gelphman@adobe.COM (David Gelphman) (02/01/90)
In article <6443@internal.Apple.COM> lsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein) writes: >In article <18971@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> erics@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Eric >Schlegel) writes: >> The NeXT has 2 bits per pixel, allowing white, black, lt gray and dk >gray. >> If Apple would reserve ltGray and dkGray slots in the standard system >palette, >> in addition to white and black, we could easily write CDEFs that produced > >I think the point was that only Mac II class machines have the ability to >do even 2-bit displays. (The Mac SE/30 can do it also, although not on >its built-in display.) You can experiment with using 4 grays, but the >results will only be usable on those machines. > >One question is whether you should have 2 interfaces one designed for 2 >bits and the other for 1 bit. Another question is whether it even makes >sense to design for 2 bits. I think any users that has 2 bits available >has at least 4 (ie, there aren't any cards that provide only 2 bits per >pixel). Perhaps we should design for 4 bits. Finally, you will notice >that NeXT punts on these issues because it only supports one kind of >display. The only 2 bit display card that I'm aware of are the ones Apple sells for their portrait and 2 page monitors. Both support 4 bits if you add memory but they come as 2 bit monitors. One of the advantages of the NeXT machine's use of the Display PostScript systems is that colors which are not directly available throught the 'system palette' are produced by dithering with the available colors. If there were a 1 bit per pixel display available for the NeXT machine then instead of having the light gray and dark gray map into white and black the way they do with QuickDraw, they would map into dithered dark gray and light gray. The interface would still look like gray levels, albeit it not quite as nice and clean as it does today. Application writers who specify rgb values for their drawing colors will get appropriate gray values. If a color monitor is available for the NeXT machine then those applications would get color on the display without any changes to them. That is one of the goals of the Display PostScript system. I think there is a pretty good argument that NeXT is in an excellent position to add new monitors to their system. Because the whole system is based on the device independence of the PostScript language, they could change the resolution of the display and add more color/graylevels and applications could immediately take advantage of those capabilities. Because QuickDraw is pixel based, using a high resolution monitor on the Macintosh is not an attractive solution for most applications. David Gelphman Adobe Systems Incorporated Disclaimer: These views are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.
rcbaem@eutrc3.urc.tue.nl (Ernst <pooh> Mulder) (02/01/90)
Okay, maybe the 1 bit screen-depth of most Macs is a mayor drawback
for producing a NeXT look, but I've seen some nice alternate window
implementations. If anyone of you is a musician, you probably know
the alternative version of Performer. (A MIDI recorder/editor) This
program's windows are not NeXT-like, but are most certainly very
good-looking :) I use Performer quite a lot and still didn't get
bored by its alternative windows. (This version of Performer is called
the Experimental Version)
Once, on the net, I saw a little Application (Or was it an init) which
shows how the NeXT 'finder' looks. It had a nice implementation of
'depth' shadows too. But indeed, the NeXT windows are most certainly
the nicest windows I've seen so far...
Ernst.
>nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Nick Rothwell) (02/02/90)
So, do folks want all these new user interface guidelines for sexy buttons (on upper-range machines that some of us can't afford, only... :-)) just in order to try and look as sexy as a NeXT? What happens when another wonderful looking user interface comes along? More interface guidelines and even more kinds of sexy buttons? Hey ho. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Nick. -- Nick Rothwell, Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh. nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk <Atlantic Ocean>!mcvax!ukc!lfcs!nick ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ...als das Kind, Kind war...
