41–50 of 79 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They should have used 98.css, but with font-face: Tahoma. https://jdan.github.io/98.css/
Wow, I initially thought that the first dialog box was a screencap of a "real" one... Impressive!
The user experience is so (paradoxically) refreshing. Back then you could fit so much useful information and controls into a single screenful; interfaces responded instantly; it was easy to figure where things are and what I'm looking at. With "modern" UIs, you can't get a big picture of what you're working on because there is so much white space and scrolling; the application is slower than your fingers; with each a…
> interfaces responded instantly I wish this nostalgic myth would die. Back in the Win 9x days we all had laughably slow spinning disks and hardly any RAM. Interfaces for simple programs like Minesweeper and Notepad were instant, sure. But anything heavy like Word, IE, Encarta, Visual Studio, etc. were definitely not. Most of those kinds of apps are way faster now than they were in the 90s, mostly thanks to SSDs. (Vi…
- 486 Packard Bell that I upgraded ram from 4MB -> 12MB as a kid? Win 3.1 went from being slow period to Windows 95 being fast any time I didn't touch disk or CD-ROM.
- ZSNES on Pentium MMX? Zero lag gameplay with time-travel debugging and full memory view.
- DOS running on a Pentium 4 to support legacy software? Nearly instant everything, especially power on -> usable machine.
You'll notice a common thread. It was possible to outrun the demons of sluggishness back then.
The user experience is so (paradoxically) refreshing. Back then you could fit so much useful information and controls into a single screenful; interfaces responded instantly; it was easy to figure where things are and what I'm looking at. With "modern" UIs, you can't get a big picture of what you're working on because there is so much white space and scrolling; the application is slower than your fingers; with each a…
> interfaces responded instantly I wish this nostalgic myth would die. Back in the Win 9x days we all had laughably slow spinning disks and hardly any RAM. Interfaces for simple programs like Minesweeper and Notepad were instant, sure. But anything heavy like Word, IE, Encarta, Visual Studio, etc. were definitely not. Most of those kinds of apps are way faster now than they were in the 90s, mostly thanks to SSDs. (Vi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
when you click save or when memory has to be paged/loaded, etc, yes. when it comes to responding to user input - while memory is being swapped, yes. in contrast, even when the computer wasn't responding, it never lost keystrokes. I'd type ahead and then the characters would appear when it was ready. now, the windows computer just randomly loses characters and loses focus for no reason. if it's not paying attention wh…
Windows doesn't randomly lose characters or focus for me.
The user experience is so (paradoxically) refreshing. Back then you could fit so much useful information and controls into a single screenful; interfaces responded instantly; it was easy to figure where things are and what I'm looking at. With "modern" UIs, you can't get a big picture of what you're working on because there is so much white space and scrolling; the application is slower than your fingers; with each a…
It's worth remembering you had far fewer pixels to play with; I remember 800x600 and 1024x768 being the standard monitor resolutions of the day.
I think it's pretty cool that the source code is all in a single file called app.js, and it's just doing simple DOM manipulations, no React, no minification, no libraries. I like to think it's just written like that too, a gigantic file that the author just iterates on.
The user experience is so (paradoxically) refreshing. Back then you could fit so much useful information and controls into a single screenful; interfaces responded instantly; it was easy to figure where things are and what I'm looking at. With "modern" UIs, you can't get a big picture of what you're working on because there is so much white space and scrolling; the application is slower than your fingers; with each a…
> interfaces responded instantly I wish this nostalgic myth would die. Back in the Win 9x days we all had laughably slow spinning disks and hardly any RAM. Interfaces for simple programs like Minesweeper and Notepad were instant, sure. But anything heavy like Word, IE, Encarta, Visual Studio, etc. were definitely not. Most of those kinds of apps are way faster now than they were in the 90s, mostly thanks to SSDs. (Vi…
At any given point, old applications are faster and current applications are slow, slowness being unevenly distributed: if you can pay extra for bigger memory and CPU, you get to use the fast lane.
Also consider that companies balance a number of factors: costs for themselves, time to market, features, what the competition offers. New, more powerful hardware is an opportunity for them to make sloppy software cheaper and first to launch.
The user experience is so (paradoxically) refreshing. Back then you could fit so much useful information and controls into a single screenful; interfaces responded instantly; it was easy to figure where things are and what I'm looking at. With "modern" UIs, you can't get a big picture of what you're working on because there is so much white space and scrolling; the application is slower than your fingers; with each a…
It's worth remembering you had far fewer pixels to play with; I remember 800x600 and 1024x768 being the standard monitor resolutions of the day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Windows doesn't randomly lose characters or focus for me.
Re: losing focus: Maybe this a problem with tap to click on a touchpad? This happens to me and drives me crazy and it's invariably me inadvertently clicking with my palms. Disabling tap to click helps a lot.