Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
GUI Software Java Programming Sun Microsystems

Simon Phipps Looks At 'Looking Glass' 186

Posted by timothy from the now-in-stereo dept.
CitizenC writes "Simon Phipps, chief technology evangelist for Sun Microsystems, describes his experiences using Project Looking Glass, Sun's prototype three-dimensional computer desktop, in this post on his weblog. He mentions a couple of demo videos too."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Simon Phipps Looks At 'Looking Glass' More

Simon Phipps Looks At 'Looking Glass'

Comments Filter:

  • This could actually turn out to be pretty cool (Score:5, Interesting)

    by corebreech ( 469871 ) on Tuesday December 09, 2003 @07:25AM (#7667168) Journal
    It all depends on finding a terse and intuitive gesture mechanism through which the interface may be navigated. I think my preferred approach would be to present the nominal view of the user's desktop as though it were the interior of a hemisphere, wherein all of the various windows and widgets reside, as though they were affixed to the interior of this sphere. Then, a simple move of the mouse rotates the sphere along the X and Y axis, and when finally something of interest is in view, you either click or use the scroll wheel on the mouse to zoom in and make it the active window.

    Kind of like a big virtual desktop, only you get to peek at what's over the horizon.

    From the given picture, it doesn't appear that they're doing this though. It seems as though all of the objects have transformation matrices that are independent of one another, and without any common point of reference, which suggests an elaborate interface.

    But as they say, it's a prototype.

    We do need to do something about windows. It's been twenty years already. We should be better than this. Is the answer to display them at funky angles? I'm not sure. But it's nice to see that somebody somewhere is trying, even if the whole exercise is about nothing more than moving Sun's price on the market.
    • I can barely get around when windows are 2D!

      On both my Linux machine and my windows machine I have virtual desktops and I can never remember what I put where. I try to make up some kind of system that where I put code windows on one, terminal windows on the other, etc. but it always breaks down.

      If this idea was combined with the ability to bring certain windows to view with some gesture as parent suggested, this could be a really powerful way to navigate lots of open windows.

      The way video hardware is go
      • I use my virtual desktops on a task basis. I start in the first one doing Task X (the windows/apps associated with that task are there), then if another task comes up not related to that, I jump to a clean virtual desktop and start on the new task (opening whatever windows/apps are necessary). Repeat as necessary. I can switch between tasks if needed and have all the context where I left off contained in the single virtual desktop without having to wander around looking for stuff. When I finish a task,
    • Kind of like a big virtual desktop, only you get to peek at what's over the horizon.

      Which is surely all a 3D interface could give you, more space to open more windows, but surely there is a limit to the amount of multi-tasking a user could practically do. And even then, a better way of showing windows currently open in the task manager would be more usable and effective than a 3D desktop.

      About the best use of a 3D desktop that I can think of would be to show how tasks are related to each other i.e brow
    • I like it because it adds to the "desktop" metaphor by providing an alternative dimesnion.

      Not everything om my desk is lying flat on the surface: much is is file-folders perpendicular to the surface and some things are propped open at an angle to the surface, so I can recognize them and grab them when needed, without digging through piles (;-))

  • 3d interface... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Amiga Lover ( 708890 ) on Tuesday December 09, 2003 @07:26AM (#7667169)
    I could look at it and go

    "this is UNIX! I know this!"

  • Sorry, I do not want Quicktime... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ObviousGuy ( 578567 ) <ObviousGuy@hotmail.com> on Tuesday December 09, 2003 @07:30AM (#7667185) Homepage Journal
    I saw a 3D video display at the CEATEC conference back a few months ago here in Tokyo. Several makers were showing them off, but they really weren't anything to write home about. I guess it was cool enough that they were able to display a 3 dimensional object or scene with only 2 dimensions, but it's hard to see what the practical use of something like that would be outside of "You're my only hope" type messaging.

    Likewise, 3 dimensional computer desktops are not going to be taking over the world anytime soon. It is hard enough teaching people to use the mouse correctly in two dimesions. Trying to wrap people's heads around a 3 dimensional workspace looks to be virtually impossible.
    • Sorry, but this is not about a 3D Screen. Its about a 3D accelerated Desktop environment. In the same sense as Wolfenstein 3D.

