Slashdot Mirror
GUIs From 1984 to the Present
alewar writes "This nice gallery shows the evolution in the appearance of Mac OS, Microsoft Windows and KDE through the years, from the first version to the last available. Not technical, but still interesting to recall some memories from the good old days."
There is only one thing I like more than desktop screenshot timelines, and that is when image links that are 320x240 pixel size take me to an image that is 400x300 pixels in size when I click on it.
Oh yeah, and where is the fucking Amiga desktop screenshot assholes?
Man, must be a slowwwww news day...
Here is a link to a better timeline:
http://toastytech.com/guis/guitimeline.html Toasty Tech has some spiffy screenshots of various GUIs.
Ah, the memories...
Accentuate the positive, don't waste your mod points on the negative.
And just where is the blue screen of death
OSX 10.1 looks better than Vista!
I spend most of my time in bed, darling.
A lot of the screenshots show highly customized desktops (look at the KDE 3.5 shot), which makes a comparison difficult. They're also all in low-resoultion JPEG format, which seems an odd choice...
The picture shown for System 5 is not a Mac system, rather it's a version of the Apple IIGS desktop.
The picture labelled as System 6 is a version of System 7, not System 6.
Another good site to look at for GUI history is Nathan Whitehorn's "GUI Gallery" here: The GUI Gallery. I like it because Nathan is actively developing it. He actually loads and runs these various environments before writing about them.
Either that, or that boy has way too much time on his hands :-)
-ScottMy other sig is a Glock
Verry nice gallery to see, look at the difference between MS and apple too see that apple was far further developed earlier... But I miss gnome!! :)
It's GS/OS on an Apple IIGS. What a noob. :)
funny, the very first apple GUI looks just like Xerox workstation. Anyone remembers those? With Xerox network protocol (was it XNS?).
The 'O' in the MS logo from 1985 kinda looks like a goatse..
An inclusive statement like that should include GUIs from the early 60s (SKETCHPAD) through the Englebart demo through Xerox Star, GEOS on the C64, the Amiga Workbench, Atari GEM, etc... Why only show the PC and Mac?
Mostly random stuff.
It would have been nice to see some pics of the Amiga GUIs, year by year to show how much nicer they were at the time compared to Apple's and Microsoft's.
DEAD DEAD DEAD DELETE ME
1994:
> ls -a
1997:
~ ls -a
1998:
tardis ~ ls -a
2001:
[kll@apocalypse] ls -a
2004:
[kll@helios] ssh apocalypse hostname
apocalypse
2006:
[kll@xm-fc5-001] ssh localhost
password:
Virtual Machine - FC5 - Image 001
Be nice!
Small pictures, no captions, HUGE omissions, screenshots of OSes not even out yet... why was this posted again?
when comes to KDE at least. Since with enough effort, KDE can look like any of those. Not a Gnome user myself, but some screenshots of it would have been nice for comparison at least.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
I might add that there is a distinct lack of console love as well. I demand equal treatment for bash! Show me the ~$
Before you were born:
After you are dead:
Think of the Children; Sleep with your Sister
They forgot DESQview, the preferred environment for running your BBS software
Would be interesting to see os2, beos, and maybe even pda screens, X (xfree and others) side by side as well :)
..
but nice anyway
Where's the timeline for Slashdot appearanced? I've already forgot the previous style.
If you stick a monochrome screen on a modern computer you'll basically have an 80's desktop.
Question: Why does it feel like everything "new" in software is a rewrite of stuff that has already been done in UNIX?
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/gui.ars
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
Desktop Environments vs Window Managers...
And Old Navy clothing looks better than Carthart and Dickies.
Blar.
The web site has a significant error. They present the Mac-like GUI for The Apple II GS as System 5, which it is not.
where's gnome you insensitive clod ?!!1
Sent from my desktop computer
I remember the days when I played the Space Quest and King's Quest series; the days when the hardest part of using a computer for me was remembering the esoteric string of letters that would let me into the mouse-driven directory/file view: DOSSHELL. I mean, as primitive as it might have been, it's still very easy to see in it the precursor of today's Window's Explorer with the Folder Explorer Bar enabled -- especially with 20/20 hindsight.
