The omnipresent "people familiar with the matter" have told AppleInsider that Apple's upcoming Snow Leopard operating system will have more to show for itself than "just" under-the-hood changes and improvements. Apparently, Apple is preparing an updated theme for Snow Leopard, to replace the Aqua one.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2007-03-04
Member since:2005-11-09
Member since:2006-01-02
Yes. Anti-aliasing for small screen fonts is unnecessary, or can be done in a much more limited fashion than is done on OS X. I can completely understand the motivation for having a correct anti-aliasing system for document preparation and graphics. But outside of those contexts, I much prefer the Windows way of either having no anti-aliasing for interface fonts, or having anti-aliasing that is strongly hinted to have more pixel-perfect text.
Member since:2005-11-21
Let me guess? Windows user?
The font engine that OS X uses is different than the Cleartype of Windows and Freetype of Linux/Unix.
Of the three I'm glad to use Freetype and OS X. I'm still surprised OpenOffice 3.1 dev still doesn't have native support for OTF and is still an issue to be resolved.
I suspect Microsoft doesn't want to manage OTF for you and forces the application to do such overhead.
I mean, this is pathetic:
http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=78858
The last comment has it targeting September 2009. Come on!
It's f'n windows as usual being the hang up:
http://channel9.msdn.com/forums/TechOff/418394-Windows-Xp-fonts-Tru...
I mean, come on Microsoft!
I get Linux managing OTF, TTF, Type1 and more. But Windows screws with the user and is pushing TTF.
Sad. And no, I'll just use OS X and Linux for documentation publishing.
Member since:2005-07-24
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-01-16
Member since:2005-08-11
OpenType was originally developed by MS and Adobe. It's their standard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenType
http://www.adobe.com/type/opentype/
http://www.microsoft.com/typography/otspec/otover.htm
They also made it open. It's their technology. TrueType was developed by Apple.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Type_Font
http://www.microsoft.com/typography/WhatIsTrueType.mspx
and MS still seems to prefer it. Perhaps they just like it, or perhaps it's because they just don't really care, fonts don't sell operating systems, and most users don't know the difference between font technologies.
Most(all) fonts are available in TrueType. Windows runs on around 90% of the computers in the world, so why would they care, it's not like MS sells fonts.
Their OS supports almost all the available fonts, so consumers don't lose, and MS doesn't even have to try.
Member since:2006-01-16
Member since:2006-08-02
Microsoft IS embracing OpenType: on my Vista installation, I currently have 387 OpenType fonts and 159 TrueType fonts. The new fonts released with Windows Vista and Office 2007 (Segoe UI, Calibri, Cambria, Candara, Consolas, ...) are all OpenType.
And, like someone before me explained, OpenType was initially developed by Microsoft. Adobe later joined them.
Member since:2006-01-26
Let me guess? Windows user? "
Personally, I can't stand fuzzy fonts either.
I'm a Haiku user, where we have FreeType, and sub-pixel rendering, but also with sane hinting to help align the glyphs to the screen pixels without going overboard. This slightly reduces the "WYSIWYG" effect, but is a lot easier on the eyes when reading screen text at smaller sizes.
I'm also a Windows user, and I must admit that ClearType bothers me a bit, but at least it's not super fuzzy, mostly it just screws with the color of the glyphs.
Member since:2005-07-06
Totally agreed. Anti-aliased text is great, but I think it's excessive when so much anti-aliasing is applied that normal text looks bold.
I personally find the text anti-aliasing in BeOS/Haiku to be "just right," while I find it a bit overdone in OS X - ditto for ClearType.
With OS X in particular, the fuzziness constantly gives me the urge to re-focus on the screen.
Member since:2006-03-27
Of the three I'm glad to use Freetype and OS X. I'm still surprised OpenOffice 3.1 dev still doesn't have native support for OTF and is still an issue to be resolved.
What else do you expect from Window/Solaris programmers?