      Read the article for a good introduction on the subject.

      cu,
      Lispy
    • Trying to wrap people's heads around a 3 dimensional workspace looks to be virtually impossible.

      You're right, most people can't handle navigating in a 3D space. It's one more dimension than 2D, therefore it must be even more complicated to work with. I'm glad my grandparents never got anything more complicated than 1D linear furniture or else I'd have a hell of a time teaching them to use it.

      Maybe what you meant to say is that even though a 3D desktop environment is more like a real-world workspace
      • The real trick with technology is making it easier to use than the previous generation.

        Or at least no harder, with advantages that make the change worth doing.

      • Most people I know do have difficulties getting used to and navigating simulated 3D environments. For example, beginning FPS players seem to have a lot of problems learning their way around new maps.

        3D is a rather difficult problem because it'll have to be done in a way that models itself to the end user. Right now, many people have problems with operating a mouse, moving and resizing windows, etc. If 3D doesn't find an extremely intuitive way for managing these sorts of resources, it won't be particula
        • 3D space combat games are where the situation really becomes clear. My own experience with them is that when I was first learning them I really didn't keep a good idea of the 3D action in the games at all.

          Situational awareness... is, I believe, the term that you are searching for.

          Combat flight sims are difficult for me to maintain SA without a head-mounted display that would track my gaze. Constatly switching views using the hat is clumsy and throws me off.

  • Sounds cool. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by acceleriter ( 231439 )
    Shame the "high bandwidth" video is in RealSpyware format. If there's an mpeg somewhere, please post a link and I'll have a look.
  • I have to wonder how easy/hard it would be to get a 3d controller that works well enough allow a user to move through the desktop and select windows. The pratical limitation I can see are that if you went for a glove type interface which sould seem obvious how long would it be before someones arm got tired

    Rus

    • Re:3D Control (Score:5, Interesting)

      by shadowcabbit ( 466253 ) <cx.thefurryone@net> on Tuesday December 09, 2003 @07:36AM (#7667211) Journal
      A mouse should be enough. Scroll wheels-- or perhaps even a four-directional switch near the scroll wheel-- could be used for additional axis control.
      • I haven't seen the video... The server has gone down in flames it seems.

        However, I have been thinking about 3d desktops for a while. It seems to me that the most natural way to control them would be with two mice. There are two reasons for this:

        1. In the real world, to control the 3d environment around them, people use 2 hands. The matter of fine-honing what mouse actions and gestures cause what actions in the desktop is complex.

        2. When people use mice, they typically are not using the other hand (unless
    • You'd need something the rough size & shape of a mouse, but that had a gymball-style shell on it that let you rotate it around. And a strap, so you could click while you rotated. The strap would be a pain.
    • you don't need any arms - new generation of mice must be optical in a real sense of it. It must read the movement and tension (distance focus) of your eyes. Of course, blink == click :)
    • There are already a couple 3D mice on the market. Google for "space mouse" for an example.

      They are currently used in some robotics applications.

    • Well, a "glove" needn't be some horrendous construct, like Nintendo's Power Glove (ick.)

      I recall reading about some project (sorry, can't find a link) involving a little wrist bracelent leading to fingertip thingies, which essentially figured out what you were typing, without you needing a keyboard.

      Similarly (once again, can't remember link) there was some toy that projected a keyboard onto any flat surface, and figured out what you were typing.

      You're not going to get a holodeck type of product that lets
      • Well, a "glove" needn't be some horrendous construct, like Nintendo's Power Glove (ick.)

        Of course not - gloves can be really nice. The problem is (as always) - patents.

        You see, part of the PG's technology was licensed from Jaron Lanier's company of the time, VPL. They made what could be considered "the ultimate" glove - the DataGlove.

        It was made of lycra or spandex - very flexy and comfortable, like bicycle gloves. IIRC, there were no fingertips, so you could type with it on. The sensors were lightweight l

    • You could use 2 mice at the same time. The non-primary buttons could toggle you into navigation mode.

      Left mouse:
      left-click + 2D movement = movement

      Right mouse:
      right-click + 2D movement = "mouse look"

      Two-handed manipulation of the environment would be possible. With scroll mice, other degrees of control are possible.

      Finally, games could as easily be "build 'em ups" as "shoot 'em ups". :)
      • Ouch... Even more moveing you arms from the mouses to the keyboard and back again. Carpal tunnel, here I come.

