Errius wrote:

I don't like the W10 UI, but then I also didn't (and still don't) like how Windows 7 merged the taskbar and the quicklaunch panel into a single interface. It really bugged me when I started using it, but I eventually got used to it. The same will probably happen with W10.

I just hacked it to look and work like xp

elite hax

dr_st wrote:

So, what exactly is your claim? That Windows handles USB devices worse than contemporary OSX/Linux? But didn't you just say that it was fixed in XP (2001) and probably also in 2K (1999)? And you're comparing it to "early OS X" (2000-2001), so where's this technology gap?

If, for instance, you could show that macOS/Linux had flawless USB support since 1995, and Microsoft only caught up in 2006, then your claim is valid, yes; but that is not true.

I think we can agree that Microsoft and Intel were pretty much leading the industry to USB -- and the whole plug-n-play paradigm, really. You definitely have to give them some leeway on this front. They were blazing a trail, and of course it wasn't perfect right out of the gate. No problem.

But the handling of drivers was steeped in a "well it's better than DOS" kind of mentality. I think of it as design tunnel-vision, where the technical teams, the UI designers, the vision of the UX as a whole, was limited to juuuuust beyond the current reality. You're right, I'm comparing Linux and OS X at around the time where MS started to figure it out, and so of course they're relatively good. Partly, this is my failing for not having much at all experience with Mac System 9 and earlier. I really don't know how well it handled USB, and from what I understand, Apple was in a dark period there where they had been trying to escape from under the old OS paradigm for a while, unsuccessfully, until OS X finally came out and caught fire. Similarly, I started using Linux around this time as well. Combine that with the fact that Linux was still relatively new, and so lacked sufficient momentum up to that point to be considered feature complete enough for an honest comparison.

To sum up, Microsoft was an authority figure. They had more clout with the industry to make emerging hardware protocols work the way they (MS) thought they should, given the vision for a "just plug it in and it works" future. The hardware was there. We're STILL using it, with only minor enhancements and the inevitable leaps and bounds forward in bandwidth. The device class framework, where you (in theory) don't need special drivers at all, was VERY forward-thinking. So why was the software so inept in comparison? Was the solution they came up with really the best they could do? Others sure got away with a much more user-friendly implementation. Why could the world's dominant software house not reconcile the same technical issues?

dr_st wrote:

So that's just one example I find somewhat flawed (not to mention the rarity of the use case itself; it's not like anyone regularly boots the PC without a keyboard/mouse).

In my exact case, I powered on a Win ME PC that I had previously used with a PS2 keyboard and mouse, and now had a Logitech USB wireless receiver attached. (Which appear as standard HID KB and mouse devices to the OS.) So that is quite a reasonable example. However, it has also happened where something between the PC, KVM, and peripherals just didn't jive and the keyboard wasn't detected. That is probably not so common. At any rate, they are examples only to illustrate the inherent flaw in driver handling - particularly for critical components. The vision had been for years to move people away from discrete serial and parallel interfaces to one simple plug-and-play interface. And they botched the OS' handling of the out-of-the-box experience with USB peripherals.

dr_st wrote:

I'm not going to respond to most of your post, because it's things I've seen dozens of times before - cherry-picking specific points to demonstrate advantages of one OS over another, based on the image one is trying to create

"Give me examples." "You're cherry-picking." OK.

dr_st wrote:

SirNickity wrote:

If you take away practical considerations like hardware support, or the ability to run current software, would a user actually be better off using Windows 10 than, say, Windows 95? I don't really think so. If anything, it's probably a little more straight-forward.

These 'practical considerations' you are willing to take away for the sake of the discussion are not really easy to separate, you know; software and hardware capabilities are tied into the OS in many ways, and part of the UI changes are there to support workflows that simply did not exist in the past, because there were no software/hardware to support them.

Take, for instance, the way Windows 10 has a panel to conveniently manage all your communication devices - WiFi, BT, cellular, NFC, Mobile Hotspot, etc. etc. This does not exist in early Windows UI, because the technologies did not exist; and even if you magically added all the hardware support for this into Win95, you'd still find that its native UI is much more restrictive than that which is currently offered by Win10 for this task. Just one example off the top of my head.

I don't think it's that difficult to separate at all. USB mass storage support was grafted onto Win 98 by a third party. Bluetooth has been grafted onto XP. Linux has been a rolling update since its inception. It doesn't look a whole lot different than it ever did, but has seen sea-changes in hardware, and been ported to all kinds of platforms. As I said before, OS X hasn't aged a day in 20 years, despite seeing all the same changes Windows has. There's nothing preventing (e.g.) Windows 95 from being adapted to modern use cases at all -- and in fact, that's more or less what happened until they cut over to the NT codebase.

