I stick with my prediction that Windows will never take off because DOS apps
are much faster.  40 lines of code just to bring up a window!!  It's never
going to happen!

Ron Teitelbaum

> -----Original Message-----
> From: squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:squeak-dev-
> bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Darius Clarke
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 12:09 PM
> To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> Subject: Re: 3D desktop
> 
> Why I think full 3D is inevitable... though fully integrated with 2D,
> with text, and with
> databases.
> 
> Most information management will begin to look like how a large
> building is built.
> 
> Building Information Modeling
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_Information_Modeling
> 
> ... to manage complexity and coordinate communication in real time for
> a multitude of information participants and interests.
> 
> Cheers,
> Darius
> 
> 
> On 1/7/07, Derek O'Connell <dmoc02 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >
> > tim Rowledge wrote:
> > >
> > > And none of it stops me thinking that is a bad idea to
> > > photophysically emulate a bad way of working.
> > >
> >
> > I wish someone would tell that to every organisation that attempts to
> chain
> > it's employees to desks for 8 hours+ a day :-)
> >
> > Back to the video, it is some months old now and I think all the
> criticisms
> > that could be made have been. Still, on a superficial level it is
> excellent
> > eye candy and I for one don't understand the general aversion of the
> Squeak
> > community to eye candy. Image sells and that's a fact... and I think
> > Squeak/Smalltalk could have done with some eye-candy style interfaces
> and
> > marketing. It could also be argued that EToys is eye candy?
> >
> > Regarding 3D, for a long time I believed that 3D was the future but
> > eventually came to the conclusion that 2.5D is more suitable in most
> cases
> > and this is an prime example. I agree it has flaws but I think it should
> be
> > viewed as possibly appropriate for working at a particular level, eg,
> with a
> > small subset of documents/data. Plus it presents an immediately familiar
> > metaphor that almost anyone can relate to. I lost faith in full blown 3D
> > metaphors because the examples I have seen overwhelm the user and/or
> > abstract away any common meaning. A good metric for future interfaces
> is: do
> > they even need explaining, let alone an operators manual (yuuuuk!).
> >
> > ...or should I just say: I like it!
> > --
> > View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/3D-desktop-
> tf2930270.html#a8208533
> > Sent from the Squeak - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >
> >
> >
>