3 ms·

Over the past three releases of Windows, I've noticed that I've become more alienated from the UI with each release. First with XP, then Vista, and now Windows

by decode 17y ago

Over the past three releases of Windows, I've noticed that I've become more alienated from the UI with each release. First with XP, then Vista, and now Windows 7, it seems like each release is just a little more annoying to use. It's like the two stories Joel Spolsky tells in the first chapter of "User Interface Design for Programmers". About every minute I try to do something and I'm just a little frustrated with how the UI reacts. Consequently, the first thing I do on any Windows computer is make it look and act as much like Win98 as possible. It's the same thing with OS X. Right now my favorite UI to use is Gnome, because it acts mostly like Win98 with a few improvements that make sense to me (primarily virtual desktops). It makes me simultaneously feel like an old fogey shaking his cane at progress, and also like those ratpoison and xmonad users I could never understand. I have often asked myself why this is. The obvious answer is I'm set in my ways and don't want to learn new things. Certainly possible, but I don't see that in other areas of my computer usage (programming languages, web design, etc). Sometimes I wonder if it's because these new UI improvements are largely meant to help your average user, but don't help me much. For example, both OS X and Win7 are optimized for only having one window per program open at once, but I often have many open. It frustrates me that it's harder to switch between those windows than in Win98. I wonder if any of you other power users are experiencing the same thing.