It's a bit disappointing not to see it listed there -- I would have thought it an integral part in Microsoft's GUI development. I mean, come on, it even let you change the colors! Primitive theming!
http://www.tenjou.net/
It's Nathan Lineback. You had me questioning my sanity for a moment there.
Sig: I stole this sig.
Maybe it's just me, but the look of GUIs seemed to devolve from the initial Mac 1984 system 1 version, until about 1995. The look just got uglier and more cluttered, and color when it was introduced had no real aesthetic, this was probably due in part to display limitations. In 1995 both Mac and Windows finally arrive at reasonably attractive, colorful, and functional versions. KDE sets the bar a little higher in 1998 then stagnates, Mac catches up with X 10.5 and Windows should catch up with Vista.
Rail against GUIs if you must, but without some vastly improved display system they have converged a stable solution that will probably stay mostly unchanged much like QWERTY typewriters, not because there isn't anything better possible, but because they are good enough, and are what everyone knows.
Letter To Iran
Desktop enviroments are for wusses Vs I don't use one...
Why KDE (which is relatively new) over Motif or CDE (which have been around for years)?
Am I the only one who things that storing console output would still be a useful feature? It would make batch processing jobs a great deal easier.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
What, no mention of Windows ME?
It's almost as if someone doesn't want to acknowledge it ever existed.
The Mac System 5 screenshoot appears to actually be an Apple IIGS... not System 5 at all. :-(
If these screenshots are corret, we now have proff that Apple copied Microsofts idea about using colors!
Where's GEOS?
Having seen and used most of these interfaces, the driving force seems to be the hardware to run them and then an API to make them cheap enough to implement for consumer applications. System 1 was a basic GUI built run on a relatively simple hardware and in a small footprint. The innovation was in fact in the separate GPU, something that was not widely used. This allowed the complex graphics. The big software innovation was WYSIWYG. Despite what people say about Xerox, the concept existed, but the bundle did not. Furthermore, the problem MS had was that it had no control over the hardware, and therefor could a tight OS, much less an OS built with specialized processors that no one had, so MS Windows 1.0 was the best it could do for the given hardware.
Once the initial concept of the GUI was developed, and the methodology developed, the software itself became rather simple. Over time hardware has been the biggest constraint on MS. MS software must run on cheap hardware, so the OS has been necessarily inferior. For instance, it was 10 years before excel on the PC was as good as the Mac. Conversely, companies like SGI had much more powerful hardware to play with, so the X-Windows experience blew System 7, 8, 9, and everything else, out of the water.
It is unclear what vista is going to look like. Mac OS X has some incredible high quality hardware at the base, hardware the sells for at least 1K, so apple has fewer constraints that MS that has to run on $300 junk. This might explain the fork in MS Vista. The point is that the comparison between MS and Apple makes as much since as comparing Apple and SGI. No one has ever said that Apple should run like a SGI. Likewise, MS cannot really run an Apple, even if they both use x86. Mac OS is basically being optimized for Intel dual core chips, and how long until the GPC is going be standard dual core?
Of course, even though Apple is "closed", the documentation and developer tools always seem more open to me. I recall the old Apple MAC bookd and the details, and compare that to the third party MS development books, and all the asterisks warning the user that MS did not support use of the hook or API. It did not make the Mac and easier to develop with, and it still seems easier to throw something together on the PC, but that is only if one is willing to use questionable strategies.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
The author of this blurb terms this gallery "nice", and the author of the Web page itself titles it " The Evolution of Desktops". Huh? At best, it is a collection of Windows and Macintosh screenshots. What's missing? The XEROX object-oriented (old sense) GUI, any version of GEM, TopView, X-Windows, Lisa, the Mach interface, the various commercial non-X-Windows UNIX interfaces and whatever the Amiga used.
Looking at those 20 year old GUIs always makes me sad, since it shows how basically nothing has changed since then. We got more colors, higher resolutions and a few more mouse buttons, but the basic user interaction is still very much the same as back then and still flawed in many ways. For example no mainstream GUI today manages to properly merge the power of the command line with the ease of use of a mouse driven interface, instead both act side by side, where the most 'integration' you get is lausy copy&paste support of filenames from GUI to CLI, however not the other way around. But thats really just the tip of the iceberg, computer interfaces could do so much more, but most of them don't even try. Don't get me wrong, some transparency, drop shadows and other effects can help, but they are really just polishing of something that is broken at a much deeper level.
