Ars Technica on OSX/Aqua 259
Gilmoure writes "John Siracusa has written an excellent article on the technology (Quartz) behind Aqua and its possible impact on GUI industry. " The continued evolution of OS/X has been interesting, even simply from the marketing perspectives. John's take is a good one to read if you haven't followed OSX very much.
*News* for Nerds.. (Score:1)
Re:*News* for Nerds.. (Score:1)
the future (Score:2)
Phooey on GUI's (Score:2)
It's good to find that Slashdot sees the light. (Score:2)
The UNIX/Linux/BSD/Windows community has for too long dominated the computer industry, and we've all suffered for it. These obscurantists insist on using crude, primitive "techie" languages like C and C++, which naturally keeps them in their jobs and forces talented, imaginative people out of the software-development arena. Only a true nerd could love these languages. Nobody with the imagination to do great things could possibly have the patience to learn idiotic trivia like printf( ) format strings and virtual inheritance. Inheritance in general is just another techie boondoggle. It's a joke. They're just adding useless complexity for it's own sake. Programming languages must adapt to the user, not vice-versa, and BASIC is the only language that does that (aside from COBOL, but I'll not mention that one because a lot of Slashdotters seem intimidated by a language so powerful, versatile, and open). BASIC is clear and intuitive. It's the future of programming. The only tool any developer needs -- be he a kernel hacker or somebody working on multimedia technology -- is a pure visual advanced BASIC-like programming environment. Don't believe the hype about efficiency. Look at some C code, and look at some BASIC code that does the same thing: The C code is painful, long-winded, verbose, and obscure. They can call that "elegant" all they like, but any fool can see that it's anything but. They make the programmer work harder, and then they make the computer work harder. And why? Just to preserve their priesthood: Job-security through obscurity. It's all about intimidating non-technical people, the users who pay their bills and support the whole industry. This is wrong. Professional programmers can be done away with entirely, simply by putting the power to write code in the hands of the average user, who will use it much better than the obscure Lords of Pointers ever have with their silly rituals and gratuitous "hacks".
It's time for a change.
"When you see it you want to lick it" (Score:2)
Maybe they'll need to come up with some kind of chamois-like coating for the screen which soaks up any, uh, secretions....
I think I'd better stop this train of thought right now.
Seriously, though, this is fairly cool, especially as displays get more and more independent of 'pixels' as resolutions become finer and finer. Think in terms of where stuff like "electronic paper" displays are headed....
A triumph of presentation over content? (Score:1)
Unless the GUI overlays some real functionality then one has to question its usefulness. I certainly don't believe that "Presentation is everything, content is mere ephemera". (Can't find a reference to this quote, which is almost certainly by Oscar Wilde).
Remember who Apple gears their software toward (Score:2)
No Theme Support (Score:5)
One of the things I hate about the Apple way of doing things is that they think the way to make things simpler is to take away options.
For instance, we are using CIPE-over-PPP-over-ATM to network ourselves over DSL to another network. It works really well, but it eats up about 60 bytes out of each TCP packet. This is no problem for places where MTU path discovery works, but many places block ICMP, and so MTU discovery doesn't work... in any case, the best solution is to set the max MTU size down to 1440 or so.
Under Linux, this is easy... ifconfig eth0 mtu 1440
Under Windows, there is a registry setting. Not the right way to do it in my opinion, but at least it can be done.
There is NO WAY to do this under MacOS that I could find. The only solution was some guy who hacked up the TCP/IP stack and wrote a little control panel where you could change the settings. That's not the way to do things.
Or the mouse. I know that Apple people say that one button is easier than 2 or 3, but my Mac friend told me the other day that one of the things I needed to do for something was option-click-click-and-hold. That's EASIER than right-click or middle-click?
Now, Apple has done some very good things in terms of user interfaces... it's a very uniform user interface. Back in 1984, it was an extremely modern way to do things. But over the last 15 years or so they've fallen behind in the technical arena. No preemptive multitasking (until now, more on that in a minute) is unacceptable. And how do they make up for it? FUD. Steve Jobs said that you couldn't buy a faster computer than a G3. Not only could you get a PII to run faster, but he completely neglected the Alpha, UltraSparc, PA-RISC, etc. These aren't typically home machines, sure, but he was trying to say that the G3 was some sort of Super Computer or something. We see this continued with the silly Army Tank / G4 commercial, which is not so much a testament to the speed of the G4 (Don't get me wrong, it's a nice chip, but it's not beating the Origin 2000 or Enterprise 4500 behind me any time soon) as it is backwards and outdated US laws.
Now we have OS X. I must say that I'm very happy that Apple is getting into the Modern OS Architecture arena. And they certainly chose some good technologies to support. I have high hopes that Apple can come up with a really excellent product... though I still see that they treat seperate partitions as seperate filesystem spaces. D'oh.
But I must say I'm not totally convinced that OS X is something that I want to run in the future. Apple has not been what I'd call a friendly company in the last few years. It used to be that Apple was the good guy and IBM was the bad guy. Now Microsoft is certainly the bad guy... but I'm not convinced that Apple is a good guy. If Steve Jobs and MacOS controlled 80% of the market share, would that really be better than it is now? Think about who controlls the industry and how they deal with specs and such. Is Apple any better? Worse?
I'd say that it'd be worse. You'd have to buy your hardware from Apple. Prices would be inflated without the competition. And your computer would have to be smurf-puke blue. :-)
The User Interface MUST Improve! (Score:1)
Yet there are people out there who think that the development of the interface between the computer and its user should have frozen in 1970.
You know these people. They post on Slashdot.
They are the luddites of the new generation. They must be rendered extinct, like the dinosaurs they are.
We need interfaces like Aqua. We need the interfaces that are to come. We want computers that are so user friendly and work in such a logical and obvious way that even people like my dad can use them, if they want to.
That is the future.
People who think that emacs is the be-all and end-all, are the past. They're obsolete.
Man, that's frightening (Score:2)
A moderator actually marked this as insightful.
I was a joke, you boob.
--
Re:No Theme Support (Score:2)
ifconfig eth0 mtu 1440
scott
Read the Article -- 3rd Generation Graphics (Score:1)
If you'd have actually READ the article before trolling, you'd know that it was talking about how Quartz is a "3rd generation" graphics system -- one with actual knowledge of all the objects on the screen after they've been drawn -- and all the wonderful things that you can do with that. This is why Display PS was so damn cool back then and why Quartz's Display PDF will be even cooler. There is a lot of neat functionality that Quartz allows, and I'm sure we'll see a lot of interesting tricks as developers start to figure out how to exploit the technology. The Quartz model of graphics holds far more power and flexibility than X11, Windows, and the old Quickdraw model.
