Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can't you still use it? I still use it.
Yep, still using build 5666, the last build before Nullsoft got bought out.
I think it’s build 3615, version 5.666, right?
Websites that look like desktop GUIs
171–180 of 188 posts
Re: Websites that look like desktop GUIs
#172Adding mine to the mix: www.vyl.app
Re: Websites that look like desktop GUIs
#173Re: Websites that look like desktop GUIs
#174Interesting collection. Between the veritable homages (AV notification included) [0] and reinterpretations for various purposes (e.g., music player [1]), it's a fun mix! It also reminded me of the Nielsen Norman article exploring flat design and comparing it to three-dimensional design [2]. While it's becoming less and less possible, it would be interesting to compare the experience across different UX patterns for f…
These are interesting resources, thank you. One sentence stuck out to me in [2]: > Early pseudo-3D GUIs and Steve-Jobs-esque skeuomorphism often produced heavy, clunky interfaces. I think that this is an aesthetic assessment, not one that speaks to usability. And while older interfaces were aesthetically clunky, newer interfaces are functionally clunky - often hiding functionality (hamburger menu) and wasting content…
As an aside, I recently found out that Microsoft's version of the hamburger menu, the 9 dots in a square, is called a "waffle".
Re: Websites that look like desktop GUIs
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fork is wonderful, a well-designed and performant Git GUI, native on each platform (Windows and macOS). https://fork.dev/ I bought a license a while back, since I use it every day. That said, I believe they're moving towards a "trial" model, rather than "free" as in beer. I do wish it was open sourced, but also wish them the best in making it a profitable venture. It's great software, it deserves good funding so the…
Do you happen to know how Fork compares with Tower ( https://www.git-tower.com )? I've been a Tower user for quite some time and like it, but I'm always interested in better options.
I don't have any experience with Tower, other than having heard the name. From their feature description, I can say that Fork does not have multi-user or team management functionality, if that's important for your use case.
I'd recommend giving it a trial run. For me it ticks all boxes for personal and professional use, I'm very happy with it. The managing of a large number of repos could be better, but I do OK with a single "hub" folder to keep all repos, with nested folders and symlinks.
Re: Websites that look like desktop GUIs
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. DSM is basically the reason to buy synology over competitors : you pay almost twice the price the hardware is worth, and in exchange you get their top notch software and support.
I am lowkey thinking of setting up a NAS / inhouse server, on the one hand I can build something myself but OTOH I'm hearing nothing but glowing reviews about Synology.
So, here is something not so glowing then. I've got two of them, both 12 bay versions, an older one and a newer one. The old one would handle drives larger during the initial configuration than it would handle during a rebuild and this bit me quite hard.
Eventually I fixed it by using an old 36 bay chassis running linux to do the rebuild but it should not have taken that, if I had been stuck on the Synology setup it would have caused loss of the array.
The experience with Synology up to that point was good enough that I did in fact buy the newer and larger model, but even there there were rough edges, for instance that the model as listed could not handle all the drives it was supposed to work with without upgrading with outrageously overpriced memory.
So, after many years as a Synology customer that's my experience, I would still recommend them but I would definitely ask if the buyer is planning on maxing out their kit and if they do to ensure 100% compatibility between the parts before committing their data to it.
Re: Websites that look like desktop GUIs
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am lowkey thinking of setting up a NAS / inhouse server, on the one hand I can build something myself but OTOH I'm hearing nothing but glowing reviews about Synology.
I don't see myself buying a Synology again. I didn't want to use mine as 'just a NAS' and was hoping the Linux+ssh they ship would allow that, but it hasn't gone as I had in mind. Certain things I wanted require jumping through weird extra hoops, and system decisions I don't particularly agree with are just imposed. The toolchain generally seems quite dated, the kernel is from 2017 (v4.4.59+) and to me their propriet…
You can run Synology DSM on non-synology hardware. Works like a charm, obviously not supported by the manufacturer but there are some use cases where this can be very handy.
See:
https://nascompares.com/2018/09/27/xpenology-how-to-install-...
Re: Websites that look like desktop GUIs
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
These are interesting resources, thank you. One sentence stuck out to me in [2]: > Early pseudo-3D GUIs and Steve-Jobs-esque skeuomorphism often produced heavy, clunky interfaces. I think that this is an aesthetic assessment, not one that speaks to usability. And while older interfaces were aesthetically clunky, newer interfaces are functionally clunky - often hiding functionality (hamburger menu) and wasting content…
I think the Hamburger was a good solution to a real problem: that mobile phones simply have less screen space (physical, if not in pixels) than desktops and laptops. The problem is that people then seem to blindly apply the solutions where they aren't needed. Too much cargo culting, not enough thought.
The hamburger menu is literally a failure.
Early Android devices had a hardware menu button, press it, get a menu, simple and consistent. It can be related to the menu bar in desktop applications.
Android 3 and 4 broke it. Google noticed that many apps didn't know what to do with that button, and when they stopped relying on physical buttons, instead of trying to make things more consistent, they simply threw it the towel and removed the button. The hamburger menu replaced it. But unlike the physical button, it can be anywhere, or absent, or hidden behind a swipe gesture, or whatever the "UX designer" thought of.
Normally, the way you do it in a desktop app is to use the OS provided menu bar, preferably with standard labels like "File", "Edit", "View" and "Help". But in a web page, you can't do that, the menu bar is property of the browser, and because HTML never standardized menus, you take inspiration from where you can, and already messy mobile apps is the closest thing you have.
The problem is that now, people design their desktop apps like web pages, in fact, with Electron and the like, they are web pages. So every OS convention and standard widgets that help make things consistent go out of the window (pun not intended).
Re: Websites that look like desktop GUIs
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the Hamburger was a good solution to a real problem: that mobile phones simply have less screen space (physical, if not in pixels) than desktops and laptops. The problem is that people then seem to blindly apply the solutions where they aren't needed. Too much cargo culting, not enough thought.
The hamburger menu is literally a failure. Early Android devices had a hardware menu button, press it, get a menu, simple and consistent. It can be related to the menu bar in desktop applications. Android 3 and 4 broke it. Google noticed that many apps didn't know what to do with that button, and when they stopped relying on physical buttons, instead of trying to make things more consistent, they simply threw it the…
I think Google - which is at core a web company - couldn't consider mobile apps alone. By having an hardware button, apps and websites inevitably worked differently. Removing the button allowed for uniformity: everyone uses the hamburger.
Re: Websites that look like desktop GUIs
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
I (author of Webamp) worked with the internet archive to archive ~50k Winamp skins. The collection even features Webamp integration is you can try them out in the browser. https://archive.org/details/winampskins
Does it work with milkdrop? That visualiser is exceptional. Unfortunately project M isn't as good.
I always preferred Geiss, but either way, I wish such visualisation capabilities were built in to Spotify... Or is there a suitable in_xxx plugin for Winamp that will let me use its visualisations with Spotify?