As another drastic example of the lack of GUI progress one can look at this NeXTSTEP presentation from 1992, even today that video still shows plenty of features which a normal Linux or Windows still can't compete with and with MacOSX it doesn't really look that much better, while it is actually based on NeXTSTEP, it has allocated a whole bunch of cruft from old MacOS, which doesn't really make the overall experince all that good.
And just where is the blue screen of death
They are all in the same gallery as the Kernel Panic screens, the Apple System Bomb Messages, and the OSX Spontaneous Restart Screenshots.
He fergot about Windows 2000?!?
GUI 1.0
FRA: STFU GTFO
You managed to forget Microsoft's BOB. What's your secret?
Smart Machines Blog
Mod up the parent (alerante), I forgot about that site. Thanks. It's pretty datailed.
Accentuate the positive, don't waste your mod points on the negative.
Is that supposed to make sense?
"Question: Why does it feel like everything "new" in software is a rewrite of stuff that has already been done in UNIX?"
Since when is VMS, "UNIX"?
Where's Amiga? Where's Atari? Where's OS/2? Where's Gnome? Where's BeOS?
The cake is a pie
Thanks! I've never seen an OS X kernel panic or "Spontaneous Restart" in five years, so I was wanting to go to that site and check it out.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Of course, everyone should see the first web browser from 1990 (actually a screen shot from 1993, but much the same) running on a Next.
It might be hard to dig up screenshots all of desktops, but not much harder than the ones they found. It's nice to see someone including KDE in the line up so people can see a little of what they have been missing, like Virtual desktops, since the early 90's.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Some of the GUI's off the top of my head that were SIGNIFICANT advances during the 80s and 90s include:
* Tandy Deskmate (once the #1 computer seller in America)
* Apple IIgs interface (precursor to the Macintosh)
* Xerox
* OS/2
* Amiga
... GEOS, GEM, The Amiga, The Atari ST and other very important GUIs of the era??! The title should rather be something else than what it is.
Now, mod me down freely. My karma can't get any worse...
...or NeXTSTEP, or Amiga, et cetera.
The original link notably omits OS/2.
Whereas Windows 3.1 was a cooperatively multitasked OS, OS/2 was a pre-emptively multitasked OS just like UNIX. OS/2 was rock solid. In opinion, it had only 2 problems. It was released just slightly ahead of its time: OS/2 needed, at least, an 80486 to be adequately fast even though most consumers were running computers that had an 80386, an 80286, or even an 8088.
The second problem was that IBM did not give it away for free. Windows 3.1 was, in general, inferior to OS/2 although Windows 3.1 was perfectly matched to the underpowered processors at the time. Windows 3.1 often crashed. Even when Windows did not crash, it often froze when an application neglected to cooperatively relinquish the processor. Windows 3.1 main advantage was that it had the Microsoft name on it. If IBM had open-sourced OS/2 or given it away for free, then IBM could have wrestled the entire OS market from Microsoft. Most consumers would have chosen a free, rock-solid OS over a more expensive, crappy OS. Being free is important since most consumers are cheapskates.
Also, Windows 3.1 was actually based on the core code on which IBM and Microsoft had collaborated. After they terminated the joint project, IBM continued development on the core code and turned it into OS/2. Meanwhile Microsoft gutted the parts (e.g., preemptive multitasking) that, in its opinion, the consumer would not value and morphed the result into Windows 3.1.
When you look at the APIs for both OS/2 and Windows 3.1, you can see the common heritage of both products. More than half of the APIs have identical or nearly identical names and arguments.
If the common ancestor of both products were called "Homo Erectus", then OS/2 is Cro-Magnon man, and Windows 3.1 is the chimp that preceded Homo Erectus.
Well i never saw a BSOD since Windows 2000; just because you don't see them doesn't mean they don't exist! ...
Just like trolls i guess
"...Xfree86 has been started and has launched the FVWM95 window manager..."
Bah! I remember that! Wow, when I first tried Linux and didn't know what the hell was going on and that virtual desktop confused teh hell out of me.
The parent post is a known Microsoft shill and Apple-hater. OS X doesn't "spontaneously restart." However, Windows XP does by default when it hits a BSOD.
