Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Windows UI evolution: Clicking an unassociated file

movq.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 121 posts

Re: Windows UI evolution: Clicking an unassociated file

#111

Post by M95D »

bee_rider wrote: post #47
exitb wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a running Windows 98 PC with P3 550MHz and SSD connected via IDE adapter. The drive is a bit out of place, but it’s legitimately the fastest booting, most responsive computer in my house. Its only speed issue is that it can really do just one thing. Any heavy task (including large file/network operations, apparently) will render the system almost unresponsive until it’s finished.

I wonder how the CPU in the SSD controller compares to the one in the PC.

It wasn't out of the ordinary at the time. See C64 floppy drive CPU.

Re: Windows UI evolution: Clicking an unassociated file

#112

Post by inigyou »

hulitu wrote: post #105
inigyou wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a consequence of cultural changes in the last decades. It used to be normal to be able to open a settings window, or any other window, and read it, top to bottom or in any other order, and then you'd know what was there and where it was and which parts you don't care about. I think it's much better than hidden features practically. But now we've developed this cultural aversion to complex-looking thin…

> cultural changes Or the lack of it, FWIW

Lack of changes?

Re: Windows UI evolution: Clicking an unassociated file

#113

Post by HappySweeney »

hulitu wrote: post #109
Krssst wrote: post #75

Fun fact: on modern Windows, if you uninstall modern notepad using the Settings app to get the old one, you won't be able to associate .txt files with notepad.exe without a registry trick: https://superuser.com/questions/1750222/how-to-open-file-typ...

Modern Windows has big problems with file associasions: default to web browser, sometimes asks, sometimes it chooses a random program (for images). Old Windows (9x, 2k, XP, 7) was better.

A bunch of links open a hardcoded browser (like help links within Visual Studio). Executives have OKRs to meet.

Re: Windows UI evolution: Clicking an unassociated file

#114

Post by hulitu »

fifticon wrote: post #19
inigyou wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

at this point GNOME is a joke. I'm not sure KDE is always better but at least KDE is clearly trying. btw Wayland is also a project of the GNOME team and almost everyone is using the KDE extensions to it to make it suck less.

I'm not sure you can blame the GNOME people for not trying. Personally, I feel like they are actively trying to make it worse, ie they are not passive. Their approach to file system dialogs (open file/folder, save file), was what got me to finally realize, that I must necessarily prefer KDE, because I must necessarily prefer anything that is not GNOME. Now if I could only figure out how to stop KDE from opening file…

> I'm not sure you can blame the GNOME people for not trying.

Definitely not. We have GNOME 1, GNOME 2, GNOME 3, GNOME 4, GNOME 5, so they definitely _are_ trying. But, why every version is worse than its predecessor, realy bothers me.

Re: Windows UI evolution: Clicking an unassociated file

#115

Post by pjerem »

hulitu wrote: post #102
inigyou wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting how many people don't like the XP theme. I think it was cool, it was productive yet colorful, but I have to wonder if that's just because it arrived when I was at a certain life stage, the same way I had no problem with the COVID lockdown. We used XP in high school computer class the whole time I was there.

In the good Microsoft tradition, you had programs where this theme will not be applied, just like in Win 10 and 11, leading to inconsistencies.

It was much, much, more coherent.

Also there was a trick which I don't remember that allowed to apply the theme on all applications.

Now, the notion of theme don't even exists anymore. It's just web and css and branding colors for whatever software you run.

Re: Windows UI evolution: Clicking an unassociated file

#116

Post by marysol5 »

inigyou wrote: post #55
prmoustache wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd replace 9x by windows 2000. It was the only decent windows. 9x were BSOD crashfest, 2000 was stable as NT but without the enshittification of XP (ugly default themes, stuff above calling internet services with zero value). I think what you describe as responsive are 2 things: 1. absence of animations. I don't know about windows but on linux DE you can disable them, it feels snappier but more raw and I think most…

It's interesting how many people don't like the XP theme. I think it was cool, it was productive yet colorful, but I have to wonder if that's just because it arrived when I was at a certain life stage, the same way I had no problem with the COVID lockdown. We used XP in high school computer class the whole time I was there.

