4 ms·

I'm 51. I lived the era you're describing, so yeah, I understand the historical context quite well. But you're crossing the streams a little here. Yes, it was

I'm 51. I lived the era you're describing, so yeah, I understand the historical context quite well. But you're crossing the streams a little here. Yes, it was a net win for the shift to GUIs to include a shift to very, very consistent interfaces. HOWEVER, it doesn't follow that goofy, hamfisted attempts to mimic those interfaces in text mode was a good idea. If you want that, just go use Windows (or the Mac). Word for DOS 5.0 was a fantastic program that I could move around in VERY VERY VERY quickly. It was powerful, stable, and extremely usable once you learned its interface. Word 5.5 for DOS ripped out the ESC menus for a crappy text-mode UI, and basically killed the product. (For my part, I immediately uninstalled it and reinstalled 5.0 so I could get work done.)

lproven 5y ago
OK. Interesting. I'm 53, so yes, we're close. But I _strongly_ disagree. In fact I think I could reasonably say that I couldn't disagree more. I thought it was a huge win when DOS and console-mode apps adopted the general Windows-like UI. I worked in support back then. I had to learn many dozens of apps to support them. For instance... In word processors, on DOS alone I worked with MS Word, WordPerfect, DisplayWrite, MultiMate, WordStar (classic, 1512 (i.e. Express), & 2000 — all different), Samna Executive, PC-Write, VolksWriter, XyWrite, Protext, PFS:Write, and also LocoScript (from the Amstrad PCW, later on DOS). Probably others. Spreadsheets: Lotus 1-2-3, Lotus Symphony, AsEasyAs, SuperCalc, Quattro, MS Multiplan. Probably more. I had to learn all of them, all separately, either at least the basics (I think Samna is the only one that defeated me there), or in multiple cases, pretty much inside-out. I mean, as an example, I didn't consider myself a guru, but I interviewed for https://www.newtonim.com/ https://www.newtonim.com/ in about 1992 and I got a record-best score (about 98%) in their test of my WordPerfect and 1-2-3 skills. Neither was even my favourite program of its type! It was a massive pain. I mean, yes, you're right, some of them were highly efficient interfaces. I didn't hate 1-2-3 or MS Word for their idiosyncratic 2-line menus. You had to memorize them to be fast and efficient, but it wasn't that hard and once you had, it was as you say very quick. Unlike, say, WordPerfect with its wretched Ctrl-F3, Alt-F6, Shift-F2, Alt-Shift-F8 workflow. Horrible and basically impossible to discover. If you didn't have that little cardboard keyboard template, you were doomed. But I didn't have the luxury of picking 1 app of each type and using only those. At work I used PCs with PC DOS, at home I used CP/M and Locoscript, later Acorn RISC OS, later still OS/2 2. I did charts and DTP on classic MacOS. All totally different, and my job meant knowing _all_ of the leading contenders in all categories. Sure it was possible to write attractive, efficient, DOS menuing systems. Novell's DOS menuing system on Netware clients and on the server itself was fast, easy, efficient, and attractive. So was 3Com 3+Share -- probably last seen by most people in the config tool for the classic 3C509 NIC. But they were totally different from one another. So if you only used MS Word, good for you. I envy you the simplicity that may have lent. But for those of us who changed apps considerably more than every day -- more like ever hour of every day -- no, the profusion of DOS UIs was a complete pain in the neck and made my job 10× more difficult. So when they all went away, replaced by a text-only version of the Windows/CUA guidelines, I celebrated. It made my life so very much easier. Which is why now, 3 decades later, I absolutely refuse to learn the horrid 1970s BS UIs of Emacs or Vim. I don't care how powerful they are. I'm not interested. I gave that rubbish up in about 1990-1991 and for me all those proprietary UIs died once the next-gen ones came along. Comply with the standards, or FOAD.
- ubermonkey 5y ago
  You're still litigating the idea of interface standardization, which isn't the thing I was saying was a terrible idea. Your background is not normal. Most people doing actual work in that era used the word processor they had, not seven word processors. In a limited environment -- text mode -- efficiency and speed > cuddly GUIs. If you wanted the common interface, install Windows; don't fuck up the existing interfaces of tools people were VERY VERY good at to graft some horribly ugly faux-GUI on them. >I absolutely refuse to learn the horrid 1970s BS UIs of Emacs or Vim Given the longevity and popularity of these tools, coupled with their broad availability on so many platforms, this sentence reads more like "I'm proudly ignorant!" than anything else.
  - lproven 5y ago
    Believe me, tech support is actual work. Without it, all those writers and accountants wouldn't get much done. The CUA interface is perfectly efficient and works very well. It doesn't need a mouse, although you can use one if it's there. As I said: I was a skilled user of a bunch of the leading pre-CUA DOS apps, and I can navigate a CUA interface using hotkeys very quickly and efficiently without a pointing device. Occasionally, over the years, astounded onlookers have asked how it's possible that I can operate Windows so quickly. The answer is that I don't use the mouse much, and the reason is that in my first job, my employers didn't own a PC mouse. They sold Macs; if you wanted to do graphical pointy-clicky stuff, you bought a Mac. I decided that Windows looked like it was useful and could be big one day, so I installed Windows 2.01 and learned to use it... without a mouse. The same keystrokes mostly still work today, from obvious ones like Ctrl+S to save, Ctrl+X/C/V for Cut/Copy/Paste, to less-known ones like Ctrl-W for Close Window and Alt-F4 for Close Program. Alt-Space for the window control menu, then X to maXimise, etc. It's a common but spurious argument to claim that because one knows one particular program well and can operate it very quickly, that this fact in some way indicates that the program's UI is particularly efficient or well-designed or something. It isn't. It just means that that individual knows it well. The basic concepts of the desktop GUI were nicknamed WIMP: Windows, Icons, Menus, Pointer. Well, each of those works fine in isolation. Icons are a useful abstraction all on their own; for instance, iOS and Android make very extensive use of the "I" part without the "W," "M" or "P". By the same token, the W and M parts -- windows and menus -- work very well without a GUI. It's very handy that the same keystrokes that let me drive Geany or Mousepad or Notepad also work fine in Tilde or MS-DOS Edit. They're no less efficient. Ctrl+S Ctrl-W to Save then Close is just as quick as ^KS ^KD, or !wq, or C-s C-x, or Shift+F3, Ctrl+F4. But what's a huge boon to my or anyone's efficiency is that once I've learned Ctrl+S, say, it works in thousands of programs on multiple OSes. C-s C-x or Shift-F3 don't work in anything except the one particular app they were designed for. This is not a difficult or obscure principle. Proprietary UI = bad. Open shared UI = good. :-)