On the other hand, I'm curious just how games and other things that need direct screen access with intermix with such a graphics model.
still time (Score:1)
I have to admit, it looks pretty cool (Score:2)
Just so you know my bias... normally I absolutely detest Apple the company. They have performed far more monopolistic practices than Microsoft ever dreamed of (they were just incompetent at executing them). I despise MacOS, which is the most primitive operating system sold today. I think their hardware is way overrated, and I hate their dumbing down of computers with no way to escape the prison. And the most galling thing was their unbelievable arrogance that they still sat on the industry pedastal (gag).
All this having been said (:)), I have to admit the Aqua interface looks really cool. It's actually not a bad idea to use PDF as your drawing primitive. Traditionally Apple's implementation of ideas has been really poor, so it will be interesting to see if they've managed to pull it off in a reasonable way.
The big question is whether they allow escape from the prison for advanced users? Jobs is notorious for not allowing anything that he personally doesn't find useful and damn everyone else (floppies anyone?).
--
Basic? How archaic. We should use English. (Score:1)
Hari.
Acronym Police (Score:2)
(sirens blaring),
Internet license and registration please. Do you know how many acronyms you were doing back there? I'm going to cite you for that violation, and and another for the John Katz-length of that post. Buckle up, and have a nice day.
Re:No Nerd Support (Score:2)
And just how many people need to do this on their personal computer? 50? 75? Maybe the next MacOS should ship on 3 CD-ROMs, just to accommodate all of the possibilities.
Steve Jobs said that you couldn't buy a faster computer than a G3. Not only could you get a PII to run faster, but he completely neglected the Alpha, UltraSparc, PA-RISC, etc.
Steve said you couldn't by a faster personal computer. Higher clock speed !== faster execution.
How many Alpha, UltraSparc, etc. are being wasted on e-mails to Grandma and on tomorrow's Economics homework?
Or the mouse. I know that Apple people say that one button is easier than 2 or 3, but my Mac friend told me the other day that one of the things I needed to do for something was option-click-click-and-hold. That's EASIER than right-click or middle-click?
There is no Option-doubleclick-and-hold. At least not one that does anything special. Nice little anecdote, though.
Is this a complaint? If it is, I fail to see the problem.
--
Quartz is great! (Score:2)
*That* I consider innovation. I wish we had more of that in Linux...
I suppose someone will now announce a Open-Source project to *copy* Quartz'z functions...
...
Yes, I know I ramble and my spelling isn't quite up to scratch. If you wish to complain,
Re:Phooey on GUI's (Score:2)
Don't conflate X's bloat problems with Apple's so flippantly. Example: I occasionally dual-boot Linux and MacOS 8.6 on an unmodified revA iMac, basically used for text editing. The full Mac "system heap" (which includes its full GUI, all "extensions" enabling networking, etc.) wastes 14 of its 32 megs of ram, whereas Linux kernel+X+GNOME+Enlightenment (close as Linux gets to Mac, I think), with no services running, and no connectivity, uses 47, swaps for five minutes if I so much as move the mouse, and offers a fraction of the out-of-the-chute GUI functionality of MacOS (though I love Xterms, and hate to be without them). Point: Apple's coders know what they're doing. I don't expect OSX to run smoothly on the same machine, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it did. Linux, in its sexed-up desktop configuration, is indeed graceless, and still less screenshot-genic than OSX. Who's fixing it? No one. If anyone tried, he'd be pilloried for being an obvious Mac weenie, and called "gay" on Slashdot. I'm sadder than you are that "desktop Linux" is Windows-but-worse, and that OSX might be the death of it. But what to do?
Vectors are the THIRD generation??? (Score:1)
Hmmm.
Re:Phooey on GUI's (Score:1)
Re:Quartz is great! (Score:1)
Software does what the machine cannot yet do... (Score:1)
Why use a vector based windowing system on a monitor that can only display squares and blocks efficiently. The moment a vector based windowing system becomes usefull even unavoidable is when we have "analog" monitors as in "monitors that can actually display vectors" as opposed to the current "monitors that diplay bitmaps" IMHO this vector based windowing system is just a marketing buzz-word induced waste of cpu-time. Now that the competition is already ahead on all the current words (preemptive multitasking, multi-user, journaling file system,.....) they just invented a new one.
Thanks for not trashing Java (Score:1)
- feel sorry for you
- assume you work for Microsoft
3d (Fourth Generation) Interfaces (Score:1)
If you wanted to implement a 3D interface on Linux, what kind of task is that (excluding the obvious definition... "huge")? And is that something that would require a replacement for X, or does X have the capability to have a 3D environment on top of it?
I have a strong feeling that peope are going to start emulating the Aqua-style interface in X windows. I think if Linux were to have a real advantage (and not simply be copy-catting at an ever proficient pace), it should focus on the next step that the commercial vendors haven't arrived at yet.
Re:Escape from Prison (Score:2)
I'm a physicist, not a programmer, and I know that for serious all day use writing small applications, moderate number crunching, checking your e-mail the old NextStep was king of the hill--which is why you have AfterStep and GnuStep emulations of it. I currently like a well configured Enlightenment GUI. I think the antialiasing of the Quartz environment will make OSX a real pleasure to work with (I like E desktop once set up, but it seems that AfterStep was easier to look at for hours on end--but maybe I need new glasses,
My only concerns about OSX are things like a sufficient number of buttons on the mice and ease of access to the command line. Oh, and ability to change colors , etc., at will, in the course of reconfiguring.
My own read on recent changes at Apple is that they've gotten rid of the techno-ignoramuses who were the "world class management" chosen to grow Apple from a small niche company to a major player. Apple spent a lot of years pissing the wole world off under their leadership, even the Apple faithful. They make first rate hardware (try comparing performance of non-MS apps between PPC and Intel products, and the PPC is easily 15% to 30% faster, clock for clock). Now they are letting the user have more access to the lower levels of the OS. I think it all bodes well, and lead to more competition and greater number of options for us users.
