3 ms·

> Regardless of what that vision is, at least then Windows would be a something, rather than a whole host of competing ideas and contradictions i.e. a mess. th

by a-dub 5y ago

> Regardless of what that vision is, at least then Windows would be a something, rather than a whole host of competing ideas and contradictions i.e. a mess. the big problem is, and this is primarily why i dislike everything windows, is that humans are mimicry machines. if you give them tooling that's an inconsistent mess, it's going to normalize the idea of inconsistent messes, and then they will create inconsistent messes. windows ultimately normalizes inconsistency and mediocrity- as such, it encourages these habits of mind in those who are forced to use it. if those who are forced to use it are in any sort of creative positions, they ultimately create and propagate chaos that matches the cage which they are forced to reside within.

mikro2nd 5y ago
Well said! I've long maintained that Visual Basic set back the state-of-the-art in graphical user interfaces by (at least) a decade. The original intent and purpose of graphical UIs was direct manipulation of objects on screen. VB turned it into "filling in forms with buttons to click". And that mediocrity lives with us still, the original promise/premise sadly unfulfilled.
mschuster91 5y ago
> windows ultimately normalizes inconsistency and mediocrity Windows 95-7 design did not, quite to the contrary. Unfortunately I can't find it again, but usually the link appears on any HN discussion about classic Windows design sooner or later... anyway, the point is that the classic Win95 design was consistent across the whole OS (for apps that used the standard OS controls). UI elements had clear shadows, borders and margins separating elements visually, color schemes by default assisted that visual separation and they were customizable (e.g. for those with accessibility needs). Additionally, menus and hotkeys were consistent across Microsoft apps with (IIRC) clear guidelines on how third party apps should use menus, so that end users didn't have to learn much.
- a-dub 5y ago
  sure, the "chicago" ui was indeed a huge step forward... but until nt4, it was still only skin deep. even after nt4, abominations such as mfc and heritage from ms lan manager lived on. the network protocols were so poorly designed that entire companies (riverbed, et al) sprung up to rewrite them as less latency sensitive alternatives that would actually function over wans.

by a-dub 5y ago

mikro2nd 5y ago

Well said! I've long maintained that Visual Basic set back the state-of-the-art in graphical user interfaces by (at least) a decade. The original intent and purpose of graphical UIs was direct manipulation of objects on screen. VB turned it into "filling in forms with buttons to click". And that mediocrity lives with us still, the original promise/premise sadly unfulfilled.

mschuster91 5y ago

> windows ultimately normalizes inconsistency and mediocrity Windows 95-7 design did not, quite to the contrary. Unfortunately I can't find it again, but usually the link appears on any HN discussion about classic Windows design sooner or later... anyway, the point is that the classic Win95 design was consistent across the whole OS (for apps that used the standard OS controls). UI elements had clear shadows, borders and margins separating elements visually, color schemes by default assisted that visual separation and they were customizable (e.g. for those with accessibility needs). Additionally, menus and hotkeys were consistent across Microsoft apps with (IIRC) clear guidelines on how third party apps should use menus, so that end users didn't have to learn much.

a-dub 5y ago
sure, the "chicago" ui was indeed a huge step forward... but until nt4, it was still only skin deep. even after nt4, abominations such as mfc and heritage from ms lan manager lived on. the network protocols were so poorly designed that entire companies (riverbed, et al) sprung up to rewrite them as less latency sensitive alternatives that would actually function over wans.