“A new user interface will transform and extend your ability to enjoy Windows XP PC digital media experiences. With large fonts and simplified menus, the interface environment will bring your favorite media experiences into one easy, convenient place. You’ll be able to use the full-screen view to comfortably enjoy media from anywhere in the room. When at your desk, you’ll also be able to shrink the view and watch a movie or TV while doing other PC tasks.” Check the screenshots of the FreeStyle platform. Our Take: There is no doubt in my mind that Apple would have made that user interface way more slicker and attractive.
Preview “Freestyle” Interface Available
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Yeah, Apple would have done a better job here. My biggest complaint with MS UI has always been the amount of screen real estate is sometimes wasted.
I spend my days fighting hard to use every pixel efficiently!
While I do like the new WinXP interface overall quite a lot (a very good improvement over 9x/2k), my only problem is that the taskbar and the window manager is now very “fat”. The height of these two screen elements is ridiculously big. And the problem is that if I try to resize them in a smaller height (through the properties/theme panel), Windows automatically also resizes the 16×16 pixels found in the taskbar or the window manager, ending up the icons looking like crap. This is why a lot of people say that WinXP needs a bigger resolution. It can be fixed by fiddling with the pixel height, but unfortunately, this fiddling also scrambles the 16×16 icons in an ugly way.
I looks like the Preview Channel on cable TV. And why would I look at my music from an “Album” perspective? I use a computer so that I don’t have to. MS is often clueless. This is just another example.
I know the whole computer thing is supposed to be going to a unified media experience and all that hoo ha; but I increasingly wonder if I’m the only one who feels computers are for getting work done, and the rest should be implemented appropriately to the use & need. E.g., my laptop is better than a typewriter, but worse than a cheap radio. I agree with the former, so I use KWord, instead of my old IBM selectric. I also agree with the latter, so I have a $12 pocket radio from Radio Shack, which is better and more convenient (but not cooler) than streaming audio.
I have a vcr, I have a television, I have a radio. These machines have clean, simple UIs which are time tested and in no way leave me feeling like they need improvement. And frankly, doing this stuff on a computer is unnecessary and in and of itself doesn’t improve the “experience”. In fact, it dilutes it, in that no matter how skinnable and antialiased the ui is, my computer speakers aren’t as good as my radio’s, my LCD screen isn’t as good as my old TV, and mpegs aren’t as good as a VHS casette. I know, technologically, yes, they’re better, but in use, they just *aren’t* as good as those older technologies which have done it superbly for generations.
Hell, since I’m all worked up, I think experience is overrated when it comes to these topics. As long as the media works (e.g., I can watch the program on tv or listen to the program on the radio, or whatnot via streaming) the “experience” becomes a matter of the quality of the program, not the slickness of the delivery mechanism. My am/fm radio plays NPR just as well as a real-media stream.
Will I somehow enjoy NPR more, when I listen to it via a plug from the wall to my computer? Will the gleaming animated buttons somehow impart more joy than traditional knobs?
I think we’re culturally being taught that the “media experience” is more valuable than the media itself, and frankly this bothers me. It tells me we’re supposed to value movies, music and whatever else based on the merit of the delivery mechanism and not on the talent of those who produce it.
Am I being irrational?
The world seems to be running in spiral – you would find similar interface on Amiga back in 80-ties – TV stuff, nicely looking ….:-)
-pekr-
that says nothing of the underlying technology, which I tend to be more curious about. For example, how much control and customization would this thing give me? Aside from being a prepackaged solution, how is this better than, say, a PHP-Nuke driven personal media type of portal?
I fully agree with Shamyl’s comments. I went on a similar rant a few days ago here. I really don’t care for all of this media integration via computer stuff…I just want to relax and flip on a TV show *on the TV* after work. Instead of cramming our current media, which we experience with time-tested tools like TV sets and radios, into computers, this new technology should be used for something new.
Is this what they can come up with!!!! and do not go anywhere near the 3d User interface. Come on, there is definitely no innovation coming out of Redmond- only regurgitation.
