Sphere XP Makes GUI 3D 386
Cypherus writes "I came across a link for a 3d desktop environment. "The SphereXP is a 3D desktop replacement for Microsoft Windows XP. Taking the known concept of three-dimensional desktops to its own level. It offers a new way to organize objects on the desktop such a icons and applications. Check the videos and screenshots to get the idea.""
3D input devices (Score:5, Interesting)
OT: What I want from a 3D GUI project (Score:5, Interesting)
I would like to see some thought like a list of limitations that the 2D GUI paradigm currently has and how a 3D GUI could address these issues while not producing a huge long list of its own problems.
Until then, this looks cool, but is in no way a step forward, back, up or down. It's just kinda there.
Its not a bad idea (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmm, 3D Desktop... (Score:4, Interesting)
The biggest problem I've run into (again, I'm working on something in the 3D Desktop arena), is that in windows, you cannot jack the Paint APIs (easily). So you can't just grab a window and throw it into OpenGL. Additionally, you can't modify the source (closed-source) to grab the windows...Which I am attempting to rectify with some assembly code, but it's still a pain.
The nice thing about Tao? Cross-platform (somewhat). As for my program? It will be released after I finish the assembly.
Re:OT: What I want from a 3D GUI project (Score:4, Interesting)
Like I said, I really like the way Sun did their 3D desktop demo, but it's still not really a 3D desktop, just a 2D desktop with a 3rd deminsion.
A good alternative (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Not impressed (Score:3, Interesting)
But since hardware is cheap, and most regular users don't use the power of the machines they have anyway, why not let them choose a desktop like this? For them it could greatly increase the easy of use of a computer, perhaps letting them do their jobs better or enjoy their experience on the computer more.
Isn't that more important than wheter YOU think Looking Glass or this particular 3D desktop is annoying? If this thing really is annoying and hard to use, it'll go the way of NextStep, and AmigaOS and all the other desktop systems that nobody in mainstream society uses....
Re:Not impressed (Score:4, Interesting)
Bear in mind that the windowed nature of the Windows GUI wasn't the big step forward - the multiple application, flexible workflow side of things is what truly mattered (working in windows had been around for ages, just look at the Mac, or even better GEOS on the C64!).
Having a pretty 3D interface to do the same thing? I'm not convinced. Gimme something truly revolutionary.
Re:/. effect (Score:2, Interesting)
3dwm (Score:2, Interesting)
first impression - sucks (Score:3, Interesting)
Screenshots since main site is down (Score:4, Interesting)
PC INpact Screenshots [pcinpact.com]
Re:Old != Bad (Score:3, Interesting)
well, about that... (Score:2, Interesting)
i get what you mean and i agree
however:
it seems to me that what you describe probably wont be feasible until we are using something other than a flat screen as our display, donchathink?
(and i realize this is not necessarily the case but it would have to be a dramatically new paradigm and i cant imagine an alternative)
i suspect that the innovation is going to have to come from a hardware / input side of things to get that going. in the mean time though, im glad that theyre pushing things forward and trying it out (i only saw a brief glimpse cause of slashdotting but seems interesting from a research pov at least)
a
Re:Not impressed (Score:5, Interesting)
The downside of these interfaces is the ridiculously high processor and memory requirements. All that extra graphic manipulation comes at a price, and I for one don't see any reason to waste processor cycles.
They also said that "glass teletypes" would be too bulky and difficult to read. They said that color graphics were a perfectly good waste of video RAM. And 2D graphics with a mouse would never catch on because pointing and clicking at rectangles all day long would get much too tedious.
Of course the 3D desktop comes at a price. It's not practical these days anyway, but it might be in the future. That "might" is very much the key. Even if this is all smoke and mirrors (doubtful, but possible), it makes the company look good. It's "innovation." It might become the next trend.
This Sphere XP is not in use right now because there are significant limiting factors. Computing resources, navigation, ease of use, etc. The whole purpose of research like this is to try to find new ways over those hurdles. If they just sat around all day shaking their heads and saying, "this is pointless, why don't we combine OS X and Windows XP instead?" they... well, they'd end up being you.
What I'd much rather see is somebody developing a faster, more lightweight UI that is a nice combination of OSX and Windows XP. One that chews up LESS memory (instead of more, like this), one that speeds things up.
Better get coding, because if what's currently out there doesn't suit your needs, it's highly unlikely that someone's going to rap on your chamber door and volunteer to sit down and start banging out customized software just for you.
Re:Old != Bad (Score:2, Interesting)
3d add on for Linux (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:3D input devices (Score:4, Interesting)
We need a /. Torrent tracker (Score:4, Interesting)
I was thinking I could put a
Perhaps Shalsdot needs to look into providing a public tracker for backups of video/images/etc. from sites they link to.