Quiark 17y ago
In my case, I like the UI changes in XP and Vista (yay for transparency :) and setting it back to Win98-style seems silly to me. But I think I agree with this optimization for a single window, because I usually have many windows open at a time. Hopefully I'll get to try Win7 early and see for myself.
raintrees 17y ago
Here are my observations, fwiw: A few of my clients choose the same route: Turn off the newer Windows XP Start Menu of two columns and go back to Classic Win98 single column. I honor their choices and leave their systems the way they want them. But after forcing myself to use the newer version, I have found I can get to programs faster from the Start Menu by having Printers, Control Panel, My Computer, Network Neighborhood, etc. on the Start Menu, and keep my Desktop less cluttered. Likewise, a quick glance tells me what that person's default browser is, as well as the default email program: They will be at the top of the first column. At times, I will take the time to present these observations to those clients and I find that some will consider converting, while others will shoot me down, because change=evil. The ribbon in Office 2007 seems to be the same deal: Since I am a previous version user, finding things is aggravating. If I hadn't clicked on the "glowing" round Office icon, I would have searched for Save for quite some time. This in a word processor! But to a new user, the most obvious things I might need to do are right there, without all of the noise of all of the items I don't need in my way. The most basic markup tools are on the first ribbon presented. If I move to a slightly more advanced task, like outlines or inserting graphics, I get a different ribbon that has the exact tools I need. Just because I forced myself to get used to the structure of the menus does not mean it was the most efficient way to organize those tools. Reminds me of what I have heard regarding qwerty vs. Dvorák. So, just like going to a new restaurant and taking a chance on the house special outside of my comfort zone rather than ordering what I am used to, with each new operating system and version, I try them out for a few months before passing judgment.
- lurkinggrue 17y ago
  I do like Windows 7 but I have hated the direction of the start menu for years. I just keep a folder of program icons that I can launch from the taskbar, much easier to deal with. That and I do love pinning programs to the taskbar as I can keep the things I run all the time in the exact same position.
barrkel 17y ago
I wrote a reasonably extensive post on all the things that annoyed me about Vista here (and many of them are also applicable to 7): http://blog.barrkel.com/2008/08/venting-on-vista.html http://blog.barrkel.com/2008/08/venting-on-vista.html
cturner 17y ago
It makes me simultaneously feel like an old fogey shaking his cane at progress You're not, you're perceptive. The stuff that has happened to UI will make people of the future react like we do when we hear that this car was considered to be the pinacle of style: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ford.anglia.105e.moors.arp.750pix.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ford.anglia.105e.moors.arp... Was the world mad? OSX has somehow pushed everyone (including competing systems) into a state of madness where gaudiness is prized. But phones will encourage sensible interface developments because normal people find them less intimidating and have increased expectations of a clean, powerful, responsive interface.
unalone 17y ago
How is OS X optimized for one window/program? Switching between windows is fast. I'm not sure what you mean.
- decode 17y ago
  Here's my problem: if I have 4 console windows open at the same time, and they're all hidden behind other windows, how do I switch to that one console I want? In Windows 98, each one had a button on the taskbar that didn't move, and it was one click on a known location to bring my desired window to the foreground and give it focus. In OS X, clicking on the dock icon won't help. I could alt-tab, but since I have 20 windows open, it will take a while. I could start minimizing windows until I see it, messing up my workspace. I could move windows around until I see it, messing up my workspace. I could use Expose, which is useless, since all the command windows look the same at 200px square. Is there something I'm missing?
  - unalone 17y ago
    Command-` cycles between windows of only one application. Would that do?
    - decode 17y ago
      It works, and it's slightly better than alt-tab, but the point is that it's much less optimal than on Windows 98.
      - deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
  - MaysonL 17y ago
    Click and hold on Console in the dock - a preview [with window titles] of all 4 windows will appear - click on the one you want. (Snow Leopard -- don't remember whether it was there on Leopard or not]
  - foldr 17y ago
jodrellblank 17y ago
I am experiencing exactly the same thing. A fogey shaking his cane at progress? No, I like progress. I like the new start menu design. I don't like the fact that I have a Core i7 with 6GB of RAM and the start menu still takes as much time to start populating results as it takes to open a TCP socket to somewhere tens of miles away over half a dozen intermediate systems, submit a search query, Google to run it through ~700 servers and return the results. Or that it doesn't match substrings, so 'irefox' has no results. Irefox? IREFOX? Are you an idiot, there's no program called irefox! Or that it sorts in useless order - so a search for 'i' shows "IBM National Support BBS.ht', a Hyperterminal shortcut I've never used, above 'Internet Explorer'. But even with that, the start menu is good. It's progress. I like it. I don't like the changes to Sharing and Security and Ownership on files and folders going from XP Pro/2003 Server to Vista Pro/2008 Server. That's not progress, that's just adding extra button clicks and extra popups for no benefit to me. I don't like the magic directory tree either, where 'my computer' is inside 'desktop' and the tree structure is hidden by default so folders like "work - october" float around in a detached and ethereal fashion, instead of making it clear that they are located somewhere. I don't see how non-technical people don't find that immensly confusing and unhelpful, because I do. Progress is good, but I'm not feeling progress, I'm feeling 'paper over the complex stuff we don't want to change so it wont look so scary, even if that means what you see has little relevance to what's going on thus making it more difficult to understand'.

by decode 17y ago

Quiark 17y ago

In my case, I like the UI changes in XP and Vista (yay for transparency :) and setting it back to Win98-style seems silly to me. But I think I agree with this optimization for a single window, because I usually have many windows open at a time. Hopefully I'll get to try Win7 early and see for myself.

raintrees 17y ago

Here are my observations, fwiw: A few of my clients choose the same route: Turn off the newer Windows XP Start Menu of two columns and go back to Classic Win98 single column. I honor their choices and leave their systems the way they want them. But after forcing myself to use the newer version, I have found I can get to programs faster from the Start Menu by having Printers, Control Panel, My Computer, Network Neighborhood, etc. on the Start Menu, and keep my Desktop less cluttered. Likewise, a quick glance tells me what that person's default browser is, as well as the default email program: They will be at the top of the first column. At times, I will take the time to present these observations to those clients and I find that some will consider converting, while others will shoot me down, because change=evil. The ribbon in Office 2007 seems to be the same deal: Since I am a previous version user, finding things is aggravating. If I hadn't clicked on the "glowing" round Office icon, I would have searched for Save for quite some time. This in a word processor! But to a new user, the most obvious things I might need to do are right there, without all of the noise of all of the items I don't need in my way. The most basic markup tools are on the first ribbon presented. If I move to a slightly more advanced task, like outlines or inserting graphics, I get a different ribbon that has the exact tools I need. Just because I forced myself to get used to the structure of the menus does not mean it was the most efficient way to organize those tools. Reminds me of what I have heard regarding qwerty vs. Dvorák. So, just like going to a new restaurant and taking a chance on the house special outside of my comfort zone rather than ordering what I am used to, with each new operating system and version, I try them out for a few months before passing judgment.

