Re: [OT] Mac UI (Was: UnCommon Web intro video)

Edi Weitz wrote: 
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 09:49:29 +0200, Ulrich Hobelmann <u.hobelmann@xxxxxx> wrote:

I would say, the contrary.  It's more about functionality.  If I
wanted flashing lights I'd be using nicy-bubbly-colory XP.


On Windows XP you can get back the pretty unobtrusive "Classic"
(i.e. more or less Win2k) look with one mouse click.  This is usually
the first thing I do on a new machine.  I wish that would be possible
for OS X as well.  (No, I don't mean the superficial changes you get
if you use the "Graphite" look or whatever it's called.)


While there is classic, it looks like ugly gray from the early '90s ;)

The Mac GUI, be it with colorful buttons or grey ones, is clean, with little border around the windows, wasting little screen estate, no toolbars (you can turn them off), overall *very* lightweight. Gnome on X11 started to also allow you to turn off toolbars; maybe sometime I'll try it out again.

The Mac interface/GUI is about the cleanest I've seen for what it
does (except for really terse Unix window managers).


I completely disagree.  I think the Mac OS 9 GUI was /very/ nice
w.r.t. being clear, clean and aesthetically pleasing.  IMHO the OS X
GUI is mostly about eye candy and it uses way too much screen real
estate as well.

OS9 looks good on all pictures I've seen. OS X has the dock which wastes screen, but you can shrink it or turn it off. Overall I don't see how it would waste more screen space than XP, KDE, Gnome, XFCE, WindowMaker ...

--
XML is a prime example of retarded innovation.
	-- Erik Meijer and Peter Drayton, Microsoft Corporation
.

Quantcast