5 ms·

There's a whole list of weird Windows UI remnants from previous versions on github: https://github.com/Lentern/windows-11-inconsistencies https://github.com/Le

There's a whole list of weird Windows UI remnants from previous versions on github: https://github.com/Lentern/windows-11-inconsistencies https://github.com/Lentern/windows-11-inconsistencies

userbinator 3y ago
...also known as "the good parts".
- Arrath 3y ago
  Yup. There's 'The useless modern settings panels' and 'The Win7 holdover control panels I can drill down into, and actually make useful configuration changes in'
- airstrike 3y ago
  right? they can pry right-click-on-titlebar-to-move from my cold, dead hands
romanovcode 3y ago
> The fact that there are still remnants that go all the way back to Windows 1.0 is baffling. It's crazy how lazy Microsoft has gotten when it comes to updating these features. It seems like the older they get, the less likely Microsoft is to actually update them. I don't get it. Why being so overly critical? Why should they update the ODBC.exe or dxdiag.exe, or even regedit.exe? They serve their purpose and work just fine.
- kgeist 3y ago
  Raymond Chen mentioned that some programs peek into the internals of old dialogs (a sort of automation) and so they left a lot of old stuff intact to avoid breaking such programs.
- Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
  Agreed. Change for the sake of change reeks of resume-driven development.
self_awareness 3y ago
That's an interesting list that shows today's understanding of the word "modern". "Modern" today means "recently changed". Not better, not less bugs, just that it's recently changed. It can even have more bugs, but it still will be "modern", and people will be OK with that, because since it's recently changed, it has to have bugs, right? Examples: - "in some programs, double-clicking program icon on top-left window will close the program. it's a same actions as Win3.1 even Win1.0, where the close button is placed on top-left window until Win95." quote Rizki Fauzan (not counting this as a Windows 1.0 remnant because it was still useful in 3.1) Why is it a problem? Why removing this feature is desirable? I often doubleclick the icon to close the window (because my Linux desktop has X in the top left corner instead of top right). Why it's desirable to not have this feature? - pifmgr.dll and moricons.dll (ancient icon libraries) - left since Windows 3.1 Those icons are often superior to their "modern" counterparts, even though they’re not vector graphics. Why would anyone want to remove them? - ODBC Data Sources - unchanged since Windows 3.1 I wonder if the author even knows what ODBC is? Some of the entries are also wrong (msconfig has been updated since Win98). This list in the center of why I am depressed by today's software design.
- toast0 3y ago
  > "Modern" today means "recently changed". Not better, not less bugs, just that it's recently changed. That's what modern always means. Sometimes modern is good, sometimes it's bad; this applies to art, technology, cuisine, lifestyles, etc. Although on windows 'Modern UI' was a keyword refering specifically to the Tiles UI and everything that went with it. I think Microsoft has tried to forget that. If the term sticks, 'Modern UI' will become the same sort of term as 'Art Nouveau' that means New Art in theory, but means art in a style that was defined around 1880-1910.
  - self_awareness 3y ago
    I've always interpreted it as "improved". That's probably the reason for my disappointment, which highlights a disparity between my expectations and the real state of the world. Yet another reason to abandon hope I guess.

There's a whole list of weird Windows UI remnants from previous versions on github: https://github.com/Lentern/windows-11-inconsistencies https://github.com/Lentern/windows-11-inconsistencies

userbinator 3y ago

...also known as "the good parts".

Arrath 3y ago
Yup. There's 'The useless modern settings panels' and 'The Win7 holdover control panels I can drill down into, and actually make useful configuration changes in'
airstrike 3y ago
right? they can pry right-click-on-titlebar-to-move from my cold, dead hands

romanovcode 3y ago

> The fact that there are still remnants that go all the way back to Windows 1.0 is baffling. It's crazy how lazy Microsoft has gotten when it comes to updating these features. It seems like the older they get, the less likely Microsoft is to actually update them. I don't get it. Why being so overly critical? Why should they update the ODBC.exe or dxdiag.exe, or even regedit.exe? They serve their purpose and work just fine.

kgeist 3y ago
Raymond Chen mentioned that some programs peek into the internals of old dialogs (a sort of automation) and so they left a lot of old stuff intact to avoid breaking such programs.
Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
Agreed. Change for the sake of change reeks of resume-driven development.

self_awareness 3y ago

That's an interesting list that shows today's understanding of the word "modern". "Modern" today means "recently changed". Not better, not less bugs, just that it's recently changed. It can even have more bugs, but it still will be "modern", and people will be OK with that, because since it's recently changed, it has to have bugs, right? Examples: - "in some programs, double-clicking program icon on top-left window will close the program. it's a same actions as Win3.1 even Win1.0, where the close button is placed on top-left window until Win95." quote Rizki Fauzan (not counting this as a Windows 1.0 remnant because it was still useful in 3.1) Why is it a problem? Why removing this feature is desirable? I often doubleclick the icon to close the window (because my Linux desktop has X in the top left corner instead of top right). Why it's desirable to not have this feature? - pifmgr.dll and moricons.dll (ancient icon libraries) - left since Windows 3.1 Those icons are often superior to their "modern" counterparts, even though they’re not vector graphics. Why would anyone want to remove them? - ODBC Data Sources - unchanged since Windows 3.1 I wonder if the author even knows what ODBC is? Some of the entries are also wrong (msconfig has been updated since Win98). This list in the center of why I am depressed by today's software design.

toast0 3y ago
> "Modern" today means "recently changed". Not better, not less bugs, just that it's recently changed. That's what modern always means. Sometimes modern is good, sometimes it's bad; this applies to art, technology, cuisine, lifestyles, etc. Although on windows 'Modern UI' was a keyword refering specifically to the Tiles UI and everything that went with it. I think Microsoft has tried to forget that. If the term sticks, 'Modern UI' will become the same sort of term as 'Art Nouveau' that means New Art in theory, but means art in a style that was defined around 1880-1910.
- self_awareness 3y ago
  I've always interpreted it as "improved". That's probably the reason for my disappointment, which highlights a disparity between my expectations and the real state of the world. Yet another reason to abandon hope I guess.