211–220 of 241 posts
Does anyone know why Dennis Ritchie's screenshot has all that noise? It's almost like it was printed and then scanned back.
That particular image is a GIF with a reduced palette of 8 bits per pixel, whereas the rest seem to be full-colour PNGs. http://regex.info/exif.cgi?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fanders.unix....
So both creators of C used Windows...
Was probably the cheapest way to get a terminal to unix running at the time. I've been in lots of shops where the given computer is Windows, because that's what the rest of the company runs, and most of my time is spent in terminal windows to unix (Unix long ago, Linux these days). I recall trying to get actual unix on a PC, back around '94 or '95. I actually contacted the local Sun rep, and it was cumbersome and exp…
I'm quite surprised to see it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you thought Win98 was bad, you need to try WinME :) Windows 2000, however, was the pinnacle of MS Operating Systems. It has been downhill ever since.
Oddly, there has been a stream of APIs since then too, yet you can get by writing in the old ones no problem!
But having worked on a Win32 application for two years, I am glad I will never again have to touch that pile of poo.
At the time it was created, Win32 might have been a nice API, given the underpowered machines it was designed to run on. But compared to building GUIs on a POSIX-ish system using Gtk+, it was an incredible pain.
I can understand why many Windows developers were so happy to embrace .Net; one might like it or dislike it, but it is a huge improvement on Win32. (As for MFC/AFX, I only had the most fleeting contact with it, so I cannot say for sure.)
I really liked these. This makes me feel old. I look at those desktops (particularly the Windows 95 one) and think they look clean and neat, with few distractions. I also know that they ran speedily on rubbish hardware. After ditching my BBC B (I was poor), I remember using Win 3.1 on a 386SX with 4MB RAM that someone had thrown out and installing software to take over program manager and make it look like Win95 beca…
It would be interesting to see how their desktop is today!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> clean and neat Really? You miss that special "concrete gray and primary blue" feel? I think I used every MS operating system starting with DOS, and I miss exactly none of the "historic" interfaces. To the extent I get annoyed when institutional IT departments force you to use the "classic" theme on modern windows boxes ("It's faster!" - no, it isn't to any human perceptible degree, and I appreciate not having to st…
I still think that Windows NT 4 was the best Windows OS ever. And may be the best GUI ever. I always switch to classic theme, if I have to use Windows. In last versions it's not very classic, though.
During my training, I worked - for a couple of months - on a web application where the test/development environment ran on a Sun machine running Solaris 8, and eventually I install Cygwin/X on my desktop (which ran, can you dig it, Windows 2000!) to start a CDE session and work from there. That grey/pink look somehow looked both butt-ugly and incredibly stylish. ;-)
Does anyone know why Dennis Ritchie's screenshot has all that noise? It's almost like it was printed and then scanned back.
That particular image is a GIF with a reduced palette of 8 bits per pixel, whereas the rest seem to be full-colour PNGs. http://regex.info/exif.cgi?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fanders.unix....
Did people primarily not use terminal multiplexers like GNU Screen back then (or like tmux today)? It seems to be a lot of windows all over the place. Other than that, jumping a little ahead --I remember getting Windows XP in late 2001, early 2002. Everything looked so nice and shiny - it may have been the last time I was so unbelievably impressed with Windows. I'm not sure why I liked it so much - either because the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> clean and neat Really? You miss that special "concrete gray and primary blue" feel? I think I used every MS operating system starting with DOS, and I miss exactly none of the "historic" interfaces. To the extent I get annoyed when institutional IT departments force you to use the "classic" theme on modern windows boxes ("It's faster!" - no, it isn't to any human perceptible degree, and I appreciate not having to st…
I'm not sure about the 'huge strides'. I feel nowadays with 'flat design' (is that the right term?) I don't know where I can click and what actions will be performed. It's like the UI is a bunch of text labels, but they may actually be links, but they may actually perform an action. Although there's no way to know, since the label doesn't say what action is performed, and since we don't have mice anymore, we don't ha…
All of them
> Which will result in the phone making a call
In the calling screen, each one. In the contacts screen, none.
> and which will result into going into looking at the contact?
In the calling screen, the three dots. In the contacts screen, each one.
> How do I send an SMS rather than a call?
Click the text balloon icon (in the detail view)
> How do I edit it?
Click the edit icon (in the detail view)
> How do I get a call history?
Scroll down a bit (in the detail view).
Have you actually used the thing you're complaining about?