That's why you should use the "true" Mac port of OOo called NeoOffice which is coded by actual Mac developers.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-01-03
Member since:2008-11-20
I kind of agree. The Aqua theme of the old OSX and the betas was way too flashy and distracting for my taste, just to be replaced by way too dull and grey for my taste. Tiger roughly was an acceptable middle ground. If it's true that they'll change the scrollbars for the grey ones known from iTunes, I wonder why we bothered with colour monitors at all. But oh well, in Steveiet Russia, theme chooses you.
Edited 2009-03-26 23:49 UTC
Member since:
2005-07-13
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-11-10
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:
2005-07-07
Call me old-fashioned, but after comparing both screenshots I liked the old Aqua-theme much more then the new one. The new theme is too minimalistic, too strict, reminds me too much on work. Aqua is more fancy, looks more funny, just inviting to having joy with the computer.
Member since:2005-07-06
Wait... which do you mean by the "new" look? The reason I ask is that the original article was ambiguous to me (I read OS X beta as Snow Leopard beta).
The picture referred to by the "Mac OS X beta" is literally just that... it's the 10.0 public beta. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_Public_Beta (Thom, can you clarify the original?)
Comparing these two, Aqua is the "new" look.
Edited 2009-03-25 23:01 UTC
Member since:2006-01-16
Member since:
2009-03-10
Member since:
2006-01-23
It kind of hit that the iTunes 7 interface was a look at things to come. The DVD Player application has also shown some unusual attributes that have made their way into Snow Leopard and iWork and iLife have had interface tweaks.
It's funny that Leopard finally got a more unified look, only to throw it away with Snow Leopard. The more I see, the more it seems like we're going to NeXTStep/OpenStep.
I'm just so tired of blue and graphite isn't much of a switch. It'll be interesting to see what they'll do, but they should be more concerned with performance since they just settled the GUI.
Member since:
2006-09-22
Member since:2007-01-22
Member since:
2005-10-12
Do you not find it weird that the choice of a theme is one the supplier makes? Like, would it not be more normal and reasonable to offer the user a choice of themes, and have him/her pick the one he wants? Obviously there would be a default, but what that would be, would be trivial and hardly worth discussion since changing it would be so easy.
Come to think of it, all the desktop environments I use work like this.
It seems quite bizarre that this is really a topic of debate about Apple or about the OS. It seems a bit like when you are thinking about buying a house, worrying about how long the lawn is.
Member since:2007-07-27
Member since:2006-11-12
I have an editor friend who uses Final Cut Pro. He is a typical Mac zealot -- constantly telling me and others how great Macs are.
When we started to work in his dark edit bay, the OSX/FCP GUI was about 10 times brighter than the footage we were trying to color correct. I asked him if he could change to a darker theme or configure darker GUI colors (as is done in the non-Apple, inferior GUIs/NLEs).
He spent 30 minutes trying to change the OSX/FCP colors/theme to no avail.
This failure is from a guy who has been using and bragging about Macs for six years. If he can't change the theme, no run-of-the-mill Mactard can do so.
Member since:2006-11-12
Yes. It is weird. Furthermore, it is outrageous.
In almost every other computer GUI, one can configure colors and/or choose themes to one's liking.
However, in the Apple world, Steve Jobs chooses for you. Incredibly, the Mac drones accept this limitation.
Your point is just one of the many that reveal that "the emperor has no clothes."
Member since:2006-01-03
Some people want choice, others want quality. I've been a Mac user for only 6 months, but I've never felt the need to make any changes to the theme (not even the subltle color choices that are available). Other than the desktop wallpaper, I use the defaults and I'm pretty happy with them.
Contrast that with my 15 years of using Windows and 10 years of Linux, where no matter how much I changed themes, I was never happy with them for more than a week.
I'm not saying that the MacOS theme is perfect, but seems to be good enough. And I'm glad I can't tweak it too much, otherwise the small imperfections would trigger my latent OCD and I would be wasting my time doing what I used to do with those other two OSes.
Member since:2006-11-12
Not sure what this statement implies, but it sounds like RDF logic. Are quality and theme choice mutually exclusive?
Please explain how the lack of theme color choices equates to better quality.
Mac users had better be happy with the Mac defaults -- they have no choice.
The problem might not lie with the OS/GUI.
