Live data from Hacker News

A CSS framework to recreate Windows 7 GUI

github.com

121–129 of 129 posts

Re: A CSS framework to recreate Windows 7 GUI

#121
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been feeling that way, but I can't tell if it's rational. Windows XP and 7 were the versions of the OS I used the most growing up. Nostalgia? Ever since Windows 8, the OS has felt a lot slower and the UI isn't consistent. I was running something the other day that needed privilege escalation and I had this realization that I would have no idea if a particular UI was cobbled-together-Microsoft-UI or if it was cob…

I held out on "upgrading" to 10 until support was dropped last year. 7 was a huge step forward, with better performance than Vista and all kinds of QOL improvements (Windows Search, DX11 being some big ones). 10 also has some amazing improvements (automatic driver installs via Windows Update being the first thing that springs to mind[1]), but they've unfortunately let ads and anti-features (Bing, Cortana, App "Sugges…

(automatic driver installs via Windows Update being the first thing that springs to mind[1])

That's the worst part of W10 for me. I have a tablet that was unusable until I learned about WuMgr because every day it would reinstall a broken touchscreen driver.

Re: A CSS framework to recreate Windows 7 GUI

#122
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want a unified tablet / phone / desktop experience. I want interfaces that are optimised for the device rather than optimised for encouraging vendor lock ins. Also it wasn't Windows 7 that first attempted that. PDAs back in ~2000 ran Windows CE with a Windows 95 / NT4 era UI. That also wasn't well optimised for smaller screens touch screens, hence the requirement to use a stylus. Then what followed was Window…

> That also wasn't well optimised for smaller screens touch screens, hence the requirement to use a stylus The reason for the stylus wasn’t software. Capacitive touch screens didn’t really existed, at least not in consumer devices. Apple did that. They haven’t invented that of course, acquired other company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FingerWorks but it was them who brought the tech to mainstream in 2007.

What you've posted is a very common misunderstanding of what happened in the mid 00s but unfortunately not at all accurate on any point you've raised.

Pre-capacitive touch screen technology worked perfectly fine with fingers. People had been using their fingers on kiosks and PDAs with infra red and resistive touch screens (respectively) for years before capacitive touch screen technology hit the market. In fact I personally had several PDAs from ~2000 onwards and would often use my fingers for simple operations (ie when precision wasn't required).

Ironically capacitive screens actually have greater limitations over capacitive screens in terms of general usability, as quoted on Wikipedia:

> Unlike a resistive touchscreen, some capacitive touchscreens cannot be used to detect a finger through electrically insulating material, such as gloves. This disadvantage especially affects usability in consumer electronics, such as touch tablet PCs and capacitive smartphones in cold weather when people may be wearing gloves. It can be overcome with a special capacitive stylus, or a special-application glove with an embroidered patch of conductive thread allowing electrical contact with the user's fingertip.

Also capacitive throws a fit if the surface gets wet, which resistive screens didn't, and resistive screens offer greater precision when used with a stylus.

Capacitive screens look nicer though (greater contrast etc). Which is why they eventually won out.

As for the whole finger-orientated UI thing, well that happened around the same time as capacitive screens hit the market (resistive screens can also be made to support multi-touch by the way) and thus would have happened with or without the invention of capacitive screens.

So no, the reason for the stylus wasn't a limitation of resistive touch screens. It was the UI and that would have changed regardless of the introduction of capacitive screens.

Also can we drop the bullshit that Apple were the inventors of multi-touch UIs. There were 3 companies working on the same technology in parallel: Apple, LG and Google. LG even beat Apple to market and then accused Apple of stealing their idea, much like Apple like to claim others did with the iPhone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada

Suffice to say, the industry was changing and would have changed with or without Apple's involvement. They certainly were a big catalyst but where absolutely were not the only players in the game.

Re: A CSS framework to recreate Windows 7 GUI

#123
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was only an issue with the DOS-bootstrapped versions. The NT line was a lot more reliable for early adopters. Or at least it was until XP came along. Which is another good reason why Microsoft peaked with Windows 2000.

