18-Apr-2024 09:18 GMT.		 UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 21 items in your selection
[Web] GUI GalleryANN.lu
Posted on 06-Jan-2003 00:54 GMT by Aram Iskenderian (Edited on 2003-01-06 14:32:27 GMT by Christian Kemp)21 comments
View flat
View list
Not sure if this was posted or mentioned here before, but you I came across this site hich has some good history and screenshots of most of the GUIs out there. Amiga also mentioed several times, including screenshots of up to OS 3.5.

Maybe someone should send the other screen shots of 3.9 and upcoming 4.0.

Also I noticed the absence or Morph Os from that site, Morph OS fans shold contact him too.

GUI Gallery : Comment 1 of 21ANN.lu
Posted by Kolbjørn Barmen on 06-Jan-2003 01:16 GMT
Well, one could send timeline info of 3.5 and 3.9, but providing screenshots or info for products that _still_ are no avaible doesnt make munch sense. But when the time comes that MorphOS and OS4 is avaible for normal mortals, then someone should certainly contribute. :)
GUI Gallery : Comment 2 of 21ANN.lu
Posted by Peter Gordon on 06-Jan-2003 12:39 GMT
Ugh.. shame he wants the default look for operating systems... Topaz looks SO horrible on 3:4 aspect modes!
GUI Gallery : Comment 3 of 21ANN.lu
Posted by Kelly Samel on 06-Jan-2003 12:57 GMT
Yeah, it would be nice to have a better
picture representing the Amiga GUI. I
think *everyone* has a nicer looking
Amiga setup than what is shown on there... ;)
Doesn't do it justice considering the Amiga
GUI is really the best available for speed
and usability...
GUI Gallery : Comment 4 of 21ANN.lu
Posted by Kolbjørn Barmen on 06-Jan-2003 13:43 GMT
In reply to Comment 2 (Peter Gordon):
Well, the default OS3.9 as it is when you boot off the recovery disk with the CD inserted isnt that bad :)
GUI Gallery : Comment 5 of 21ANN.lu
Posted by Hooligan/DCS on 06-Jan-2003 13:46 GMT
I had better looking Workbench when i was running wb2 ..
GUI Gallery : Comment 6 of 21ANN.lu
Posted by MIKE on 06-Jan-2003 15:53 GMT
In reply to Comment 4 (Kolbjørn Barmen):
3.5/3.9 doesn't count, should be erased as OS releases.
GUI Gallery : Comment 7 of 21ANN.lu
Posted by Paul H on 06-Jan-2003 22:16 GMT
In reply to Comment 6 (MIKE):
Why?? Didn't OS3.5 and OS3.9 get released? Why don't they count? New OS functions and utilities were included and 3.5 got a new icon format.

I know they wern't done by Commodore - they were long gone by then - but it did replace the older operating systems. Plus you'll find several programs on the Aminet requiring OS3.5 and above.

I say they count.
GUI Gallery : Comment 8 of 21ANN.lu
Posted by weirdo on 06-Jan-2003 22:41 GMT
In reply to Comment 7 (Paul H):
It doesn't count bud, full stop.

Hyperion are taking the elements of 3.9 desktop feel but are using the 3.1 source code, which was Commodore's last hurrah. And perhaps 4.0 might just be the first official AmigaOS in a long time, otherwise it will be the last straw to break the camels back.

PS: Amiga should have its own category, whats with this miscellaneous crap?!?!
GUI Gallery : Comment 9 of 21ANN.lu
Posted by Leo on 06-Jan-2003 22:57 GMT
Amiga'UI is really Ugly compared to any other GUI... pouah !

(be it AmigaOS 3.x, MorphOS,...)

Regards,
Leo.
GUI Gallery : Comment 10 of 21ANN.lu
Posted by Lando on 06-Jan-2003 23:23 GMT
In reply to Comment 9 (Leo):
>Amiga'UI is really Ugly compared to any other GUI... pouah !

How can you say that? I think 3.9 is one of the best looking and most customisable GUI's I've ever used, and that includes Mac OS X and Win XP. OS X may look nice initialy but apart from changing the wallpaper there's sod all else you can do to change it.

AmigaOS (and MorphOS) rule in the "best looking OS" stakes (IMO)
GUI Gallery : Comment 11 of 21ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 07-Jan-2003 00:36 GMT
In reply to Comment 6 (MIKE):
What a strange claim. Every part of the OS was updated with 3.5 and 3.9 (exec., libs., utilities, prefs, tools, shell, gui, etc.) Just because they might not have gone as far as you might have liked doesn't mean that there aren't large improvements over 3.1.