Re:Escape from Prison (Score:2)
I agree that they do seem to be opening up things a lot. While there are still some Apple-isms that crop up ("It's over TWICE AS FAST", scream the ads), the fact that it is based on a Unix kernel bodes well.
--
Not the mouse again... (Score:3)
When I bought my PC, it came with a 2 button mouse, but I wanted a 3 button so I could use the middle button in netscape to open links in a new window. So I bought a 3 button mouse.
When I bought my Mac, it came with a 1 button mouse, but I wanted a 3 button mouse so I could use the right button to bring up contextual menu panels and program the middle button to do other cool tricks. So I bought a 3 button mouse.
CPU Usage (Score:2)
Now unless you have something in the background that is chewing up your CPU, then I reckon it is hovering near 1 or 2 percent right now.
We interact with our machines in a way that makes them site idle for most of the time, so why not use that idle CPU power to make the GUI nice and sexy.
Now of course you want to be able to turn some fluff off if you want to use those cycles for something else, and you don't want it to chew the application CPU time too much when your app is running especially a game for example.
I think it is a great idea and looks really nice, and having a nice area to work and play in is a good thing.
Can /. team agree on what to post and when? (Score:1)
See this? It was kinda fresh back then. But now it is already old news.
I see this kind of problems all the time. Does it matter which of the
Sigh (Score:2)
Of course, this thread would not be complete without a comment about 1 button mice and floppies.
Hello? You can get a floppy for your Mac. It's called "optional". Get used to it. The last time I used a floppy on my mac was 9 months ago. I don't own any software that I use which comes on floppies. Why make something standard that 90% of the users don't need? You don't, you make it an option for those who need it. Geez, it's not hard to understand...
Anyone know how the filesystem will work? (Score:2)
Since the kernel is based on BSD, will OS/X use a relatively standard Unix filesystem? In the past MacOS had that wacky system of a "data fork" and a "resource fork". Does anyone know how that will be bolted into a Unix environment?
--
Quartz and Aqua and Linux (Score:2)
I agree with the Ars Technica article about this vector based technology being the third generation. The idea isn't new, it came from NeXT, but its being incorporated in a mainstream OS. The Microsoft camp is going to have to start thinking up their own version of this now, if they want to keep up. Apple has once more raised the bar on them in terms of innovation.
As for the Linux camp, I think that this is something that definitely needs to be worked into the libraries. I want to see a user interface that has the cool vector-based effects of Quartz coupled to a redefinable interface like what GNOME or KDE supports. That becomes the ultimate in coolness, even if it chews up a lot of CPU power to pull off.
There's Display Ghostscript (Score:2)
What I'm wondering, however, is if DPDF/Quartz can be (efficiently) made network-transparent. At least with DPS this is possible, and the flexibility of the protocol lets you do some neat things in that vein....
OS X: A First Look (Score:4)
http://www.asktog.com/columns/034OSX-FirstLook.
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla [sourceforge.net]
Re:what is so revolutionary about this ? (Score:3)
Did you consider actally *shudder* reading the article? The technology is completely different than anything MacOS or any other OS has done before. That's what's so revolutionary.
Re:Quartz is great! (Score:2)
Re:Not the mouse again... (Score:1)
contextual menu panels and program the middle button to do other cool tricks. So I bought a 3 button mouse.
This is bullshit. Apple posts a guard at every Mac they sell to prevent you from hooking up any mice with more than one button. Apple has decided that one button mice is all any Mac user should ever need or use. This is why Macs are 10 times as exensive as pcs.
I learned this all on Slashdot.
Re:Anyone know how the filesystem will work? (Score:3)
Well, in a traditional OpenStep/NextStep/MacOSXServer environment, apps are a container directory. For example, to run TextEdit, you actually run TextEdit.app which is a directory. In the directory are icons, the binary, other app data, and dynamic libraries (Open step is really big on delaying as much as possible to runtime, with heavy use of dynamically loadable modules for interface, etc). I assume OSX will do along the same lines, only making the directory wrapper more transparent to the user.
I don't know how classic apps are going to work though.. In Server, the MacOS apps have to be run of an HFS image or disk. I don't know if/how they are going to make these run on UFS. Maybe you'll have to keep a MacOS disk image around to run Classic apps.
Re:Phooey on GUI's (Score:1)
Re:No Nerd Support (Score:1)
Re:fine tech, bad gui (Score:2)
Also, the Aqua GUI really really sucks. All eye-candy with lesser and lesser functionality in the trends of QT 4.
---
Weird. You've received DP3 already? Or are you basing this off of a few screenshots of an alpha of OSX?
If you'll notice, some of the more annoying features in QT4 seem to have been fixed in the QuickTime player for MacOS X.
The current DVD player is just that, current. I personally don't think it's that bad (not compared to QT4 Player at least).
As for red/yellow/green, that could very well be customizable. I don't know, and neither do you. It's far too early to be making such firm statements for or against Aqua.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
Re:Quartz is great! (Score:2)
*That* I consider innovation. I wish we had more of that in Linux...
Innovation? They bought NeXT, and wrapped it in a pretty GUI with lots of colors. You call that innovation?
I suppose someone will now announce a Open-Source project to *copy* Quartz'z functions...
Do you mean something like DGS [gyve.org] or X/DPS [sourceforge.net]???
The "3rd generation" GUI's has been around for at least a decade...
Re:Read the Article -- 3rd Generation Graphics (Score:1)
Why?? Apple dropped DPS mainly becuase of licensing issues. PDF is better than PS for what it was designed for (document distribution), but PS is more powerful. Everything that was in that PDF compositing demo can be done in DPS.
Re:Quartz is great! (Score:4)
It currently suffers from the ESR RampUp syndrome - i.e. the necessity to have a minimally working product before the OS scale-up really begins to have an impact.
They are basing it on OpenGL and GGI. Its called 'Berlin'. They've got a page at SourceForge.
Nothing actually usable in terms of replacing X yet though.
Then there's always the GNUStep people... I think they're trying to use 'Display Ghostscript'.
All things considered, I don't think Quartz is a really monumental achievement. After all, they had NeXT's implementation of Display Postscript to work from. Considering how quickly gv was adapted to display PDF files, I don't think there was too much work involved in upping 'Display Postscript' to 'Display PDF'. And I think the dropping of the license fee from Postscript to PDF was probably the driving factor, moreso than the technical issues mentioned.