I think that there were several different peaks. In terms of UI, I'd say Chicago is the peak. In terms of internals, you're probably right, it was 2000. In terms of performance, I'd say it was probably Windows 7? Maybe it was just because I actually put together my own tower instead of pre-built?

UI is subjective. Performance, however, 2000 was again the peak there. It was the first desktop OS that supported SMP (obviously not the first workstation OS. But I'd argue Windows 2000 was a cross-over platform that brought workstation stability and performance to desktops).

Also look at the era: OSX wasn't yet released and Mac OS 9 was a tire fire (worse than Windows 98). Windows ME was somehow worse than Mac OS 9. BeOS was awesome but pretty much a failed company by that point plus lacked a lot of software one needs day to day. And Linux was pretty buggy as a desktop -- usable but a long way from being polished. Windows 2000 wasn't just a good OS by it's own standards of the hardware at the time. It was an incredible OS by the standards of everything else available at the time.

By contrast, when Windows 7 was released, Linux was still faster and had several well polished desktop environments by that time. FreeBSD made a decent desktop too. OSX was in its prime. Windows 7 was only good by comparison of what it followed: Vista. But it was a long way from competing with the competition on anything bar AAA game support.

Re: A CSS framework to recreate Windows 7 GUI

#124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That also wasn't well optimised for smaller screens touch screens, hence the requirement to use a stylus The reason for the stylus wasn’t software. Capacitive touch screens didn’t really existed, at least not in consumer devices. Apple did that. They haven’t invented that of course, acquired other company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FingerWorks but it was them who brought the tech to mainstream in 2007.

What you've posted is a very common misunderstanding of what happened in the mid 00s but unfortunately not at all accurate on any point you've raised. Pre-capacitive touch screen technology worked perfectly fine with fingers. People had been using their fingers on kiosks and PDAs with infra red and resistive touch screens (respectively) for years before capacitive touch screen technology hit the market. In fact I per…

> would often use my fingers for simple operations

Fingernails worked on my Palm m500, fingers did not.

> resistive screens offer greater precision when used with a stylus

I know but people weren't too happy with them. They need both hands, and easy to loose.

> It was the UI and that would have changed regardless of the introduction of capacitive screens

I have doubts. Resistive touch screens is very old tech, yet before the first iPhone came out they were mostly used by geeks and corporations.

> companies working on the same technology in parallel: Apple, LG and Google

When Apple launched the first iPhone, engineers at google working on Android decided to throw away half of what they already done and start over. They were building stuff like this https://www.androidcentral.com/look-back-google-sooner-first... and being smart people they have realized the product they were building became deprecated, overnight.

> LG even beat Apple to market

HTC did as well, look up "HTC Touch".

Apple is much better at selling their stuff. And I think they had better product too, despite not even a smartphone (app store launched much later). They did have good features like a unique data plan not available on any other phones, web browser which worked with normal web, and iTunes with all the music.

Re: A CSS framework to recreate Windows 7 GUI

#125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you've posted is a very common misunderstanding of what happened in the mid 00s but unfortunately not at all accurate on any point you've raised. Pre-capacitive touch screen technology worked perfectly fine with fingers. People had been using their fingers on kiosks and PDAs with infra red and resistive touch screens (respectively) for years before capacitive touch screen technology hit the market. In fact I per…

> would often use my fingers for simple operations Fingernails worked on my Palm m500, fingers did not. > resistive screens offer greater precision when used with a stylus I know but people weren't too happy with them. They need both hands, and easy to loose. > It was the UI and that would have changed regardless of the introduction of capacitive screens I have doubts. Resistive touch screens is very old tech, yet be…

> Fingernails worked on my Palm m500, fingers did not.

Palm m500 is a very early device. Resistive screens did get better. I remember the pain of using fingernails on early devices but the kinds of PDAs I fell in love with had were full colour screens running Windows CE / Mobile rather than monochrome displays and could run Tomb Raider in landscape mode with virtual buttons on the screen that were clearly only possible to use with your fingers. A version of it you can see here: https://youtu.be/ZJ1GR9mQamI?t=1070 -- but it looked and played soooooo much better on my device.

