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

91–100 of 121 posts

Re: Windows UI evolution: Clicking an unassociated file

#91

Post by rkagerer »

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…

With those slower drives, programmers tended to be more careful about not wasting those preciously expensive I/O's - they had to put more care into architecture, often resulting in more optimized, efficient code. And since lags were expected, they handled waits more elegantly - hence the hourglasses and such. This immediate feedback even when there was a delay is what made the experience feel more responsive.

Modern apps that ship with browser engines just to show some UI are hugely bloated by comparison.

You also didn't have dozens of different telemetry, update, crash collection etc. services constantly running in the background eating up resources and I/O's. Go into Event Viewer, Services, and Scheduled Tasks on a pre-Win7 era workstation and you see how much less crowded it is.

Re: Windows UI evolution: Clicking an unassociated file

#93

Post by nailer »

1bpp wrote: post #81

What were the internal politics at Microsoft at the time that resulted in the .NET branding being pushed more aggressively than Copilot today, everywhere from the login screen to file associations?

Not ex-Microsoft, please answer if you are, but fear of Java becoming a universal runtime.

Re: Windows UI evolution: Clicking an unassociated file

#94

Post by nailer »

BirAdam wrote: post #62
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.

It was change. People don’t like change.

It was directional and trendy - which meant it was short lasting. Like building your UI based on floaty 3D shapes 5 years ago, except these days it's much easier to change when you start to look silly.

Re: Windows UI evolution: Clicking an unassociated file

#95

Post by inigyou »

BirAdam wrote: post #62
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.

It was change. People don’t like change.

Ah, yeah, I can see how if you had worked with the 9x theme for 10 years you'd prefer it didn't change. (Conversely I don't think anyone is clamoring for the 3.1 theme back) But XP did include that theme and it was pretty simple to select it.

Re: Windows UI evolution: Clicking an unassociated file

#96

Post by Telaneo »

jameshart wrote: post #71
freeone3000 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Put an SSD and a modern emulation behind Windows 98 and it flies . You’re excusing inefficient software because it was paired with improved hardware.

But it didn’t do much? This was an OS where plugging in a USB device required a reboot. Where connecting to the Internet required running winsock. Where most of the software had hard 16bit limits like the max size of file notepad could open being 32k and excel having 65535 rows. It wasn’t efficient it was limited . It was an offline OS for an offline era. It ran trusted software (everything it ran was something the u…

> This was an OS where plugging in a USB device required a reboot. Where connecting to the Internet required running winsock. Where most of the software had hard 16bit limits like the max size of file notepad could open being 32k and excel having 65535 rows.

Then just jump ahead to WinXP. It too flies if you put it on an SSD, and has solved all of your problems. It ran fine on a Pentium III (MS's minimum req is a Pentium 233, a Pentium III is more than twice as fast).

Now we have computers that are over 300 times faster than that, but yet we're still stuck baseline stuff like 'how make ui not be slow'.

Re: Windows UI evolution: Clicking an unassociated file

#97

Post by jamesfinlayson »

tentacleuno wrote: post #4

I imagine that the database for the online file association service for Windows XP has been lost to time, but for those who remember it: was it any good? It seems like quite a good idea now -- if I remember correctly, Windows as of current seems to suggest a generic Bing search, which brings up all the spam "What extension is XXX?" sites. That could have changed; I haven't really used Windows after 11's debut.

I thought in the deep dark paste it used to take you to filext.com but it's been probably 20 years since I intentionally clicked on the link.

Re: Windows UI evolution: Clicking an unassociated file

#98

Post by jamesfinlayson »

badsectoracula wrote: post #49
jameshart wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

For a long time i had a small Pentium III PC (released in 2000, though the hardware inside wasn't the best you could get at the time as it was meant to be compact instead of performant - it was in an almost pizzabox sized case) running Windows 98 for retro games and software (though mainly games). At some point i installed Visual Studio 6 to it too - and IME it launched instantly[0]. In general everything ran fast ..…

No idea if it's true but I remember that people are still using the Visual Studio 6 IDE because it's so much faster than the latest Visual Studio (though using latest Visual Studio compiler).

Re: Windows UI evolution: Clicking an unassociated file

#99

Post by jameshart »

Telaneo wrote: post #96
jameshart wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it didn’t do much? This was an OS where plugging in a USB device required a reboot. Where connecting to the Internet required running winsock. Where most of the software had hard 16bit limits like the max size of file notepad could open being 32k and excel having 65535 rows. It wasn’t efficient it was limited . It was an offline OS for an offline era. It ran trusted software (everything it ran was something the u…

> This was an OS where plugging in a USB device required a reboot. Where connecting to the Internet required running winsock. Where most of the software had hard 16bit limits like the max size of file notepad could open being 32k and excel having 65535 rows. Then just jump ahead to WinXP. It too flies if you put it on an SSD, and has solved all of your problems. It ran fine on a Pentium III (MS's minimum req is a Pen…

You can’t just move the goalposts like that. OP claimed win9x was ‘peak windows’. If you concede it wasn’t great but then want to say WinXP was ‘peak windows’ (good luck making that claim stick with anyone who remembers it) you’re making a different claim.

Re: Windows UI evolution: Clicking an unassociated file

#100

Post by Telaneo »

jameshart wrote: post #99
Telaneo wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This was an OS where plugging in a USB device required a reboot. Where connecting to the Internet required running winsock. Where most of the software had hard 16bit limits like the max size of file notepad could open being 32k and excel having 65535 rows. Then just jump ahead to WinXP. It too flies if you put it on an SSD, and has solved all of your problems. It ran fine on a Pentium III (MS's minimum req is a Pen…

You can’t just move the goalposts like that. OP claimed win9x was ‘peak windows’. If you concede it wasn’t great but then want to say WinXP was ‘peak windows’ (good luck making that claim stick with anyone who remembers it) you’re making a different claim.

The goalpost to me is 'An OS doesn't need to doesn't feel like shit on reasonable hardware'. Windows 95 does that with flying colours. So does XP. The only reason they ever felt slow was because they were on mechanical drives. If everything you had open was in RAM and you didn't need to swap to disk, they both worked great. Now there are SSDs, so that problem went away, but modern Windows and many common programs managed make that problem come back despite SSDs and modern processor being lightning fast. And it's not like doing that is impossible. There are modern programs that manage to make good use of the hardware.

There's not much I can see that prevents us from having both a UI that doesn't feel like shit and is featureful. Linux isn't too far off in many cases. The whole idea that modern Windows is slow because it's packed with features is one I reject.

Post reply on HN