Elsewhere in the comments, you will notice that the parent poster actually attempts to argue that OS X has no better graphics options than Windows XP. Clearly unaware of the vector-based Quartz and its technologies dating back to Display Postscript in NeXTStep, TheNetAvenger actually believes GDI+ is on the level of Quartz and that Vista is creating some new paradigm just because Microsoft is desperately trying to catch up to Quartz/Quartz 2D Extreme by squeezing out WPF in Vista sometime in 2007.
The ignorance is amusing and laughable, but please don't encourage his behavior with "Funny" upmods. These kind of MSDN-subscribing fanboys always pop into Apple discussions now and then, trying desperately to defend the sinking ship of Windows technologies--technologies so bloated and complex that Windows' own developers refer to it as "broken" and "overly complicated." Hell, let's not even get into the Win32 scatter attack that Vista is still vulnerable to, given that it's still based on the same old single-user APIs developed in the 80s for the original Windows 1.0.
So as Apple continues to leapfrog Microsoft's obsolete technologies, expect more FUD from these MSDN agents, especially in discussions on Slashdot where Microsoft employees will mod them up. In their world, Windows XP's graphics are on the same level as Quartz. Not only is it the most hilarious claim ever heard in comparisons between the two operating systems, but it illustrates the level of misinformation Microsoft's marketing brochures have unleashed upon hapless individuals still running the six-year-old Windows XP, waiting fervently for a minor update sometime next year that will barely give them some level of feature parity with OS X Tiger from April of 2005.
"For example no mainstream GUI today manages to properly merge the power of the command line with the ease of use of a mouse driven interface, instead both act side by side,[...]"
How would you do this? A GUI is intended to provide simplicity by limiting choice to only those options relevant within a given context. Further, it uses visual metaphor to classify objects and data. CLIs use symbolic representation and grammar to organize files and actions, and as such are closer to reading, writing, and speech than a visual interpretation of system state. It's the difference between looking at a graph vs. a table of numbers - both portray the same information, but require different regions of the brain to interpret. Perhaps the problem you lament is not the computer interface, but limitations and differences between how people manipulate visual compared to manipulating the system with symbols and words. These are two distict areas in the brain - why should they work alike?
Right, I have not seen XP blue screen, but it sure does hang, become unresponsive, not respond to input, and require a nice hard reset on occasion. Death but no blue screen is just as bad.
I worked on a dual AMD athlon 1800+ running linux for the last four years. Recently I switched to a dual Xeon running XP at 3.4 or so. The linux system was more responsive, able to actually multitask (switch between appliations smoothly) and never exhibited obvious slowdowns (adding mail to a folder takes seconds on XP for some reason). Over xmas I hope to rebuild my desktop without XP...
Hell, the ATMs in my city running embedded versions of Windows bluescreen all the time. Even Microsoft's X-Box crashed at the 2005 CES. This isn't a company known for its stable platform.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Anyone notice that Apple was first to have a usable GUI?
Anyone remember when Apple sued Microsoft over the GUI?
Ever notice that Microsoft is always one step behind Apple when it comes to it's operating system? Whose the true copy cat?
\
The cool thing about all this is that any one of us that was familiar with one desktop could definately sit down at any of the other desktops, even from 20yrs ago (or 20yr ago if we somehow got into a time machine and came to today), and be perfectly comfortable.
The basic premises of all these UIs is the same. This leads me to believe that in another 20yrs we will still be using the same folder/file idea that we have today. This is, I think, a good thing. It means that our damn grandkids won't be able to make fun of us for not being able to use the computer! But we can still tell them to get off our damn lawns!
replacing it with NEW Folger's Crystals! (lets see if they notice the difference)
I was looking forward to seeing screenshots of GeOS, early X, the Xerox Alto, NeXT, AmigaOS...
The Apple IIgs was not a precursor to the Macintosh. It was released almost three years after the Macintosh was, an upgrade of the Apple IIe, but virtual cripple compared to the Macintosh. A 2.8 Mhz 65816 is a 8/16 bit CPU only a couple of times faster than the original Apple II released in 1977. Where the Macintosh had an 8 Mhz 16/32 bit 68000, probably a dozen times faster.