        For games I agree it could be cool though. :-)

  • Interface (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dumeinst ( 664891 ) on Tuesday December 09, 2003 @07:41AM (#7667228)
    I've always imagined people using something other than a monitor to view a 3d desktop and something other than a mouse to navigate it. Something Like VR glasses that could also track your eye movement, etc.

    I don't find a 3d desktop using current interfaces that exciting, nor do I think it would be a boon to productivity. Sure does look purty though

  • I don't think I want this (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Schlemphfer ( 556732 ) on Tuesday December 09, 2003 @07:42AM (#7667237) Homepage
    The video's unrunnable already because their server is no doubt getting hammered. But I looked at the sample screen and the write-up and frankly, I don't get it.

    The more dimensions you've got, the more places things can get lost -- this applies equally for car keys, lost souls, and music files. One of the beauties of a two dimensional windowing environment is it puts everything right up front where you can see it. A three dimensional environment creates the same problems I've already got in my house; things could be anywhere.

    How long will it be before people using this environment spend an hour rummaging around for something they know they left somewhere, but turns out to be hidden behind some other item? It'll be just like today, when you spend two hours looking for you checkbook, wondering if you accidentally threw it out, and finally find it had fallen under your old hiking boots in the closet. I get quite enough 3D at home, thank you. I think I'll pass on using it for my windowing manager.

    Add to this that, in the absence of 3D goggles, everything in 3D is going to appear annoyingly false. And while I bet goggles will be amazing for games and certain specific applications, I don't want my day-to-day working environment to gratuitiously throw in an extra dimension I don't need. It's just one more thing to keep track of. And at the risk of sounding like an old man, the sample screen shot looks like something that would give me a massive headache if I had to deal with it all day.

    • You know, I'd agree with you, but ever since books and magazines became 3-D, they've been so much easier to read. Remember those old flat pages we suffered with? Blech.

      Obviously, we should translate that experience in other text and video media to computers.

      But I'm going really skip into the future and do a 4-d desktop, that changes over time, so that your desktop today will be different than yesterday.

      It's one better, isn't it?

    • Re:I don't think I want this (Score:4, Insightful)

      by sklib ( 26440 ) on Tuesday December 09, 2003 @08:36AM (#7667551)
      You're not exactly right there.

      It's only hard to place things in 3d if there isn't a clear system for it. If you look at the demo video, it looks like the intended use of 3d-ness of the desktop is actually just being able to turn your application windows sideways to sort of file them away. Certainly, windowshades has much the same effect, but this way you can select what you want faster, both because it's a bigger thing to click on, and because you can visually identify your application instead of having to read the title bar.

    • You should watch the video. It certainly looks nice, though how many features you'd actually ever use is another matter entirely. I suspect many people would turn off all the chrome, and use it much as they use window based systems today.

      They have miniature versions of all the running application at about 45 degrees angle from the viewing plane in a row at the bottom of the screen, so there is no chance to lose your windows as you suggested.
    • The more dimensions you've got, the more places things can get lost

      I think we should go back to a 1 dimensional model. None of this fancy 2D directory type stuff to get data lost in :-)

      • Your comment might be a joke, but I actually prefer one-dimensional file-lists. When looking up something on an alphabetical list, it's much easier to read vertically instead of horizontally, with labels left aligned.

        Filemanagers like Nautilus, Konqueror or IE, in icon view, show a lot of icons, from left to right, with centered labels and looking up something is quite hard. Besides, horizontal contiguity means something, but vertical contguity does not (and actually is changed when you resize the window)

    • Imagine this desktop combined with a really well done version of Apple's "Expose" feature. THAT I could go for :)

  • Synapse (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Wasn't there a window manager for X called Synapse that worked in 3D? It allowed all sorts of nifty things like displaying information on both sides of a window.

  • Not flattering (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hargettp ( 74445 ) * on Tuesday December 09, 2003 @07:52AM (#7667284)
    You know, I like Java technology. If it weren't for the existence of Java, we'd never have this push towards writing user space software in higher-level languages that run on virtual machines. As a productivity aid to engineers, I think it's one of the best advances of the past decade.

