101–110 of 271 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personally I've always been slightly amazed that at no point in time did anyone at Microsoft think that making msn.com the default homepage for servers was a bad idea.
Hilariously, Microsoft production servers are also set to the MSN default homepage, even though most forests are firewalled off from the entire internet. So the homepage doesn't even load.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That tablet interface also made it to the server version - which probably had the worst windows interface ever.
Personally I've always been slightly amazed that at no point in time did anyone at Microsoft think that making msn.com the default homepage for servers was a bad idea.
More importantly people who suffer from to those interfaces are not in position of power to make switch operating systems. Forcing them to eat what MS feeds them seems like good way to experiment. If experiment fails, you don't have to hurry and repair it.
To me, still the best UI/UX OS experience. That menu organization is just perfect. Everything is crystal clear about what is selected or not. No idea why the OS moved from this layout.
it had the user experience of windows 98 but was also a lot more stable.
To me, still the best UI/UX OS experience. That menu organization is just perfect. Everything is crystal clear about what is selected or not. No idea why the OS moved from this layout.
yes. in my opinion though, windows 2000 was the pinnacle. it had the user experience of windows 98 but was also a lot more stable.
To me, still the best UI/UX OS experience. That menu organization is just perfect. Everything is crystal clear about what is selected or not. No idea why the OS moved from this layout.
yes. in my opinion though, windows 2000 was the pinnacle. it had the user experience of windows 98 but was also a lot more stable.
Here is something that I stumbled upon that I think was a big loss: HTML Help [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Compiled_HTML_Help ] It's unfortunate that Microsoft didn't work toward making it an open source standard for documentation. We'd have avoided every other documentation having it's own format, style, etc... Plus you get the whole documentation in a single file, not worrying about broken stuff, missi…
MS tried completely shut down and end open internet based on open standards. Their Blackbird project attempted to make create completely closed alternative MSN (The Microsoft Network) with closed publishing, search and software. Instead of Wikipedia, we would check out things from Microsoft Encarta.
I wish a kernel engineer could give a good answer to that question.
One side of the answer could be that the software that is bigger, but honestly that doesn't explain everything.
I wish somebody could confirm Wirth's law is real and that there are valid example of it.
Works in Chromium though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personally I've always been slightly amazed that at no point in time did anyone at Microsoft think that making msn.com the default homepage for servers was a bad idea.
Personally I feel it's completely understandable. Microsoft has huge market power. It's hard to abandon software you are locked in. More importantly people who suffer from to those interfaces are not in position of power to make switch operating systems. Forcing them to eat what MS feeds them seems like good way to experiment. If experiment fails, you don't have to hurry and repair it.
The default homepage for it should be msdn or bing or whatever, but msn makes zero sense.