lproven 5y ago

OK. Interesting. I'm 53, so yes, we're close. But I _strongly_ disagree. In fact I think I could reasonably say that I couldn't disagree more. I thought it was a huge win when DOS and console-mode apps adopted the general Windows-like UI. I worked in support back then. I had to learn many dozens of apps to support them. For instance... In word processors, on DOS alone I worked with MS Word, WordPerfect, DisplayWrite, MultiMate, WordStar (classic, 1512 (i.e. Express), & 2000 — all different), Samna Executive, PC-Write, VolksWriter, XyWrite, Protext, PFS:Write, and also LocoScript (from the Amstrad PCW, later on DOS). Probably others. Spreadsheets: Lotus 1-2-3, Lotus Symphony, AsEasyAs, SuperCalc, Quattro, MS Multiplan. Probably more. I had to learn all of them, all separately, either at least the basics (I think Samna is the only one that defeated me there), or in multiple cases, pretty much inside-out. I mean, as an example, I didn't consider myself a guru, but I interviewed for https://www.newtonim.com/ https://www.newtonim.com/ in about 1992 and I got a record-best score (about 98%) in their test of my WordPerfect and 1-2-3 skills. Neither was even my favourite program of its type! It was a massive pain. I mean, yes, you're right, some of them were highly efficient interfaces. I didn't hate 1-2-3 or MS Word for their idiosyncratic 2-line menus. You had to memorize them to be fast and efficient, but it wasn't that hard and once you had, it was as you say very quick. Unlike, say, WordPerfect with its wretched Ctrl-F3, Alt-F6, Shift-F2, Alt-Shift-F8 workflow. Horrible and basically impossible to discover. If you didn't have that little cardboard keyboard template, you were doomed. But I didn't have the luxury of picking 1 app of each type and using only those. At work I used PCs with PC DOS, at home I used CP/M and Locoscript, later Acorn RISC OS, later still OS/2 2. I did charts and DTP on classic MacOS. All totally different, and my job meant knowing _all_ of the leading contenders in all categories. Sure it was possible to write attractive, efficient, DOS menuing systems. Novell's DOS menuing system on Netware clients and on the server itself was fast, easy, efficient, and attractive. So was 3Com 3+Share -- probably last seen by most people in the config tool for the classic 3C509 NIC. But they were totally different from one another. So if you only used MS Word, good for you. I envy you the simplicity that may have lent. But for those of us who changed apps considerably more than every day -- more like ever hour of every day -- no, the profusion of DOS UIs was a complete pain in the neck and made my job 10× more difficult. So when they all went away, replaced by a text-only version of the Windows/CUA guidelines, I celebrated. It made my life so very much easier. Which is why now, 3 decades later, I absolutely refuse to learn the horrid 1970s BS UIs of Emacs or Vim. I don't care how powerful they are. I'm not interested. I gave that rubbish up in about 1990-1991 and for me all those proprietary UIs died once the next-gen ones came along. Comply with the standards, or FOAD.

