Project Looking Glass has hit the magical 1.0 mark: "This release is the culmination of 3 years of work, starting with Hideya san who originally conceived of a bold, new type of window system, through the initial shake down of the proof-of-concept demo by an internal Sun community, followed by the open sourcing of the technology, which generated such enormous interest that it brought down the java.net servers several times. From that point on many people from around the globe have contributed to the project; contributing to the core, contributing applications, performing testing, writing and translating documentation, etc. The project owners (Hideya, Paul, Krishna and myself) are very grateful for all of the great contributions we have received from you, the LG community."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-24
"""Project Looking Glass, on the other hand, is a true 3D interface"""
Question: Why do we need a true 3D interface?
I've yet to see XGL/AIGLX/Looking Glass do anything that couldn't be done better in pure 2D.
Looking Glass demos look just like XGL demos. Except they are not quite as glitzy.
And all the 3D desktops look useless to me. (As in "no better than what we already have.") Essentially the UI equivalent of the dot.com bubble.
Just my opinion.
Member since:2005-08-09
> And all the 3D desktops look useless to me
Probably they should not just transform, but apply depth-of-field and HDR lighting effects to make these windows even more harder to read.
Personally, I prefer maximized fullscreen applications.
I use overlapping windows mostly for drag'n'drop and visual data compare purposes.
Member since:2005-06-29
3d desktops exist to take advantage of 3d hardware (which has been developing quickly for 10 years while 2d hardware has stalled completely). In order to sell them you add a few glitzy affects and tell the marketing department its "3d" so they can excite people over it.
It offers you:
1. An interface that eats fewer CPU cycles (if done correctly).
2. An interface that allows a better drawing paradigm for programmers (no double buffering necessary, if you're willing to ditch backward compatibility).
3. Affects such as expose which allow users to quickly view things that won't actually fit on their desktop without using icons and summary text.
4. Something for that 3d card you bought (you can't really get around it anymore) to do.
5. Better video playback capability (gl instead of one video on hardware and the rest not).
But I agree that a 3 dimensional interface makes no sense on a 2 dimensional screen, however, you don't need 3d hardware to make a 3d interface.
Member since:2005-07-06
In the end, as long as the user sees a 2D desktop it doesn't matter if it is true 3D or not. The question is even would we like a true 3D interface.
To get good user interaction you would probably need some kind of input device that the user moves in 3D. My guess is most such devices would result in more work related injuries due to muscle stress.
Member since:2005-06-29
To get good user interaction you would probably need some kind of input device that the user moves in 3D. My guess is most such devices would result in more work related injuries due to muscle stress.
Well, the thing is, the more *different* kinds of movements you make, the less strain is placed on particular movements. RSI is not about the movements an sich, but about the same few isolated *repetitive* (the R in RSI) movements. Making a 3D input device, which i.e. moves along an extra axis, might actually *reduce* RSI complains because extra movements are used during interaction, reducing the stress on the others (you are spreading the strain on more different movements).
Member since:2005-06-29
An mass confusion.
"The computer says to go pick up my phone. But apparently it forgot I had a cell phone, so when I picked that up it didn't work. So I walked into the kitchen and it started workin'!"
"Why would it want you to pickup your phone in order to type phone into Word? How the heck do you type 'the' anyway?!"
"I don't know, I miss e-d though..."
Member since:2005-07-02
This has absolutely nothing to do with XGL/Compiz/Aero/etc. Those are still 2D desktops, only now with some 3D effects.
True, but with some of the latest plugins, such as the 3D view (which "stacks" windows on top of one another), the boundary is becoming blurry. I understand the distinction, though.
What about that experimental 3D desktop in which you could "stack" files and organize them with mouse gestures...do you guys remember how it was called? I remember seeing a video about this, and thinking it was very innovative.
Member since:2006-11-24
Member since:2005-11-05
I think you might have been referring to a program written by opengl superhacker MacSlow called lowfat (http://macslow.thepimp.net/?page_id=18) or another one called bumptop (http://honeybrown.ca/Pubs/BumpTop.html)
Member since:2005-10-31
Member since:
2005-06-29
This has absolutely nothing to do with XGL/Compiz/Aero/etc. Those are still 2D desktops, only now with some 3D effects. That's all. Project Looking Glass, on the other hand, is a true 3D interface (still hindered by 2D input devices and screen, of course). This is a major difference.