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

IBM didn't want Microsoft to use the Tab key to move between dialog fields

devblogs.microsoft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 250 posts

Re: IBM didn't want Microsoft to use the Tab key to move between dialog fields

#141

Post by foxglacier »

bigibas123 wrote: post #47
INTPenis wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non english speaker trying to wrap my head around what Brendan said to you. I was once told that the tab key can be represented in different ways on different systems, and that's why spaces are safer because they're always represented the same. Is that what Brendan was trying to say?

Brendan Eich was making a point about the tab key also being used to switch to different text fields and buttons. This makes it difficult to type in certain applications. A space doesn't have that issue. About your point of tab being represented different on different systems: It will always be ascii 9, how it's draw does differ between text editors but I consider that one of it's strengths for programming. Everyone…

Having a non-standard size is exactly the reason the tab character (not the key) is unusable. If you accidentally get some space indenting anywhere in the same project as tabs, then it'll be misaligned on someone's editor and they'll "fix" it, making it misaligned on someone else's. Trying to never use space indenting is impossible. Never copy and paste from anywhere else, never manually align multi-line statements, never align comments with code, etc.

Re: IBM didn't want Microsoft to use the Tab key to move between dialog fields

#142

Post by foxglacier »

dylan604 wrote: post #100
setr wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Little irritates me more than logging into a new system, opening up code in vim, and witnessing the insanity of tabs-as-8-spaces

For me, it's not until that file is retrieved for local use where I have to deal with this. If it was born remotely and only used remotely with the same settings, I never notice it. But yeah, I hate it with the passion that raises my temp to that of a thousand suns.

The solution is to exterminate tabs, not hope everybody's settings are the same. I only code in editors that auto-convert tabs to spaces.

Re: IBM didn't want Microsoft to use the Tab key to move between dialog fields

#143

Post by eps »

AndrewStephens wrote: post #124

IBM was legendarily over-managed. This is second-hand but a guy I used to work with told a story of when he interned for a summer at IBM in London during the mid-90s doing what would now be called a QA engineering. At that time everyone wore suits to work but the culture was changing so the interns put in a request to be allowed casual Fridays. Bear in mind that they were locked in a back room somewhere without any c…

In the late 90s I moved from one country to another. As a part of a job hunt I applied to the local IBM office, because I had some OS/2 mileage. Then promptly got three offers from other places, accepted one and completely forgot about the IBM application.

Not 8 (eight) months later I got a call from their HR saying they'd like to interview me next Thursday. And then they got completely flabergasted when I said I was no longer interested. Don't know what they were smoking, but they were exceptionally full of themselves... while not even offering a good pay.

Re: IBM didn't want Microsoft to use the Tab key to move between dialog fields

#144

Post by spc476 »

xenadu02 wrote: post #119

IBM is also the reason MS-DOS doesn't support "-" for options and why it doesn't have devices in the "\DEV" directory on all drives. Support for "/" as path separator survived though! Many MS folks used Xenix and were fans of Unix and very early DOS had SWITCHCHAR and AVAILDEV config.sys options for these things. But AFAIK IBM threw an absolute fit about it and forced their removal. The DEV issue is specially annoyin…

Microsoft never removed it for MS-DOS. It just undocumented the calls required for this for years.

Re: IBM didn't want Microsoft to use the Tab key to move between dialog fields

#145

Post by kps »

ch_123 wrote: post #126
dylan604 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had never come across the broken bar before. I feel sorry for those that had to suffer these keys. The keyboard keys themselves look like they have about a mile of travel which was probably exhausting as well. I learned to type on clackity clackity arm typewriters, and those keys were I assumed designed by a masochist. These look even worse

The early 3270 keyboards (and the other IBM keyboards from the mid 70s up to the early 80s) are some of the most pleasant keyboards I've typed on in terms of key weighting and tactile feel. The length of travel is comparable to modern mechanical keyboards. The downside is how tall and aggressively angled the keyboards are, which are very far from modern ergonomic standards.

Those beam springs had the second-best feel ever, after the Selectric. Then the Model F cost-reduced (and thickness-reduced) it, and the Model M further.

> The downside is how tall and aggressively angled the keyboards are, which are very far from modern ergonomic standards.

Like a typewriter. And like a typewriter, you were expected to have them on suitable furniture so the keytops were at the right height.

Re: IBM didn't want Microsoft to use the Tab key to move between dialog fields

#146

Post by jjwiseman »

AndrewStephens wrote: post #124

IBM was legendarily over-managed. This is second-hand but a guy I used to work with told a story of when he interned for a summer at IBM in London during the mid-90s doing what would now be called a QA engineering. At that time everyone wore suits to work but the culture was changing so the interns put in a request to be allowed casual Fridays. Bear in mind that they were locked in a back room somewhere without any c…

Mr. Show, "Change for a Dollar": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyocQT4Vn2g

Re: IBM didn't want Microsoft to use the Tab key to move between dialog fields

#147

Post by rbanffy »

MoonWalk wrote: post #138
yndoendo wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks like it they wanted to use their existing special field management keys (field advance and field backspace) with tab being a different user experience. [0] Document does even use the word "Tab". "Field Backspace" seems to duplicate "Home" key usage under some conditions. To be fair, Microsoft & Bill Gates are bad at quality user experience. "Ctrl+F" differs through their applications. [0] https://archive.org…

"To be fair, Microsoft & Bill Gates are bad at quality user experience." In some ways. Gates deserves never-ending enmity for plaguing us with backslashes in paths. But in others, Microsoft advanced the state of UI and UX more than anyone else in the '90s. "Would of?"

> Microsoft advanced the state of UI and UX more than anyone else in the '90s.

There is no universe where that is true.

Re: IBM didn't want Microsoft to use the Tab key to move between dialog fields

#148

Post by rbanffy »

andrewf wrote: post #109
rbanffy wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would guess that using the tab key in this way was part of a patent they were pursuing and Microsoft's use would show this to be 'obvious' and thus not patentable. IBM insisting it not to be tab wouldn’t make sense. Microsoft was working for them and the programs should adhere to the CUA (Common User Access) standard.

OS/2 1.0 and the first edition of the CUA were both released in December 1987 according to Wikipedia; Raymond's story isn't dated but could've happened before this. (If I had to make a wild guess, I could imagine this request was a side effect of some internal IBM battle about what the CUA should dictate).

I imagine this is mostly about form-based applications, GUI or not, before the Microsoft pulled the rug from under IBM.

Re: IBM didn't want Microsoft to use the Tab key to move between dialog fields

#149

Post by tuetuopay »

macintux wrote: post #134
tuetuopay wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its whole purpose is to be remapped as CTRL, as god intended.

It was a sad day (well, presumably pair of days) when Sun & Apple gave up that fight and moved caps lock into that position. Also, Apple definitely had the nubbins correct (D and K) and foolishly surrendered that as well: they're easier to notice when they're under the wrong fingers. With them on F and J, if your hand is offset towards the outside you're forced to notice the absence of the nubs.

Wow I never thought about that, but it makes complete sense. I just tried shifting my hands "as if" the nubs were on D and K and wow, it should have been this way.

Oh well, just like caps lock can be remapped, so can my keycaps be swapped (perks of blank keyboards I guess), though it'd be even harder to use a keyboard that's not mine I guess.

Re: IBM didn't want Microsoft to use the Tab key to move between dialog fields

#150

Post by ux266478 »

Nition wrote: post #120
Henchman21 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’d need to install WSL2 first though!

It's a Linux subsystem for Windows so we'll call it Windows Subsystem For Linux.

To solve this matter, I propose renaming it to WNL:

  WSL is not Linux
Post reply on HN