Programming the Apple IIgs in assembly (to get any speed out of it at all) was a complete nightmare compared to the Mac. In fact the Apple IIgs was probably the most underpowered computer Apple ever made, relative to what it was trying to accomplish. As far as I can tell the sole reason for its existence was to upsell to the elementary education market, which had a *large* installed base of Apple IIs, so compatbility was at a premium.
The Macintosh was pretty nice, but as a home computer it paled in comparison to the Amiga and Atari ST, which were released about the same time as the Apple IIgs. Both had similar 68000 processors, but much better graphics. Macintosh was 512x342 black and white (no grey), the original Amiga did 640x400 in 16 selectable colors, and up to 4096 in some modes. The Atari ST was in between. And of course the Amiga had preemptible multitasking, something that Windows didn't get until 1995, along with a whole host of other features that made it more pleasant to use than most computers today. One could run dozens of small programs (e.g. shells) in 512 KB(!) of ram, with interactivity far exceeding most modern computers with 1,000 times that much memory. Virtual memory is a curse for a desktop.
Of course most PCs circa 1986 are hardly worth mentioning, at least as far as graphics are concerned. Better than a Mac minus the UI, but a pale shadow of the Amiga and Atari ST. The one bit sound wasn't much to speak of either. Amiga/Mac/Atari ST all had 8 bit sampled sound, 4 channels / stereo, with additional 6 bit volume modulation in the Amiga's case, making for a 14 bit dynamic range.
Rather useless little thing. System 5 is mistakenly called System 4 (there was no 4), and a IIgs screenshot becomes "System 5". System 7 shows up here as "System 6", and System 7.5 (it's even in the damn screenshot!) is now "System 7"
This asshat has no clue what he's posting. Check out the other links people have posted for real GUI histories.
I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
====================
[Icon 1] [Icon 2] [Icon 3]
{Trash}
====================
CL: Icon [1...3]>[Trash]
Seeing the little 'DD' lurking in the menu bar of one of the Mac screenshots brought back memories. None of them good, admittedly, but still memories. How the hell did we get anything done when we were limited to 20Mb hard drives and (gak!) floppies?
Judging from TFA, my first exposure to a Mac (after using an Atari 520ST for a couple of years) was an already antiquated Mac Plus running System 3 - I remember that ugly-ass diamond desktop pattern. Even the hardly cutting-edge eMac I'm typing on now would look like HAL 9000 by comparison to my 1990 self. Yet ironically, for all the advances in presentation and power, my 1990 self could probably get the hang of using Tiger in a couple of hours, since all the basic operating principles are the same.
You must think in Russian.
This "gallery" is extremely misleading, full of gaps and errors, and doesn't take the effort to point out the actual differences. The System 5.0 screenshot appears to be taken from an Apple IIGS running GS/OS, which while similar in appearance to the MacOS, was a different operating system. The System 7.0 screenshot actually has the "About this Macintosh" window open, showing us that it was actually running System 7.5.3R2 (which is skipped in this presentation, which is funny, as most clones shipped with 7.5). I used System 7.0* (--that's supposed to be a "bullet") for 6 years, and it looks nothing like System 7.5, and according to my memory, it was far less fancy, not featuring submenus on the Apple menu, or a control strip (which I never got used to, and it got in the way! :)). Also, 7.5 introduced a more grayscale appearance in both icons and interface (not platinum yet, but the Trash Can is a good example in the picture - compare 7.1 (which was very similar to 7.0) to 7.5.3 (which is erroneously placed in the System 7.0 screenshot.)
He completely skips Windows NT 4, which while it looked only marginally different from 95, had lots of different control panels (like SCSI, for when you want to add an IDE CD-ROM, how maddening was that!). I'm pretty sure background images were a capability of Windows 95, at the least after ActiveX was installed, and I know that 98 had the capability. But he shows it in Mac OS 8, and skips Windows 2000 altogether (and Windows ME, which had some graphical variances in explorer from 98)
These are just the things I noticed from personal experience. Who knows what else is wrong. It would have been better for him to ask for screenshots from people who actually have the stuff. I'm sure this seems overly critical, but I can't believe the lack of quality in a gallery mentioned on Slashdot.
Vidar
The brains of a chicken, coupled with the claws of two eagles, may well hatch the eggs of our destruction.