No single theme is perfect for most people nor for most situations (e.g. dark edit bays, sunny bedrooms, etc.), which is why theme/color choice is imperative.
Why can't themes/colors be as individual as the individuals who use them?
Perhaps Macs are best for those with neuroses.
Edited 2009-03-29 18:04 UTC
Member since:2006-01-03
Unfortunately, giving users choice is often used in software as a means of releasing developers/designers from the burden of producing good, well thought, defaults. In the particular case of themes, the most customizable environments also seem to have the most hideous defaults.
I'm not saying that the lack of choice is a good thing. But if the users aren't complaining about it, then the defaults must be good, otherwise they would just go somewhere else.
Member since:2006-11-12
Really? Isn't it also possible that such developers offered choice because of the fact that the user might want to choose the colors of his interface, or because of the fact that the user may want a different video card than the stock card offered by the manufacturer?
Of course, it is a trivial point in regards to whatever the default is and in regards to whether or not one likes the default. In most non-Mac set-ups, one can easily adjust the colors to one's liking, if one doesn't want the defualt colors.
Interesting assertion. If true, how do you explain the ugly, glaringly-bright Mac theme from the decidedly non-customizable OSX interface?
Could it be that "beauty is in eye of the beholder," and that any notion of theme quality is utterly subjective?
Or more likely, in the case of OSX:
1. Mac users don't complain about the lack of theme choice (nor can they "just go somehwere else"), because that would be admitting a significant problem with their beloved, pricey machine, about which they have incessantly bragged/shown-off;
2. Mac users have never been offered choice, so they don't know any better, and, thus, they accept what Steve Jobs gives them;
3. It does no good to complain -- Apple will not alter details of its products based on the comments/needs of mere "surface dwellers."
Edited 2009-03-29 19:24 UTC
Member since:
2006-05-11
Member since:
2005-09-02
As Apple's interest in things low-powered and simple, Aqua falls by the wayside, and they start reverting to things that are easy to display.
But, yes, the edges are a lot softer. :-)
I don't really care one way or the other, so long as they get back to consistency. I never was a big fan of the metal interface. I liked the early Aqua, but the novelty eventually wore off. Not a real big fan of the default Leopard look.
Maybe, though, they'll lay off the different styles, and just go with one simple one for everything.
As an aside, a couple of years back, I got a vendor offer to try out their antivirus product prior to becoming a reseller. I was amazed when I started it up -- no huge animated splash screen. No cartoony interface. Just a boring win32 application. I liked it. It worked just as it was supposed to.
Member since:
2005-07-27
What I really, really want: consistency. For a change. Even if the default colour scheme is a Windows 3.1 Hotdog Stand, as long as it is consistent throughout, I don't care (I mean, when I change the theme using something like Magnifique, it annoys me to great lengths when Apple's own applications stick out like a sore thumb).
But I sincerely doubt that Snow Leopard would hit this (or is aiming for this). Unless Apple plans to change the default look to be identical to Quicktime X. Which in that case, I'll stick to Leopard thankyouverymuch. And I'm doubting, very extensively, whether or not the new Finder would support spatial mode. It's pretty bad in its current implementation, but at least its there. I don't think Cupertino would bother with spatial Finder after butchering the concept for the past 8 years.
Member since:
2009-03-27
I'm actually quite fond of Leopard's UI. It's simple and easy on the eyes which is a really important factor to me when I spend up to nine hours a day in front of a computer. The contrast between the window borders and the window contents is stark so it's easy to tell what's what at a glance. And it's not disctracting. The interface stays out of my way so I can concentrate on my workflow without having my eyes wander all over the bloody place looking at all of those colours and pinstripes.
Member since:
2009-03-30
Don't argue about taste.
Mine is: The gray look and feel of Mac OS X 10.5 makes me so depressive that I stick with Mac OS X 10.4. No joke. I can't stand the black apple of death, the lack of colour on the desktop and the overall impression of a graveyard. You might call this "cool" and antiseptic. Your choice.
If they can't bring back colour due to mental disorder or premature mourning about Steve, please let the user the ability to choose something non-gothic. Something that reflects the ease of use and the fun that comes along.
Member since:
2005-07-06