kazim@Apple.COM (Alex Kazim) (02/02/90)
Let me just clear something up about the 2D Mac interface. The designers did a very good job at adding depth where it seemed to be needed. The extra frame on a modal dialog box is a good example of almost raised 2D: the frame without the shading. Also, the drop shadows on pull down menus and document windows. An interesting exercise is to take a screen dump of a menu, and use MacPaint to remove the drop shadow. It looks so, well, flat. That aside: In article <1990Jan31.204013.11212@intercon.com> amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) writes: > >splitting of axes could be done on a Macintosh. For example, I've long >wished that plain old Macintosh scroll bars (or the desktop) would fill with >an appropriate gray when I'm in 8-bit mode and a stipple pattern when I'm >in 1-bit mode... The 2D/3D interface axes is a really neat idea, and I'm not sure how much work the HI team here has done on it, but a few problems come to mind. I'm not a pro graphic designer, but it seems the Mac controls are optimized for 2D. I'm not sure whether you can take a Mac button as it stands right now, add the shading, and have a button that does not impact the user: that is, when the button switches from 2D to 3D, do you want the user to notice what the button'd for, or how it's drawn. Also, and I'm not sure whether Motif handles multiple numbers of multiple bit depth monitors as the Mac does, what do you do if half the scroll bar is on an 8 bit screen, and half on a 1 bit. Interesting stuff, tho'. If anyone's got a CDEF that does the 2D/3D axes stuff, it'd be interesting to see it. ======================================================================= Alex Kazim, Apple Computer Nope, not affiliated with any Human Interface or Terrorist Group =======================================================================
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (02/03/90)
My point was _not_ that we should rush into changing the Mac interface in order to look "cool" like the Next, as some posters seem to have felt. I guess my main point is that the evolution of the Mac interface ought to be addressed, and that certain developments, such as the increasing use of Next-ian controls/windows, need to be addressed in particular. Hey, I think the current Mac interface is the best around. Just maybe some small cosmetic changes might be made for the 90's Mac. But let's keep consistency above all else. Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
pepke@gw.scri.fsu.edu ("Eric Pepke") (02/06/90)
What I don't want to see lost on the Mac is the feel of the interface. NeXT buttons look more like buttons, but Mac buttons feel a lot more like them. When I click on a button, I don't want to wait a fifth of a second for the button to light up; I want it to light up NOW. I don't know what the threshold is, but if the button lights up fast enough, it feels as if I were physically pushing the button. If it doesn't light up fast enough, it feels as if I were tapping my finger on a pane of glass. Most of the Mac interface does better than this threshold for me. HyperCard, at least on a Plus or SE, and most of the NeXT interface do worse. Eric Pepke INTERNET: pepke@gw.scri.fsu.edu Supercomputer Computations Research Institute MFENET: pepke@fsu Florida State University SPAN: scri::pepke Tallahassee, FL 32306-4052 BITNET: pepke@fsu Disclaimer: My employers seldom even LISTEN to my opinions. Meta-disclaimer: Any society that needs disclaimers has too many lawyers.
murat@farcomp.UUCP (Murat Konar) (02/06/90)
In article <497@fsu.scri.fsu.edu> pepke@gw.scri.fsu.edu ("Eric Pepke") writes: >What I don't want to see lost on the Mac is the feel of the interface. >NeXT buttons look more like buttons, but Mac buttons feel a lot more like >them. When I click on a button, I don't want to wait a fifth of a second >for the button to light up; I want it to light up NOW. I don't know what >the threshold is, but if the button lights up fast enough, it feels as if >I were physically pushing the button. If it doesn't light up fast enough, >it feels as if I were tapping my finger on a pane of glass. Most of the >Mac interface does better than this threshold for me. HyperCard, at least >on a Plus or SE, and most of the NeXT interface do worse.i Hey all you Eunuch dweebs out there who have to have "true pre-emptive multi-tasking!" Read the above paragraph carefully. It illustrates the number one argument AGAINST pre-emptive multi-tasking on the Mac. Unless the dudes at Apple work some real magic in their implementation of "true pre- emptive multi-tasking" the feel of the Mac is going to be the pits. I have played with CuBEs and Sun's with their UIs, and they just don't feel right. And try running an HP9000 (16 mHz 68020) with X. You will regret it. I like the way the Mac feels and couldn't care less about being able to format a disk while calculating Pi to 73000 decimal palces. Those of you (programmer types) who can't tell a pointer from a handle should just stay over there where you are. There, I feel better. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Have a day. :^| Murat N. Konar murat@farcomp.UUCP -or- farcomp!murat@apple.com
jmunkki@kampi.hut.fi (Juri Munkki) (02/06/90)