As for the ability to reference previously drawn objects... that's what widgets do in 2d bitmapped space. Its been possible for some time (see GLUT) to implement a 2d interface, with widgets, etc, in OpenGL, which can be scaled just as easily, retains as much information, etc.
Really, I would have to say that for the Linux community, SGI's actions regarding OpenGL, and they're apparent attempts to pave the way for opensource OpenGL accelerated hardware drivers is more important. When we have hardware accelerated OpenGL drivers for most of the major cards, it would be relatively simple to create an OpenGL based WM, or OpenGL based apps, and get all the same abilities. The only realm that I know of where Postscript/PDF has a strong advantage over OpenGL is fonts, and considering the recent work done in integrating FreeType with OpenGL, I consider that an advantage likely to be shortlived.
As for the transparency effects, those are easy in OpenGL... but also here today in imlib2 and gdbpixbuf (actually, libart, I think).
When the Gnome guy said it was trivial, he was referring to AQUA, NOT QUARTZ!!! Aqua, i.e. dynamically scaling bitmaps through arbitrary transformations, and using transparency and truecolor widgets, is all possible today with libart and gdk-pixbuf, and possible tomorrow with hardware accelerated OpenGL.
I don't think Linux has much to worry about here.
(Speed and efficiency issues aside, which are currently being remedied. Most of the GNOME complaints earlier in the discussion can be laid at the feet of stacking libart, et. al., on top of imlib, which was designed and optimized for a different purpose. And OpenGL merely awaits hardware acceleration with capable drivers.)
Re:Quartz is great! (Score:1)
And my having read the article, and already knowing everything it said, was the basis of my being sorta cheesed off at Miguel's (and much of
We agree. Love is all around.
Re:Software does what the machine cannot yet do... (Score:1)
What do you do if you have a piece of graphic that you want to look the same on a 800x800 monitor, a 1600x1200 monitor and a 800 dpi laser printer? Display systems like DPS and Quartz do this easily and totally transparent to the developer.
(ot) Can /. team agree on what to post and when? (Score:3)
What Slashdot readers should be given the ability to do is read through article submissions. Slashdot fancies itself as a censorship-free society, but truly, whenever you have people selecting which information the group can read, you are making decisions that censor. I don't have an Ars box and I don't read Ars regularly, so I would never have known about this article, yet it's the most informative, well-written piece I've seen linked in a long time. Thank God that someone reposted it. When that Slashdot squirrel denied the post, he basically made a decision that said, "This isn't worthy of the general populace," which, to me, is an opinion-based decision that censored.
I'm sure Taco or Hemos could very quickly implement the functionality to read through the posts. They could even put it in a Slashbox. Basically, if the article has a URL, pull it out and check it (perl has this functionality via modules; it's very easy). If there's not already an article with that URL in the system, add it to a database, if that URL isn't already in the database. If the article is posted, mark it as posted. If it is rejected, mark it as rejected and make it available for viewing. If it is offensive for some reason (one of the reasons that the FAQ gives for not having such a list), just delete it altogether. The squirrels go through each and every article anyway, so this management must take place anyway. All they have to do is mark it. The database can store simply the subject and the URL (if they don't have a URL, tough luck), and then present a list of link titles that take people to various articles. Don't give people commenting rights on these posts. Only store rejects for, say, two weeks, to keep the database file small. I'm sure some of this functionality is already in (they have to store information for the squirrels in some manner), so implementing this on top shouldn't be too hard.
Maybe I should mail this to Rob. Eh, maybe not. He's a busy man.
Re:Anyone know how the filesystem will work? (Score:1)
That being said I have read that it also has a hidden file to keep track of some of the resource stuff. Particullarly the file types and creators. That being said I don't know if Mac OS X will use HFS+ (which supports resource forks) or UFS (which doesn't) I believe all the current build support HFS+ but use UFS as a default and may or may not be able to boot off HFS+.
Re:No Nerd Support (Score:1)
No, but lower clock speed != faster execution either. Are you trying to tell me that a Athlon 800 is slower than a G4 450? Sorry, but it isn't. The Athlon would have better support for high-performance peripherals too (3d accelerators, faster memory, hard disks, etc...)
Re:Anyone know how the filesystem will work? (Score:1)
The kernel is based on Mach, not BSD.
There's some information on the filesystem issues in an earlier Ars article. Check it out [arstechnica.com] (Skip to the section on "meta-information" if you're in a hurry.)
Re:No Theme Support (Score:1)
Exclusive? Inclusive? wha? (Score:1)
I also just finished a Salon piece by a Mac user who is upset that their previously "exclusive" mac club is now being infiltrated by newbies. No user group is more emotionally invested then the mac community. How else could the company have survived the blunders and missteps that would have devastated any other company?
Blind loyalty has no place in a technological market, leave that to your favorite beers and recording artitsts. Inclusive-exclusive, come on, keep an open mind and enough HDD space for all your OS's. Unless of course you've bought proprietary hardware and let big brother dictate how you use your device.
Re:Anyone know how the filesystem will work? (Score:2)
Mac OS X DP2 installs on (and boots from) HFS+ by default. Carbon (and, of course, classic) applications that have resource forks must be stored on HFS+ volumes rather than UFS. HFS+ will be the default volume format for Mac OS X unless something drastic changes between now and release.
Off-topic, or maybe not (Score:5)
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 18:13:17 -0600
From: johnc@idsoftware.com (John Carmack)
Subject: debugging
.
.
.
BTW, the current status is that everything is compiling (all client apps work with remote X servers) with minimal porting work, and I have a building X server for OS-X using interceptor. The X server doesn't actually WORK yet (hence the debugging), but I don't think it will be too
long.
After I get the OS-X server version tested, I will just need to rewrite one file to hook into the darwin device drivers.
I'll leave it up to someone else to get gnome or kde ported.
John Carmack
Apple's Arrogance? (Score:2)
No, the MacOS is not for everyone. Windows is not for everyone. Linux is not for everyone (just look at the *BSD vs. Linux that crops up on
Belittling an OS because it is not *your* OS of choice and then sticking it to Steve Jobs (a man I am not fond of at all) for making *his* OS the OS for everyone is just hypocritical.
Don't just read about Mac OS X/Aqua, insult it, and then just move on. The OSS community has a lot to learn from Apple - simplicity and ease of use being two main ones. OSS has a lot to learn from Microsoft, as well (as much as you might not like to admit it)
Until the OSS community realizes that, for most consumers out there, ease of use is as important as features (and stability and speed), OSS is not going to catch on as you want it to. MacOS and Windows have one thing in common over Linux - ease of use. This is not just coincidence that these two OSes are still more popular than Linux.