--The Rizz
"The girl who swears no one has ever made love to her has a right to swear." --Sophia Loren
Re:Not impressed (Score:3, Interesting)
You'll be so busy waiting for something "revolutionary" that you won't be paying attention when such evolutionary technologies as this roll right past you. It's not what it can do that you should be seeing, but what it will be capable of someday (the guy says it's research and a work in progress). GUIs have always been evolutionary - you said it yourself.
Re:Old != Bad (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not sure if a desktop that worked that way would be any easier, but to really use it, you'd have to change over all your normal reflexes. (There is no "try".) That would be a hard sell--which is where the coolness comes in, I suspect. :)
Proably not, however... (Score:3, Interesting)
That's because, so far, we haven't found a better, more intutitve way to do things. That doesn't mean that there isn't a better way we haven't yet discovered. While this probably isn't it, that doesn't mean it isn't useful research along those lines. I really do believe that a better interface is possible by exploiting the 3d capabilities of modern systems. I, of course, don't know what it is or I'd be working to make it a reality, but experimental new interfaces like this is one way to work on finding out. Try it, see what's good, see what bad, try and revise, etc.
Not necessarily any better, IMHO. (Score:3, Interesting)
Visualizing this in my puny little brain, I "see" a problem -- 3D clutter. If you think your current 2D desktop is cluttered, because of hidden stuff sitting behind stuff, then wait for the 3D effect.... On the other hand, the holy grail of 3D interfaces -- hologram projection and the like -- might have the problem of seeing through the object....
If you do real/semi-real 3D with actual depth, there could be problems with users having headaches or blurred vision, or flicker, as well, possibly, depending on implementation, yada, yada.
I think alpha-blending, if done properly, is a better way to unhide relavent information. Dual monitors, wide-screens, or really large screens with a lot of resolution are others.
I think 3D would look cool, though.
Re:Old != Bad (Score:3, Interesting)
Other people smoking is not an argument for you to start smoking as well.
I saw a demo by Jonathan Schwartz from Sun, they are doing the same thing. They had _one_ feature which I thought was nifty, if you were looking at a web page you could turn your browser around and make notes about that web page. But mostly I thought it was cumbersome. But pretty. And therein lies the problem. People will be awed, and fooled into believing that it actually is an improvement.
Maybe I will be quoted 10 years from now in the same breath as when people talk about IBM predicting that there only was a need for 5 computers in the world and Bill Gates saying that 640KB will be enough memory.
Maybe so, but I think that there is a good chance that this is a technology looking for a solution, rather than the other way around.
I don't think that this is innovation. I think it is a _lack_ of innovation. "We can't think of anything better to do with our time and we have all this nifty technology and nVidia is releasing their Ultra 6800, we gotta do something".
Re:Not impressed (Score:3, Interesting)
If I want to dismiss a window or move it to the next virtual screen, it's only one or two keystrokes/mouse clicks/drags, requiring the movement of a few fingers and maybe a slight movement of my forearm(s) or wrist.
In Minority Report, T.C. was wildly waving his arms about.
I would be very tired after a few hours of that.
Re:Old != Bad (Score:3, Interesting)
What's really needed is a new input device. Mouse + Keyboard is *really* shitty. I'd like something better. I'd like to just wave my hands around and have the stuff I'm using move around. I'd like to just put my finger on the window I want and either write on a pad or just talk into it (yes, I like writing better than typing) and have it take dictation.
How far are we from being able to just wave our arms around as part of our ui?
Re:Google cache.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Problem is, monitors aren't 3D (Score:3, Interesting)
Part of the problem with 3D GUIs is that monitors are 2D devices, not 3D. Give me a workable 3D display device and manipulation tools (hint: I'm thinking of 'give me the real world' here) with my 3D GUI and you might have something. Even in the 'real world' however, 2D is often a most useful abstraction. Jakob Nielsen has an interesting column [useit.com] (with rebuttals) on the problems of 3D interfaces.
Sun has a similar system in the works.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Not a 3d desktop, but... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Old != Bad (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Not impressed (Score:3, Interesting)
You make whatever window is "active" 100% opaque, and anything above it is set to some very low level, perhaps 10% opaque. Thus, you can still see updates to the upper applications, but should be able to concentrate on the one you're actually using without having to move and reposition anything. Scroll the mouse wheel to change focus up or down the stack -- normal click-to-focus for things at different X/Y coordinates of course.
That, and find some way to keep friggin' windows apps from stealing keyboard focus away from each other while I'm typing!