4.0 is NOT based on 3.1 code! Go ask the horse. :)
GUI Gallery : Comment 12 of 21ANN.lu
Posted by T_Bone on 07-Jan-2003 04:06 GMT
In reply to Comment 11 (Anonymous):
RE:"4.0 is not based on 3.1"

How could it not be based on 3.1? 3.5/3.9 carries a Copyright that specifically lists H&P as part Copyright holders, and they haven't agreed to offer the source to Hyperion AFAIK.
GUI Gallery : Comment 13 of 21ANN.lu
Posted by weirdo on 07-Jan-2003 05:54 GMT
In reply to Comment 12 (T_Bone):
Damn straight, you tell 'em sparky!

3.1 was the last official OS release.

Sorted.
GUI Gallery : Comment 14 of 21ANN.lu
Posted by Johan "Graak" Forsberg on 07-Jan-2003 06:01 GMT
In reply to Comment 12 (T_Bone):
IIRC Ben said that there is very little code in OS 3.5/3.9 that belongs to H&P. The code belongs to the individual programmers, and Ben said that they've made new contracts with them.
GUI Gallery : Comment 15 of 21ANN.lu
Posted by SirRUSH on 07-Jan-2003 06:43 GMT
In reply to Comment 2 (Peter Gordon):
I was thinking the same thing. Those Amiga screen shots look like...well, horrible. A standard Amiga OS 3.5/9 doesn't look NEAR THAT bad. Give 'em some better pictures. Ewww... Hahah.
GUI Gallery : Comment 16 of 21ANN.lu
Posted by Paul H on 07-Jan-2003 11:55 GMT
In reply to Comment 13 (weirdo):
Depends how you look at it. I think you are wrong - but that is my opinion. You think otherwise - that is yours. There can be no right or wrong really. Maybe this should go out as a voting poll...
GUI Gallery : Comment 17 of 21ANN.lu
Posted by Chris Scott on 07-Jan-2003 13:31 GMT
On the bright side, the default theme for just about any operating system looks better than the defaults for Windows XP :)
GUI Gallery : Comment 18 of 21ANN.lu
Posted by brotheris on 07-Jan-2003 16:09 GMT
Just look at other OSes default look and then look at AmigaOS again. (apart from AmigaOS, BeOS looks nice [not the last alpha/beta release])
GUI Gallery : Comment 19 of 21ANN.lu
Posted by Raffaele on 07-Jan-2003 19:03 GMT
It is a long time ago that "timeline GUI history" site was shown here on ANN.
Even I mentioned that site here on ANN, (two years ago) because there is (there was?) a link on the Windows page, pointing to the website trick for Windows ME to unveil MS-DOS at start menu.

Just to show it to a windoze lamer who believed that windows ME was fully 32 bit OS.

By the way, the GUI timeline site suffer a major restyling.

One year ago it showed Workbench 3.5 also and I mentioned WB/OS 3.9 by e-mail to the mantainer Mr. Nathan Lineback about to set it in his site.

Unfortunately now it seems that Mr. Lineback was not interested to insert WB/OS 3.9 in his GUI timeline history table and even that he put out of his site the link of Workbench 3.5.

Hypoteses:

1) When he made the restyling he forgot to insert WB 3.5 again.

2) Mr. Lineback does not consider WB 3.5 and 3.9 real upgrades.

This latter hypotesis is possible because he takes only consideration about GUIs and GUI aspect and not takes any consideration regarding the whole OS.

Bye,

Raffaele
GUI Gallery : Comment 20 of 21ANN.lu
Posted by Leo on 07-Jan-2003 19:20 GMT
In reply to Comment 10 (Lando):
Hi,

How can I say that ?

Because it is the truth ! ;)

Customisable ? you must be kiding...

How can you call something that is restrained to use 16 colour FIXED palette
customisable ?!? (ie.: MUI gadgets are limited to the MWB palette)

And this is just an example...

Regards,
Leo.
GUI Gallery : Comment 21 of 21ANN.lu
Posted by alan buxey on 08-Jan-2003 10:55 GMT
In reply to Comment 19 (Raffaele):
..the site clearly says that if the interface doesnt change,
then he doesnt show it in the timeline shots.

the interface from os3.1 -> os3.9 really hasnt changed... the
buttons etc are all in same place, aspect etc by default..and
the Dock isnt part of the workbench, its an addon extra.

now, os4.0 is quite different, a LOT of the 'candy effects'
and changes to GUI appearance, layout etc have changed (and
are being changed as i write this) and the general interface
have changed. the default look should also look quite....hmm,
how should I put this.... ok. 'quite sexy' (lets not
get too geeky and debate this). certainly if you recall the massive
shift that 1.3 -> 2.0 gave us... os3.9 -> os4.0 will be similar
(i wont say anymore...as i'm not going to tread down those waters...and
very unsure of how much i could say)

alan
Anonymous, there are 21 items in your selection
Back to Top