Sun had a powerful window manager (for its time), Open Look Window Manager and Open Look Virtual Window Manager.
These were introduced about 1989ish.
http://xwinman.org/olvwm.php
I call fud on two of the pictures. The GEOS picture showed a date of 1995, but GEOS on the C64 only went to 1993. The Windows 1.0 on both the TFA and your link show the desktop in COLOR!!! Windows 1.0 displayed 640 Pixels by 200(?) pixels in B&W on CGA and had no other modes.
sudo mod me up
It is the Apple IIGS desktop, the FIRST APPLE color desktop! with QuickDraw II (first color API), first usage of ADB, adb keyboard, adb mouse, etc etc. Not only that, it's a very old version of the GUI. Give these guy some credit!
This is a much better gallery of Apple GUIs.
GEM seems to be left out, as well as all the other "desktops" that predate MacOS, and were just as significant in contributions.
I do miss the multi-colored Apple menu as well as the a taking a byte out of the multi-colored Apple logo that made so much sense. Damn Beatles!
But where does Compiz/XGL fit into the equation?
I remember the lady at our local computer store, where we used to buy Commodore 64 programs, was always trying to get me to buy Windows 1. I had been using a Mac since the first week they released it but she kept saying "Look it has a calculator, you can get a mouse for it, it has a clock". I just laughed because that was nothing new to me....and the Mac looked better as well. I was happy using DOS and I had a Commodore running the brains of an Amateur radio repeater for testing before I moved up to the real deal.
;-)
How times have changed. I have a PC running XP, A PC running Linux and KDE and a Mac that runs Windows 2000, KDE and OS X all at the same time. I could run my Commodore programs as well but I have not wanted to go that far back
The gallery lacks movies. At least when it comes to current desktops - each (OSX, Linux via Xgl, Vista) has nice 3D effects. For me it is quite a move forward. I don't mean eyecandy - screw that. I use OSX on regular basics and recently Xgl on Linux - on one workstation (my media center pc running Linux) I recently installed XFCE with compiz-quinn instead of ratpoison I and don't look back. Especially window switching with miniaturized windows (scale module) is great.
Why would you use such a bloated WM? It's over a megabyte in size!
Where is GEM, Geos and Star Desktop?
This is a hacks job of things.
Gadget News at Gizmo.com
theres a quick overview of the Amiga GUI timeline over at http://www.guidebookgallery.org/guis/amigaos - though I wouldnt want to slashdot any particular site...if you use a decent search engine you can easily see a multitude of screenshots that show each incarnation...there are sites dedicated to showcasing the best setups in AmigaOS desktops - usually using a multitude of eye-candy addons (doing the sort of stuff OSX and WinXP have only just got now....). I remember having an OS3.1 desktop that used an MPEG animation as my desktop background back in 1994... OS4 now has all the transparent windows/frames/icons etc built in rather than depending on the 3rd party addin hooks and API hacks.
> The Windows 1.0 on both the TFA and your link show the desktop in COLOR!!!
> Windows 1.0 displayed 640 Pixels by 200(?) pixels in B&W on CGA and had no other modes.
Oh, so I guess Microsoft faked their color too, huh? Take a look at that product box with the PC color screen on it.
There are simple things that are obvious. For example, just by assuming and output format appropriate to the data type, a new object-aware 'icat' command (improved cat) and graphical command line terminal could do:
[myaccount@mybox]$ icat mypic.jpg
(image is displayed, not in window, but simply in terminal, scrolling with rest of text)
[myaccount@mybox]$ icat mysound.wav
(sound is played out speakers)
[myaccount@mybox]$ icat *.jpg > myanimation.mpg
[myaccount@mybox]$ icat myanimation.mpg
(animation is played, not in window, but simply in terminal, scrolling with rest of text)
[myaccount@mybox]$ ls --thumbnails *.jpg
(thumbnails for all jpg images in dir are shown above filenames, like normal ls output only rows of imgs)
(now, user begins mv command:)
[myaccount@mybox]$ mv
(then, at this point, user begins clicking on thumbnails in the ls output from the previous command, and as he clicks on each one, their names are automatically appended to the command being entered at the text cursor... finally once all desired thumbs are selected, the user types the destintaion folder in by hand)
[myaccount@mybox]$ mv myimg1.jpg lastnight.jpg thursday.jpg myfolder
(voila! a command half typed, half clicked. And now the user wants to mail them...)