So, yeah, you can absolutely separate the kernel and driver layer from the UI -- and that's been my point of this entire thread, really. We keep buying new OSes that are rarely more than a driver update pack (which is valuable), and a re-skin that is of arguable benefit. Why can't THOSE things be decoupled? Major under-the-hood updates, incremental look and feel updates -- and only where it makes sense, makes it genuinely better, or at least some subjective aesthetic benefit. Rather than paying somebody to randomly rearrange the furniture and tell us "this is how it is now -- like it or not."

dr_st wrote:

As I mentioned earlier, I find the ribbon 'good design'. Other software vendors would not have adopted it if it was bad. Can you explain why you think it's bad, other than it was different from what you were used to?

keenmaster486 wrote:

Yeah, here's my list:

This is a very well articulated list of problems with the ribbon design. I used it for a few years and never got used to it. Things I rarely used (say, Outlook signatures) took forever to find, where they were more or less placed in a logical menu somewhere previously. Ultimately, the ribbon tried to marry the forward presence of oft-used shortcuts with having the entire kitchen sink available to you. That's fundamentally flawed design. You can't remove clutter and have all options available simultaneously - they're antithetical goals.

It was obviously a move in preparation for touch UI, which is the other fundamental failure -- thinking you can morph existing applications into touch-friendly ones. Countless flops should have made it abundantly clear that a touch evolution was not in the cards. A touch revolution worked fine, though. (Again, see: iPad.) One size does not fit all. If you haven't heard the 99% Invisible podcast before, there's an episode on the fallacy of "Average" that dovetails nicely into this argument. (Link: https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/on-average) Be a desktop app, or be a touch app -- being both results in a sub-par experience for everyone.

dr_st wrote:

About the screen space on low resolution screens, this is true to an extent, but resolutions already started to go up at that point [...], and in any case, the ribbon can be hidden, so that it appears exactly like the old menu bar.

Resolutions have, but mostly in DPI. The actual perceivable size of a UI element has to stay somewhat constant though, otherwise your interaction with the computer turns into an exercise in hunting pixels. The ribbon consumes a lot of screen real-estate, and the only fix for that is to have more screen. (Not necessarily more resolution.) Well and good except for where size is a constraint. Like a laptop, or a tablet, or a phone, or even just an existing monitor, or the ergonomics of a workstation.

The old toolbars we used to use presented the features we needed most often. Everything else was in the menus, in logical groups. Available if you needed it, hidden if you didn't. What sense does it make to reclaim screen real-estate by hiding ALL features -- those used often, and those used rarely -- just to fix the problem created by trying in vain to move every option into the forefront? It's backwards logic.

Some others DID follow in the ribbon footsteps, but not really many. Browser UIs have actually gone more minimal. We discovered swipes and long-taps and 3D-touch on mobile devices. Somebody invented the hamburger menu. About the only place I see ribbon-inspired UIs is in Microsoft applications -- and only legacy ones really at that -- and those born and baptized in the Microsoft ecosystem.

It could well be my own perception, but the honest reality that I perceive is that the industry kind of decided en masse it wasn't the next big thing in UI design. Users vocally hated it, then learned to tolerate it for lack of options, and then either moved on with their lives or used something else. I can't agree that acceptance is the same thing as truly embracing it.

gdjacobs wrote:

luckybob wrote:

While I agree win10 is a step(or two) backward for the power user, being a snob about it makes you as bad as the Linux circlejerk.

Who benefits from having two distinct sets of control panels? Who benefits from a radical disorganization and cluttering of the Start menu? This isn't snobbery, it's common sense.

Without users, there's no point in designing software. Without bearing in mind the needs of the user, software is designed solely for the whims of the developer. It's actually the height of arrogance to say you, as a developer, know more about how a user should use their computer than the user themselves. I mean, I do understand sometimes people don't know what they really want, or want something that can't be done in reality, but this is not the case here. It's not snobbery to say "I don't like having control wrested away from me, increasingly with every release." There are ways to reduce supportability concerns without locking the user out of his own computer. If you have to convince your users that something is better.... perhaps it really isn't?

TL;DR

Ubuntu Unity annoyed a lot of Linux users, IIRC

Why are PS/2 ports returning to motherboards? I saw somewhere that it has something to do with the removal of USB 2 and that USB 3 doesn't work well at POST/startup?

I've used server boards for decades. They always have ps/2. You now have to choose in the bios between kb/mouse but its there. So there has always been a segment that need/wants it. Also "pro" gamers still want to use PS/2 for reasons like true nkro and latency. Supposedly, those days are behind me.

Many new gaming mobos still have a PS/2 port

The model M sure has gotten some mileage. ^.^

Apparently the circuitry for PS/2 (and serial, parallel ports and floppy disks) is baked into the I/O chips used by all PC compatibles, even when the ports and connectors aren't present, and the OS doesn't support them.

