Quake3World

May be old, but hey, who cares :P

http://www.lookatentertainment.com/v/v-1062.htm

I think it looks amazing, something new and fresh.

*avoids bumpmapping-joke*

I think it looks incredible, but: Will it ever be useful? I mean, I dont wanna be a party pooper here, but what is the real advantage of using 3D-objects on your desktop/in applications?

Well, you have 3d space, so you can move anything, to anywhere.

All of you on one monitor still, think of your desktop. How much can you REALLY fit onto it? Think about how it would be like if you could scroll "around" and slide your desktop to the side revealing move space? Think about what you could have open?

That's true.
Still, I very rarely open more than 7 to 10 applications and I am not yet convinced that it's more than a beauty-trick.

There's nothing demoed there that's too interesting, IMO.

More interesting is a 3d persistant world which you move about in, is linked into others around the globe, and allows for private areas, your own 'virtual house' which can form a desktop environment.

The big problem with a true 3d virtualisation of this nature is that everything would need to be recoded. Everything up until now is essentially in 2 dimensions and bringing it into 3 would require a whole new way of thinking.

What's in that vid is just pseudo 3d. Taking 2d windows with a few cute effects (roll them off to the side and clone them). Is that anything really special that helps you work more efficiently, focus clearly on what you're doing, or give you more salient information at one time? Not really. What's the benefit of folding windows off to the side instead of minimising them? Negligable.

The big sticking point of this issue is that to experiment with desktop systems in any way, you have to ensure you improve or at the very least make equal all aspects of the desktop. If your swanky new desktop can do a lot of cool tricks but doesn't let your user do that one time-saving step he/she has learned over the years in windows, you're fucked.

I remember laughing when I saw this last year because the Grand Canyon is obviously just a stupid rotoscoping effect with two or three planes.

Without a 3D display, there is no gain in functionality over traditional computing.

I don't know how Sun is still in business. It must be from all those Java royalties. I haven't a clue why so many mobile devices need Java.

Foo wrote:The big problem with a true 3d virtualisation of this nature is that everything would need to be recoded. Everything up until now is essentially in 2 dimensions and bringing it into 3 would require a whole new way of thinking.

Yeah, I don't think I could handle owning one more dimension of Q3W. I can barely contain my laughter as it is.

the real use for 3d environments will come with 3d data analysation and data organisation methods - and communication.

if you look 5 to 10 years into the future, you will have allmost every person running around with cell phones that have wlan or something similiar and are able to store about at least 100GB of data; and they are connected to the internet 24/7.
So basicly this means that people, especially in the buisiness world, will want to exchange or just show their data that is on their device.
so, as foo said, some form of virtual 3d conference room might be usefull. as well as you could invite others into your data lair. you could have several rooms like libraries, a music room, buisiness room, etc.
then again you'd need virtual instances of devices like mp3 players, etc to manipulate and view the data presented. i think this will develop into some form of 3d drag and drop system.

Wow that is amazing. And by amazing I really mean utterly pointless.

maybe get a mac

check out my desktop

http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=7/19609160416.png&s=x2

rep wrote:I don't know how Sun is still in business.

Solaris.

Pext wrote:the real use for 3d environments will come with 3d data analysation and data organisation methods - and communication.

The next computer age, which should begin around H2 2007 when most will have migrated to new Longhorn systems that no doubt will have far too much power for even us to handle (AMD socket M2 CPU with 4 cores on DDR3) will be about two things: Computing everywhere, and visualization.

The data has been here. The interfaces are starting to catch up. We still work in a system that isn't very user friendly. The next generation operating system, Longhorn, is so visually active that it almost begs people to use it. Of course, the change cannot be made in one step. Longhorn has a lot of visual feedback, but they can't ditch the old user interface without also leaving a lot of users in the dark.

Anyway, everything is going to start getting visual and more like it is in real life. Instead of a text file, you'll just have a letter. They're already moving in that direction with the thumbnailed previews of documents that have been around for years, but it's just getting better. The current generation of OS display a small thumbnail of the file. Longhorn shows the file exactly how it should look in a very large format. Why do we need a million icons on screen at once?

If you think about it, if you were going through a gallery which is more productive: Memorizing "Renoir_2031121aX_large.jpg" and looking for that file in a sea of small icons, or having 300x500 large thumbnails displayed on screen at once and shuffling through those on a high resolution display? I think that although you're viewing less information on screen, you perhaps could find that file quicker, or at least understand what the fuck your files are. With today's system, in that folder you would have to press R to get to the Rs and then look through each file to find the one you wanted. With upcoming technology such as virtual folders in Longhorn, you'd click on, "Pierre Auguste Renoir," and shuffle through the images.

That's a poor example, and a lot of text just to describe something that I could have told you in four seconds.

Bottom line: Things hopefully are moving away from FILE FORMATS and becoming what they are in real life. Just because the computer needs a file name and extension doesn't mean we need them as well.

When someone figures out how to completely blur that line and still retain common functionality between users, it'll seem like magic. How would you get to a website without a directory or address? Don't ask me. I'd be swimming in coins if I knew.

google voice recognition + I'm Feeling lucky?

rep wrote:If you think about it, if you were going through a gallery which is more productive: Memorizing "Renoir_2031121aX_large.jpg" and looking for that file in a sea of small icons, or having 300x500 large thumbnails displayed on screen at once and shuffling through those on a high resolution display?

i think a search tree, with an underlying graph, using metadata and some association keywords to group items will solve problems like these.
you should be able to reach every item in about 4 to 6 steps down the tree.

Vioce command: "paintings, renoir, Monsieur & Madame Bernheim de Villers" and then you get a link/avatar of the item to some sort of item table or clipboard

and if you don't remember the artist or title or both you could do something like:

"paintings, impressionism, two persons sitting around"

thats cool

that looks sexy

zeeko wrote:maybe get a mac

check out my desktop

http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=7/19609160416.png&s=x2

People won't use voice commands until three things happen:

1. The software is perfected.
2. It uses subvocal recognition.
3. It works without commands, such as having to say, "Period," to end a sentence.

Edit: By the time home computers have smart subvocal recognition, they all will probably track where your eyes are looking.

The goal here is having a computing environment where you can sit down in a recliner and look at a display of some sort (2D or 3D) and do work without using a hand. Shut up, I already know what you're thinking.

then you do the search querry using strings...

zeeko wrote:maybe get a mac

check out my desktop

http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=7/19609160416.png&s=x2

you have red mexican worms on your hard drive

Everyon who designs an interface should be forced to test it out on their mum first. For example, the reason they didn't include multiple desktop spaces out of the box for OS X is that less technically savvy people kept on getting stuck in one of the other desktops and didn't know what they'd done.

plus i think, multiple desktops are not really usefull. it's just some thing that linux nerd can list as an advantage over windows...

i dont see anything terribly usefull in that video at all... its just eye candy IMO.
The old amiga "virtual desktop" environment is still my favorite of all time.

Oh boy.. project looking glass, what a waste of time. I don't want a 3D desktop environment. I want all my information uncluttered but simultaneously available. I want zero time application switching.

So far the only OS I've see that comes closest to fulfilling that is OS X with Exposé. This isn't a mac-windows argument, it's just the best implementation available.

The best MS could do to reduce clutter is make apps cluster on the taskbar when they reach a certain threshold... Sure it reduces clutter, but it buries the information in stacks of categorized task bar buttons. I dont want to go diving, i want to see it all at once.