Why Win3.1 UI is so based?
>>55225664
I am curious to know as well, because to me it doesn't appear based at all.
>>55225664
It's shit.
>>55225664
>no taskbar
No friend. Just. No.
Win95 GUI > Win 3.1 GUI any day of the week
>>55225761
I prefered the no taskbar full screen approach of W31, it actually allowed you to get more done. If you hide the taskbar today, you still now that it is there. I guess it's all in my head.
>>55225886
> If you hide the taskbar today, you still now that it is there. I guess it's all in my head.
Are you 4?
>>55225664
copycat of NeXTSTEP mixed with a bit of macintosh/lisa ui
>>55227078
>not like any of those GUIs
Win 3.1 was its own, unique piece of shit.
>>55225664
The only people who say this are people who haven't used it since they were 3 years old in 1994
Go set it up again in PCem or get yourself a nice 486 so you can see what a failed abortion it really is. Even 95 was a godsend compared to that shit.
>>55227078
NeXTSTEP is nothing like Windows at all, if anything 3.x is closer to classical Unix interfaces like olwm and mwm, but it even manages to fuck those ideas up.
>>55225664
It's not.
I like the way large parts of it look, particularly when you use All3D to make it more consistent.
Shit, I can even use it pretty comfortably (I'll occasionally fire up 3.1 to fuck around with using VB1, which may or may not have been why Windows got so popular, it's so fucking easy to use, any idiot could think of a program and then go and make it in VB1, with some limits).
but the Program Manager and File Manager are complete piles of garbage
The fucking bare-bones as shit Windows 1/2 file manager is almost nicer (but only almost), there's a damn good reason why alternate shells for Windows were popular during the Windows 2 and 3 period, and if you'd used any other system of the day (the Amiga, the Mac, the Atari ST or whatever, nearly anything but a Unix machine with X), you'd wonder why the fuck the Windows UI was so bad for file management.
Minimize to desktop is also a miserable idea (Windows 1 gets it right by having a dedicated space for minimized icons, 2 and 3 fuck up since you can cover them and IIRC there's no quick way to immediately show the desktop in 2 or 3.x -- at least you can alt-tab in 3).
It's amazing how much Windows 95 gets right, considering how much 3.x gets wrong.
I'm continually amazed that Windows 3 got so damn popular while still being such a mess to use for ordinary people. Seriously -- there's stories about if you so much as moved someone's Program Manager window or minimized a window back to an icon, they'd freak out about how you messed up Windows itself or deleted their programs.
>>55227213
I used mwm as a WM for ages because it was so damn familiar. IIRC, all the key shortcuts for window management were used in Windows 2 (Windows 3 drops a bunch).
Window management in Windows 2 and 3 is damn close to using mwm (no iconbox option though, sadly).
The problem with Win 3's UI is really that Program and File Manager are fucking awful, and they're your main ways to interact with the system.
>>55227116
>>55227078
If you'd ask me, it look more like AmigaOS, specially if you maximize Program Manager.
Even the way that running applications are depicted in Program Manager as icons and you still use a drop down menu of the Program Manager, not as pretty as the one in Mac OS or AmigaOS tho.
>>55227116
Windows 3 is hilarious in general.
Particularly dumb shit: Windows 3.1 on a 386 or better will properly preemptively multitask multiple DOS windows, but actual Windows programs are still stuck with cooperative multitasking, period.
IIRC, this is because it's running Windows as its own big-ass monolithic process, which then loads and runs programs inside, and it loads a separate copy of DOS for each DOS program to run, and it multitasks between all of them.
Windows 9x does this too, extended with Win32 programs being preempted (due to the API change, MS was able to let this happen without giving each Windows program its own copy of Windows to run on).
>>55227430
>The problem with Win 3's UI is really that Program and File Manager are fucking awful, and they're your main ways to interact with the system.
Pretty much, and the UI in general is excessively bloated, even 1280x1024 feels like 640x480 on that shit.
>>55227582
>AmigaOS
oh boy, here we go, not that shit again...
>>55225664
>Amiga
>Windows
Dead OS general?
>>55225664
It's not, you know it's not, you're just a fucking retard making a shit thread.
>>55225664
Win95 is objectively superior because it was the ONE time microsoft really did some research:
http://www.sigchi.org/chi96/proceedings/desbrief/Sullivan/kds_txt.htm
>>55228867
>Amiga
>Windows
>Dead OS'es
They both literary get updates all the time.
>>55228902
And that was the last great UI to come out of microsoft.
>>55227078
you forgot motif - the layout of the window buttons and resize corners, double clicking to close, and alt-f4, all come from motif.
>>55229228
it was the only great UI to come from them
Shit, even firing up Windows 95 today feels... nice. It's to the point, most actions are pretty clear, it's hard to get lost in.
>>55227640
It's not too terribly bloated.
Well, File Manager isn't, and other application programs make reasonable use of screen space.
Program Manager isn't good with space at all though, it always feels cramped.
>>55229295
How old are motif and mwm anyway? Wikipedia only menations "early 1980s"
>>55229139
>They both literary get updates all the time.
>literary
>>55229369
Yes, the updates exist and are frequent aka all the time, not just a update here or there once a decade.
>>55229368
You could peruse the source code and check the earliest date.
>>55229355
> it was the only great UI to come from them
Too sad they got rid of it.
Maybe it's a baby duck syndrome, but I consider the one-column Start menu the best thing in Windows UI ever.
Apollo Display Manager, 1981
>>55225761
>>no taskbar
Just like gnome 3 then.
