Re: 3d today instead of when MS wants to go...

["Jesse D. Sightler" <jsight pair com>]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Reklaw <nawalker@earthlink.net>
>To: jsight@pair.com <jsight@pair.com>
>Cc: hib@kcd.com <hib@kcd.com>; gnome-list@gnome.org <gnome-list@gnome.org>
>Date: Wednesday, October 07, 1998 11:40 PM
>Subject: Re: 3d today instead of when MS wants to go...

>
>[urls snipped]

Thanks for the links, I'll check those out later.


>>>My opinion: 3d interfaces are unless with the hardware commonly found
>>>on most computers. A 3d interface with common PC hardware would offer
>>>few advantages over 2d --  and effectivly lock out not only low-end
>>>users but also power users who like to compile 3 programs at once, play
>>>gnome-stones, and browse the web and the same time.
>>
>> The same could have been sade of 2D interfaces just a few years ago.
This
>> argument is fundamentally flawed, and just plain silly, IMO.  :)
>
>Flawed and silly because you think otherwise? The leap in functionality
>from character-based display to GUI is/was rather easy too. Perhaps you
>might better convince people by listing new/better functionality of
>(1) 3d interface on 2d display and (2) using 3d goggles, taking into
>account common arguments against both. I would be quicker to
>listen to that than someone calling me silly when they won't even
>use a search engine for them selves <grin>.

Ok, I've reread the paragraph that I responded to and found that my response
was very unclear.  I wasn't referring to your statement about 3D user
interfaces not being easily usable as silly, but rather the implication that
the mere fact that current hardware is inadequate was silly.

If this project were to start today it would take at least 3-5 years to get
to any point of near completion.  By that point the level of hardware needed
for true 3D interfaces should be relatievly inexpensive and practical.  As a
result, any company/group with a product that was able to show real
productivity improvements by using the technology would be much more than
enough to make the hardware cost and availability issue irrelevant.  Can we
at least agree on that part?

Now, as to the issue of whether or not a 3D interface could be implemented
adequately even at that, I also have my doubts.  :)

>Seriously, I know a little about these projects b/c I thought a 3d
>interface maybe useful, I quickly came to another
>consulsion. My major point is simply this, if people on this list
>thought that 2d interfaces were not the best way to go currently (and in
>the near future) they would not be helping out GNOME. If you want a 3d
>interface, I think you should throw your support behind berlin or a
>similar project. It might be a good idea to try to inter operate
>with berlin when they have something usable. hmmm. berlin
>theme engine for gtk+? The berlin people even plug GNOME on their site.


Hmmm, interesting though that I didn't really see much about what their
plans are for "3d applications".  It's almost like they are providing a
strong replacement graphics display system for X with fast 3D capabilities,
but very little in the way of app specifications.  Definately a good place
to start for anyone wishing to develop a 3D graphics based UI experiment.

---------
Jess
http://www3.pair.com/jsight
ICQ# 20264228