Platinum Theme (Mail.app) - "The one with Susan..."

Please do!

The only thing I'm concerned about with the new Mail.app 2.0 is the "clutter." I didn't take the time to pour over the images, but from what I've seen, it looks more "Entourage-ish." My favorite aspect of the current Mail.app is the cleanliness of it -- simple, yet powerfully functional.
 
It just looks like an update to Aqua, but I'm probably wrong though. I'm personally tired of seeing Brushed Metal in about 75% of the Apps you use on a daily basis.
 
dont get too excited fryke, noones changin preferences in rumour sites :)

macrumours and appleinsider are still way better than urs :)
 
senne said:
Yeah, i like the current UI much more too. And yes, this one is indeed too similar with Windows Longhorn's UI: Screenshot.

btw: i'm not saying it's UGLY, it's just not that good
Click to expand...

if that looks to u at all like the platinum theme then its because MS coppied apple(once again). of course they copied the brushed metal theme.
 
ElDiabloConCaca said:
Please do!

The only thing I'm concerned about with the new Mail.app 2.0 is the "clutter." I didn't take the time to pour over the images, but from what I've seen, it looks more "Entourage-ish." My favorite aspect of the current Mail.app is the cleanliness of it -- simple, yet powerfully functional.
Click to expand...

theres no clutter issue, the mail.app is essentially the same!!!
the drawer was there before but every1 had it openned, noone closed it because u needed it, its important for managing the app...

this change just makes it more beautiful, and removes the problems with the tray when using expose :)
 
soulseek said:
this change just makes it more beautiful, and removes the problems with the tray when using expose :)
Click to expand...

what problems do you have with the mail tray on expose? I have none at all. using 10.3.5 with mail 1.3.9.
 
The platinum theme should replace the monstrosity that is brushed metal, in my opinion. It's much more consistent to the Aqua GUI.
 
Aww crap!! Can anyone find another link!??? It seems they took down the pic.... *weeps*
I never had a problem with the brushed metal theme, but a change is most deff. nice. I reeaaally wish that Apple would give us a choice to customize the OS more. Bring back things like the OS sounds and things like that! If 10.4 had a bunch of themes you could switch back and forth from built into the OS, I would cry with tears of joy...
 
Ripcord said:
Sorry, many (most?) of us speak this obscure dialect of English called "American" (Not to be confused with "North American"), where we tend to drop extra vowels (i.e. "color", "favorite", etc)
Click to expand...

Although, in the case of 'aluminium', it was actually the rest of the world that added the 'i' so that it fitted in with other elements such as 'magnesium', 'calcium', 'helium', etc., and 'Aluminum' was the name given to it by it's discoverer. Although, this thread has got me wondering why we didn't also add an 'i' to to 'platinum' - 'platinium'?


Likening it to 'Color' and 'Favorite' is a bit daft though, as spelling those words incorrectly doesn't change the sound of the word like it does with Aluminium.
 
Although, in the case of 'aluminium', it was actually the rest of the world that added the 'i' so that it fitted in with other elements such as 'magnesium', 'calcium', 'helium', etc., and 'Aluminum' was the name given to it by it's discoverer.
I hate to burst your bubble. but no.

Aluminium was also the accepted spelling in the U.S. until 1925, at which time the American Chemical Society officially decided to use the name aluminum thereafter in their publications

Now, there seem to be several theories online as to who actually found aluminium, and when.. but they ALL agree that it was called aluminium by EVERYONE until 1925 when you lot decided to be different again.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Pengu said:
I hate to burst your bubble. but no.

Aluminium was also the accepted spelling in the U.S. until 1925, at which time the American Chemical Society officially decided to use the name aluminum thereafter in their publications

Now, there seem to be several theories online as to who actually found aluminium, and when.. but they ALL agree that it was called aluminium by EVERYONE until 1925
Click to expand...

I hate to burst your bubble, but no.

History of the Origin of the Chemical Elements and Their Discoverers said:
Aluminium - the atomic number is 13 and the chemical symbol is Al. Although the name was originally called alumium, it was later changed to aluminum. Internationally, the element is referred to as aluminium, to conform with the "ium" ending of most metallic elements...
Click to expand...

http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/content/elements.html

also read:

http://59.1911encyclopedia.org/A/AL/ALUMINIUM.htm


You'll also get other sites that prove me right, and you wrong, when you google for the following terms:

aluminum aluminum original name Humphry-Davy

(note: ignore the first result though as it is gibberish - nobody calls it "alumiminum" that I know of)

Pengu said:
when you lot decided to be different again.
Click to expand...