I always put XP into "Classic Mode"

Re: Windows UI evolution: Clicking an unassociated file

#117

Post by breakingcups »

inigyou wrote: post #30
lunar_rover wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One day, when I die, and go to heaven or hell, when I arrive, my first question to the ones receiving me, will be "Finally, tell me - is there ANY possible way to navigate upwards to the parent folder, in GNOME?" You click the previous folder in the navigation bar.

Same thing Windows did. Did anyone like it?

I do! I love skipping back 4 folders in one go.

Re: Windows UI evolution: Clicking an unassociated file

#118

Post by minusLik »

inigyou wrote: post #55
prmoustache wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd replace 9x by windows 2000. It was the only decent windows. 9x were BSOD crashfest, 2000 was stable as NT but without the enshittification of XP (ugly default themes, stuff above calling internet services with zero value). I think what you describe as responsive are 2 things: 1. absence of animations. I don't know about windows but on linux DE you can disable them, it feels snappier but more raw and I think most…

It's interesting how many people don't like the XP theme. I think it was cool, it was productive yet colorful, but I have to wonder if that's just because it arrived when I was at a certain life stage, the same way I had no problem with the COVID lockdown. We used XP in high school computer class the whole time I was there.

I for my part didn't like the sparse selection of colors. Blue, silver, green, but nothing reddish. But later there came the Zune theme and it was awesome (silver-black with orange X buttons).

Re: Windows UI evolution: Clicking an unassociated file

#119

Post by mock-possum »

jameshart wrote: post #21
reddalo wrote: post #3

I think Windows 9x was peak Windows. Everything is clear, you know what's a button and what's not. Information density is also high, which is a good thing on a computer screen. But the main thing is that Windows 9x felt responsive . The Windows widgets felt solid and performant, while "modern" UWP apps feel clunky and prone to breakage. And don't even get me started on Electron. Edit. See OP's previous article here,…

Windows 9x did not feel ‘performant’. This is a false memory people seem to have. Spinning rust hard drives were slow. It took ages to launch a program - loading screens typically had time to display a progress bar and a series of notes about what they were up to - ‘loading extensions’, ‘reticulating splines’, etc. Word would stall whenever it was autosaving. Carrying out an operation like spell checking or doing a f…

> Remember windows used to have an hourglass cursor?

God thank you, yes, I actually do think that most have actually forgotten what UI was like back then. Rose tinted glasses are such a weak point for people.

Re: Windows UI evolution: Clicking an unassociated file

#120

Post by EnnEmmEss »

jameshart wrote: post #21
reddalo wrote: post #3

I think Windows 9x was peak Windows. Everything is clear, you know what's a button and what's not. Information density is also high, which is a good thing on a computer screen. But the main thing is that Windows 9x felt responsive . The Windows widgets felt solid and performant, while "modern" UWP apps feel clunky and prone to breakage. And don't even get me started on Electron. Edit. See OP's previous article here,…

Windows 9x did not feel ‘performant’. This is a false memory people seem to have. Spinning rust hard drives were slow. It took ages to launch a program - loading screens typically had time to display a progress bar and a series of notes about what they were up to - ‘loading extensions’, ‘reticulating splines’, etc. Word would stall whenever it was autosaving. Carrying out an operation like spell checking or doing a f…

Was reminded of this article when I read what you said: https://brooker.co.za/blog/2026/06/19/waiting.html

I have an ancient Windows 98 computer which I used to use at my grandparents' home until a few years ago. All the problems you mentioned did exist. However, the machine still felt more responsive than today's laptops. Something being objectively slow is very different from it feeling slow when you use it. As an example, I never had Word autosave turned on. It was always explicit (even if this meant I'd usually lose what I was working on when the computer lost power)

Post reply on HN