Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Software Businesses Apple

Apple's Illuminous (Aqua v2) to Compete with Aero 377 377

tovarish writes "According to Apple Gazette Apple will replace Aqua with a new name (and hopefully looks) called Illuminous. Is Jobs scared of Aero?, does it make sense to go for a new UI now?, has Aqua run out of steam? The answers will probably come later next month(year)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple's Illuminous (Aqua v2) to Compete with Aero

Comments Filter:
  • Please (Score:3, Interesting)

    by captnitro (160231) on Monday December 11, 2006 @11:24AM (#17194592)
    Let's do away with the files/folders/desktop/dialogs metaphor and system. It's served us well, but I'd really like to see a groundbreaking way to work with my data. One with an abstracted view system that could, as an example, bridge desktop and network applications, or let me perform actions via the mouse or via speech, or gestures, etc., without having to put any more work into the controller code. ::from back of room:: X11!

    Shut up already! :)
  • by jZnat (793348) * on Monday December 11, 2006 @11:24AM (#17194602) Homepage Journal
    Since iTunes 7 doesn't follow the rest of the Tiger application themes, this might have something to do with that theme. Maybe they're going to make all the apps consistent regardless of use? Or maybe they're going to introduce even more categories to use when designing the UI for your app so that you Windows themers can't copy the OS X theme? :P
  • Blind guess (Score:3, Interesting)

    by hcdejong (561314) <> on Monday December 11, 2006 @11:37AM (#17194818)
    Given that the job posting talks about nothing more than 'enhancements' to Aqua, we seem to have basically no data to go by.

    Apart from that, I do think it's time for Apple to revisit Aqua. Not for a pointless 'replace it with another theme to keep up with Aero' exercise, though. The OS X UI needs a more fundamental redesign, to improve the way we interact with our data. The Finder is one app in dire need of an update.
  • by Midnight Thunder (17205) on Monday December 11, 2006 @12:00PM (#17195208) Homepage Journal
    The Finder is the one thing I would like to see improvements in. For example rewriting it to be a Cocoa app and actually being smarter at noticing file changes, especially with SMB volumes. There is no f5 (refresh key on Windows), so I don't want to have to wait a minute until it notices.

    One other thing I would love to see, related to AppleShare volumes: server side folder size calculation, since it would be easier to cache and reduce unecessary network traffic because the client wouldn't be interogating each and every file.
  • As a Vista user... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by moracity (925736) on Monday December 11, 2006 @12:26PM (#17195600)
    I think Jobs has nothing to worry about. Aero is utter crap. I've been using Vista for the past week or so and the entire interface seems "incomplete" somehow. The learning curve for Vista is pretty steep. Everything is awkward and MS has actually made Windows harder to use. Just navigating the ile system is bizarre. There are more steps to get to anything. Don't even get me started on Office 2007. My wife is a pretty skilled Office user and she couldn't do anything with Word 2007. I've been looking for a setting to get the 2003 interface back, but I don't see one. You can't make this kind of drastic change to the interface of the most widely used office suite in the world. It's absurd.

    There is no way we will be deploying either product to our users at the office anytime soon. It would kill the productivity of our company immediately. There are some cool IT management features in Vista, but the change in the interface negates all of them.
  • Re:Pinstripes (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mrchaotica (681592) * on Monday December 11, 2006 @01:22PM (#17196468)

    Nah, it'd look like this []! : )

    (Of course, a wallpaper showing the circuitry on the inside of my iMac would be really cool... I wish I could find one.)

  • by porcupine8 (816071) on Monday December 11, 2006 @02:21PM (#17197386) Journal
    This is why I like it, as well. Not everyone has a nice 30" widescreen monitor - or even a 17". I was working on a 15" monitor using Windows at my last job, and there was just no room, especially since I often had 5-6 Word documents open as well as a couple browser windows and 1-2 excel files. The tiny bit of space a shared menubar would have saved would have been much appreciated. Even if it wouldn't have given me enough space for a whole additional window, making things a bit less cluttered would have just *felt* nicer.
  • by drinkypoo (153816) <> on Monday December 11, 2006 @02:21PM (#17197396) Homepage Journal
    Eye candy alone, a good interface does not make. It has to work well too. Position of elements, system-wide consistency, clarity of function: are you taking these in account?

    sure, is apple?

    In case you need the answer spelled out for you, the answer is no. Let me give you some examples.

    One quicky example of how Apple's logic is poor slapped me in the face when I turned on my system. Apple is constantly giving me offers to install an iSight update. I don't have an iSight. I tried to install it once to get it to stop offering it to me - I can't, because I don't have one. Why is it that Microsoft can manage not to offer me updates I can't install, but Apple can't?

    Okay, maybe that's not the best example. Here's another not so good example: Why do we still have creator/type flags? I personally find it confusing when I have two images next to each other, both appear to be a tiff image (.tif extension) yet when double-clicked, one opens in photoshop and the other in preview. Yes, I can understand why this happens. It's still confusing. Windows does this much more consistently. (Maybe consistency isn't what you want, but it makes the whole system more logical.) It makes much more sense to have a single default application to open a single document type, and let you access alternate applications from the context menu. Then again, maybe Apple doesn't trust its users to find the context menu...