In article <142@farcomp.UUCP> murat@farcomp.UUCP (Murat Konar) writes: >In article <497@fsu.scri.fsu.edu> pepke@gw.scri.fsu.edu ("Eric Pepke") writes: >>What I don't want to see lost on the Mac is the feel of the interface. >>NeXT buttons look more like buttons, but Mac buttons feel a lot more like >>them. When I click on a button, I don't want to wait a fifth of a second >>for the button to light up; I want it to light up NOW. I don't know what > >Hey all you Eunuch dweebs out there who have to have "true pre-emptive >multi-tasking!" Read the above paragraph carefully. It illustrates the >number one argument AGAINST pre-emptive multi-tasking on the Mac. Unless >the dudes at Apple work some real magic in their implementation of "true pre- >emptive multi-tasking" the feel of the Mac is going to be the pits. The distinction with user interface feel is not between pre-emptive and Mac-style multitasking. Both have the same problem with interactive work. Just try to run Stuffit in the background and click a button on the front application (It will take forever for it to react). A real-time multitasking system should not have this problem. If the interactive task is given higher priority than others, it will feel faster. >I like the way the Mac feels and couldn't care less about being able to >format a disk while calculating Pi to 73000 decimal palces. Those of >you (programmer types) who can't tell a pointer from a handle should >just stay over there where you are. Now what is this supposed to mean? I wouldn't mind being able to use my terminal program while a disk is formatting (although on the Mac, formatting a disk is a CPU-intensive operation). I also wouldn't mind doing something while a program is saving a large file (700KB or larger) to a floppy. As it is currently, MultiFinder gives top priority to the front application and leftovers for the others. (50% of the slots go to the front application while the background applications share the rest.) This helps a little in keeping the Mac interface up to our expectations. If you feel like flaming this article, please mail me instead of wasting useful net.bandwidth. I'm already having doubts about posting this article, since this subject has already been beaten to death. _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._ | Juri Munkki jmunkki@hut.fi jmunkki@fingate.bitnet I Want Ne | | Helsinki University of Technology Computing Centre My Own XT | ^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
rdd@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) (02/07/90)
In article <142@farcomp.UUCP> murat@farcomp.UUCP (Murat Konar) writes: >I have played with CuBEs and Sun's with their UIs, and they just don't >feel right. And I don't suppose it has anything to do with three- and two-button mice, does it? IMHO, the single-button mouse is currently the greatest technological edge Apple has over any of the competition. :-) They sure seem to be losing the monopoly on useful visual interfaces (I recently saw a MacWrite clone running on a PS/2, but with a better aesthetic appeal--and it seemed...FASTER).
amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) (02/07/90)
In article <142@farcomp.UUCP>, murat@farcomp.UUCP (Murat Konar) writes: > And try running an HP9000 (16 mHz 68020) with X. You will > regret it. It's worth remembering that a Sun 3/50 is about the same horsepower as a Mac IIx (talking raw CPU cycles). A Mac IIx with 4M of memory is quick and responsive. A Sun 3/50 with 4M barely runs X11 at all, and don't even think about speed, although I hear R4 is better than R3. -- Amanda Walker InterCon Systems Corporation "Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly upon our own point of view." --Obi-Wan Kenobi in "Return of the Jedi"
chari@nueces.cactus.org (Chris Whatley) (02/07/90)
amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) writes: >In article <142@farcomp.UUCP>, murat@farcomp.UUCP (Murat Konar) writes: >> And try running an HP9000 (16 mHz 68020) with X. You will >> regret it. And try running an application on one machine and have it show up on another. You will enjoy it. :-) >It's worth remembering that a Sun 3/50 is about the same horsepower as a >Mac IIx (talking raw CPU cycles). A Mac IIx with 4M of memory is quick >and responsive. A Sun 3/50 with 4M barely runs X11 at all, and don't even >think about speed, although I hear R4 is better than R3. Hey! That's what I have on my desk currently. For me it is a toss up between running X on the 3/50 and using a mac with UW (basically both meet my needs currently). But really, the 3/50 is a faster machine if you take io throughput into account (which you must because any mac's throughput is pitifully bad) which seems slower because it is running -- Christopher M. Whatley Research Systems Administrator - University of Texas Mathematics Work: chari@math.utexas.edu (preferably not NeXT Mail) (512/471-7711) Home: chari@nueces.cactus.org (NeXT Mail) (512/499-0475)
ralph@computing-maths.cardiff.ac.uk (Ralph Martin) (02/08/90)
