On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 10:13:03AM +0300, Oded Arbel wrote: > On Monday 25 August 2003 10:05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > The things I think are the most useful in the OS-X interface are: > > > > 1. The ability to sort of "zoom out" where all the application windows > > are resized to be small enough so they don't overlap, in that state you > > can pick the window you want to switch to, then all windows resize > > back to their normal state. They'll keep updating in that "smaller" state > > too. > > The reason you can do that, and all other neat things OS-X does, is what apple > calls "Quartz Extreme". its very simple concept and not far from other things > people are playing with on Linux: they map each window as a texture map over > a rectangular 3D object using the graphic's hardware 3D acceleration mode > after you do that, you can manipulate the window in hardware - resize it, > make it translucent, swipe it here and there, etc' all in hardware and as > long as you keep updating the texture bitmap that represents the actual > content of the window, users' will be non the wiser. > > Only problem is : you can't do it in X, because X was designed a long time > before any decent 3D hardware acceleration was even thought of, and as a > result X sucks. > Linux GUI will always be a rag tag collection of graphical elements straigning > against the weight of the windowing system for as long as people won't ditch > X and pursue greener pastures. IMO - X is the single reason why Linux and > other free OSs do not have the same desktop market share as they do for > server installation, and probably it diminishes acceptance in that sector as > well. > X is a piece of software most in need of a redesign if I ever saw one. > > -- > Oded > > > ================================================================= > To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with > the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command > echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
Aaaah yes. The age old argument. I cannot understand for the life of me why some
people are on a crusade to bog Linux down with eye-candy. A flashy interface is a sure
sign of a weak underlaying system. Please show me a single instance were I am wrong.
Windows XP has a flashy interface and I don't think anyone will argue with me about
the weaknesses of the underlying system.
Mac has a flashy interface and is currently being used by a stunning 0.00000000000001%
(exageration) of the market. Mac can be deligated to statistical noise as far as
market movers go. If you disagree you are welcome to show me the last time Mac has
influenced the computing market in any noticable way. The last time was when MS ripped
off their interface 3 billion years ago.
Lastly, both the above companies are commercial. Linux is not. Any comparison between
the systems on a pure technical basis ignores this. What do you think drives the
Windows and Mac developers? A love for computing? They are in it only to enhance
stockholder interest.
Why try and go in the same direction? Why the comparison? Who here would like to see
Linux become a huge coorporation with coorporate managment and coorporate interests?
If you are going to compare the two systems you might as well compare the food your
mother makes with resteraunt food and start the tread:
Re:My mother's sucks - McDonnalds rules
This is my opinion only. Don't get too offended.
--
"Cut your own wood and it will warm you twice"
Regards, Yoni Rabkin
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