    However, although Schwartz demo'd some clever technology, it was not very flattering. First of all, it has a little bit of the "me too" syndrome, considering that Mac OS X already has some nice eye candy that uses the same techniques: fast compositing and scaling, to run videos in an icon; translucent windows; windows that easily shift and scale without losing clarity (Expose). Heck, Microsoft demo'd their "me too" six months ago with early images of Longhorn.

    Second, was it really necessary to spend the whole time bashing the "dominant" operating system provider. Believe me, I'm no fan of Microsoft, but this anti-Microsoft schtick of Sun's is becoming tiresome, unflattering, and it's not helping their stock price.

    I just wish McNealy would try to compete by being better, not by complaining or firing barbs. Frankly, Sun has not been delivering great software technology for several years, so to come at it this way seems very unprofessional. Bummer, too, 'cause I really want to see Sun (and Java) succeed.

    • Re:Not flattering (Score:3, Insightful)

      by JohnFluxx ( 413620 )
      If it weren't for the existence of Java, we'd never have this push towards writing user space software in higher-level languages that run on virtual machines.

      Yes before that, things like lisp etc were hardly used.

      These things just go round and round in fads.
      • Oh, I hear ya'! I know the industry seems to be slowly reinventing what LISP was first to do (or Smalltalk, after that), but my point was simply that Java was the first to make virtual machines a successful architectural construct in the marketplace. Before Java, most folks (including many engineers) didn't know what a "virtual machine" was, even though the concept has been around for some time.

        BTW: HyperCard and Visual Basic might also be considered an early form of software based on a virtual machine.
    • First of all, it has a little bit of the "me too" syndrome, considering that Mac OS X already has some nice eye candy that uses the same techniques: fast compositing and scaling, to run videos in an icon; translucent windows; windows that easily shift and scale without losing clarity (Expose). Heck, Microsoft demo'd their "me too" six months ago with early images of Longhorn.

      RiscOS had fast vector graphics, transparent dragging of windows, even the ability to have a different video running *in* each of yo

  • whoa (Score:3, Funny)

    by wobblie ( 191824 ) on Tuesday December 09, 2003 @07:52AM (#7667287)
    this is fucked up. he's playing a video, and turns the window around, and the video is playing backwards on the other side! WtF?

  • Have you seen the screenshot? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by elyalvarado ( 255958 ) on Tuesday December 09, 2003 @07:56AM (#7667297) Homepage
    Can you believe it that was OpenOffice.org in the screenshot, and not Sun's own StarOffice.
    The way I see it even Sun knows the future is in Opensource, after all it is their advanced software lab using openoffice instead of staroffice.

    Signature? why do I need such a silly thing. If It makes me think, I don't want one.

  • Obligatory Java props... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Glock27 ( 446276 ) on Tuesday December 09, 2003 @07:56AM (#7667298)
    To quote the author:

    It's largely written with Java (proving for once and for all that there's no inherent performance gap for Java applications) and makes good use of the integrated Java support in JDS.

    It's nice to see that Java is to the point where Sun will use it for desktop projects. It has taken a lot longer than some of us hoped, but certainly better late than never!

    JDK/JRE 1.5 should bring additional significant performance improvements...

    • JDK/JRE 1.5 should bring additional significant performance improvements...

      Any day now Edna... Java will be fast enough. And then - - then I'll have my revenge those naysayers.
  • ... to make the system actually usable. And you really need new kind of pointers and navigation devices.

    The demo was fine, but does the user actually get a reasonable payoff for the added complication of navigating in a 3D world.

  • Conflicting medium... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by JazzManDRP ( 158742 ) <slashdot@puz[ ]net ['ey.' in gap]> on Tuesday December 09, 2003 @07:59AM (#7667322) Homepage
    The problem that nobody developing 3D desktops seems to acknowledge is blatant. A monitor display is two-dimensional. It is suited to displaying two-dimensional artefacts.

    When you try to display something in three dimensions on a monitor, not only does it not really exist, but your brain can't deal with it. Watch computer game novices (and some experts!) try to lean their head around to peek round a corner playing a FPS game. See how quickly most people get motion sick watching someone else play a game. It's all because the visuals are faking 3D and our eyes & brain can't deal.