    One of my favorite examples is the application-specific menu (whatever it's called) between the apple menu and the first application menu, usually "File". This menu is apparently created by the application, not by the OS, because the key shortcut to hide the application varies from program to program. Some programs don't even have a shortcut for it! Where is this "consistency" you speak of?

    Apple is not nearly as good at this as they claim. I find that if you stick to a single environment (GNOME or KDE) then you get a very consistent, uniform appearance and set of behaviors on Linux.

  • Re:Aqua (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Monday December 11, 2006 @02:26PM (#17197438)

    The problem is, even though you clicked on the red circle on tool bar, it may not have closed the app you were working with. So even though all you see is your word processor, the tool bar is still from the app you meant to close.

    This is wholly a matter of workflow. Windows users have this problem because on Windows closing a window is the same thing as quitting an application. The two have been tied. To me, that is a design flaw and I'll tell you why. I regularly run applications that have no Window and don't need one. They are only menus and a dock icon. On Windows, this type of application would confuse the crap out of people. Further, I often want to close all the documents in use by an application, but not quit the application. The reason for this is also simple, I don't want to wait for it to load again multitasking us good enough that having it open does not slow down other applications. I think this has also been an issue related to Windows since on Windows users have trained themselves to quit applications not in use, since the multitasking does not handle programs sitting idle in the background very well. It pisses me off when I'm on a Windows box and I close a file only to have reopen the program that just quit because I want to open another file using that same program. This is a common task that Windows application developers hack their way around by creating managing Windows that just sit around as placeholders with nothing in them, or useless features in them that only duplicate functionality of the menus.

    In summary, the "correct" behavior is simply a matter of perspective, but I certainly find the Mac way a lot more useful to me than the Windows way. I prefer separate granular operations rather than tying one behavior to another unrelated task.

    You'd be surprised to know how many could not grasp the fact that the red circle may not close an application and just because you can only see one window does not mean that the top tool bar is the tool bar from that particular application.

    Here's my Win2K counter-anecdote. My father is computer illiterate. He only knows how to get to documents that the application lists as the most recently used ones. He only know how to quit programs by clicking the "X" button. His computer used to regularly slow down until it was unusable and he had to reboot. The reason was not spyware, but hearts. Clicking the "X" closed the game window, but did not quit the application. Windows, however, had no way to easily get to the program again (a bug prevented cmd-tabbing). So I'd stop by and he'd regularly have 10 or more copies of hearts running on his laptop. Teaching him to use the menus proved harder than finding a better hearts game.

    of course, this was back when we were using system 9, but I don't see any difference with OSX

    There is one difference and that is the dock. If you close a window the user will notice the program is still running pretty quickly, since the dock icon remains and is marked as running. Most novice mac users use the dock to start and stop applications. It makes a lot more logical sense, in my opinion, than tying the action to having open windows.

  • Re:Pinstripes (Score:4, Interesting)

    by GlassHeart (579618) on Monday December 11, 2006 @02:27PM (#17197444) Journal
    Look near the bottom of this page [].
  • by (653730) on Monday December 11, 2006 @02:56PM (#17197856)
    No, what is really odd is that people thinks that people is "scared" of Aero. Mac OS X was released on 2000, in 2001 the interface got hardware acceleration. Vista is being released....NOW.

    In other words, while MS has player catch up, Apple has had plenty of time to think on the "Next big thing". Why wouldn't they improve Aqua? They've the lead for years so if someone can do it, that's apple.

    It's a interesting thing that they're doing it but saying that they're "scared" is stupid. It's microsoft who should be scared of needing to play catch up with the next Mac OS interfaces.
  • by fistfullast33l (819270) on Monday December 11, 2006 @03:12PM (#17198090) Homepage Journal
    I agree. I think Microsoft is scared of Apple's dominance in the "public image" department as being cool. They may still have market share but that is mostly in the Business space. Apple is creeping up on the consumer space largely through the iPod and their recent marketing campaigns (the television commercials are really good). Aero definitely was in response to Aqua and I think the announcement today that Office won't support VBA on OS X definitely is a flag from Microsoft they're going to start to play tough. And of course, there is the Zune.
  • Re:scared? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by double-oh three (688874) on Monday December 11, 2006 @04:10PM (#17198890)
    Honestly, why does it need to be a response? Aqua's great, but it's a few years old at this point. Is there any evidence that this isn't just a v2 with new features for Leopard? Seriously, Apple can do something without it being a response. I mean, we're not saying that Photoshop CS3 is a response to GIMP (which personally I think is a valid comparison for Aqua/Aero (no offense to GIMP, it's good for what it is, it just isn't there yet)), so why does Illuminous have to be anything other than an upgrade to a well-liked existing product?
  • by Overly Critical Guy (663429) on Monday December 11, 2006 @11:18PM (#17203462)
    And if you follow Groklaw, you'd laugh at the fact that lead Windows guy Allchin wrote an email to Gates and Ballmer in 2004 explaining that if he didn't work at Microsoft, he'd be using a Mac...

The brain is a wonderful organ; it starts working the moment you get up in the morning, and does not stop until you get to work.