You will notice the increase in responsiveness. (And then you'll notice that everything is unusably ugly, because OS X windows have no outlines aside from the shadows.)

The thing is, Apple likes consistency, if not across their applications, then across their user base. This is why they killed the themes feature in 8.5 after it was already complete, and have never introduced anything similar since (even though it'd be a lot easier in OS X). Microsoft is happy to let people without next year's hardware use a completely different interface. I can't imagine Apple doing that. So whatever Apple does, I expect it to be more or less backwards-compatible. A few absent effects on older hardware would be fine — they currently do this with the dashboard ripple and the mouse shadow — but I don't think they're going to build a new interface around Core Image until they're ready to really pull the plug on older hardware.

[Qion]

I said in an earlier post that I would be very upset if Apple went with the dark and unified approach. Like Major said, it's a cop-out. I would really like to see something not just aesthetically pleasing, but beautiful. The iMacs are beautiful, the MacBooks are beautiful, why can't the windows and menus be beautiful as well?

I've experimented with ShapeShifter for what seems like a year, and have never found a theme set that I could work more than a couple weeks with. This signals to me that the road ahead should be paved with a UI stance completely different than the current; a color change or a reflection isn't going to cut it.

Vista, in some respects, has a better-looking UI than OS X. Its usability is questionable, but the black transluncency is very pleasing. Apple have obviously the notion to forward their hardware market as well as their software market, and with Final Cut Studio and Aperture (...and CS3) both requiring at least a gig of RAM, it's obvious software is being updated a hell of a lot faster than our user interfaces.

I've been screaming since 2000 for a radical quantum shift in the way we interact with our computers visually, and that has yet to come. I don't want another rendition.

[Thank The Cheese]

am i the only one who finds vista's UI tacky? not nearly as bad as Beryl for linux, but not as understated as the Mac.

I mean, yes, it does look cooler than the Mac UI, but is that was an operating system should do? Should it look cool with 3D effects and moving desktops and high-contrast black toolbars? In my opinion no. A good OS is unnoticed, it just lets you get your work done and does not get in the way.

If I'm working on an intricate, elegant design, I don't want fancy icons and toolbars and side bars and deskops taking away from it. I want a vanilla work surface for me to concentrate on my work.

my 2 cents anyway

[Mikuro]

Thank the Cheese: That's exactly what just about everyone (Mac and PC users alike) said about OS X. Ironically, I recall being one of the few people who thought Aqua was a good thing shortly after it was first unveiled. (I changed my mind after using it, and that awful first impression has never really worn off.)

Look at 10.0 again, and tell me it's not hideous. Use it for a while, and tell me it's not clunky. Is Vista really any worse?



There's another important trend in Apple's design: they're moving away from the standard building-block elements — the push buttons, menus, scroll bars, etc. — that are available to every program. These elements have been the defining characteristic of the Mac since its inception, but Apple has been abandoning them in their apps in favor of completely customized UIs for each particular task. A few examples:

- Front Row. Lots of fancy effects with no standard, reusable objects.

- Time Machine. Same as Front Row, although at least it uses images of standard windows. (Of course I could be wrong, since I haven't actually used Time Machine.)

- iTunes. Each version introduces more unique interfaces, such as Cover Flow. iTunes 7 even creates its own scroll bars.

- Dashboard. This is arguably the biggest. Dashboard widgets don't even have a standard toolbox of buttons and whatnot. Every Dashboard programmer is expected to "roll their own" look-and-feel.

So in a sense, Apple is already moving into the next era of the GUI — an era where consistency gives way to specialization (ideally) or senseless glitz (...probably). This scares me a little. You need only look at today's Dashboard experience to see why: most third-party Dashboard widgets look and feel like garbage. OS X makes it easy for even small developers to create professional-looking (and -acting) apps. This is not the case with Dashboard widgets, and it will not be the case with desktop apps either if Apple keeps moving in this direction.

Is that a price Apple is willing to pay for the undeniable "wow" factor of first-party apps? More importantly, is it a price users are willing to pay?

[fryke]

I've been trying to use Vista for a while now, and have to say that the interface might seem "modern" and "wowy" at first sight, but it simply gets in the way after a short while. It doesn't _work_ better than XP's in any way. And certainly not better than Tiger's interface. I've mentioned this in another thread: But everytime I reboot from Vista into Mac OS X, I have the feeling I'm coming back to a real operating system from some kind of visual demo that only _acts_ like an OS.

I have my gripes with Apple's current UI-mishmash as well. Brushed Metal must go (and we've seen that it *will* go with Leopard). Aqua and Unified are good. Unified won't replace Aqua. That _would_ be bad imho.

[Rhisiart]

A guided tour of Vista (click on SEE IT NOW).

[fryke]

Well. That demo shows _exactly_ what I mean. The flip-through open windows thingie, for example, is _not_ the default task switcher you use with alt-tab, rather it's something you have to "start" from the QuickLaunch part of the taskbar. It's not very useful, certainly not faster than alt-tabbing. It's eye-candy that doesn't improve working with the system. The preview you see when hovering over minimized windows in the taskbar is not very helpful either. Too small to discern similar windows. This has _nothing_ on Exposé (although that itself never shows windows of hidden apps, something I find very strange, they should add that as another option within Exposé).

Improving an UI should go about _reducing_ the UI. I don't want four ways to select the correct window. I want _one_ that does the task perfectly. If that ain't possible, the ones that are already there should be improved. But to add yet another (the flip-through thing) one without removing one it could replace... bleh. :/

The transparency of the window borders does, in my opinion, not help putting the content of a window into focus. It's something they just don't seem to get. If you have window borders that _always_ look the same, they automatically move into the back of your mind. That was _good_ in Windows 95-XP! Now you have borders that change, depending on what's behind the window, constantly irritating the mind just a little, so it actually _gets_ more focus. While I'm still not totally convinced by Apple's way (removing window borders completely apart from the title bar and scroll bars), I think it's at least a good starting point.

Again... "making everything this universal dull grey in leopard just seems half arsed to me..."

1.) They're _not_ making everything Unified. Just the already Unified apps plus the brushed metal ones. In my book, that is what they should've done when introducing Unified in the first place.

2.) "dull" is good. Monotony is one of the great principles of interface design. The focus should be on the content. It fades into the back of your mind. Adobe gets it completely right. See the interface for Adobe CS 3 apps like Illustrator, InDesign, Photoshop.