crazzyyfool Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 Microsoft announced earlier this week that, along with the release of Vista, it is porting its Windows Presentation Foundation framework to Mac OS X as well as for handheld devices. Microsoft calls the project Windows Presentation Foundation Everywhere (or WPFE). Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF) is a user interface toolkit, mainly based on a Microsoft version of XAML language, that will be made available to .Net programmers so as to create powerful user interfaces for Windows Vista. Porting WPF to the Mac means that Microsoft will also have to bring a big part of its CLR to the platform. We can also expect the company to make extensive use of the technology in future versions of its Mac software. WPF will probably also help other companies than Microsoft to port their Vista applications to the Mac easier, as usually the biggest part of a standard application?s development is the user interface. It also means all of these WPF based applications will have a Windows Vista look even if they will be running on Mac OS X? Aqua user interface. There is already a port of Microsoft?s .Net CLR on Mac. It?s called the Mono project and it is widely supported by Novell as well as other companies and developer groups commited to Linux. Source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClintEastman Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 Wasn't WPFE anounced about the same time they renamed Avalon? I remember the demo for the mobile version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrA Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 It also means all of these WPF based applications will have a Windows Vista look even if they will be running on Mac OS X? Aqua user interface. Why would you want a windows look on the Mac? Isn't that a step backwards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathiasdm Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 Why would you want a windows look on the Mac? Isn't that a step backwards? PERSONAL PREFERENCE! I'm sick of people talking all: "Oh look, all GUI's suck, compared to the OS X interface!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudy Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 Why would you want a windows look on the Mac? Isn't that a step backwards? ouch it is....even if the vista UI was superior, it would destroy any kind of consistency :x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Neo Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 That's great! Now Mac OS X can have the same inconsistent GUI like Windows has. So yeah, this is a step backward for Mac OS X users. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeeekyyy Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 That's great! Now Mac OS X can have the same inconsistent GUI like Windows has. So yeah, this is a step backward for Mac OS X users. The Mac OS X GUI is inconsistent anyways. Why is it that windows randmly switch between aqua and brushed metal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Neo Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 The Mac OS X GUI is inconsistent anyways. Why is it that windows randmly switch between aqua and brushed metal? I suggest you read Apple's HIGs and explanation on the different styles, you'll see that they're not so randomly after all. Plus 99% of all applications use similar layouts, menus, style icons, toolbar icons, toolbar widgets (min, max, close), scroll bars etc. Something you can't say of Windows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revvo Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 I suggest you read Apple's HIGs and explanation on the different styles, you'll see that they're not so randomly after all. Plus 99% of all applications use similar layouts, menus, style icons, toolbar icons, toolbar widgets (min, max, close), scroll bars etc. Something you can't say of Windows. It would be the same story if Mac was as used as Windows.Ideally you'd want applications that look alike for consistency but I don't think Microsoft wants to force this on all the companies. Microsoft offers their toolkits to make applications but companies can use their own. It's their choice and sadly you see butchered GUI's being used just because it's "theirs". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BajiRav Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 It would be the same story if Mac was as used as Windows. Ideally you'd want applications that look alike for consistency but I don't think Microsoft wants to force this on all the companies. Microsoft offers their toolkits to make applications but companies can use their own. It's their choice and sadly you see butchered GUI's being used just because it's "theirs". iTunes for Windows is a good example :whistle: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Live Veteran Posted March 24, 2006 Veteran Share Posted March 24, 2006 It will be interesting to see exactly what they mean by "it will look like Vista" or whatever. I think they just mean that they're not taking the route Java took with their UI framework that makes Java apps look out-of-place on *any* platform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigapixels Veteran Posted March 24, 2006 Veteran Share Posted March 24, 2006 I think they just mean that they're not taking the route Java took with their UI framework that makes Java apps look out-of-place on *any* platform. That's actually the developer's preference. If he/she/they want the user to use the Metal JLAF, then they develop it that way. Java also includes the Operating System look-and-feel, in which it uses the OS graphics to draw the UI components. It's all what the developer decides to support in the application. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudy Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 That's actually the developer's preference. If he/she/they want the user to use the Metal JLAF, then they develop it that way. Java also includes the Operating System look-and-feel, in which it uses the OS graphics to draw the UI components. It's all what the developer decides to support in the application. then i guess 99.9% of java programmers have poor design taste? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigapixels Veteran Posted March 24, 2006 Veteran Share Posted March 24, 2006 then i guess 99.9% of java programmers have poor design taste? Apparently. Whenever I programmed in Java I always made it use the OS look-and-feel. But it's an extra bit of code that you have to put in and perhaps nobody ever really thinks about it. http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/ui.../misc/plaf.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Neo Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 (edited) It would be the same story if Mac was as used as Windows. Ideally you'd want applications that look alike for consistency but I don't think Microsoft wants to force this on all the companies. Microsoft offers their toolkits to make applications but companies can use their own. It's their choice and sadly you see butchered GUI's being used just because it's "theirs". 1 Apparently Apple makes it more attractive for developers to follow the rules. There's no way in hell Apple can force developers to design 128x128 pixel app and document icons or use the right style toolbar buttons, yet 99% of all Mac OS X applications have them. After almost 5 years you still see fast amounts of 32x32 24 bit icons on Windows XP. 2 The whole "Mac OS X has less applications"-thing doesn't mean anything to me either: Roxio developers burning software for both operating systems. What do we see? Mac OS X (Toast 7 Titanium): ? A lovely and perfect matching Aqua interface; ? Aqua realistic toolbar icons; ? Aqua buttons; ? 128x128 pixel compatible application and document icons, matching Aqua; ? Proper Menubar with menu elements in the right spot (Apple's HIGs provided guidelines for that). Windows XP (Easy Media Creator 8): ? An interface that looks absolutely nothing like the Windows default; ? Different style toolbar icons; ? Different style application and document icons, some of them not supporting 48x48 pixel, 32 bit with alpha; ? Random menus (No guidelines). I find it very interesting why the Mac OS X version of their burning software matches perfectly with the OS and the Windows version does not. Just two examples. Edited March 24, 2006 by Neowave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts