<snip> >>If we had a roughly working and nearly complete set of R5 UI components, >>which in this case we do, and someone said they wanted to add in a new >>look, I would say we should wait and do it right later once we get R1 out. >> >>This is why I don't believe we're being inconsistent, but it's a fair >>question. :-) >> >>-Tyler >> >> >> >> ><unlurk> >This was actually the best argument to not implement a new, although >wanted, UI yet. >I think this should have been said earlier to calm a lot of us non-devs >lurking this list who, too, would love to see a modernization of the >BeOS GUI. There is some history, too, that many people who are newer to the list may not be quite so aware of. Back in 8/01, there was a lot of very wild talk. True micro-kernels. Exo-kernels. Use X/not use X. Use Linux/BSD/other kernels. Write the whole thing in Python. Lots of wild ideas. Not a lot of code, but a lot of wild ideas. That had to change. At the same time, as we started implementing, we came to realize that there are a lot of bugs and bad design decision that we could change for *FREE*. In fact, in some cases, we would have had to break good code to replicate bad. Of course that is not a good idea. :-) I would refer people to the AROS project. They had the same issue that we have: http://www.aros.org/documentation/users/faq.php#why-are-you-only-aiming-for-compatability-with-3-1 I know you don't like the answer. Trust me - there is no good answer here. If someone came forward with some stunning design and all of the code already implemented for it, we might be having a different decision. But the (sorry) vague notion that the UI needs "modernization" is a far cry from that. >To be honest. >IF there was to be a GUI change I'd say there's more to do than just >change the way it looks (with nifty shadows, smoother widgets et.c) but >also change a few things in the way it works. 100% agreed. This is why we decided to put off big changes until we all had the experience of writting the OS. None of the team, AFAIK, has ever written an OS before. I think that it is very safe to say that we will end up knowing a whole lot more than when we started. And I am quite sure that some of the things that we thought were good ideas when we started won't seem so good when we are done. That is part of the learning curve (Be, Inc certainly had that sort of an issue). >I cannot really point to any specific problem a.t.m. (haven't been using >BeOS for about 1½ year since it won't work on my new computer) but I >recall there's was some work needed to be done to ensure better >compliance to Fitt's law. I had to look this one up (been a while) and then I had to smile. I always wondered who makes these "laws" official... :-) Anyway - I read AskTog on this topic - very interesting and entertaining. But these sort of radical changes are really *WAY* beyond the scope of R1. >I had some more things on my 'list' too, but to remember those I have to >be able to use OBOS (or whatever the new name might be), and refresh my >memory. GE would be a good place. >Anyway... as a lover of nice GUI s, both UF and sleek, I have to say I'd >rather be able to use OBOS faster than be waiting for a sleekification. Me too. :-) But, believe me, the best is yet to come! :-) >To the devs: I LOVE you people! :D Me too!