...and I have not used my floppy drive in about 1.5 years.
Re:3d (Fourth Generation) Interfaces (Score:1)
Why? Well, two reasons.
- There isn't a good way of getting 3d information into the environment. A keyboard is fantastic for 1d entry. A mouse/trackball/glidepad is good for 2d (though it does steal your hands from the keyboard - here is where trackpoints are nice.) For 3d though there haven't been any really successful technologies. There are some clever kludges like those used in games (would you really want to use Quake-keys all of the time?) and a few hideously expensive hardware devices but nothing average folks can pick up and 'get' immediately.
- Little need. Sure it's a kewl idea; flying around your filesystem, working in a 3d virtual space, but those who've used the various implementations generally soon went back to the more traditional 2d representations. Yes, it was partially because the 2d environments are more mature, widely supported, and universal but also because they found the extra gymnastics required to work in a 3d environment just weren't worth the additional mental or physical effort.
So, am I suggesting 3d interfaces are doomed? No, just that we don't yet have a good way of interacting with them nor a compelling mental model to work with. It's entirely reasonable to assume that at some point 3d interfaces will become preferable once these two issues are resolved.Humans evolved in a complex, visually rich 3d environment. We have superbly developed skills for conceptualizing ourselves in a 3d environment and for unconsciously recognizing and tracking other elements within it. It stands to reason we will be able to apply those skills to enrich our information management experience once we've the two issues above addressed. At this time however they remain significant stumbling blocks and make (IMHO) any work on 3d interfaces of little broad interest.
Re:Phooey on GUI's (Score:1)
Additionally, your 14 number is for a very stripped down default MacOS. On anything above 8.6 You'll be hard pressed to find it using less than 30 megabytes. I've seen it get bloated all the way up into the 70s, expecially with MacOS 9.
GNOME actually provides quite a bit more functionality than the stripped MacOS, a simple root menu provides about the same functionality.
Re:No Nerd Support (Score:1)
It also has more execution units and is capable of issuing 6 ops (Athlons internal RISC-like ops) per cycle whereas the G4 can issue 2 + one branch op. It has twice the L1 cache, although it's only 2-way associative where the G4 is 8-way. The Athlon has twice the bus speed. Etc, etc... Satisfied?
Minibars can be found here. (Score:1)
X needs a HUGE overhaul in order for this to happen. Its probably best to chuck X and start from scrath, getting rid of all that baggage, but that will never happen.
> so much for innovation in linux.
I think the focus is building a stable platform with familiar tools to the exclusion of trying something new. (Enlightment being the notable exception.)
Cheers
Re:Can /. team agree on what to post and when? (Score:1)
I guess it does, I submitted a story about a walk-thru X-ray scanner at O'hare airport and it was rejected. 5 weeks later, I see the story on slashdot submitted by someone else. Oh well.
/. discussion vs Ars discussion (Score:1)
Nonetheless, kudos to Ars for a great article. If only this standard of writing was more common on the web...
Re:Exclusive? Inclusive? wha? (Score:2)
1) Those of us who use them because we love 'em (for good, easily articulated reasons). We're happy that the new stuff looks to be even better, and addresses all our misgivings about the current products. We don't care what anyone else uses, we only go on and on about Macs with each other, "geeking out" about them extensively. Your Linux- and BSD-running Mac guys are in this group.
2) The not-Windows crowd whose only real objections to Windows are its popularity and grey-and-blueness. 90+% of Evangelists fall into this catagory. They can't "geek out" about Macs, or tell you why might want to try one out; they just say they "rule." Like that embarrassing dipshit in Salon (who I think is also its editor--sad).
Same two camps the Linux crowd has. Or BSD guys. Or Pepsi freaks. Or Metallica fans.
And proprietary hardware is fine as long as it's good, and the company isn't about to go out of business. Again.
except you're wrong (Score:2)
There actually is an option-doubliclick-and-hold -- it's the default action for invoking Apple's silly spring-loaded-folder navigation. You can set a flag somewhere to get rid of the option part, but nevertheless it still exists and the original poster's comment is still valid.
Vector-based graphics: when are they coming? (Score:3)
Is anyone working on a vector-based system for Linux?
Does KDE like the sound of vector-based icons?
Does GNOME like the idea of having vector-based commands for their canvas project?
Do those other GUI systems, Berlin and GGI have any thoughts on a vector-based system?
Although I don't like many of the things that Mac OS X has, I do think ArsTechnica is right that a vector-based GUI is a step above what we have currently.
What does everyone here think?
Re:Anyone know how the filesystem will work? (Score:1)
thanks,
nick
Moderate UP--Informative and Accurate (Score:1)
Re:Phooey on GUI's (Score:1)
Blackbox is what I like best (now that I've wrestled GNOME and KDE off my system--just needs reconfiguring); should be fine for what I usually do with it (running dev stuff from an emulated terminal, and other pretty simple tasks).
And yes, OS9 is, by default, a bloated beast, but I've got the bigger, better box I use 9 on beaten down to 25 megs by losing all the redundant or needlessly destabilizing extensions and libs it comes loaded with.
And I do have a Mac box that makes it into the fifties w/ tons of MIDI and external-hardware-compatibility software added--but "added" is an important distinction, I think.
Regarding E's and GNOME's functionalities, I've found them to match a lot of "hidden" functionality in MacOS that almost no one uses, because almost no one needs it, and it's not covered in the installed "Help" system. For example, MacOS already has a handy, configurable taskbar I've never seen anyone but me using.
Theme-wise, MacOS doesn't do transparency, or have as many window-dragging, -redrawing, and -focusing options, but I'd hate to think that those alone, even set to their most boring options, were what bogged GNOME/E down on me. And, again, with MacOS, themes are a "hidden" functionality (that shareware connivers have used to take advantage of morons by re-selling the same thing to them; the Mac world is rife with "shareware abuse," like ten-line compiled Applescripts selling for $20).
In the case of either OS, I know it's all about how well you can administer it, but I've found it a lot more difficult to keep things under control in Linux, despite R-ing so many FMs I have to buy stronger glasses. Most of us "desktop" guys don't do anything of the sort, and requiring expertise (which choosing a non-default window manager for X does) for mere usability seems, well, unwise.