“I know the whole computer thing is supposed to be going to a unified media experience and all that hoo ha; but I increasingly wonder if I’m the only one who feels computers are for getting work done, and the rest should be implemented appropriately to the use & need. E.g., my laptop is better than a typewriter, but worse than a cheap radio. I agree with the former, so I use KWord, instead of my old IBM selectric. I also agree with the latter, so I have a $12 pocket radio from Radio Shack, which is better and more convenient (but not cooler) than streaming audio. ”
My home desktop PC with Klipsch THX certified speakers and an 80GB hard drive is better than my shelf stereo with 111-disc CD player. It’s simply a matter of perspective, I don’t have to deal with being limited to 111 CDs or disc swapping when I have my 500+ CD collection ripped to MP3.
I don’t know …
On one hand, I have no desire to hook everything in my apartment up to my computer. Even if it were possible to control my toaster via wireless connection from anywhere in the house, why would I want to? I think the whole ‘digital hub’ thing is just another example of large corporations trying to TELL US what we want and need, regardless of whether we like it or not.
On the other hand, I also realize that if I existed in the old days of computing, I’d be bitching about GUIs and saying that is no need to evolve beyond the point of the command line
I suppose technology (and the corporations that fuel it) are going to drag us along, kicking and screaming.
Why is everyone using too much blue these days? Default OS X background: blue. Default WinXP background: blue. Many Linux distros also feature blue backgrounds as standard. And now this?
Don’t forget BeOS! Its default background is blue, too. Teal used to be the default color for Windows 95 and OS/2 because it was a neutral, calming type of color. Some marketing psychologist type probably figured out that a few hues of blue could have the same effect, so now they’re trying something new. Besides, in nature, we’re used to seeing the entire world against a blue background (the sky). Really, if you’re going to go for a solid color as your default background, teal and blue are the best choices:
red: too distracting
white: ” ”
green: ” ”
purple: ” “, except when mixed with blue
black: too depressing, unless you’re into that kind of stuff
orange: too distracting * 10
yellow: ” ” * 100
Those screen shots of “Freestyle” look a _hell_ of a lot like the BeIA reference platform sample UIs from last year.
– chrish
PainKilleR, I can’t believe you are ignorant enough to brag about your fancy THX speakers and how you listen to MP3’s on them in the same breath. Sure thing, cowboy. You are REALLY getting your milage from those “THX certified” speakers by playing MP3’s. I bet you have a top of the line SoundBlaster ™ to go with that bitchin’ setup, eh?
Here’s a clue: THX is a meaningless term for playback outside of certified installations. Even if you manage to convince yourself that your high bitrate MP3’s are indistinguishable from CD’s, it’s unlikely that you have your speakers set up to handle accurate reproduction.
I will agree that it is a matter of perspective, though. Yours is that you don’t care about quality (outside of industry hype) and are happy with a hacked together solution. Many feel that all-in-one tools are often functionally, aesthetically, and interface-wise inferior to dedicated solutions.
I think this is geared more for embedded XP systems rather than for PC’s on a TV interface. In other words, its an extension of WebTV with more different modules for storing music, digital photos, etc. Needless to say, TV interfaces are *completely* different from other interfaces – simple menus, brighter colors are needed. Look at TiVo’s for instance. Apple has yet to release anything of this sort. Their focus is on placing a flat-screen LCD into everyone’s home.
“Why is everyone using too much blue these days?”
—
Darn right. Gimmie the Atari ST green background anyday.
Although… If I remember right, NeoDesk had a blue background.
“PainKilleR, I can’t believe you are ignorant enough to brag about your fancy THX speakers and how you listen to MP3’s on them in the same breath. Sure thing, cowboy. You are REALLY getting your milage from those “THX certified” speakers by playing MP3’s. I bet you have a top of the line SoundBlaster ™ to go with that bitchin’ setup, eh? ”
and you are ignorant enough to miss the fact that I said ‘shelf stereo’ rather than ‘component system’. Most of the milage on the THX speakers is gained from DVD movies and gaming, of which only the DVD movie playback has much relevance to this whole discussion, but the point was that, just as a piece of tinned wire and a speaker cone could outperform a laptop for music, there are situations in which a computer can do better, too.