    A 3D desktop is not going to be a feasible reality until we have a feasible 3D display to draw it on. Only if/when hologram or 3D-projection displays become a reality will there be a useful case for a desktop to match; in the meantime, this just adds unnecessary complexity to the 2D desktop.

    • Extending your game analogy, won't that just mean that 3D desktops will take some getting used, and you might occasionally lean your head?

      Hardly a failure.
    • don't you watch any movies or TV? they also "fake 3D". are you not able to sit through LoTR without losing your lunch?

      3D on 2D has been here for 150 years. (photos) welcome to the 1800s my friend. ;p
    • A 3D desktop is not going to be a feasible reality until we have a feasible 3D display to draw it on. Only if/when hologram or 3D-projection displays become a reality will there be a useful case for a desktop to match; in the meantime, this just adds unnecessary complexity to the 2D desktop.

      You are right, although I would submit that there are a few shades of gray between here and there, so to speak...

      It is reasonable to assume that we will see the development of 'deep' displays before true 3D holograp

      • What we have come to know as the "Desktop Metaphor" was arguably wholly invented and demonstrated by Douglas Engelbart back in 1968. In that demonstration, he showed nearly all the elements of the modern GUI desktop computer, nearly 20 years before they became commonplace (with the Mac). Some of the things he showed in that demo didn't become "common" until recently, and a few of them didn't become common at all.

        One of these was the use of two mice. Yep, it's true. He discovered that using two mice (as well

  • Smooth (Score:5, Informative)

    by pcbob ( 67069 ) on Tuesday December 09, 2003 @08:00AM (#7667329) Homepage
    From the video (yay, I managed to snatch it before /. wave propagated), it runs really smooth - they have netscape and two movie players running and it all happens with no lagging as the guy rotates the whole thing around in 3D (and when you look at it from the back, the movie is mirrored and still plays smooth). I wonder what kind of machine it is the whole thing is happening on.

    Another thing i'm impressed by is that it didn't seem ackward the way they were using it - i remeber trying some other 3D wms on X, and they were all pretty bad from usability point. This introduces 3D in a way where it solves problem of organizing apps on the desktop instead of creating new problems. I'm amazed and think this is a step in the right direction.

  • Boring (Score:2, Funny)

    by iamdrscience ( 541136 )
    My desktop already has four dimensions! I can move all around the objects, documents, files, etc. on it and then there's a big "TIME" jog wheel next to my keyboard. Now if there were somebody that came out with a desktop that had more dimensions then I'd be impressed. I tend to get a little messed up with string theory.

  • Too much complexity. (Score:3, Informative)

    by iantri ( 687643 ) <.iantri. .at. .gmx.net.> on Tuesday December 09, 2003 @08:05AM (#7667351) Homepage
    Average Joe can't even understand the concepts of window shading and virtual desktops.

    Somehow I think this isn't really going to work out for Sun -- a 2D desktop is already complex enough for most people.. 3D will be impossible for them to use.

  • 3Dtop one of my favorites .... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by leoaugust ( 665240 ) <leoaugust AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday December 09, 2003 @08:17AM (#7667416) Journal

    One of the programs that was really the visual inspiration behind the framework presented in my doctoral thesis was 3Dtop [majorgeeks.com] http://www.majorgeeks.com/download186.html

    A review is given at the link I have provided, but this program was really the marvel of simplicity. It is only 356 KB (yes k), and truly converts all the files and folders on you computer into a 3D space.

    If you are ready to re-INTERPRET what you normally store in a folder of file, so that it now fits this visual space, it is extrememly powerful.

    For a person just starting off, the novelty of 3Dtop wears off pretty quickly because you easily get lost, and it looks just like eye candy, but if you REinterpret what the folders and files should contain, it becomes a very very powerful cognitive space.

    Please don't flame me if you don't understand what I am saying, but as a last point, I would like to mention that as our cognitive space (displayed in the electronic space on the desktop) has no real correspondence to physical 3D space, it becomes hard to impose "laws" (like physical laws) and hence the electronic space almost becomes infinite, and really disorienting. One way to build laws is to recognize that (in Windows) the Desktop itself is a folder, which contains My Computer, which has the C:\ drive, which has windows, which has Desktop again ... it is this Russian Doll like relationship between two Desktop views that provides the backbone for building the laws that are equivalent of the "physical space" for the electronic and cognitive space ....