>>55229393
>literary
I remember installing win3.1 after only Dos. Was a small revolution. You still had to fiddle with Dos a lot (config.sys and autoexec.bat, how i miss you - NOT) but it sure changed computing.
>>55229515
Yes, literary, as I just wrote those letters on the screen, can't be any more literar.
>>55229481
Look at that, Null Process, aka System Idle Process, even back then.
>>55229708
>literar
>>55230041
I just can't wait to see how long you keep shitposting.
>literar
>>55227045
Kek
>>55225664
it was a golden age
>>55231734
It was a step back and not golden.
>>55232192
MDI windows?
>>55227116
Everybody ripped of Xerox.
>>55232247
You know XEROX ripped their ideas off too?
There where idea's for a pointing device and GUI concepts like that before XEROX.
>>55230119
>literar
>literar
>LITERAR
>>55232366
LITERAR.rar
>>55232192
>transparency
>rounded corners
Because Susan Kare designed the icons, like she did for the Macintosh almost a decade earlier.
>>55232776
What icons?
I have fond memories of Win3.11.
Do you know how to start it? I'm not telling.
>>55232776
What icons did she do before the Macintosh?
>>55232846
Same way you start 95 or 98
>>55225664
Because outside of wallpaper, the space behind "program manager" wasn't even a functional thought. No wonder Dave cutler came in and kicked holes in the drywall at that fucking insane asylum. (lush, pine smelling asylum that it was...)
>>55232877
or 1.0 or 2.0
>>55232247
>>55232899
What was retarded for even being able to change the size of program manager.
>>55232914
wtf?
>>55232830
Many (most?) of them.
>>55232868
None. "Computer GUI designer/artist" wasn't a thing before the Mac.
>>55227430
Actually, I like the "minimize to desktop" idea, except of course Win 3.1 used a nondescript icon instead of a thumbnail of the window. Think about it, when you're working on shit, you have whatever you're working on on your desktop. Not shortcuts to pens and typewriters.
>>55232977
The biggest problem is that it's not easily accessible. Minimize to desktop means you can cover your minimized icons with a window (particularly in the extremely common case of having a maximized window).
>>55233029
Yeah, but you can use a "show desktop" button/keyboard combo to showcase all open windows/programs a la expose. Expose should've been default starting with vista at least.
>>55233046
Dragging out your Vista opinion counts as an hero
>>55232977
If a program wanted to draw in its icon it could. Clock did it. I can't remember any others, I don't think there were any other first-party ones.
>>55225761
Why did microshit bloat windows so much? windows 95 with internet explorer extensions on the explorer was perfection, they should have focused on fixing bugs from there on. I mean, the difference between XP and 95 is just looks, but somehow these looks take over 1GB and the other does not.
>>55233612
>The difference between XP and 95 is looks
no.
>>55233612
>the difference between XP and 95 is just looks,
Are you real?
>>55233679
unless you are a sysadmin, then you dont need more than 15 services that shit has running in the background, while taking much more space and resources than fucking windows 95.
>>55233303
Vista brought DWM, and os level compositing. You could have live thumbnails of any app. That's why I mentioned it, I like it no more than you do.
>>55233713
Win95 can't handle as much memory as WinXP can.
>>55227430
>I'm continually amazed that Windows 3 got so damn popular while still being such a mess to use for ordinary people.
Well, when you really think about it...
The average well-used DOS system was an absolute clusterfuck back then, with the command-line file management tools being absolutely fucking awful and everyone and their mother desigining their software to dump everything straight into the root directory, good luck remembering what software you had installed, let alone where the files you created with it were stored if you hadn't accessed either in a while. Though you could rig up a menuing system, that was often pretty time consuming, and while a lot of them could automatically find what you had installed, they would usually just spit out a bunch of garbage this way.
When you look at Windows 3 this way, it's still shit, but in a "shit in a bag vs. shit in your hands" kind of shit, it presented your applications in a much nicer and more manageable format, and while multitasking capability was fucking braindead due to the shit interface, most users didn't give a shit about that since they usually used computers to do a single task at a time, and combined with how much more convenient the Windows versions of software tended to be, there was a pretty clear advantage in using it over straight DOS.
File management was fucking trash, but it's still better than DOS. I find it much more convenient when I'm messing around on my 486 to just drag a folder from one place to another and have everything handled for me instead of trying to remember the difference between different "copy" variants and the arguments required to accomplish what I need to do, I could only imagine how much more annoying it was for a typical user.
tl;dr: OP is an ultrafaggot and Win3 was fucking shit, but in context, it's not totally impossible to understand why it took off so well
>>55225664
All version 3 software is shit.
Just saying...
>>55235499
uses kernel version 3
>>55235499
What was KDE 3?
>>55235511
Version 3 is where systemd infected the kernel. There is no version 4, it is just a lie.
>>55233612
>>55233713
Protected mode for $800, Alex.
>>55235511
>hurr durr uses kernel version 3
>says all version 3 software is shit
>hurp durp I wonder if he thinks kernel version 3 is shit too
>>55235551
>implying KDE was ever good.
KDE is the lolOpera of desktop managers.
98% of the stuff included isn't needed or wanted and of that only 10% worked properly.
>>55235555
Did you link post to two of them for a reason? They were pretty obvious.
if you could take OP's autism away, would you do it?
>>55225664
>based
>>55235627
KDE 1 and 2 where epic, 3 was meh, now it's shit.
>>55235679
wouwie
>>55232846
didn't you have to type in: lose?
Needs workplace shell to really shine.