Re:No Nerd Support (Score:1)
Re:Phooey on GUI's (Score:1)
I agree that 14 megs is a stripped down System Folder, but I have a G3 Powerbook running Mac OS9 using 20.8MB, a G3 minitower running 8.6 currently taking up 20.1 MB of RAM, and an iBook that has been running for about 2 weeks taking up 22.3 MB of RAM. These machines are not stripped down, and are doing a variety of tasks. If your machine is taking up more than 30 megs of RAM, then you are either doing something wrong or you have a huge memory leak in an application.
Floppies (Score:1)
Hey, I understand the floppy drive is a dying medium. For most businesses it is hardly useful, however alot of home users and software installation still require the use of floppies. It was awfully premature for Apple to just rip support for floppies, making users have to go out and purchase additional hardware just to get their Mac going. I use floppy disks all the time. They are useful and cheap for moving small things around, expecially to computers that are not networked. Contrary to popular belief the entire world is not networked yet.
is pdf free? (Score:2)
"PDF is also is a free and open standard, which saves Apple from paying Postscript licensing fees."
Is this true?
Szo
That's not arrogance, it's a practical point. (Score:1)
"I find a lot of Linux arrogance (Setting the max MTU packet size is easy under Linux, just edit the correct text file with a command that EVERYONE should know)."
It's not one command, it's your favorite editor.
The point was that it not only possible and easy, it's well documented and not hidden at all. Linux is a '68 volkswagon bug with its engine hanging out. Macs and WinXX machines are akin to highly computerized and proprietary cars ('98 bug?) which do anything they can to hide the workings of the machinery and keep the owner from fixing their own machine.
Just because the Linux config files don't have pretty pictures on them doesn't make them hard to work with. No matter how you use your computer, the point about the MTU still holds its value. If your NetAdmin needs to change the MTU on your machine, it will be easy (for him) on your Linux workstation, moderately challenging on your Windows machine, and darn near impossible on your Mac.
That Mac may be easy for you to use, but if you ever try to do anything Apple doesn't want you to do or didn't think of, you're out of luck.
The best solution is to run a Mac emulator on Linux.
I wonder when the last time your NetAdmin used your floppy drive was?
Re:Vector-based graphics: when are they coming? (Score:2)
More Aqua analysis on MacWEEK (Score:2)
http://macweek.zdnet.com/2000/01/23/igeekmon.ht
http://macweek.zdnet.com/2000/01/23/igeektues.h
http://macweek.zdnet.com/2000/01/23/igeekwed.ht
http://macweek.zdnet.com/2000/01/23/igeekthurs.
not new, just Apple (Score:2)
The use of transparency in the UI isn't new either, not even in a commercial product. Even Windows 2000 uses transparency for its menues.
Altogether, from what I have seen, Aqua is an evolutionary enhancement to the UI. It will appeal visually to a lot of people and that's why it will receive some enthusiastic reviews. But I don't think it changes interaction with the computer in any fundamental or important way.
Re:Read the Article -- 3rd Generation Graphics (Score:2)
PostScript couldn't support RGB images. That's good for printing, but lousy for screen displays.
PostScript couldn't layer objects. You can't just layer a 50% magenta square over a 50% cyan square and hope for a 50% red square. Whatever is on top takes precendence. Expensive trapping software would enable you to see the overprints, if you specified them, but by default, whatever is on top is what you are going to get.
PostScript also couldn't really handle bitmapped images that gracefully. There are so many headers that EPS's of bitmapped graphics are significantly larger than any other file format.
PostScript still rules for printing. It forces designers to pay for their mistakes (often directly out of their pockets!) when they try to accomplish effects that simply aren't feasible on an offset press.
Display PostScript has been extremely SLOW compared to other imaging models.
But looking to the future, Apple was quite smart to drop DPS for a PDF based model. More and more publishing is being done in an RGB format, so designers benefit. And since consumers using iMacs are also viewing those same documents on their screens, it makes little sense to adopt an imaging model that converts colors across several color spaces needlessly.
Apple's pretty pictures + other stuff... (Score:2)
Likewise for the shrinking/expanding icons in the dock... which brings up another problem: What about desktop space? People are getting more and more used to having $LARGENUM applications open all the time, and switching among them and/or grouping them logically can be a royal pain in both the standard WinXX and MacOS desktops as of now. Most WMs for Un*x do the Right Thing and have virtual desktops, so why doesn't Apple get with the program? Sure, Macs have huge monitors available and can run multiple monitors easily... but Joe User buying his first iMac probably can't afford that.
Apple could even get nasty and say, "This new, totally unavailable-anywhere-else 'Virtual Super SwitchDesk' functionality is almost as good as having 2 or more monitors connected to your iMac. " New checklist feature + increased hardware sales, eh?
Apple shot themselves in the foot when they made floppies an add-on. There are a freaking TON of older computers out there where the best and quickest means of data sharing is via 3.5" floppies. Maybe everything around your home and office has 10/100baseT, but that's definitely not how it is everywhere. Floppies will be around for another 3-4 years if not longer... remember, the IBM PC and its progeny are still around because A) it was easy to port old CP/M stuff to the PC B) all the new iterations of the PC are fully backwards-combatible. (sic)
Re:is pdf free? (Score:2)
You can find the format specification here [adobe.com]
GNUStep (Score:2)
I am also working on the concepts of a networked vector-based user interface system, where the graphics is based on SVG [w3.org]. The project would become much more than just vector graphics. Very early stage, no webpage. Mail me [mailto] if you are interested in participating.
Everyone seems to miss the point. (Score:2)
A. You keep with the cool oh ah thing Jobs is going for.
B. You get the user used to Quartz apps, so when future apps use Quartz, it will fit in with the rest of the applications, and the GUI. Other people have done PS before, but nothing as integrated as this.
C. You demo our some of the effects Quartz can do. By making users aware of it, you're more likely to get developers to develop for it.
D. You get a good GUI that is resolution independant, and has a good foundation. True, some of the asthetic and user interface points need work, but this is a first attempt to base a GUI on a page discription language. They can tweek that part in future releases, but you can't substantially change the GUI foundation in future releases. If they want vector GUIs to succeed, they have to put it into OSX along with all the other new stuff. The user interface can be refined, the foundation cannot.