    • i assume you ran this a while ago. i tried it on winXP and after it gathers icons and bitmaps it just blows up. 3dtop.com doesn't appear to exist properly anymore. its a shame, i would loved to have seen this running.

      • Yes, it is an old program. It still works for me, but then I am still using Win 98 and Win 2000 on my computers. Never moved to XP.

        I just tested the download from the link that I provided and it still works for me.

        There are more details here [wirehub.nl] http://www.wirehub.nl/~technica/3dtop/home.html but, unfortunately, the Developer moved on to create some rather "new age-ish" biofeedback programs, rather than concentrating on 3Dtop ... So, this program is no longer supported. The link above gives an old

    • You know, I'm not sure I've ever quite got the whole desktop metaphor. I've never really seen the point in the desktop itself. Windows, taskbars, menus etc - fine, but why do we need a special window (the desktop) that is always there behind the others but only has limited space?

      Most people's desktops just seem to be a rather disorganised collection of shortcuts and temporary documents and people don't seem to get the fact that really this "desktop" is just a view on a folder (I'm talking about non expe

      • My use of a desktop, and esp. the 3D Desktop is very personal, and I use a lot of tools to achieve what I want. It would take a long time to convey what I do, but let me try to start by answering your specific questions ...

        Most people's desktops just seem to be a rather disorganised collection of shortcuts and temporary documents

        This is true as M$ could never really communicate what they were trying to do with the Desktop Metaphor. And their tendency to define "special folders" and then hide them in t

  • What if... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by frenchgates ( 531731 ) on Tuesday December 09, 2003 @08:27AM (#7667489)
    From the Looking Glass project page:

    "What if windows were translucent so you could see the multiple windows you're working on at the same time? What if you could tack a note to yourself right on the Web page you're viewing? What if your CD or movie database became a 3D jukebox, where titles were joined with images to make finding what you want easier than ever?"

    Could those "What ifs" be less exciting?

  • Give Linux that "wow" factor (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ChrisRijk ( 1818 ) on Tuesday December 09, 2003 @08:36AM (#7667549)
    Apparantly the "Looking Glass" demo (running on a little Sony Vaio) was one of the most popular demos at Comdex. I liked the desktop layout as well - very clean and simple, but amazingly flexible.

    I think it's pretty obvious what they've done - just turn each window into a texture map, then project that in a 3D environment. That's why they can flip the windows, have multiple copies etc running very smoothly (3D accelerated), and also why you can do alpha blending very easily, or have the entire backdrop being a 3D projection (eg 360 degree world view.

    This is probably using the OpenGL wrappers in Java... Sun will be feeding the "looking glass" technology into the Java Desktop System over the next 6-12 months. They weren't originally going to be so agressive, but due to the huge interest, they said they decided to accelerate the schedule. One nice side benefit of this becoming a "must have" is that the 3D cards guys will probably get more serious about doing proper, complete OpenGL drivers for Linux (the current situation ain't that great).

    Like some of the others here, I do wonder just how productive it would be, but it didn't seem hard to use at all. It does give Linux (and Unix since it can run on Solaris too) a very nice wow factor - the Sun guys gave it a kinda "who cares about waiting a few years for Longhorn, here's what you can do today!". Will help dispell the bad perception that Linux has for desktop use.

    PS The original demo was written by a guy in Sun Japan in his spare time. Yep, a real demo...
    • One nice side benefit of this becoming a "must have" is that the 3D cards guys will probably get more serious about doing proper, complete OpenGL drivers for Linux (the current situation ain't that great).

      It could be argued that the current situation "ain't that great"(sic) because the card vendors don't see enough of a commercial market in desktop Linux to warrant the investment required to make proper drivers. For Sun's Java Desktop to change that means that it would have to, out of the gate, start garn

    • ....the Sun guys gave it a kinda "who cares about waiting a few years for Longhorn, here's what you can do today!"....

      Great. Now MS will be forced to release Longhorn prematurely, it will suck eggs, and we'll all be forced to use it at work.

  • Jurassic Park (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Zog The Undeniable ( 632031 ) on Tuesday December 09, 2003 @08:52AM (#7667641)
    The GUI of InGen's Site B computer in the otherwise execrable book of "The Lost World" was something similar. Needless to say, the kids figured it out where the adults failed.

