Designing Windows 95’s User Interface • Hacker News Board

Re: Designing Windows 95’s User Interface

#151

Post by da_chicken » Wed, Feb 07, 2018, 2:44 PM UTC

narag wrote: post #80

einr wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There absolutely was TCP/IP support in Windows 95 from the very beginning. It was not installed by default but it was trivial to add via the Network applet in Control Panel. SLIP/PPP was also supported and you had basic utilities like Telnet and FTP included so you could connect to the Internet right out of the box. No web browser, though. Internet Explorer 1.0 shipped with the optional Plus! pack.

For some reason we used Trumpet stack. Could it be that OS stack didn't work very well at first?

Probably inertia. Windows 3.0 and 3.1 didn't ship with a TCP/IP stack. You had to either have something like Trumpet or install Internet Explorer 2.1 (which, AFAIK, was a separate purchase) to get Winsock. Or you could try to use DOS drivers. Even Windows for Workgroups 3.1 only shipped with NetBEUI and IPX/SPX. It wasn't until Windows for Workgroups 3.11 that the OS shipped with TCP/IP.

Re: Designing Windows 95’s User Interface

#152

Post by eadmund » Wed, Feb 07, 2018, 2:50 PM UTC

russellbeattie wrote: post #26

It's hard to remember, but even though Windows 3.11 was extremely dominant at the time, it was by no means assured that Windows 95 would be the success that it was. The very first version missed wildly in some big ways (MSN was a folder integrated into the desktop, for example, and no TCP/IP support [*Edit: yes there was - I misremembered.]), but the core, underlying redesign of the GUI was so profoundly good it prop…

> Compare it to other GUIs at the time, like CDE, IBM's Presentation Manager, or even Mac OS 8 and there's no comparison.

Well, I agree that there was no comparison with System 8, but not in the sense you mean. I think that the Mac back then was head-and-shoulders a better system than Windows. It might still be, but they're both so painful to use now that it's very difficult to pick a winner.

The Macintosh system was very understandable, very clean. Extensions were an easy-to-understand way to extend one's system, and easy-to-disable too. The window system itself was better-thought-out and less-confusing than Windows's was. The Finder was much more straightforward than the Windows equivalent (was it called the File Explorer back then?). The way that the Mac associated programmes to files (with an application code & a file code) was much better than the extension-based naming of Windows. The way that the Mac used its files' resource fork was great.

Programming a Mac back then was very clean & straightforward. I don't think there's anything today as nice, except maybe Cocoa, maybe. Certainly not the Windows 95 API!

Re: Designing Windows 95’s User Interface

#153

Post by avtar » Wed, Feb 07, 2018, 2:51 PM UTC

herbst wrote: post #70

majewsky wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Running the latest version of 10 it still feels very unfinished which I hope Microsoft intend to do something about. Might depend on what particular parts of the OS you come across. I use Win10 on my work notebook [1] and besides the long startup times [2], I haven't noticed anything "unfinished". In fact, Windows very subjectively feels more polished than macOS which I used before (until December). Then again, I d…

Pretty sure he is referring to the configuration structure. You get this fancy 8.1 sidebar configuration screens that may solve 80% of a average users tasks, but once you start digging you'll find configuration Windows in the style of W7, and if you dig even harder you'll even find stuff that looks straight out of 98. I am a linux users myself, configuration inconsistency gives me nightmares.

That and high DPI inconsistencies make the Windows 10 experience pretty rough.

Re: Designing Windows 95’s User Interface

#154

Post by Koshkin » Wed, Feb 07, 2018, 2:54 PM UTC

kk_cz wrote: post #138

jcadam wrote: post #129

Ah, remembering Win95 makes me yearn for a simple, clean GUI again. All of the major operating systems have been in a downward slide in terms of UI/UX since the early 2000s. As far as UI/UX is concerned: Windows peaked with Windows 2000. MacOS with OS9 (Why didn't they just throw the classic GUI on top of Darwin)? At least with *nix you have choices and can go with one of the several variants of Gnome 2 (Xfce, et al)…

Just curious: why Windows 2000 and not Windows 7? Win7 was still internally consistent (as opposed to the newer tablet / mobile / pc / washing machine UIs of later versions) and provided few additional UI enhancements over 2k.

> still internally consistent

The most internally consistent design was that of NT 3.1 - it was a true classic in many respects. As far as general usefulness, performance, and versatility nothing can compare with Windows 10 (except Linux, of course).

Re: Designing Windows 95’s User Interface

#155

Post by tjridesbikes » Wed, Feb 07, 2018, 2:55 PM UTC

russellbeattie wrote: post #45

vadimberman wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I still get frustrated on OSX when I minimize a window and have to hunt around for it Windows user here. Honest curiosity: does anyone know why the minimize / maximize works on the Mac the way it does? I mean, what's the rationale to design it like this?

No idea... And a few versions ago Apple changed the maximize button to go full screen, which made it useless for the 95% of us who don't use one app at a time. Minimized windows also used to show up at the bottom of the screen when using "Expose", but then Apple changed the name to "Mission Control" and removed them. Just one more example of them slowly but surely driving its Mac customers away.