[myaccount@mybox]$ icat myfolder/*.jpg | imail -s "My pictures are attached."
(curses-based object-aware mail application is opened, with jpg files already attached)
And so on, and so on. I could have sworn that about five years ago I stumbled across a Linux project like this, but I didn't download it or bookmark it, and I never found it again.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Nope, it's my sanity that should be put into question. I have a close friend named Nathan Whitehorn, got the names all confuzzled.
-ScottMy other sig is a Glock
Alright, I think I can still call FUD on the GEOS unless the Apple II version supported dates up to and including 1995.
sudo mod me up
I have seen one blue screen on Windows XP due to a faulty sound card driver.
Now, I've also seen blank screens on several Linux distributions on many different modern hardware configurations because either
(1) there are no appropriate drivers for modern video cards or
(2) whatever hacked-together drivers are available are faulty.
You should destroy your XP CD. That way, when you rebuild your desktop, it won't get on there by mistake.
Ahhhh what good memories. *tears up* err.... I am a bit curious though, there isnt any Mac OS 10.0, 10.2, 10.3, or 10.4 screenshots on there. The GUIs did change slightly in them, especially 10.0->10.1 and 10.3->10.4. Ah well.
That page ignores most of the important GUI history: Alto, Smalltalk, Lisa, Blit, W, X10, X11, OS2, Amiga, Atari, GEOS, Garnet, NeXT, to name just a few. It just reinforces the same old misconceptions about Apple, Microsoft, and UNIX. Stupid.
How can you even pretend to say this is a valid timeline, when you represent only windows and macOS? ( oh, and KDE thrown in to appear like you are being thorough )..
If you start including GEM, Workbench, GEOS, BEOS, OS/2, etc. you might be getting close.
Hell, they even left out GNOME..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
DOSSHELL? Why, of course Dos is hell! Everyone knows that!
Only Macs & Win/Linux
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
> Alright, I think I can still call FUD on the GEOS unless the Apple II version supported dates up to and including 1995.
Which pic are you looking at? You are talking about this timeline, aren't you? I don't see any GEOS in the 1995 section, only BeOS (and Windows 95).
comparing the XP/Vista and OSX screenshots, it's obvious the article is biased against Windows. Just look at the windows that are opened in Windows vs the windows that are opened in OSX. OSX gets the pretty images/photos on the screen while Windows gets the start menu and some random folders and an About dialog. I mean if you're going to compare screenshots, then compare the same things. Not just have random things pop open on the desktop where OSX gets the pretty pictures and Windows just get to display default icons.
HD Trailers
Not to mention the [blink]Guru Meditations[/blink].
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
There was Enlightenment, that sucker WAS SEXY!
:(
Still one of the sexiest in existence, people with 2 button mice suffered and they never really fixed that but it's a pretty pretty baby.
It's also one of the smallest and quickest GUI's around.
Wish it shipped standard
Windows: - BSoD ( Black - Win 3.x - or Blue ( Wix 9x onwards ) - RSoD ( early builds of Vista ) - GSoD ( XBox 360 ) Unixes and alike: - Kernel Panic Mac: - Kernel Panic ( Mac OS X ) - Sad Mac - Bomb and the venerable Row of Bombs ( nothing better than seeing a screen full of tine litle bombs ) So you see, neither of them is the Ultimate OS. Linux can also become stagnated, become unresponsive, start sending random noises to the PC Speaker and reboot with no apparent reason. U can try to only use the most stable software, the most stable kernel, the most stable shared libs, but you'll always find some bad written driver, application, lib, whatever that will take you beloved os to shreds. You cant install it on a laptop without having to tinker with some obscure switch, compile and patch some driver ( or having to write one yourself), i even had to write my own DSDT table and patch the kernel to have decent ACPI support for my Acer. If you're a noob the only help you'll probably get is RTFM or STFG, and so on. Everyone will complain about something or someone. I bet the are a lot of happy Mac users out there, but i had to sell my mac mini as it constantly hanged and was more slow than molasses in March. Conclusion, Windows is the captain of the football team, everyone wants to be like him but dislikes him at the same time for being such an asshole and the nerds hate him for being such a bully. Unix is the President of the Computer Club, the Alpha ( pun intended ) Nerd, it has his share of nerdy followers but doesn't get laid and Windows keeps getting his lunch money. Mac is the cheerleader, always cheerfull, hip, has a fashion sense and everyone drools over her but is dumb like a doorknob. Since she's no smarter than a peanut, she secretly dates Unix and uses her sexual attributes to make him do all the work.
