4 ms·

Not quite. In contrast to other documentaries about the same topic the author takes a lot of time with the relevant earlier origins of graphical user interfaces

by Rochus 3y ago

Not quite. In contrast to other documentaries about the same topic the author takes a lot of time with the relevant earlier origins of graphical user interfaces. Concerning Jobs and Apple the documentary doesn't follow the narrative you suppose. I didn't notice (significant) errors. Thanks for the link to the paper, which I will read.

AlbertCory 3y ago
OK, you're right, I thought it was going to be the usual Prometheus myth. They do show the Star and even Dave Smith talking about it. It's much better than I thought it was going to be. Some notes: The first successful iteration of Windows was not Win 95. It was Win 3.1. "Microsoft Bob" -- yay. Don't knock it /s I think you find almost everywhere that people who originate a concept that takes off are not happy with what the world does with it. Alan Kay, Ted Nelson, Doug Engelbart (not featured in this, but I know he wasn't happy with GUIs as they evolved), Tim Berners-Lee have all said a variation on "No! That's not what I meant!" Usually, it's too late for them to fix it, though. You get your one shot, and that's more than most of us get.
- bitwize 3y ago
  > The first successful iteration of Windows was not Win 95. It was Win 3.1. I would say Windows 3.0 -- because that was the version Microsoft started leaning on OEMS to preinstall. Before it came preinstalled, Windows was an expensive, memory-hungry runtime nobody wanted; people got by just fine with Lotus and WordPerfect for DOS. After it came preinstalled, and every reasonable IBM-compatible computer you could buy could be expected to have it, it suddenly very obviously was the future and the Year of the Windows Desktop was upon us.
  - KerrAvon 3y ago
    You’re likely right. Anecdotally: I don’t recall anyone actually using Windows 3.0 as anything other than a temporary runtime for, like, DTP apps, which was also how Windows 2.0 had been used much of the time. Otherwise, they’d be in DOS. Windows 3.1 was a little closer to an environment you could live in. I don’t know when Microsoft Word for Windows overtook WordPerfect for DOS, but I’ll bet there’s some correlation between that and actual Windows usage.
- hulitu 3y ago
  > The first successful iteration of Windows was not Win 95. It was Win 3.1. Win 3.1 was empty. All relevant programs ran in DOS. It was not until Win 95 that people started porring programms to windows (win32).
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    Now you're moving the goalposts. The history doesn't agree with you: https://www.howtogeek.com/795478/windows-31-30-years-later/ https://www.howtogeek.com/795478/windows-31-30-years-later/ https://www.pcworld.com/article/469692/windows-3-1-twenty-years-later.html https://www.pcworld.com/article/469692/windows-3-1-twenty-ye...

by Rochus 3y ago

AlbertCory 3y ago

OK, you're right, I thought it was going to be the usual Prometheus myth. They do show the Star and even Dave Smith talking about it. It's much better than I thought it was going to be. Some notes: The first successful iteration of Windows was not Win 95. It was Win 3.1. "Microsoft Bob" -- yay. Don't knock it /s I think you find almost everywhere that people who originate a concept that takes off are not happy with what the world does with it. Alan Kay, Ted Nelson, Doug Engelbart (not featured in this, but I know he wasn't happy with GUIs as they evolved), Tim Berners-Lee have all said a variation on "No! That's not what I meant!" Usually, it's too late for them to fix it, though. You get your one shot, and that's more than most of us get.

bitwize 3y ago
> The first successful iteration of Windows was not Win 95. It was Win 3.1. I would say Windows 3.0 -- because that was the version Microsoft started leaning on OEMS to preinstall. Before it came preinstalled, Windows was an expensive, memory-hungry runtime nobody wanted; people got by just fine with Lotus and WordPerfect for DOS. After it came preinstalled, and every reasonable IBM-compatible computer you could buy could be expected to have it, it suddenly very obviously was the future and the Year of the Windows Desktop was upon us.
- KerrAvon 3y ago
  You’re likely right. Anecdotally: I don’t recall anyone actually using Windows 3.0 as anything other than a temporary runtime for, like, DTP apps, which was also how Windows 2.0 had been used much of the time. Otherwise, they’d be in DOS. Windows 3.1 was a little closer to an environment you could live in. I don’t know when Microsoft Word for Windows overtook WordPerfect for DOS, but I’ll bet there’s some correlation between that and actual Windows usage.
hulitu 3y ago
> The first successful iteration of Windows was not Win 95. It was Win 3.1. Win 3.1 was empty. All relevant programs ran in DOS. It was not until Win 95 that people started porring programms to windows (win32).
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  Now you're moving the goalposts. The history doesn't agree with you: https://www.howtogeek.com/795478/windows-31-30-years-later/ https://www.howtogeek.com/795478/windows-31-30-years-later/ https://www.pcworld.com/article/469692/windows-3-1-twenty-years-later.html https://www.pcworld.com/article/469692/windows-3-1-twenty-ye...