You lot?? I'm British!!
 
from http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/aluminium.htm
Sir Humphry made a bit of a mess of naming this new element, at first spelling it alumium (this was in 1807) then changing it to aluminum, and finally settling on aluminium in 1812. His classically educated scientific colleagues preferred aluminium right from the start, because it had more of a classical ring, and chimed harmoniously with many other elements whose names ended in –ium, like potassium, sodium, and magnesium, all of which had been named by Davy.

The spelling in –um continued in occasional use in Britain for a while, though that in –ium soon predominated. In the USA—perhaps oddly in view of its later history—the standard spelling was aluminium right from the start. This is the only form given in Noah Webster’s Dictionary of 1828, and seems to have been standard among US chemists throughout most of the nineteenth century; it was the preferred version in The Century Dictionary of 1889 and is the only spelling given in the Webster Unabridged Dictionary of 1913. However, there is evidence that the spelling without the final i was used in various trades and professions in the US from the 1830s onwards and that by the 1870s it had become the more common one in American writing generally.
Click to expand...
and
The official change in the US to the –um spelling happened quite late: the American Chemical Society only adopted it in 1925. The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) officially standardised on aluminium in 1990, though this has done nothing, of course, to change the way people in the US spell it for day to day purposes.
and from http://pearl1.lanl.gov/periodic/elements/13.html

Aluminium was also the accepted spelling in the U.S. until 1925, at which time the American Chemical Society officially decided to use the name aluminum thereafter in their publications.
Click to expand...

they were the first two results when googling for aluminium +spelling +change

The fact that something is written doesn't make it so. The bible says god exists. doesn't make it so. Microsoft say Windows is a real operating system with real uses. doesn't make it so. i wasn't around in 1807 or 1925, but it seems to me most places accept that the yanks changed their spelling of it, after 100 odd years of use. that doesn't mean the guy who found it wasn't high on crack and actually called it a chuzz-wazza. it just means that the yanks started spelling it differently.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Pengu said:
The bible says god exists. doesn't make it so. Microsoft say Windows is a real operating system with real uses. doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...

Oooh, bad examples, man -- completely subjective in both cases, based upon personal beliefs, which are neither right or wrong nor can they be proven right or wrong. God exists to those who believe. Windows exists to those who believe. Those who believe aren't wrong or right, and the same goes for those who don't believe.

A better example would be a history textbook from school -- most contain gross amounts of misinformation.

I agree with you, though, that just because something has been published does not mean that it is true and correct. Look at the Dan Rather/CBS thing.

Also, in this day and age of information (most of which needs to be taken with a grain of salt) it is very easy to dig up information that disproves just about anything anyone else can dig up.

I believe that some people call it "aluminum" and others call it "aluminium." I don't think you'll lose points for calling it one thing or another -- the recipient of the information will know what you're talking about, and that word is just one of those kooky words that has two accepted spellings.
 
I see your point. but that is what I was getting at. I'm not saying god doesn't exist. I'm simply saying that just because it says so in the bile, doesn't necessarily make it so. it means the guy who wrote it 2000 years ago BELIEVED god exists.
 
Anyone got another link to that image somewhere else? Or is that frowned on now? It says "removed under threat of litigation from Apple Computers" now... :(
 
Pengu said:
I see your point. but that is what I was getting at. I'm not saying god doesn't exist. I'm simply saying that just because it says so in the bile, doesn't necessarily make it so. it means the guy who wrote it 2000 years ago BELIEVED god exists.
Click to expand...

I see -- but the spelling of a certain word can be proved or disproved exactly, while the existance of God cannot. Also, Windows being a true or useful OS is also heavily dependent on one's own beliefs, and cannot be proven or disproven exactly, since it's belief-based. The spelling of words is not belief-based -- it's like a simple math problem -- it's either right or wrong (and, in some cases, as in math, there is more than one correct answer).

That's why I brought up the textbook example -- you can go through a textbook and verify or discredit information in there exactly; except, of course, where the information is simply speculation or a generally accepted consensus.

At any rate, I don't think we'll see a consensus on the alminum vs. aluminium debate here -- both sides have dug up information to support their claims and discredit the opposition, so I think we'll just go around and around trying to prove it one way or the other. Somewhere along the line, someone screwed up and now we can't tell whether it's aluminum or aluminium. I'm all for calling it like "color" and "colour," where some subscribe to the former and some to the latter; neither being wrong.
 
I wonder how acurate that picture was because now when i go to it it says that the picture was removed because of threat of litigation by apple computers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top