Apple does it yet again. Yet another bloody set of pieces of paper to keep track of: >Apple has a new series of documents called "Human Interface Notes". They're >similar in format to the Tech Notes. The first set just came out an is dated >January 1990. These and the TechNotes are basically an admission of weaknesses in the original documentation, which should be updated to fix it. Please note that I am not complaining that this material has been released. Its a very good idea. Its just that Apple needs to have ONE (1) single coherent body of documentation for programming the Mac, all grouped in one place. Look at the current mess: Inside Mac vols 1-3, delta vols 4 and 5, Technotes, Human Interface Notes, develop, books published by addison wesley, some of which are years out of date, Spinside Mac for the priviledged few who can get hold of the CD with it on, APDA manuals for things like MPW and ResEdit,..., need I go on? PLEASE, PLEASE, Can Apple provide what I suspect many people would want - a coherent, integrated SINGLE source of reference for the Mac, including reference material, tutorial material, interface guidlines, hardware, software etc etc, which is also kept up to date with new models and system software as they appear (NOT with delta volumes) ? There, I feel better now.... Ralph
jimc@isc-br.ISC-BR.COM (Jim Cathey) (02/09/90)
In article <1990Jan31.204013.11212@intercon.com> amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) writes: >... For example, I've long >wished that plain old Macintosh scroll bars (or the desktop) would fill with >an appropriate gray when I'm in 8-bit mode and a stipple pattern when I'm >in 1-bit mode... Reminds me of what I tried the first time I got to sit in front of the Mac II. I thought, "Wow, now I can try out a _real_ gray desktop!" and proceeded to fiddle with the desktop pattern and the color palette stuff. After a little fussing around I got it, sat back and looked at it for a while, played around a bit and then concluded "This sucks." The real gray color was too 'flat', the texture of the gray of the desktop seems to be an important (though subtle) part of the desktop experience. It adds to the layering effect of the desktop. I've also observed that messy-dos programs that use solid colors have less apparent layering than the Mac does. Food for thought. +----------------+ ! II CCCCCC ! Jim Cathey ! II SSSSCC ! ISC-Bunker Ramo ! II CC ! TAF-C8; Spokane, WA 99220 ! IISSSS CC ! UUCP: uunet!isc-br!jimc (jimc@isc-br.iscs.com) ! II CCCCCC ! (509) 927-5757 +----------------+ "With excitement like this, who is needing enemas?"
Jim.Spencer@p5.f22.n282.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Spencer) (02/12/90)
>PLEASE, PLEASE, Can Apple provide what I suspect many people would want - >a coherent, integrated SINGLE source of reference for the Mac, >including reference material, tutorial material, interface guidlines, hardware, >software etc etc, which is also kept up to date with new models and system >software as they appear (NOT with delta volumes) ? While I do think it is time for a rewrite so as to incorporate into a single coherent set all of the changes made over the past 6 years, I for one do not want to have to replace my complete set of documentation every time Apple comes out with a new model or system software. It would just plain be too expensive. What you can get now is a loose leaf set of Inside Mac and then put Tech Notes etc in the binders where they go. -- Jim Spencer - via FidoNet node 1:282/33 UUCP: ...!uunet!imagery!22.5!Jim.Spencer ARPA: Jim.Spencer@p5.f22.n282.z1.FIDONET.ORG
Philip.Craig@p27.f22.n282.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Philip Craig) (02/15/90)
In a message to Ralph Martin [11 Feb 90 11:49:00] Jim Spencer wrote: >While I do think it is time for a rewrite so as to incorporate into >a single coherent set all of the changes made over the past 6 years, >I for one do not want to have to replace my complete set of >documentation every time Apple comes out with a new model or system >software. It would just plain be too expensive. What you can get >now is a loose leaf set of Inside Mac and then put Tech Notes etc in >the binders where they go. But I sure wouldnUt mind a new CD that had complete documentation that came out with each model release. -- Philip Craig - via FidoNet node 1:282/33 UUCP: ...!uunet!imagery!22.27!Philip.Craig ARPA: Philip.Craig@p27.f22.n282.z1.FIDONET.ORG
yost@esquire.UUCP (David A. Yost) (02/20/90)
In article <1149@cf-cm.UUCP> ralph@computing-maths.cardiff.ac.uk (Ralph Martin) writes: >PLEASE, PLEASE, Can Apple provide what I suspect many people would want - >a coherent, integrated SINGLE source of reference for the Mac, >including reference material, tutorial material, interface guidlines, hardware, >software etc etc, which is also kept up to date with new models and system >software as they appear (NOT with delta volumes) ? In one of the mags they send to developers, their new head of documentation said he is hell bent on doing this. I hope he succeeds, and soon! Complete new editions of the manual set *with change bars* at least once a year is what I want! And, one more thing: A FANATICALLY COMPLETE INDEX, at least as good as that paragon of indeces, the one in Bartlett's Familiar Quotations. It works like this: you formulate a question, you pick a key word from your question, you look it up, you find the entry, you walk down through the subentries until you see the one(s) that might be relevant (never more than 2 or 3 page numbers without splitting out into separate subheads!), and you go to a page number or two. Try that in the HyperCard Reference, for example. Forget it. And, you use this same index in the online version of the manuals. --dave yost yost@dpw.com or uunet!esquire!yost Please ignore the From or Reply-To fields above, if different.