lurkinggrue 17y ago
I do like Windows 7 but I have hated the direction of the start menu for years. I just keep a folder of program icons that I can launch from the taskbar, much easier to deal with. That and I do love pinning programs to the taskbar as I can keep the things I run all the time in the exact same position.

barrkel 17y ago

I wrote a reasonably extensive post on all the things that annoyed me about Vista here (and many of them are also applicable to 7): http://blog.barrkel.com/2008/08/venting-on-vista.html http://blog.barrkel.com/2008/08/venting-on-vista.html

cturner 17y ago

It makes me simultaneously feel like an old fogey shaking his cane at progress You're not, you're perceptive. The stuff that has happened to UI will make people of the future react like we do when we hear that this car was considered to be the pinacle of style: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ford.anglia.105e.moors.arp.750pix.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ford.anglia.105e.moors.arp... Was the world mad? OSX has somehow pushed everyone (including competing systems) into a state of madness where gaudiness is prized. But phones will encourage sensible interface developments because normal people find them less intimidating and have increased expectations of a clean, powerful, responsive interface.

unalone 17y ago

How is OS X optimized for one window/program? Switching between windows is fast. I'm not sure what you mean.

decode 17y ago
Here's my problem: if I have 4 console windows open at the same time, and they're all hidden behind other windows, how do I switch to that one console I want? In Windows 98, each one had a button on the taskbar that didn't move, and it was one click on a known location to bring my desired window to the foreground and give it focus. In OS X, clicking on the dock icon won't help. I could alt-tab, but since I have 20 windows open, it will take a while. I could start minimizing windows until I see it, messing up my workspace. I could move windows around until I see it, messing up my workspace. I could use Expose, which is useless, since all the command windows look the same at 200px square. Is there something I'm missing?
- unalone 17y ago
  Command-` cycles between windows of only one application. Would that do?
  - decode 17y ago
    It works, and it's slightly better than alt-tab, but the point is that it's much less optimal than on Windows 98.
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
- MaysonL 17y ago
  Click and hold on Console in the dock - a preview [with window titles] of all 4 windows will appear - click on the one you want. (Snow Leopard -- don't remember whether it was there on Leopard or not]
- foldr 17y ago

jodrellblank 17y ago

I am experiencing exactly the same thing. A fogey shaking his cane at progress? No, I like progress. I like the new start menu design. I don't like the fact that I have a Core i7 with 6GB of RAM and the start menu still takes as much time to start populating results as it takes to open a TCP socket to somewhere tens of miles away over half a dozen intermediate systems, submit a search query, Google to run it through ~700 servers and return the results. Or that it doesn't match substrings, so 'irefox' has no results. Irefox? IREFOX? Are you an idiot, there's no program called irefox! Or that it sorts in useless order - so a search for 'i' shows "IBM National Support BBS.ht', a Hyperterminal shortcut I've never used, above 'Internet Explorer'. But even with that, the start menu is good. It's progress. I like it. I don't like the changes to Sharing and Security and Ownership on files and folders going from XP Pro/2003 Server to Vista Pro/2008 Server. That's not progress, that's just adding extra button clicks and extra popups for no benefit to me. I don't like the magic directory tree either, where 'my computer' is inside 'desktop' and the tree structure is hidden by default so folders like "work - october" float around in a detached and ethereal fashion, instead of making it clear that they are located somewhere. I don't see how non-technical people don't find that immensly confusing and unhelpful, because I do. Progress is good, but I'm not feeling progress, I'm feeling 'paper over the complex stuff we don't want to change so it wont look so scary, even if that means what you see has little relevance to what's going on thus making it more difficult to understand'.