[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

If you can see this message, the SSL certificate expiration has been fixed.
Become a Patron!

/g/ - Technology


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
>> No.55397910 [View]
File: 519 KB, 1670x1016, schemes.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>some of the best customization tools of any legacy platform out there.
Kaleidoscope still is still by far the best theming engine. Nothing has topped it yet, not even the paragon of customizability (Linux WMs/DEs). Kaleidoscope scheme artists had near full control over the window frame, controls, menubar, icons, fonts, sounds… everything. There were even a couple of clever schemes which somehow managed to add 32-bit alpha transparency drop shadows to menus despite classic Mac OS never supporting such a thing in its windowing system.

>> No.51774748 [View]
File: 519 KB, 1670x1016, schemes.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Its main strength is that it was light and zippy (though that could change if you installed a zillion extensions and control panels). That, and programs could just eat up as much memory as they pleased since the OS wouldn't stop them.

For quite some time after OS X was released (up until 10.2 or 10.3 even) I'd reboot my iMac G3 into OS 9 whenever I wanted to run an intense game or boot up a Windows VM in Virtual PC (back when it was an x86 emulator for PPC Macs). In the case of Virtual PC I'd I'd boot OS 9 up with a minimal extension set and even quit the FInder so VPC could suck up as much resources as possible and run a tiny bit faster.

It was also ridiculously moddable. The number of Kaleidoscope schemes and Appearance Manager themes that existed for Classic Mac OS seriously dwarf the number of themes for other platforms (msstyle, GTK+, etc), and they had near total control over the UI, more than any modern theme system - see pic for a few examples...

>> No.51477401 [View]
File: 519 KB, 1670x1016, 1418349418311.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.51059838 [View]
File: 519 KB, 1670x1016, 1418349418311.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

that shit still runs on w7

>> No.45582214 [View]
File: 519 KB, 1670x1016, schemes.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I really hate that UI toolkits and window managers are entirely separated on Linux because it makes it difficult to perfectly match the window frame and window interiors in some situations. GTK and Qt are a little too limiting in their theming capabilities to.

If only someone created a WM and UI toolkit where the drawing the window decorations and interior widgets were drawn in a unified way and as much control as possible as given to the theme artist. This is how Kaleidoscope was and I miss it (pic related).

As far as DE design goes I think maybe the biggest problem is that their designers think in terms of absolutes. Instead of providing a nice middleground they veer towards one extreme or the other which creates a product that's unbalanced in several ways.

>> No.45213790 [View]
File: 519 KB, 1670x1016, schemes.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

The OS's internal theme engine uses something like CSS to describe elements but nobody has fully reverse engineered it.

Sadly, nothing will ever parallel the customization abilities of Kaleidoscope under classic Mac OS (pic related). Not even the most capable of window managers and UI toolkits can do what it was capable of.

>> No.44113137 [View]
File: 519 KB, 1670x1016, schemes.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Did Lisa OS do anything unique or worth noting? I'm under the impression that pre OS X, Mac OS was ass.
It was a mess, but less of one than Windows 95 and Windows 98 were. It crashed a lot, but there were things that could be done to mitigate chances of crashing enough to make it usable and somewhat predictable. The basic rules were:

• Keep the number of installed extensions and control panels down to a minimum. If you didn't need the functionality an extension provided, you'd turn it off.
• Don't run more than one really heavy program at at a time, and keep the total number of open applications under five.
• If something crashes without freezing up everything, save your work and restart because a total freeze will follow shortly.

A lot of this instability came from Classic Mac OS's memory management model, but extensions were problematic as well. The way they worked was that the system would inject assembly directly into the system components loaded into memory at fixed addresses, which meant that it was extremely easy for two extensions to conflict.

Holy shit was it ever riceable, though. No OS to date even compares on that front. Pic related is a small sample of literally thousands of kaleidoscope "schemes" that one could customize his Mac OS install with, all of which were forwards compatible with newer versions of Mac OS/Kaleidoscope (unlike GTK themes, msstyles, etc which break constantly).

>> No.42915504 [View]
File: 519 KB, 1670x1016, schemes.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

That shit was hackable as fuck, though. IIRC classic mac extensions just injected straight into memory to do their thing so the modifications they were capable of was impressive. The downside of course was that it was stupidly common to have extensions collide with each other and turn your system into a crashy, unusable mess.

Between extensions, kaleidoscope, and being able to directly edit most of the system resources with the Apple-provided ResEdit, classic Mac OS had ricing capabilities that outclass everything that’s come since. Kaleidoscope in particular was a real gem and could do things that artists can only dream of in modern theme engines.

>> No.42088217 [View]
File: 519 KB, 1670x1016, schemes.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

it was crashy but glorious

The ricability of classic Mac OS is unparalleled thanks to its hackability and flexibility. Extensions could modify the system in any way conceivable and you could drop your primary system file and basically any application into ResEdit (resource editor) to manually change whatever you wanted. Kaleidoscope, a third-party theme engine, gave a level of control to theme artists that no theme engine today provides (see pic).

Modern Mac OS is great too but I still miss those days.

>> No.41925155 [View]
File: 519 KB, 1670x1016, schemes.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Anybody remember Kaleidoscope on classic Mac OS?

>> No.41890741 [View]
File: 519 KB, 1670x1016, schemes.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

MSStyles and before that Windowblinds themes have always, for the most part, looked like shit. This is nothing new.

Kaleidoscope (some of the original rice, allowed you to theme your mac in the 90s) schemes were a little better but not a whole lot (pic related). They ranged from usable to what the fuck is that.

View posts [+24] [+48] [+96]