  • Seen it in the flesh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 09, 2003 @08:54AM (#7667655)
    I've seen this in the flesh and was lucky enough to play with it. (Friend is an employee of Sun)

    It does sound like some of you didn't even bother to RTFA. One of the points of the 3d desktop is to make it easier to find your windows. Your not going to lose your windows with this technology.

    I think it also shows that Sun is still trying to innovate, frankly that should be applauded. Besides, it looks way cool!

  • old hat (Score:3, Insightful)

    by penguin7of9 ( 697383 ) on Tuesday December 09, 2003 @08:55AM (#7667664)
    It's largely written with Java (proving for once and for all that there's no inherent performance gap for Java applications) and makes good use of the integrated Java support in JDS.

    That tells you nothing about Java performance. The performance critical portions of Java3D and the operating system's 3D drivers are written in C and assembly language. Even JavaScript and VRML manage to render 3D scenes fast.

    At one level it provides a 3D windowing environment for existing X applications (interesting enough in its own right), but at another it introduces the ability to create 3D applications where you interact spatially to explore data. In the demo video (starts a little way in, persist or fast-forward ;-) you can see the CD selector from the screen-shot to the right in action, and I can imagine all the other experimental 3D apps I've enjoyed using (photo gallery browsers, SQL database explorers with 3D visualisation, etc.) finally making it to the real world.

    3D data visualization is an old hat, as are 3D user interfaces and mapping 2D window systems (including X11) onto 3D surfaces. There are even a bunch of open source projects around, including 3dwm.

    What if windows were translucent so you could see the multiple windows you're working on at the same time? What if you could tack a note to yourself right on the Web page you're viewing? What if your CD or movie database became a 3D jukebox, where titles were joined with images to make finding what you want easier than ever?

    Translucent windows have been done many times, as have annotations. 3D representations of physical objects as user interface metaphors have been done numerous times (and those kinds of interfaces generally belong into the Interface Hall of Shame), and "titles" can already be "joined with images" in some MP3 players, including Windows Media Player.

    Sun Microsystems' latest innovations by its Advanced Software Technology Team will make the above scenarios a reality for the desktop of the near future.

    There is nothing wrong with tinkering with old ideas and trying to integrate them into a nice system. But, people shouldn't repeat old mistakes and they should give credit to the people who came before.

    Referring to such tired old ideas as "innovation" either means that Sun is ignorant or that they are deliberately misrepresenting their work.

  • Appropriate Technology (Score:4, Insightful)

    by frenchgates ( 531731 ) on Tuesday December 09, 2003 @09:04AM (#7667728)
    I think 3D GUIs may have some good purpose, but the problem is that until now they have mostly been applied to things that just work better in 2D.

    The clearest example of this is exploding menu-style choices from a 2D list that is easy to scan quickly and accurately with your eye into some 3D "infospace."

    Imagine going to a restaurant where, instead of a paper menu of the food options in front of you, all of the waiters in the restaurant, each holding a big sign with the name of one menu item on it, form a big circle around you and you have to turn in your chair around to view each one.

    Restaurants have been around for a long time and I don't know of any that work that way.

  • Let's just have 2.5D desktops (Score:3, Funny)

    by HarveyBirdman ( 627248 ) on Tuesday December 09, 2003 @09:18AM (#7667858) Journal
    Fractal desktops! They'd have infinite resolution and infinite detail. :-)

    Great for artists, but your Quake framerate would fall to one per lifetime of the cosmos. So you gamers who want to finish a deathmatch better hope for a closed Universe.

  • A technical question (Score:3, Interesting)

    by TomorrowPlusX ( 571956 ) on Tuesday December 09, 2003 @09:26AM (#7667915)
    Looking at this, I can't help but wonder, how do they intend to handle the blurriness and uneven pixel distortion that inevitably results from matrix transformations on bitmaps?

    If you're on a mac running panther (like me) you can see this with Expose -- basically, when you take a window and shrink it it *will* look a little blurry -- particularly if the shrinkage is such that the window is only shrunken by a small amount, say, 90% original size -- you don't get a clear mapping of pixels, so you get weirdnesses. That's fine for uses like expose when you're not interacting with a window's widgets (you're only picking the window itself) -- but if I'm to actually work with a transformed window we had better have a display system that really acts in transformed space, rather than simply mapping a 2D bitmap.

