4 ms·
Microsoft hasn't been too different in that regard. In terms of interfaces with any real userbase to speak of, the only real Microsoft UI systems I can come up
by deong 9y ago
Microsoft hasn't been too different in that regard. In terms of interfaces with any real userbase to speak of, the only real Microsoft UI systems I can come up with could be characterized as
* MS-DOS/Windows 3.1-like
* Windows 95-like
* Windows 8-like
Windows 8 basically was born and died in a couple of years, to be replaced with Windows 10, which is very much the same basic set of metaphors as Windows 95. There's a start menu, a little dock of pinned icons next to it, a taskbar, a clock and some little icons for what are basically background processes. There's a maximize and minimize and close button on windows. There's a File/Edit/Whatever set of menus. You can right click for context items, many of which are consistent with Windows 95 20+ years ago. That basic system is now something like 21 years old now.
You can maybe argue that Microsoft forgot your message five or so years ago, but they obviously rediscovered it.
- digi_owl 9y agoAnd already with 8.1 the "start screen" could behave like a very large start menu. Hell, you can today configure Windows 10 to behave much like 8.1. The one thing i see some people miss with the 8.1 to 10 transition is the charm bar. In particular that it gave easy access to printing and such.
- dredmorbius 9y agoI'm largely familiar with the DOS -> Win2K period, and have made little use of Microsoft operating systems since. Windows 3, 95, NT, and 2K each saw significant changes in where and how major system functionality was presented. During the same period I was using numerous Unix and Linux platforms (and still do). Those have largely seen far less substantive change at the shell and system level, with a few notable exceptions. I'm not discussing Linux GUIs, which have been all over the goddamned map. I've used twm, fvwm, fvwm2, VUE, CDE, WindowMaker (my preferred option), GNOME and KDE through multiple generations, Enlightenment, various of the 'boxes (black, open, flux, ...), ion, xfce4, ... And those are the ones I've trialed to some significant extent. I've at least fired up and looked at virtually all the options mentioned on the XWinMan page: http://www.xwinman.org/ http://www.xwinman.org/ There are several fairly central components which have changed fairly markedly. The shift from telnet to ssh, multiple iterations of firewalling, various scripting languages of preference (bash, perl, python, an oddment of others), mailers (sendmail, qmail, anything reasonably sane, mostly exim and/or postfix now), and of course, the whole init replacement clusterfuck. But the notional concepts of files, filesystem, shell, utilities, pipes, etc., has remained consistent, and even across several utility / server replacements (particularly ssh and mailers), command-level compatibility has been preserved to a remarkable extent with previous options (e.g., rsh and sendmail syntax). If Microsoft can only be relied on for five-year stints of "having learnt this lesson" then they have not learnt this lesson.
- digi_owl 9y agoI fear though that command level compatibility is under attack these days, as fewer and fewer see shell scripting as something positive (never mind trying to do more and more via dbus rather than pipes and such).
- dredmorbius 9y agoTools that fail to provide a stable scripting interface tend to be ditched early and hard by sysadmins. This includes a hell of a lot of systems configuration tools. The corrective force on failure to adhere to this norm is strong.