Bare in mind the first iPhone was released ~2007 vs ~2000 for the Palm m500. That's a lot of years for screens to improve.

> I know but people weren't too happy with them. They need both hands, and easy to loose.

That's true for the largest generalisation but you'd be surprised just how many people do prefer a stylus. I've even seen people use styluses with modern capacitive screens -- which I really don't get because those things are just as fat as fingers so always struck me as the worst of both worlds.

> I have doubts. Resistive touch screens is very old tech, yet before the first iPhone came out they were mostly used by geeks and corporations.

I know you're trying to disagree with me but you're actually making the same point: they were mainly used by geeks and corporations because the UIs were unattractive. The innovation of the iPhone wasn't the capacitive screen, it was the touch-centric interface. And as I said before, Apple weren't the only ones working on it. In fact they weren't even the first to market.

Go back and read some publications of the era, or design magazines. They all criticise Windows CE / Mobile for it's poor touch UI. It was a common known problem at the time. So much so that Microsoft had several attempts at fixing it. But nobody really knew how to do it right because it was a very young problem. Think of it like 80s home computer systems, how everyone was trying to get personal compact computers right and people largely fell on different implementations of the same idea before the computing landscape ended up with a duopoly of Macs and IBM-clones. That's largely how early smart phone and PDA UIs were too.

> Apple is much better at selling their stuff. And I think they had better product too, despite not even a smartphone (app store launched much later). They did have good features like a unique data plan not available on any other phones, web browser which worked with normal web, and iTunes with all the music.

Apple certainly are. But for what it's worth, smart phones and PDA's prior to the iPhone also supported a browser which worked with normal web (I'd used my one of my Windows CE PDA devices as a mobile internet terminal when on a road trip around Europe in the early to mid 00s). And Winamp ran on the thing so my main usage of my PDAs were music. I even had a compact flash microdrive (which still works actually) in an early model around the same time iPods also had microdrives.

Re: A CSS framework to recreate Windows 7 GUI

#126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that there were several different peaks. In terms of UI, I'd say Chicago is the peak. In terms of internals, you're probably right, it was 2000. In terms of performance, I'd say it was probably Windows 7? Maybe it was just because I actually put together my own tower instead of pre-built?

UI is subjective. Performance, however, 2000 was again the peak there. It was the first desktop OS that supported SMP (obviously not the first workstation OS. But I'd argue Windows 2000 was a cross-over platform that brought workstation stability and performance to desktops). Also look at the era: OSX wasn't yet released and Mac OS 9 was a tire fire (worse than Windows 98). Windows ME was somehow worse than Mac OS 9.…

Mac OS X Server 1.0 was released in March of 1999, and I used it everyday as a desktop OS at work.

Windows 2000 was released in December.

Re: A CSS framework to recreate Windows 7 GUI

#127
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was only an issue with the DOS-bootstrapped versions. The NT line was a lot more reliable for early adopters. Or at least it was until XP came along. Which is another good reason why Microsoft peaked with Windows 2000.

I think that there were several different peaks. In terms of UI, I'd say Chicago is the peak. In terms of internals, you're probably right, it was 2000. In terms of performance, I'd say it was probably Windows 7? Maybe it was just because I actually put together my own tower instead of pre-built?

7 and 10 benchmark roughly the same yet somehow 7 is capable of running from a HDD without shitting the bed, unlike 10.

Re: A CSS framework to recreate Windows 7 GUI

#128
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're overly-critical. The CSS immediately gives the look & feel of using Windows 7. Maybe the gradients are not completely spot-on, but the other 95% of elements are great.

None of the elements are accurate replications of the originals even after accounting for DPI scaling. I love the spirit of the project, but it feels like any other poor replica you’d find anywhere else. There are spaces between tab button elements, the title bar buttons have excess space and incorrect borders, window buttons are the wrong size and use incorrectly scaled raster icons, the backdrop filter property isn…

I'm amazed how one can see it all, yet I do not think most people would care, since they (as well as I am) are all blind to these nuances.
Post reply on HN