8 ms·

> But the most glaringly obvious drawback to MS-DOS stared you in the face every time you turned on the computer and were greeted with that blinking, cryptic “C

by cwyers 8y ago

> But the most glaringly obvious drawback to MS-DOS stared you in the face every time you turned on the computer and were greeted with that blinking, cryptic “C:\>” prompt. Hackers might have loved the command line, but it was a nightmare for a secretary or an executive who saw the computer only as an appliance. MS-DOS contrived to make everything more difficult through its sheer primitive minimalism. Man, that wasn't minimalism, _the computers really were small._

smallnamespace 8y ago
So much of modern UI design is driven by just how different I/O is now compared to 20 years ago and how familiar users are with computers. Like, 'cascading' windows (e.g. in Program Manager) made sense in a world where a 12-14" 640x480 monitor was normal, users still wanted to ability to multitask, and skeuomorphic design (everything is a 'window') was the most intuitive analogy for users. Nowadays you would just tile your two main windows on your widescreen monitor.
- taeric 8y ago
  I'm not so sure of that. Tiling is something that I do think is superior in many ways. However, I would be lying if I said I like it better than just dragging to the center of the screen the main app I'm working with. Rarely do I really need/want two windows. Worse, since most of what I do is data entry, copying out of a browser is not something I will do by transcribing text, which means I'm likely reaching for the mouse. Which means I don't really care about the wins of a tiling window. Granted, I do tend to side towards training of a more tiling like experience is far superior to just diving through. However, I no longer subscribe to the idea that knowing the shortcuts and other fancy management tricks of advanced window managers is necessary. I do it nowdays solely because it makes me happy. And this is perhaps why I find the phone so non-compelling of a platform to use.
danso 8y ago
Yeah, I was just wondering what the alternative was, before Visi On, and then 1984's Macintosh? Didn't Apple ][ just boot right into BASIC (or Oregon Trail, as per my elementary school memories)?
- michrassena 8y ago
  If there was no hard drive controller installed, the Apple II booted into ROM BASIC almost instantly. From that prompt, you could write programs, or even read them from the integrated cassette port (basically a microphone jack).
- korethr 8y ago
  I envy that you had BASIC; I never did. I don't recall if all of the instances from my elementary school career didn't have BASIC installed in the ROM, or if I simply never got the change to discover the world that existed beyond the approved set of educational programs (like Oregon Trail) that the computers existed to run. I sometimes wonder if I'd have gotten into programming sooner had I had exposure more than just Oregon Trail or Number Munchers.
  - bitwize 8y ago
    BASIC could be entered with a magic keystroke or by booting without a disk. If you knew enough to try these things and get to the BASIC prompt on your own, your teacher would have considered you a genius and called you over when the damn thing didn't work.
    - ryandrake 8y ago
      Nowadays if you figured something like that out as a kid in school, you’d be expelled at best, arrested for hacking at worst.
  - phaedrus 8y ago
    Number munchers is one of my earliest memories of using a computer.
topspin 8y ago
> Man, that wasn't minimalism, _the computers really were small._ Yes, they were. But it was more than that. The machines were very diverse. Several very different video card options were all in wide use and to make them work efficiently meant low level frame buffer work. Pointers were rare and weird, and again, diverse; bus mice, serial mice and other stuff. Writing a GUI compatible with all the permutations of PC hardware while being simultaneously efficient enough to run from floppies was possible with difficulty, but what value would it have provided? These were 16 bit machines with either no or extremely limited (286) MMUs; just how many processes were you going to be multitasking with your 512K of MMU-less RAM? DOS was just a program loader, and being just a program loader it was perfectly suited to the PC market. You bought a system with the 'adapter' cards you needed, booted DOS and let some program take over the system, be that Word Perfect, Paradox, Lotus 123 or whatever. That was the real, day to day use case for the PC. An advanced user with a 'fast' disk could bounce between programs in a few seconds and that was entirely sufficient for the vast bulk of PC users. It's also not dissimilar to the contemporary phone/tablet use case. And I don't remember anyone getting too hung up on the C:> prompt. They either acquired the clues needed to run a few commands or had someone make a .BAT file to kick off their program. There were certainly contemporaries with compelling UIs, but they invariably cost more and had a vastly smaller catalog of software.
- icedchai 8y ago
  Cost more? Not really. The Amiga and Atari ST cost much less and were more capable than contemporary late 80's PCs. Less software is definitely true.
  - topspin 8y ago
    Yes really. The clone market made PCs very cheap. Certainly a lot cheaper than anything 'Amiga.' Atari ST had poor expansion; you could get a clone PC with 8 expansion slots for the same price, plug in whatever you needed, leave out whatever you didn't. The market spoke.
    - icedchai 8y ago
valeg 8y ago
GEOS was released in 1986 and featured a graphical user interface for small 8-bit computer. Talk about lost opportunities...
- simmons 8y ago
  GEOS really pushed the limits of the hardware with a great deal of cleverness. It's amazing to compare something like GEOS with the primitive software that was available for the exact same hardware several years before. Using it on a C64 without RAM expansion required a great deal of patience, though.