Is it just me, or did the screenshots make Windows 3.0 look nicer than any other Windows version except XP? Of course, Windows ME and Windows 2000 and all Windows NT versions are missing from the blog, but still...3.0 definitely looked nicer than 3.1.
Damn,
I was thinking the exact same thing. Where are the Amiga screenshots. IMHO the desktop has just about everything beat until windows 95 where of course when the 1200 came out it should have had an 030 and 24 bit color at least and could have lasted a lot longer except for the owners... All I wanted to say was thank you for at least mentioning the Amiga.
There is no snapshot of the Unix standard proprietary desktop CDE. Either the author of the page did not consider CDE as a desktop (quite true) or probably he didn't know how to take a snapshot in CDE :).
No, look at the picture of GEOS in the upper right hand corner it shows 12/16/95 05:18 PM The copy of GEOS I had only went to 1993 and I know this because I tried to use it in 1999.
sudo mod me up
Where's the GEOS (for the CBM64) & Amiga screenshots?
http://nathanlindsell.blogspot.com/
his "Macintosh System 5" is ACTUALLY GS/OS running on an Apple IIgs(or emulator), likely 5 or 6...g
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AppleIIGSOS.pn
snicker. chortle. ROFLMAO.
The control panel items SHOULD have been a dead giveaway! Slots?! control panel on a Mac?! WTF?!
I see you're talking about the desktop clock showing the current date and time when the screenshot was taken. That's not a release date. It could be any date the computer clock is set to.
What a waste of time this has been. Thanks for not doing your homework.
The GEOS Desktop Clock cannnot go beyond 1993 it runs from 1983 to 1993. There is no Real Time Clock in the Commadore 64. You have to set the RTC from GEOS every time you load it. The C64 has an internal timer in 1/100 seconds starting from 0 at every startup. If you want to see how long you C64 has been on since last boot type PRINT TIME with no quotes around the time part. Time is a system variable. I had a C64 back in 1999 and I know how to use the damn thing. I also had GEOS with the C64.
sudo mod me up
Didn't you click on the screenshot? It goes to a page about GEOS for the Apple II. Why do you think the Apple II version can't go beyond 1993?
I don't know for a fact that it can, but it's a pretty obvious alternative explanation. Why not do some research before crying 'FUD'?
The web page refers to the C64 version which does not, I don't know about the Apple II version.
sudo mod me up
hehe my old forms program still runs under gem 3 (1988) of course running it all under win98 brings it back to speed it was on the 386 but hey it feels more real that way ;)
:(
:(
Now if only my old database (DOS) ran as fast under XP as on my 386
Anyway, article not that impressive
Even Microsoft's X-Box crashed at the 2005 CES.
Ok, you do realize the XBox 360 hardware wasn't even ready at the 2005 CES, right? Even at E3 the demonstrations were not on XBox 360 hardware. The Hardware being used were dual G5 Macs, with an emulation layer for the non-existent GPU features and the tri-core.
WindowsXP hasn't crashed in years for a lot of people, it is nothing like Windows98 or Apple System 7-9 where both OSes had stability issues.
Also, I doubt your ATM is running 'embedded' Windows, or even an NT core version of Windows if it Blue Screens and doesn't recover with a restart at the very least.
There is NO OS that has not crashed and burned on someones hardware at sometime.
Screenshots are a bit pointless. In 'look and feel', feel is by far the more important. You can keep your transparent xterms and zooming window effects. Give me something ugly, solid and functional any day.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
> There is NO OS that has not crashed and burned on someones hardware at sometime.
Qantas never crashed.
>>Qantas never crashed.
:)
"Famously, Qantas quote that they have never had a fatal jet airliner accident. While this is true, the Australian national airline suffered several losses in its early days, before the widespread adoption of the jet engine in civilian aviation. "
(Sorry, couldn't resist...)