Speak for yourself. Spaces in macOS is one of the best window management features I've encountered. Of course, it's been common in Linux window managers, but since I use a Mac for work, its a godsend that spaces and multiple desktops is implemented. I'm a developer, and being able to organize my windows and split them (fullscreen isn't limited to one app per screen anymore) is so freaking useful that I feel lost whenever I try to use Windows again.

Re: Designing Windows 95’s User Interface

#156

Post by sodapopcan » Wed, Feb 07, 2018, 2:57 PM UTC

sodapopcan wrote: post #90

russellbeattie wrote: post #26

It's hard to remember, but even though Windows 3.11 was extremely dominant at the time, it was by no means assured that Windows 95 would be the success that it was. The very first version missed wildly in some big ways (MSN was a folder integrated into the desktop, for example, and no TCP/IP support [*Edit: yes there was - I misremembered.]), but the core, underlying redesign of the GUI was so profoundly good it prop…

The one thing I don't understand that Mac has never adopted is being able to use open and save dialogues as mini file explorers (move stuff around and rename, specifically). Having to switch to Finder to move or rename a file that has the same name as the file I'm trying to save is ridiculous. Of course I never need to do this anymore since I only work on text files under revision control, but it still seems odd to m…

Haha, damn ok, it's been so long since I've had to do this, I didn't realize it is now possible (I used to want this all the time and was the bane of my existence in the late 90s early 2000s when using Mac). You still can't seem to move files into sibling directories, though, only to directory links in the sidebar. Anyway, I LEARNED SOMETHING TODAY (about macOS dialogues and about testing things before I open my mouth).

++edited to clarify language.++

Re: Designing Windows 95’s User Interface

#157

Post by lloydde » Wed, Feb 07, 2018, 3:01 PM UTC

epicide wrote: post #122

hunvreus wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It drove me nuts when they updated the maximize button behavior to full screen. I use ShiftIt, a neat little Open Source tool that help me manage windows sizes and positions (including minimizing and maximizing): https://github.com/fikovnik/ShiftIt I've recommend it to pretty much any Mac user I've met.

Haven't used ShiftIt, but I've been using Spectacle to accomplish the same thing. They seem pretty similar, overall. Works pretty well and I've had no issues.

I used Spectacle for years than was forced to switch to ShiftIt at a new employer. ShiftIt default hotkey combos didn’t conflict with other apps like Spectacle.

Re: Designing Windows 95’s User Interface

#158

Post by erickhill » Wed, Feb 07, 2018, 3:01 PM UTC

As the Win95 team formed in 1992, I’d argue the Amiga OS was an excellent alternative at the time, albeit one oft forgotten due to its subsequent market share.

Extremely easy to use, extend and navigatee, at the time it’s only missing piece was a built in “file explorer” but there were also so many 3rd party options by then, too (Directory Opus being my personal favorite).

Re: Designing Windows 95’s User Interface

#159

Post by tclover » Wed, Feb 07, 2018, 3:02 PM UTC

_mrmnmly wrote: post #60

k__ wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea... I'm came from ~18 of Windows & Linux usage and everyone always told me macOS is THE OS with the best usability. But I can't confirm this. Minimization of windows is shitty and maximization even more. When I maximize, often just the height is changed, when I go back to "normal" the height and the width is changed, so I always have to adjust the width manually. When I minimize a few windows, it's impo…

Know what you're talking about. Since I've switched back to Linux I can't imagine working without workspaces - each one dedicated for specific task/app - and every time staying with specific order so e.g. 1 workspace: Browser, 2nd: Code editor, 3rd: Terminal, 4th: File explorers etc. I used to it so much that I automatically use shortcuts to access it immediately - switching between minimized windows using alt + tab…

Windows 10 actually supports this feature, still can't get used to it though... win+tab -> switch between virtual desktops, or ctrl+win+left/right arrows.

and if you have many windows open (in win 10 at least) you don't have to press alt+tab 10 times in a row to choose your desired program, you can hold alt+tab and use arrows.

Re: Designing Windows 95’s User Interface

#160

Post by blattimwind » Wed, Feb 07, 2018, 3:04 PM UTC

sigzero wrote: post #130

blattimwind wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, Windows' file open/save dialogues are so far ahead of everything else that the competition seems like unusable garbage to me. I'm glad KDE/Qt chose to emulate these very closely on Linux. Wouldn't want a desktop where my only choice is Gnome's take at this. (On the flip side, Windows' select-a-directory dialogue of the same vintage is such an utter piece of garbage that I can't imagine there being any ove…

Because that is extremely non-intuitive. It's an "Open" and "Save" dialog. That is what it should do. Joe Public is not going to know it does anything else, yet it does.

Actually, you completely missed my point. The Windows dialogue is not only superior, because it allows power users to do what they need, but also because it's actually usable for regular users.

For example: I literally can't know how I can save a file using Gnome's dialogue in the general case, e.g. if the dialogue opens at /foo, and I navigate to /foo/bar using the dialogue, but then go back to /foo ("bar wasn't the right place after all"), I can't save the file there any more. "bar" will be selected. Clicking "Save" while a directory is selected will not save, but navigate instead. Now I'm in "bar" again. I go back to /foo and try to click something else, say a file. This changes the to-be-saved-file's name to the selection.

After I asked someone who uses Gnome as their main desktop they told me "that's easy: you just have to ctrl+click on the selected directory to de-select it, then you can save in the current directory".

That, my dear readers, is indeed unusable garbage.