“Here’s a clue: THX is a meaningless term for playback outside of certified installations. Even if you manage to convince yourself that your high bitrate MP3’s are indistinguishable from CD’s, it’s unlikely that you have your speakers set up to handle accurate reproduction. ”
and if you think the average stereo system is accurate enough to reproduce the sound that is represented digitally on the CD, you’ve done some pretty miraculous convincing yourself. Then again, the whole discussion is fairly moot, because everyone has their own 2 ears to listen with. Of course MP3s are not the same as the original CD, it’s a lossy compression format, but there are definite advantages to using the format, one of which is eliminating disc swapping.
“I will agree that it is a matter of perspective, though. Yours is that you don’t care about quality (outside of industry hype) and are happy with a hacked together solution. Many feel that all-in-one tools are often functionally, aesthetically, and interface-wise inferior to dedicated solutions.”
Actually, I’d be far happier with a polished solution, but that’s not currently available, simply because it’s only starting to become a profitable proposal. Of course, what MS and others are proposing is NOT an ‘all-in-one’ tool, but rather a series of interconnecting products that allow more flexibility, or did you just look at the pictures?
>>my only problem is that the taskbar and the window manager is now very “fat”. The height of these two screen elements is ridiculously big
This was a feature I found to be great in XP, with out it the deskbar was to small. Now with the bigger size I could run at 1024xWhatever. I think many people will enjoy the new size format. Only people I knew who ran at 1024 were people who like to challenge their eyes.
On a differant note, I agree it looks more like a IA interface. Maybe this is a preview of what a WinXP embedded devise will look like. Also, it’s nice to see they are working on differant desktops. Maybe if they continue those who don’t like Luna will find one they like and use it instead of the old style.
>This was a feature I found to be great in XP, with out it the deskbar was to small. Now with the bigger size I could run at 1024xWhatever. I think many people will enjoy the new size format. Only people I knew who ran at 1024 were people who like to challenge their eyes.
Not to mention they increased the default resolution to 800×600 at the same time, so most people didn’t really notice much difference. Larger monitors make the higher resolutions more tolerable, but I still use a slightly larger font size to deal with 1280×1024 (or maybe I should just go back to sitting 2 inches away from the screen like I did as a kid).
BFD. Freestyle is no new revelation. And the Freestyle interface is pretty junior – a half dozen fat buttons on a animated backdrop (if even that). I’ve been working on something like this, off and on, for over a year now – http://www.media-box.org . Funny too that I got a lot of hits from microsoft.com last year 🙂 Now, if I could just find more coders to help make more engines (MAME, etc.)…
pekr is right, it remember me the amiga day and app like Xcopy.
Gridrunner
“Why is everyone using too much blue these days?”
—
Darn right. Gimmie the Atari ST green background anyday.
Ahh, King’s Quest I on the Atari 520st. It took me FOREVER to get up that beanstalk!
You remember the cool customizable patterns on the old MacOS where you could make up your own bit field for tiling on the background?
“Why is everyone using too much blue these days? Default OS X background: blue. Default WinXP background: blue. Many Linux distros also feature blue backgrounds as standard. And now this?”
I prefer black personally
“Teal used to be the default color for Windows 95 and OS/2 because it was a neutral, calming type of color.” Arghhh it looked awful first thing I did when I installed windows was change the backgrond colour.
Taco said: “You remember the cool customizable patterns on the old MacOS where you could make up your own bit field for tiling on the background?”
Heh.. I remember spending a whole class lesson messing with that. Was Windows even around then? God I feel old…
It’s interesting that MSFT is trying to make a computer the TV of the future. I don’t know if a crappy piece of software and a remote control is really the way to do it, though
Seems like there is a lot more needed to make it work.