by cwyers 8y ago

smallnamespace 8y ago

So much of modern UI design is driven by just how different I/O is now compared to 20 years ago and how familiar users are with computers. Like, 'cascading' windows (e.g. in Program Manager) made sense in a world where a 12-14" 640x480 monitor was normal, users still wanted to ability to multitask, and skeuomorphic design (everything is a 'window') was the most intuitive analogy for users. Nowadays you would just tile your two main windows on your widescreen monitor.

taeric 8y ago
I'm not so sure of that. Tiling is something that I do think is superior in many ways. However, I would be lying if I said I like it better than just dragging to the center of the screen the main app I'm working with. Rarely do I really need/want two windows. Worse, since most of what I do is data entry, copying out of a browser is not something I will do by transcribing text, which means I'm likely reaching for the mouse. Which means I don't really care about the wins of a tiling window. Granted, I do tend to side towards training of a more tiling like experience is far superior to just diving through. However, I no longer subscribe to the idea that knowing the shortcuts and other fancy management tricks of advanced window managers is necessary. I do it nowdays solely because it makes me happy. And this is perhaps why I find the phone so non-compelling of a platform to use.

danso 8y ago

Yeah, I was just wondering what the alternative was, before Visi On, and then 1984's Macintosh? Didn't Apple ][ just boot right into BASIC (or Oregon Trail, as per my elementary school memories)?

michrassena 8y ago
If there was no hard drive controller installed, the Apple II booted into ROM BASIC almost instantly. From that prompt, you could write programs, or even read them from the integrated cassette port (basically a microphone jack).
korethr 8y ago
I envy that you had BASIC; I never did. I don't recall if all of the instances from my elementary school career didn't have BASIC installed in the ROM, or if I simply never got the change to discover the world that existed beyond the approved set of educational programs (like Oregon Trail) that the computers existed to run. I sometimes wonder if I'd have gotten into programming sooner had I had exposure more than just Oregon Trail or Number Munchers.
- bitwize 8y ago
  BASIC could be entered with a magic keystroke or by booting without a disk. If you knew enough to try these things and get to the BASIC prompt on your own, your teacher would have considered you a genius and called you over when the damn thing didn't work.
  - ryandrake 8y ago
    Nowadays if you figured something like that out as a kid in school, you’d be expelled at best, arrested for hacking at worst.
- phaedrus 8y ago
  Number munchers is one of my earliest memories of using a computer.

topspin 8y ago

> Man, that wasn't minimalism, _the computers really were small._ Yes, they were. But it was more than that. The machines were very diverse. Several very different video card options were all in wide use and to make them work efficiently meant low level frame buffer work. Pointers were rare and weird, and again, diverse; bus mice, serial mice and other stuff. Writing a GUI compatible with all the permutations of PC hardware while being simultaneously efficient enough to run from floppies was possible with difficulty, but what value would it have provided? These were 16 bit machines with either no or extremely limited (286) MMUs; just how many processes were you going to be multitasking with your 512K of MMU-less RAM? DOS was just a program loader, and being just a program loader it was perfectly suited to the PC market. You bought a system with the 'adapter' cards you needed, booted DOS and let some program take over the system, be that Word Perfect, Paradox, Lotus 123 or whatever. That was the real, day to day use case for the PC. An advanced user with a 'fast' disk could bounce between programs in a few seconds and that was entirely sufficient for the vast bulk of PC users. It's also not dissimilar to the contemporary phone/tablet use case. And I don't remember anyone getting too hung up on the C:> prompt. They either acquired the clues needed to run a few commands or had someone make a .BAT file to kick off their program. There were certainly contemporaries with compelling UIs, but they invariably cost more and had a vastly smaller catalog of software.

icedchai 8y ago
Cost more? Not really. The Amiga and Atari ST cost much less and were more capable than contemporary late 80's PCs. Less software is definitely true.
- topspin 8y ago
  Yes really. The clone market made PCs very cheap. Certainly a lot cheaper than anything 'Amiga.' Atari ST had poor expansion; you could get a clone PC with 8 expansion slots for the same price, plug in whatever you needed, leave out whatever you didn't. The market spoke.
  - icedchai 8y ago

valeg 8y ago

GEOS was released in 1986 and featured a graphical user interface for small 8-bit computer. Talk about lost opportunities...

simmons 8y ago
GEOS really pushed the limits of the hardware with a great deal of cleverness. It's amazing to compare something like GEOS with the primitive software that was available for the exact same hardware several years before. Using it on a C64 without RAM expansion required a great deal of patience, though.