apple 3d desktop concept

[gigaferz]

http://content.zdnet.com/2346-13615_22-255285-7.html

mmhh, i think the compiz fusion team can easily ,with a few modifications, beat that.

[WaeV]

http://www.sun.com/software/looking_glass/

[damis648]

Looks like looking glass for sure...
It looks cool, but doesn't look very friendly or productive.

[dizee]

It looks cool, but doesn't look very friendly or productive.

Sounds exactly like Apple then, style over substance every time:popcorn:

[securitynut]

Kind of like the iphone. So many different abilities but what ones would you actually use. Style and looks over practical functionality.

[MikeTheC]

@3D Desktop Interface:

Maybe it's a little too early to tell, but my first reaction is that this is part of Apple's "throw lots of stuff at the wall and see what sticks" process. Personally, I don't really care for it. "Spaces" was useful, and (oddly) though I don't make use of it on Macs, I do use multiple desktops from time to time on my Ubuntu box.

[hessiess]

save screenspase? there are gaps everywere!

[toupeiro]

save screenspase? there are gaps everywere!

You're not thinking "three dimensionally" ;)

Sun introduced some of these concepts some years ago with the Java Desktop Environment, like the concept of "book-shelving windows"

Now for something completely opinionated:

A 3d desktop released by apple is bound to be flawed because they are going to maintain all the controls over it, not the end user. Because of all the details you can apply cosmetically to a 3d desktop over a 2d desktop, if the user is not allowed to tune it and make it functional to him or her, it will fail. Apple has always been more about preserving their look than giving a damn about what anyone else might want to do when it comes to cosmetics.

[Dixon Bainbridge]

open/Fluxbox ftw

[b3n87]

I like the idea personally, everyone here is just slagging it off because it's by Apple.

If it was a experimental Compiz-Fusion fork, you would all be saying what a good idea it is.

You don't really think the desktop will stay 2D for the rest of its life?

[gigaferz]

has anyone watched the new bond movie?, what about ironman?? maybe in a few years well see something like that released to the public...

I remember seeing a video with a table like computer from microsoft, and it was a touch screen thing, and if u get a device on top of it, it conects right away, ..well maybe 10 years from now...

[Giant Speck]

That looks like a headache.

[magmon]

Ooooh... Is that downloadable?? That was cool lol.

[Giant Speck]

Ooooh... Is that downloadable?? That was cool lol.

It looks like it's only in the concept stage right now.

[magmon]

It seems to be downloadable, but the .debs dont work. Trying the "mega package" now.

[shadowdude1794]

This heavily resembles an alternative desktop design that has been in progress for a while, BumpTop (http://bumptop.com/), and by heavily, I mean completely copied. I'm one of the beta testers for BumpTop and I think Apple needs to come up with their own ideas, not copy others (I'm not a Windows fan boy, and this isn't meant to be an attack on Apple).

[Delever]

It is really, really hard to have a truly original ideas. So what actually counts is implementation. And we don't see it yet...

[MikeTheC]

I like the idea personally, everyone here is just slagging it off because it's by Apple.
Not at all. Apple's contributions to the user interface have been significant; moreover they have contributed significantly to many different OS projects' notions (in the sense of being referenced as "prior art"). In fact, thanks in large part to the efforts of Jef Raskin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jef_Raskin) and, in more recent times, Jonathan Ive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Ive), much of Apple's user interface designs have served as the inspiration for the products of many other disciplines and industries.


If it was a experimental Compiz-Fusion fork, you would all be saying what a good idea it is.
Compiz-Fusion is what it is because it was designed to be that way. Aqua (Mac OS X), Luna (XP) and Aero (Vista) were never intended to function in that way, nor to have that kind of feature set. Although, arguably, Aero comes the closest in terms of some of the specific effects of which it is capable. Having said that, it is still obvious (though less and less painfully-so as time progresses) Compiz is not perfect, either.

What is significant and important, to my mind, and what I feel the F/OSS community should take away from this, is what positive influences C-F can have throughout both the F/OSS world as well as in the commercial space. As an example of what I mean by this, take a look at the effect that multiple desktops as a concept is beginning to have on both Mac OS X as well as Windows.


