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

How did the Win 95 user interface code get brought to the Windows NT code base?

devblogs.microsoft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 114 posts

Re: How did the Win 95 user interface code get brought to the Windows NT code base?

#91

Post by Two9A »

NooneAtAll3 wrote: post #80
kevstev wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The equivalent in the win world to obscure command line settings is the registry. There is a whole heap of documented and undocumented config in there. 99% of the time you don't really need to go in there, but its often the more automatable way and occasionally you will find some fun options.

and unsuprisingly that's considered one of the worst parts of windows

Mm, I still recall the time my Windows 98 installation corrupted its registry somehow. The only fix was to reinstall, and the machine had no floppy or CD drive... getting Windows back on there was a task.

Re: How did the Win 95 user interface code get brought to the Windows NT code base?

#92

Post by BruceEel »

k12sosse wrote: post #90
BruceEel wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes please! Speaking of which, was it Window Blinds(?) that could back/forward port UI themes across various Windows versions? Are they still around?

Yes and it's a subscription based license now.. of course

good heavens - can any thing or any one escape the subscription madness

Re: How did the Win 95 user interface code get brought to the Windows NT code base?

#93

Post by sho_hn »

darkwater wrote: post #25
sho_hn wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow! I am stunned how wrong that feels. I remember adopting git in the first year, and it still feels fairly recent. That it only took 10 years from Win95 to git, and 20 years from git to now, is truly uncanny. Win95 feels like a genuinely old thing and git like a fairly recent thing.

I don't know how old are you bit if you are in your 40s it's s just because you were a kid when Win95 came out and time seems longer when you are a kid (less routine, everything new, more attention all the time etc)

Probably a mix of this, and also that it feels like there have been many strikingly different milestones for Windows as a product since Win95, while git is not fundamentally different since 2006/07, or at least change has been far more gradual. Windows is so storied it feels older.

Re: How did the Win 95 user interface code get brought to the Windows NT code base?

#94

Post by Daviey »

ayaros wrote: post #56
nolok wrote: post #18

It's always funny to me, the more you go into the depth of windows settings, the older the UI that start to show up. Which makes sense, between the "if we change it we break it in some subtle way" and "we don't expose that in UI anymore so the new panel doesn't have it". My understanding is that windows want to move to a "you can't configure much of anything, unless you use group policy and then you set everything th…

One thing I appreciate about Windows is (in my experience at least) you almost never have to go into the command line to change a weird setting. There's always a toggle in the GUI somewhere . I mean, I'll use the command line if I have to... I just like the fact that the supported options are enumerated visually; I don't have to worry I'll break something. Also, I can peruse through a place like the group policy edit…

Interestingly, I feel polar opposite to you. Digging through a clunky GUI, going multiple levels deep, to find a tick box is annoying.. When I can just run a single one-line to achieve what I need. I suppose different strokes..

Re: How did the Win 95 user interface code get brought to the Windows NT code base?

#95

Post by Daviey »

psunavy03 wrote: post #88
knome wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate linux for the inverse reason. Because everything is either a nice text based config file or a command line tool, scripting changes to settings and automating things is a breeze.

That works for technical folks, but it's also a barrier to Linux adoption when too many things require dropping to a Bash terminal and dorking around. Try getting Grandma or Katie from HR to be able to do that . . .

It's a barrier not because it is hard, but because people are not familiar with it. Ask a non-technical user using the GUI to edit their display settings and they'll be equally flummoxed.

Re: How did the Win 95 user interface code get brought to the Windows NT code base?

#96

Post by smegger001 »

psunavy03 wrote: post #88
knome wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate linux for the inverse reason. Because everything is either a nice text based config file or a command line tool, scripting changes to settings and automating things is a breeze.

That works for technical folks, but it's also a barrier to Linux adoption when too many things require dropping to a Bash terminal and dorking around. Try getting Grandma or Katie from HR to be able to do that . . .

Grandma, if she is on linux I probably set it up for her and left myself ssh access so I can update/fix it for her. Katie from HR shouldn't touch settings she should file a ticket and wait for the helpdesk monkey or IT to fix it.

Re: How did the Win 95 user interface code get brought to the Windows NT code base?

#97

Post by kevstev »

Two9A wrote: post #91
NooneAtAll3 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and unsuprisingly that's considered one of the worst parts of windows

Mm, I still recall the time my Windows 98 installation corrupted its registry somehow. The only fix was to reinstall, and the machine had no floppy or CD drive... getting Windows back on there was a task.

No floppy or CD? You were just asking for trouble then IMHO. It was common to have to reinstall windows every 6-9 months in the win9x days. That didn't even really work for ME, but by then win2000 came in to save the day. Software was primarily distributed on CD those days, being without a CD drive must have been a huge hardship.

Re: How did the Win 95 user interface code get brought to the Windows NT code base?

#99

Post by ACS_Solver »

butlike wrote: post #86
ACS_Solver wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perforce is standard in gamedev currently. As a programmer first and foremost, I prefer git but I've certainly come to appreciate the advantages of Perforce and it's an overall better fit for (bigger) game projects.

Does it do better handling of larger files, like game assets?

Yes, Perforce handles large files, and large folders of files, very well. It's quite efficient with deltas in binary files. It's also very useful that Perforce expects clients to check out only a part of the depot. There are folders with raw assets like uncompressed sound, layered graphics and all that, I don't check out any of that, I only check out the necessary in-engine assets.

For code, I prefer git as I said, but in a game's depot most files are not code, and Perforce is built around handling those other assets well.

Re: How did the Win 95 user interface code get brought to the Windows NT code base?

#100

Post by askonomm »

kevstev wrote: post #97
Two9A wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mm, I still recall the time my Windows 98 installation corrupted its registry somehow. The only fix was to reinstall, and the machine had no floppy or CD drive... getting Windows back on there was a task.

No floppy or CD? You were just asking for trouble then IMHO. It was common to have to reinstall windows every 6-9 months in the win9x days. That didn't even really work for ME, but by then win2000 came in to save the day. Software was primarily distributed on CD those days, being without a CD drive must have been a huge hardship.

I vividly remember having to reinstall Windows also in the XP days at least once a year due to malware or due to anti-malware software slowly strangling the OS.
Post reply on HN