4 ms·

I don't agree with the notion of blaming the platform because some devs refuse to update to modern standards of the platform. That's on the devs.

by talmand 10y ago

tptacek 10y ago
First party, as in, provided by Microsoft. I just ran Win10 for the first time yesterday to work on a security guideline and I was blown away by how janky the whole thing was. Using it is like crawling through 20 years of computer history; there's things from every phase of Windows since '95 in that UI, and I don't mean UI hints, but entire applications. I bet somewhere in there there's still UI that dates back to Win3.1.
- talmand 10y ago
  Well, I think it is quite possible that the devs on the first-party team are not the same devs on the platform team. First-party or not, if the platform provides the tools and the devs refuse to use them, it is on the devs. Not the platform, the devs. Unless you can show me where the company demands its devs do so for no good reason. >> I bet somewhere in there there's still UI that dates back to Win3.1. I'm sure there is, that's a mix of backwards compatibility and don't mess with stuff that works. Some people want it, some people don't; can't make everybody happy. Can I complain that OS X provides a terminal that looks like it dates back to the 70's?
  - tptacek 10y ago
    No? Because that complaint doesn't make any sense? Especially since Terminal.app is far more modern than CMD.EXE?
    - talmand 10y ago
      It does makes sense if I insist we only consider my own personal subjective opinion on the matter, which most complaints along these lines tend to be.
    - pcwalton 10y ago
      > Especially since Terminal.app is far more modern than CMD.EXE? To be fair, a lot of Terminal.app dates back to ancient Mac OS too. The menu bars, for example, are all still Carbon. There is still a full classic Mac OS main loop running alongside the Cocoa main loop in every macOS application. Apple's done a good job hiding it, but it's still there. Anyway, cmd.exe is a bit of a special case. What you're really seeing is conhost.exe, which is kept the way it is because it's part of CSRSS, which occupies a similar place as PID 1 does, and Microsoft doesn't want to bring new UI into it for fear of increasing its dependencies [1]. [1]: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20071231-00/?p=23983 https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20071231-00/?p=...
  - tedunangst 10y ago
    The 3.1 UI that still exists is silly stuff like file open dialogs that aren't "desktop aware" or whatever. There's no reason at all to retain such "compat" because it instead requires users to learn where all such magic folders live in the filesystem.
- dawnerd 10y ago
  I'm with you there. Windows 10 looks like developers designed it. Not meant to come off negatively to developers but sometimes we just get lazy and use solid colors.

I don't agree with the notion of blaming the platform because some devs refuse to update to modern standards of the platform. That's on the devs.

by talmand 10y ago

I don't agree with the notion of blaming the platform because some devs refuse to update to modern standards of the platform. That's on the devs.

tptacek 10y ago

First party, as in, provided by Microsoft. I just ran Win10 for the first time yesterday to work on a security guideline and I was blown away by how janky the whole thing was. Using it is like crawling through 20 years of computer history; there's things from every phase of Windows since '95 in that UI, and I don't mean UI hints, but entire applications. I bet somewhere in there there's still UI that dates back to Win3.1.

talmand 10y ago
Well, I think it is quite possible that the devs on the first-party team are not the same devs on the platform team. First-party or not, if the platform provides the tools and the devs refuse to use them, it is on the devs. Not the platform, the devs. Unless you can show me where the company demands its devs do so for no good reason. >> I bet somewhere in there there's still UI that dates back to Win3.1. I'm sure there is, that's a mix of backwards compatibility and don't mess with stuff that works. Some people want it, some people don't; can't make everybody happy. Can I complain that OS X provides a terminal that looks like it dates back to the 70's?
- tptacek 10y ago
  No? Because that complaint doesn't make any sense? Especially since Terminal.app is far more modern than CMD.EXE?
  - talmand 10y ago
    It does makes sense if I insist we only consider my own personal subjective opinion on the matter, which most complaints along these lines tend to be.
  - pcwalton 10y ago
    > Especially since Terminal.app is far more modern than CMD.EXE? To be fair, a lot of Terminal.app dates back to ancient Mac OS too. The menu bars, for example, are all still Carbon. There is still a full classic Mac OS main loop running alongside the Cocoa main loop in every macOS application. Apple's done a good job hiding it, but it's still there. Anyway, cmd.exe is a bit of a special case. What you're really seeing is conhost.exe, which is kept the way it is because it's part of CSRSS, which occupies a similar place as PID 1 does, and Microsoft doesn't want to bring new UI into it for fear of increasing its dependencies [1]. [1]: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20071231-00/?p=23983 https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20071231-00/?p=...
- tedunangst 10y ago
  The 3.1 UI that still exists is silly stuff like file open dialogs that aren't "desktop aware" or whatever. There's no reason at all to retain such "compat" because it instead requires users to learn where all such magic folders live in the filesystem.
dawnerd 10y ago
I'm with you there. Windows 10 looks like developers designed it. Not meant to come off negatively to developers but sometimes we just get lazy and use solid colors.