E. Developers get an excellent tool that is well integrated with the rest of the OS.
I don't exactly see many people critizing X just because Athena and Motif look ugly. So yes, Quartz is a major step foreward, and the OS X GUI is pretty revolutionary. The stuff on top IS just candy, and should be treated as such when judging the merits of the GUI.
Eyeball time -- not CPU time (Score:2)
Well, I agree in principle, but I don't think that CPU time is the issue. Personally, waiting for computers is the bane of my existence; probably a lot of other folks feel this way too. I'm frequently in a hurry when I use my computer, and not just when I'm playing games. I find it really irritating when a UI element does some kind of fancy cakewalk to try to grab my attention for 400-500 msecs, especially when I have a long sequence of operations to perform. Too much of this kind of thing and a user interface feel slow and clunky. I want menus to pop into existence and then instantly disappear when I'm done. When I dismiss a window, I wan't it gone -- I don't want it to linger around for entertainment value.
When you take a fast and simple process and make it slower and more complex, there ought to be a good reason other than getting an intial wow. At best it seems this kind of malarkey just fades into the background so you don't notice it anymore. I'm not dissing Aqua -- nobdoy has seen it yet. Maybe Apple's avoided this, but this kind of thing makes a UI feel slower to me. What happened to the idea that GUIS shoould be responsive?
Re:OS X: Mouseover Controls (Score:2)
> Pages That Suck they call it Mystery Meat
> Navigation
What makes sense on a Web page where almost everybody will be first time, transient users isn't necessarily the same for an OS GUI, and vice versa. You don't necessarily want to stare at + - etc. in every window you use, day in and day out. On a Web page, you're most often hiding the symbols from people who don't know what the buttons mean, because they just showed up from a million other Web sites with different navigation. On an OS, you're usually hiding them from people who do know what they mean because they've used the system before, and revealing them for the benefit of new users.
A cool feature of these hover buttons in Aqua is that when you hover over the widgets on a background window, the buttons sort of come forward on their own, so that you can close a background window without bringing it forward. That alone is worth using the rollover effect for.
Re:Apple's Arrogance? (Score:2)
Whether this functionality ought to be bundled in the "Advanced" user setting in the TCP/IP controls or not (it should, of course) is another issue entirely.
Best,
(jfb)
Re:Software does what the machine cannot yet do... (Score:2)
If by "'organic' shapes" you mean the jelly blobs of Aqua, I don't think they're intrinsically tied in any way to a "vector based GUI". In fact, the Ars Technica article says as much [arstechnica.com] - it says of the gelatinous buttons, "On the other hand, nothing we've discussed so far can't be duplicated with a second generation display layer."
Well, I'm not sure what's "vector-based" about Display PDF; PDF is a PostScript-like language (not entirely surprising, considering who invented PDF...), so it might be "vector-based" in that a path might be made out of lines - but the PDF spec [pdfzone.com] says that a "path object" is "an arbitrary shape made of straight lines, rectangles, and cubic curves", so it's more than just "vectors" (in the sense of "lines").
To put it bluntly, I would not, if I were you, hold my breath waiting for that to happen. I suspect it may be easier to make raster CRTs (you just have to make the beam scan left to right, and then scan the next line below it, and..., rather than being able to steer it arbitrarily), and the display on my desk isn't even a CRT - LCD displays (which, as far as I'm concerned, rule) are intrinsically digital monitors that display bitmaps.
I have the impression that, these days, rasterizing vectors is pretty much a solved problem.
The reason for a "vector-based" (or, as I might be inclined to say, "path-based") windowing system, at least as presented by Ars Technica's article, is that "vector" transformations (which, I suspect, are transformations on vectors representing points, i.e. the vector from the origin of the coordinate system to the point, not vectors representing lines from one arbitrary point to another) can be applied to the PDF description of something being drawn.
Much of the other advantages that article ascribes to a "vector-based" windowing system, such as the stuff Aqua does with transparency, have, I suspect, little if anything to do with PDF being "vector-based" (or "path-based").
Besides, I didn't see any mention of "vector-based graphics" on the Graphics page of Apple's stuff on MacOS X [apple.com]; "vector-based graphics" may have been Ars Technica's term - as suggested above, I'm not sure I'd use it, and that may be why Apple doesn't appear to be using it there, either.
Re:Vector-based graphics: when are they coming? (Score:2)
The Ars Technica article [arstechnica.com] says:
(emphasis mine) which seems to suggest that the icons are bitmaps, not "vector-based", and that the icons are scaled up by interpolating between the points.
Re:not new, just Apple (Score:2)
Yes, but not in the server (e.g., in the X server).
But, no, it's not a new idea. Amusingly enough, the implementations of that notion of which I've heard were both done atop UNIX-derived OSes - Sun's NeWS, and the NeXT machines' version of Display PostScript.
Re:is pdf free? (Score:2)
And the PDF 1.3 spec says:
although it also says:
I don't know whether any of those patents are used by xpdf, ps2pdf, Quartz, etc..
Re:Apple's Arrogance? (Score:2)
Umm, are you certain of that? Motif and Windows 3.x have visual similarities, but I'm not certain that's because Windows was modeled after Motif - I have the impression it may have been the other way around.
Re:Apple's Arrogance? (Score:2)
Hmmm; I was pretty sure, but it's hard to find definitive dates!
According to this page [microsoft.com], Windows 3.0 was released in 1990, and the according to the Motif FAQ [uni-giessen.de], Motif was developed "Around 1989", which squares with my Motif programming manual copyright date (which says 1990, but the author worked on it for a year and a half).
So they happened around the same time, so that doesn't really prove anything. But reading this article [microsoft.com], Gates claims that the original Windows 1.0 was 1983.
Now, I didn't use Windows prior to 3.0. I know that it was really raw before that time, so the question is whether versions previous to 3.0 had the 3D "Motif look", Menus, etc (which means they probably took it from Motif), or if Windows was like that from the beginning (in which case Motif took it from Windows).
Anyone have a memory of pre 3.0?
--
Berlin > Aqua (Score:2)
Actually they say that "In order to place pixels on the screen, a graphic can request a path, a glyph, or a raster is drawn." They define the terms on the sited article above as follows. "A path is a sequence of vectors, optionally accompanied by a sequence of scalars specifying the knot vector of the path if it represents a NURBS object. If the path has no knot vector, it is interpreted as a polygon."
A glyph is basically a piece of text that usually represents a single character, but may be several combined characters.