Errius wrote:

Why are PS/2 ports returning to motherboards? I saw somewhere that it has something to do with the removal of USB 2 and that USB 3 doesn't work well at POST/startup?

This is what kept me from installing Win 7 on a newish motherboard. Booted fine once I figured out the EFI settings, but there was literally no way to click past the welcome dialog.

If Linux was any easier to use, rather than reaching for the nose through the back of the head for every solution you are trying to make for the unnecessary problems, people would have abandoned Windows ecosystem long ago.

Windows is still the easiest platform for the end-users. Programs just need to be clicked on the. EXE file to install. Everything is ready to be used. The majority of applications are on Windows. The better emulators I use are in Windows. Hence, I still can't let go of a version of Windows in my systems, though, I do have Linux installed in all of them.

SirNickity wrote:

Errius wrote:

Why are PS/2 ports returning to motherboards? I saw somewhere that it has something to do with the removal of USB 2 and that USB 3 doesn't work well at POST/startup?

This is what kept me from installing Win 7 on a newish motherboard. Booted fine once I figured out the EFI settings, but there was literally no way to click past the welcome dialog.

slipstream the USB 3.0 drivers, problem solved

SirNickity wrote:

ZellSF wrote:

Sounds pretty harmless to me.

Sure it does. Because you're not affected by it.

The time I've spent making my computer behave like Windows 98 (with some improvements) and the troubles I have using anyone else's computer (which I have to do all the time) says it does affect me.

SirNickity wrote:

Windows Explorer got a little more cumbersome as of Win 7, using up more screen real-estate with the introduction of the ribbon.

Uh, the ribbon was introduced in Windows 8 and was really just readding the toolbar from Windows XP in a more organized format with more important actions.

As for "using up more screen real-estate", this only matters to a very, very small amount of people. To most people having larger icons and descriptive text helps them find things much faster.

SirNickity wrote:

On that note (file managers) -- in comparison, the Mac Finder changed a little in OS X 10.3, and then a little more in uh, ... Lion (10.7) I think? But it's not that much different from today, really. Just kinda periodically refreshed. Apple mostly added convenience features like Expose or the Dashboard (equivalent to Gadgets or Active Desktop -- but actually stuck around). Under the hood, the OS added hardware support and adapted to new web and media technology. Pretty much what you actually need from an OS.

Have you seen people using macOS's finder? They have a much harder time managing their files than Windows users, because Finder is shit precisely because it hasn't seen much improvements in a long while. Probably intentionally, to push people towards iCloud.

SirNickity wrote:

(Snow Leopard, Lion, and Mountain Lion cost me $20 each. Everything after was, and still is, free.)

Nothing is free.

ZellSF wrote:

The time I've spent making my computer behave like Windows 98 (with some improvements) and the troubles I have using anyone else's computer (which I have to do all the time) says it does affect me.

Other than some daemon running which randomly blue screens you, surely this is purely a GUI skin/theme? What behavior are you trying to replicate?

ZellSF wrote:

Have you seen people using macOS's finder? They have a much harder time managing their files than Windows users, because Finder is shit precisely because it hasn't seen much improvements in a long while.Probably intentionally, to push people towards iCloud.

Elaborate? Works pretty much the same as file explorer afaict. It's down to the user where they put their files, not the file manager? Both FileExplorer and Finder present this in pretty similar fashions, or am I missing something?

ZellSF wrote:

Nothing is free.

if the service is free, you're the product 🤣

In the next week or two, I will be recieving an Lenovo X220 laptop. And no, not going to install any Win10 or Win7 on that. These past nearly 4 years of running Xubuntu, have taught me to not go back to Windows on my daily driver. I doo get a lot of the talking points here, yet the most concerning thing about Win10 (besides the survailance thingy) is all these issues that have been with the updates the last 2 years or so. MS really know how to botch updates. Issue this and issue that. Updates that break something in the system. That shit is not fun... And is actually the greatest insult and smack in any Win10 users face. Have anyone demanded any form of compensation out there in the bussiness world, regarding updates that break the system and result in lost productivity? Time is money in the business world after all. Then never mind me, not being able to use the Win10 GUI. 😁 😁 No seriously... I have not had any updates, breaking anything on my Xubuntu installation, and I am running the same installation that I did some 4 years ago. The best part, is that I have not been forced to install any update at all, as I can choose to install them whenever I feel like it. And the even better part, is that any and every piece of software installed on my system, can be updated through the system update. Well... That is the Linux way. Perhaps MacOS and Unix as well. I have not that much experience with updates as such on those systems.

brostenen wrote:

In the next week or two, I will be recieving an Lenovo X220 laptop.

