Forums | MacLife

No. of messages on the login screen would be nice. Etc. would be even better of course

MajorMatt wrote:

It seems every revision since Windows 95 has had slight graphic changes, but only on the superficial level. Microsoft needs to work on their GUI in a more deep level, XP looks like a skin on Windows 9X and Longhorn continues the tradition.

All of the GUI elements retain their tacky microsoft-zeal, ie the buttons, popupmenus and so on. This looks like an OS9 user using a Mac OS X theme. It kinda looks like OSX but OS9 is still very apparent.

That analogy doesn't quite work, since OS 9 has interface design traits that are superior to its replacement, depending on your point of view (Fitt's Law, etc.). I suppose one can argue that Windows 95 is an example of "less is more" when compared to XP and Longhorn, but it is still fundamentally the same UI. OS 9 is quite different from OS X, particularly the Finder.

What an ugly and inefficient interface.
http://www.only4gurus.com/longhorn/scre … 203_11.png

Do you really have 4 discrete personalities?

Whatever, many would claim that 2D GUIs as a whole are an inefficient form of interaction.

The only notable thing I see in those shots is the ability for transparent windows to blur what's behind them. Other than that, meh. It may do cool effects, but it still looks like well.. Marklar.

XYZ wrote:

after-life wrote:

Windows 95 was actually a pretty decent Mac OS clone in retrospect.

No, it was just the least cluttered version of the modern (post 3.x) Windows interface.

... much of which was ripped off from Apple.

If only NT had support for modern hardware. It was the most stable Microsoft OS, and had the least craptacular interface. Basically usable.

robco wrote:

OS X needed to be a major overhaul with new visuals.  OS 9 was a steaming, stinking pile of poodoo

Under the hood, you're right. The lack of real multitasking and protected memory was a joke.

In terms of user interface design, you're off base. It beat the pants off of everything else in the market during its time, and still beats OS X in a lot of areas.

From what i've heard MS just uses too many programmers. In the programming world more is always not better. Theres 11 people on the OSX core team, theres something like 75 on the longhorn team. I'm talking core OS here, not the extras like Quicktime/WMV and the like.

Boy, that's a huge-ass bar they've got on the side there.

oatmeal wrote:

Boy, that's a huge-ass bar they've got on the side there.

And people say the menubar in Mac OS is big

Maybe Longhorn will only be for people with poor eyesight.

nah sucks already.. . beta people will have found holes and gotten security threats ready.

robco wrote:

OS X needed to be a major overhaul with new visuals.  OS 9 was a steaming, stinking pile of poodoo.  Sure, visually XP doesn't hold a candle to OS X, that much is true.  But how about performance?  Or being able to run a wider range of software titles?  Or being compatible with more hardware.  Windows is going full-on 64-bit, OS X is fits and starts.

It just seems that the only thing people are picking on is the UI in a dev release, which seems a bit superficial.  It will be intersting to see how OS X performs compared to Windows on the same hardware once the MacTels ship.  I hope for Apple's sake that the performance numbers are favorable - or at least competitive.

That's a very fair argument.  There's a lot of room for improvement in OS X with regard to performance that purely rests on Apple's shoulders, particularly with regard to OpenGL performance.  Let's look at what Glenda Adams (Director of Development, Aspyr Media) had to say about Doom 3's pathetic performance listed in order from least to greatest impact. (I'm paraphrasing):

1: Architecture Differences - "Proper" coding style on the x86 is different from "proper" PPC style.
2: Compiler Differences - Intel's compiler (and others) kick ass, and Apple's pretty much sucks.
3: Modern OpenGL Implementation - OpenGL apps compete with the rest of the system for resources.
4: Open GL Drivers have indirect access - This significantly limits the ammount of driver optimization.
5: Time - *Much* more time was spent on optimizing for Doom 3 for the PC than for the Mac.
6: AnnandTech also raises some generally minor issues regarding OS X's kernel philosophy.

Looking at the list, 1 and 2 are immediately solved.  #5 won't necessarily be solved, but in cases like Doom 3, developers will certainly be able to do more in the same time frame.  So that leaves 3 & 4 as the big hurdles.  Can Apple fix it in time for the Pentium M PowerBook?  We will see...

But the other side of the argument is valid as well.  With the exception of a few qwirks here and there, OS X is the best OS around - from top to bottom.  And Apple is able to overhaul the entire thing with clockwork regularity.  Why isn't Microsoft able to do the same thing with their resources?  I'll admit that Apple's small market share makes major short-term transitions practical.  For Microsft, old technology is a liability they must deal with.  But c'mon!  As of right now, the only scheduled improvements for Longhorn are Aqua-like effects, active indexing search (without 3rd party support, i might add), security enhancements for Internet Explorer, and 64-bit support.  So basically, with the exception of a pretty (much the same) interface and Searching capabilities (that's still shy of Spotlight), Longhorn is a service pack.  It just doesn't justify the development time.