And about rasters "In some cases, it is not appropriate to draw using vector paths. In such cases, we have a facility for loading PNG rasters into the display server, and then assigning them to scene graph nodes. Such redrawing can be done very efficiently because the raster can live in the display server, and is appropriate for objects such as icons, mouse pointer images, or pixel data loaded from an external source."
It seems to me that Berlin is very much ahead of the game, even ahead of MacOS X and Win2000 while GNOME and KDE continue to compete with Windows as it is now. I am not dismissing either desktops because I currently use one for my desktop. That is the point. They are here now and provide applications that make GNU/Linux viable for the desktop now. But I see Berlin in GNU/Linux's future when X Windows System itself becomes obsolete, which may not be for a while yet. But if/when Berlin becomes standard and viable, it would be nice to see the competing operating systems catching up to GNU/Linux instead of it being the other way around. And, alas, Berlin proves that Free Software is innovative and the implementations are done right!
Now that a think about it, the Ars Technica article defines three generations of display software: the second generation being most current GUIs with still relatively pixel-based drawing, and the third being Quartz that is largely vector-based with some added capabilities. With this system, Berlin is definitely at least fourth generation with instead of drawing to pixels like the second generation or drawing to vectors like the third generation, Berlin draws to much more abstract drawing primitives on top GGI. So that the user may specialize the interface to any number of mediums like a character-based one or to the printer or a hand-held. Each medium requires a new server and the Berlin server itself (not all servers, just the one they are implementing now) specializes to the traditional GUI. But the same application should be able to run on all mediums, as long as the medium supports what the application requires. There is little possibility of a graphics editor to run on a character-terminal based servor but a file manager should certainly be able to run.
I know of no other GUI that has this kind of possibility. Think of a future where Berlin servors are like Window Managers today, based on user preference. Perhaps the Berlin servor for the more traditional GUI. But imagine an Enlightenment server, without any of the restraints of X Windows System.
The future looks really really bright for GNU/Linux.
Fustrating unix story (Score:2)
Under Windows, there is a registry setting. Not the right way to do it in my opinion, but at least it can be done.
There is NO WAY to do this under MacOS that I could find. The only solution was some guy who hacked up the TCP/IP stack and wrote a little control panel where you could change the settings. That's not the way to do things.
While we're on this topic, I might as well share my fustrating unix story. I've just had the immense displeasure of spending more than an hour trying to coax a non-postscript printer into printing a postscript file, from a Unix (HP-UX to be specific) machine.
I first tried sending the postscript file to the printer using lpr. Garbage out. Ok, the printer doesn't support postscript, what do I do now? Search the web for the solution. Read something about using GS device settings. Try this. Spend the better half of an hour, but get no results.
Call me an idiot if you want to, but this is ridiculous. Printing should be as simple as choosing the printer you want to print with from within your application, then having the system do "The Right Thing(tm)" - none of this lpr, postscript file or not nonsense. Anything else is absurd.
Unix still has a long way to go in terms of usability. Sure, you can get everything to work if you know what the magic incantation is ("ifconfig eth0 mtu 1440"), but it is far away from being usable by the anyone who hasn't been accepted into the order of unix priests.
yeah but its limited (Score:2)
The other thing that bothers me about apple is their one button mice. They are crap. While windows is moving to 3 buttons and a wheel linux also being able to use 3 buttons and wheel apple is sitting there with their thumbs in their asses saying how much supperior their lame mouse is.
yeah but its limited (Score:2)
The other thing that bothers me about apple is their one button mice. They are crap. While windows is moving to 3 buttons and a wheel linux also being able to use 3 buttons and wheel apple is sitting there with their thumbs in their asses saying how much supperior their lame mouse is.
I got to thinking... (Score:2)
Apple solved the wrong problem (Score:2)
Better inter-application communication would actually be useful. Maybe something XML-based. Then you could cut and paste (and drag and drop) structured data. You ought to be able, say, to drag anything that looks like a name and address to anything that wants a name and address and have the right thing happen. Linux land needs something like this; application integration under Linux sucks.
But hey, Apple's in the entertainment biz. Look how much mileage they got out of colored cases that look like an Lear-Seigler ADM-3A Dumb Terminal, circa 1974.
Re:Fustrating unix story (Score:2)
The same could be said for WinPrinters and MacOS... I haven't seen anyone under MacOS get a Windows Printer to work right out-of-the-box... Does this mean that MacOS has usability problems?
Just playing devil's advocate...
Re:Fustrating unix story (Score:2)
I came across a Solaris faq on the topic, as well as a faq on a postscript newsgroup where they advised using ghostscript to print to non-postscript printers. I just did a search and it seems that for linux, ghostscript has to be used. I even came across several companies selling products specifically designed to print postscript files to non-postscript printers, so this seems like a general issue. If you've a solution to this, I'd love to hear it.
The same could be said for WinPrinters and MacOS... I haven't seen anyone under MacOS get a Windows Printer to work right out-of-the-box... Does this mean that MacOS has usability problems?
The point is that unix (at least those unix systems I've used) doesn't have an integrated print system. You can't just pick a printer in an app, and have print correctly (if the printer doesn't support postscript). You've to go through the convoluted process of using Ghostscript to print to the printer, or use application specific drivers (Wordperfect, as I understand it, has such), which may be fine if you're a unix guru and have memorized the incantations needed, but this is majorly not ok for ordinary people.
Re:Berlin > Aqua (Score:2)
First of all, I unfortunately may have mislead some. Right now Berlin is still in its beginning stages and is not nearly as developed as Quartz.
But it seems you have indeed missed a major feature of Berlin. You state a 3D interface as the 4th generation. Well there was some talk of implementing a 3D user interface on the Berlin mailing list some time ago. The theory is that the same applications could be run on all the Berlin compatable servers, text-based (the 1st generation interface in the article), traditional GUI somewhat like Quartz (3rd gen), and any others, including a 3D one. Berlin's API is abstract enough, in theory, to render the same application natively on any interface provided that someone has written a compatable server.
But in another sense, Berlin is 3rd generational. You see, as I understand it, Berlin itself is the implementation server of the 3rd generation GUI. Berlin isn't vector-based either according to their tutorial. So I guess you are more right than I am.
The display layer itself I guess depends on the server and the Berlin server is 3rd gen. But the API isn't resolution independent, it is interface independent. Much more abstract than Quartz to call it 4th generation.
This is all as I understand it.