ubermonkey 5y ago
You're still litigating the idea of interface standardization, which isn't the thing I was saying was a terrible idea. Your background is not normal. Most people doing actual work in that era used the word processor they had, not seven word processors. In a limited environment -- text mode -- efficiency and speed > cuddly GUIs. If you wanted the common interface, install Windows; don't fuck up the existing interfaces of tools people were VERY VERY good at to graft some horribly ugly faux-GUI on them. >I absolutely refuse to learn the horrid 1970s BS UIs of Emacs or Vim Given the longevity and popularity of these tools, coupled with their broad availability on so many platforms, this sentence reads more like "I'm proudly ignorant!" than anything else.
- lproven 5y ago
  Believe me, tech support is actual work. Without it, all those writers and accountants wouldn't get much done. The CUA interface is perfectly efficient and works very well. It doesn't need a mouse, although you can use one if it's there. As I said: I was a skilled user of a bunch of the leading pre-CUA DOS apps, and I can navigate a CUA interface using hotkeys very quickly and efficiently without a pointing device. Occasionally, over the years, astounded onlookers have asked how it's possible that I can operate Windows so quickly. The answer is that I don't use the mouse much, and the reason is that in my first job, my employers didn't own a PC mouse. They sold Macs; if you wanted to do graphical pointy-clicky stuff, you bought a Mac. I decided that Windows looked like it was useful and could be big one day, so I installed Windows 2.01 and learned to use it... without a mouse. The same keystrokes mostly still work today, from obvious ones like Ctrl+S to save, Ctrl+X/C/V for Cut/Copy/Paste, to less-known ones like Ctrl-W for Close Window and Alt-F4 for Close Program. Alt-Space for the window control menu, then X to maXimise, etc. It's a common but spurious argument to claim that because one knows one particular program well and can operate it very quickly, that this fact in some way indicates that the program's UI is particularly efficient or well-designed or something. It isn't. It just means that that individual knows it well. The basic concepts of the desktop GUI were nicknamed WIMP: Windows, Icons, Menus, Pointer. Well, each of those works fine in isolation. Icons are a useful abstraction all on their own; for instance, iOS and Android make very extensive use of the "I" part without the "W," "M" or "P". By the same token, the W and M parts -- windows and menus -- work very well without a GUI. It's very handy that the same keystrokes that let me drive Geany or Mousepad or Notepad also work fine in Tilde or MS-DOS Edit. They're no less efficient. Ctrl+S Ctrl-W to Save then Close is just as quick as ^KS ^KD, or !wq, or C-s C-x, or Shift+F3, Ctrl+F4. But what's a huge boon to my or anyone's efficiency is that once I've learned Ctrl+S, say, it works in thousands of programs on multiple OSes. C-s C-x or Shift-F3 don't work in anything except the one particular app they were designed for. This is not a difficult or obscure principle. Proprietary UI = bad. Open shared UI = good. :-)