    As much as I dislike MS, and as vaporous as Aero is or whatever-its-called-this-week, it seems like MS is investing into some new kind of display mechanism -- and if it really is vector based and all that hoohah then it probably could skip the render-into-a-bitmap phase and instead draw directly into a transformed gl context, sorry , direct3d of course.

    Anyway, I'll happily admit I'm short on technical details. If anybody knows anything enlightening, please, enlighten me. This is a *real* problem. You can't just transform a bitmapped window and expect people to be able to comfortably read it or interact with it.

    • Re:A technical question (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Aero isn't vaporous though. Its here today, it works, and its being used in the active development of Longhorn.
  • I've seen these 3D interfaces like the screenshot linked from the article before, but the filesystems doesn't look very spectacular... it looks like a poor 3D Excel chart that doesn't show any informative relationship or correlation of data. As far as displaying file and folder sizes go, it seems like 2D pie charts work well enough (there are several apps that do this).

    Even if a 3D interface was used, a large amount will still have to be 2D, because that's the best way to display text. 3D doesn't automatic

  • Compare consciousness (Score:3, Interesting)

    by wytcld ( 179112 ) on Tuesday December 09, 2003 @09:36AM (#7667996) Homepage
    Your mind has a contradiction, since it's well-know now in neuroscience that the brain is massively parallel, yet consciousness itself at any point in time is mostly serial and unaware of the great bulk of stuff that is being unconsciously attended to. Yet, consciousness can use parallelism - as when we focus on an issue, then put it on the "back burner," only to come back to it hours or days later and find that we now "suddenly" have a solution. So the "virtual" scope of consciousness extends into areas which are presently unconscious - yet still active, and still ultimately accessible by consciousness.

    Your consciousness is already a bit like a two-dimensional, small window into a large three-dimensional space - which is just what Sun is working up here for your monitor. So you already have in your brain "mechanisms" for navigating in such a situation. And this navigation is largely unconscious - we can choose where to focus our attention, but much of the process of "choosing" what comes to the focus of consciousness is itself unconscious. That doesn't mean it's not active, and not part of our intelligence.

    We may find ourselves strangely at home in the environment Sun is proposing, able to bring to it some of the "instincts" we use for internal regulation of mind.

  • This is great! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by GodSpiral ( 167039 ) on Tuesday December 09, 2003 @09:37AM (#7668002)
    The "videos" link isn't slashdotted atm, and is definitely worth checking out, especially if you're tempted to just rant how "quake is a bad interface for writting essays"

    What's good about this technology, is that it is just cool/useful enough to use right out of the box with existing OS/WM/applications, but probably does provide a framework to extend and improve programming styles and UI techniques.

    I guess its fair to be critical that much of this wasn't invented by Sun, but it doesn't change the point that its been rolled into an apparently useful package.
  • Is is 3D as in Doom or 3D as in Quake? Assuming they are using the Java3D API, looks like 3D as in Quake. (not psuedo 3d)
    I wouldn't mind a 3D interface, except that most interfaces are created these days with a orthographic view. If the OS exposed a 3D application development environment (which it would, hopefully) I would REALLY like to get into it. We have semi-serious discussions about 3D interfaces for some parts of our software (sourceforge.net/projects/bie). There are many applications/domains where

  • Why? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by spectre_240sx ( 720999 )
    I certainly agree with the arguement of '"3D" on a 2D space,' but in addition, I'm also wondering why we're trying to this right now anyway. In my opinion, we have a long way to go before we even have 2 dimensional desktops mastered, why are we trying to go 3D already? I think it would be better if we mastered what we already work with before we move on to bigger and "better" things...
  • Whether you like "looking glass" or not (and I've gotten to play with it directly and did like what I saw for a very early alpha) one thing that I haven't seen mentioned is proper credit.

    The ideas and java coding behind the first versions of "looking glass" were all the brainchild of Hideya Kawahara (aka Dan). The fact that it is taking a life of it's own will hopefully give him the resources to complete it. He is a software engineer for Sun and came up with the idea on his own then brought it to managemen

Slashdot Top Deals

"The great question... which I have not been able to answer... is, `What does woman want?'" -- Sigmund Freud

Close