You don't really think the desktop will stay 2D for the rest of its life?
Anything can happen; yet in all the time that the GUI has been around (from it's start with the Xerox PARC "Star" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_Star) workstation system at the beginning of the 80s through Aqua-Luna-Aero-X11 today) it's all still basically a 2D space, and I see nothing likely to displace the metaphor, given it's wide-spread adoption and acceptance by the majority of the computer-using community.



It is really, really hard to have a truly original ideas. So what actually counts is implementation. And we don't see it yet...
This is very, very true. As I basically have tried to indicate above, what we see in the desktop UI-space is basically a continuous refinement process of a concept that is now nearly 30 years old.

[b3n87]

Im sorry, but you've lost me.

[MikeTheC]

Im sorry, but you've lost me.

Ok, let's try this again.

1. I'm not criticizing Apple's 3D Desktop concept merely because it's Apple doing it.

2. Compiz-Fusion isn't perfect itself, either, either in execution or in performance, as evidenced by other users' stated experiences on this and other message boards.

3. The "computer world" isn't like the "real world", and so we need to stop making the invalid 1:1 comparison that we often do about such things. Computers are best when they operate in an efficient and non-burdensome fashion. Abandoning the 2D space for a 3D space, no matter how eye-candy-gee-whiz, will be trading an efficient experience for an inefficient, burdensome one.

[laurielegit]

has anyone watched the new bond movie?, what about ironman?? maybe in a few years well see something like that released to the public...

Thats what they said about nuclear powered vacuum cleaners.

2d monitors. 2d mice. 2*2=4. Thus we must have 4d desktops. I wonder if I can get a patent for that...

I wish they wouldn't patent stuff like this, that they might never use. It doesn't help them, it doesn't help us. It is unilaterally bad for society, and hinders innovation.

I personally think that it'll never take of. But that's what they said about nuclear powered vacuum cleaners.

[MikeTheC]

Thats what they said about nuclear powered vacuum cleaners.

2d monitors. 2d mice. 2*2=4. Thus we must have 4d desktops. I wonder if I can get a patent for that...

I wish they wouldn't patent stuff like this, that they might never use. It doesn't help them, it doesn't help us. It is unilaterally bad for society, and hinders innovation.

I personally think that it'll never take of. But that's what they said about nuclear powered vacuum cleaners.

LOL... Agreed...

[MaxIBoy]

I'm not going to go into the discussion of whether I like it. It looks a lot like LG3D, and they're trying to patent it. That ticks me off.

[ssam]

looks kind of like this old (2004) mock up.

http://www.joelswanson.net/diorama/index.html

[MikeTheC]

As I've already said, Apple throws a lot of stuff against the wall just to see what sticks. The only thing I'd be interested in seeing developed would be spin-off things from this total concept. Be patient, folks. The future will be here soon enough.

[brainac0cult]

I think that making computers more "realistic" is separating the user from the computer; which is all very well until a bsod, sad mac or kernel panic!

[hessiess]

You're not thinking "three dimensionally" ;)

Sun introduced some of these concepts some years ago with the Java Desktop Environment, like the concept of "book-shelving windows"

Now for something completely opinionated:

A 3d desktop released by apple is bound to be flawed because they are going to maintain all the controls over it, not the end user. Because of all the details you can apply cosmetically to a 3d desktop over a 2d desktop, if the user is not allowed to tune it and make it functional to him or her, it will fail. Apple has always been more about preserving their look than giving a damn about what anyone else might want to do when it comes to cosmetics.

Sorry? Almost all display technologies available at the current point in time are inherently 2D. Because of this a 3D WM will have all the same problems faced by a pure 2D one. Such as the time wasted manually managing windows , as well as the task of sifting through a large number of windows trying to find the one you want.

On top of this you have 3D specific problems, such as whether it should use orthographic or perspective projection. Perspective gives a more '3D' feal, but the contents of a window in the background is smaller, which may mean that you have to bring forwards regularly. This is bound to be far less efficient than an orthographic projection, bur then the environment is basically 2D again.

To summarise:
----Pretty: Depends on your opinion, Personally I find eyecandy WMs to be a waste of system resources, are detracting and waste time with pointless animations.
----fast and efficient: Unlickly due to the need to move widows in the Z(depth) as well as the useural X and Y.

PS: a gap is still a gap, regardless of whither its in '3D' or 2D space, They are a major waste of screen real estate.