Dang. I have been eyeing these myself on eBay. I love the old style keyboards.

keenmaster486 wrote:

brostenen wrote:

In the next week or two, I will be recieving an Lenovo X220 laptop.

Dang. I have been eyeing these myself on eBay. I love the old style keyboards.

And for free.... As well as my girlfriend. She will get an X230.
It is my father in law, that have gotten new machines, and he has some he will donate to us.

Currently, my daily driver is a Lenovo Thinkpad R61, and my girlfriends daily driver is an Lenovo Thinkpad R500.
The R61 is from around 2007 or something, as far as I remember. Still fast enough for Vogons, email and such stuff.

spiroyster wrote:

ZellSF wrote:

The time I've spent making my computer behave like Windows 98 (with some improvements) and the troubles I have using anyone else's computer (which I have to do all the time) says it does affect me.

Other than some daemon running which randomly blue screens you, surely this is purely a GUI skin/theme? What behavior are you trying to replicate?

I've only discussed UI, so yes, it's mostly customizing the UI, classic start menu, removing all the features I don't want from everywhere. Lots of minor stuff that all adds up whenever I have to set up a new computer. Getting rid of the ribbon entirely (not just minimizing it) takes like 5 minutes by itself. Figuring out how to do it obviously took longer.

spiroyster wrote:

ZellSF wrote:

Have you seen people using macOS's finder? They have a much harder time managing their files than Windows users, because Finder is shit precisely because it hasn't seen much improvements in a long while.Probably intentionally, to push people towards iCloud.

Elaborate? Works pretty much the same as file explorer afaict. It's down to the user where they put their files, not the file manager? Both FileExplorer and Finder present this in pretty similar fashions, or am I missing something?

If you simplify it to that extent, then Windows 3.11's File Manager is pretty much the same thing as Windows 10's File Explorer too. Yes they're fundamentally the same things, but there are a lot of differences between them.

But if you look at screenshots and look at me defending File Explorer for having "larger icons and descriptive text" you'll quickly see one of my complaints: Finder has small grayscale icons with no descriptive text by default. And not a whole lot of useful actions either.

ZellSF wrote:

I've only discussed UI, so yes, it's mostly customizing the UI, classic start menu, removing all the features I don't want from everywhere. Lots of minor stuff that all adds up whenever I have to set up a new computer. Getting rid of the ribbon entirely (not just minimizing it) takes like 5 minutes by itself. Figuring out how to do it obviously took longer.

I'm intrigued, any documentation on this?

Shame they got rid of the classic theme, I used that basically all the way up to Windows8. And window blinds doesn't seem to have the skinning flexabilty it used to. booo.

ZellSF wrote:

If you simplify it to that extent, then Windows 3.11's File Manager is pretty much the same thing as Windows 10's File Explorer too. Yes they're fundamentally the same things, but there are a lot of differences between them.

But if you look at screenshots and look at me defending File Explorer for having "larger icons and descriptive text" you'll quickly see one of my complaints: Finder has small grayscale icons with no descriptive text by default. And not a whole lot of useful actions either.

Fair enough, personally those little details I seem to skip over and don't present a problem to me. I use both Finder and Explorer and don't feel like they are much different. Apart from VS code/studio, explorer is probably my most used feature of Windows10. Other than that I am still a command line junkie and my daily routine once started up involves WindowsKey+R, type "cmd" (actually its "powershell" these days), and this has been the same for me for the past 15 years. In this sense there hasn't really been much that has affected me each iteration other than Explorer changing it's look and odd regkey location change which even MS seem happy to do every now and then which breaks programs (even MS ones 🤣).

OT though, I'm on the Windows Insider program, and have been using Windows 10 since RTM (so about 4 years now). I can honestly say, other than a catastrophic GUI screw up after an update (although Windows continued to work fine), which was subsequently fixed by a reinstall, it's been the most stable Windows I have used... and pretty fast. Same could be said for Windows 8 ime, but I can't say this for any previous version of Windows (apart from Win2K, which also only fataly crashed on me once). MetroUI doesn't offend me like it does others. imo If it's that much a show stopper for a user... they need to look at other ways of doing it. I think hardware is a big factor... I've always used enterprise hardware (and pretty much always Dell's) and its never really presented me any major problem. OEM's get a bad rap, but top end OEM hardware are always powerhouses... very little character, but they get the job done. Which is what is important.

SirNickity wrote:

I think we can agree that Microsoft and Intel were pretty much leading the industry to USB -- and the whole plug-n-play paradigm, really. You definitely have to give them some leeway on this front. They were blazing a trail, and of course it wasn't perfect right out of the gate. No problem.

Texas Instruments did it first with the TI-99 series well over a decade before and were pushing it further with their follow up when it got shut down along with the TI-99 thanks to the price war from trameil's grudge he had against TI.