Slashdot Mirror


The Weird History of the Microsoft Windows Start Button

Gamoid writes: Windows 3.1 was so complicated that even a Boeing propulsion scientist couldn't figure out how to open a word processor. A behavioral scientist, who once worked with BF Skinner at Harvard, was brought in to Microsoft to figure out what was going wrong — and he came up with the Start button, for which he holds the patent today. It's a weird and cool look at how simple ideas aren't obvious.

31 of 270 comments (clear)

  1. The only intuitive interface is the nipple by musmax · · Score: 4, Informative

    and it will be forever great.

    1. Re:The only intuitive interface is the nipple by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Informative
      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:The only intuitive interface is the nipple by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 4, Funny

      The only intuitive interface is the nipple and it will be forever great.

      ... for those who don't scroll much.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    3. Re:The only intuitive interface is the nipple by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Funny

      You need to teach your baby to use the nipple, too.

      I wonder how many of these nipple-challanged babies grow up and go to work for Microsoft.

    4. Re:The only intuitive interface is the nipple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Nipples are like remote controlled cars.
      They're intended for kids, but it's always the dads who end up playing with them.

  2. Re:wtf? by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Informative

    Windows 3.1 wasn't complicated at all. What kind of moron thinks otherwise??

    A Boeing propulsion scientist.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  3. Difficulty by nmb3000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Windows 3.1 was so complicated that even a Boeing propulsion scientist couldn't figure out how to open a word processor.

    What a useless statement. An astrophysicist might have had a difficult time setting his VCR to record All My Children while he was away at work. Just because someone is an expert in one field doesn't make them all-knowing.

    Raymond has also posted several articles about the history of the Explorer interface, including one about the origin of the Start Button and one about the taskbar.

    --
    "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
    /)
    1. Re:Difficulty by gweilo8888 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mod parent up. For goodness sakes, I was 17 years old when Windows 3.x first came out, had precisely zero training of any kind, and figured out how to use its GUI all by myself in the space of about ten seconds. It's not just a useless statement, it's also a vast and very obvious over-exaggeration.

    2. Re:Difficulty by mcrbids · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Being an astrophysicist doesn't make you at all qualified to use a VCR. (Wait, who uses VCRs anymore?! I haven't touched one in almost two decades!) But it *does* mean that we're not talking about an idiot. And if you're trying to target your product to be usable for the average joe, and an astrophysicist can't figure it out, you can assume that you missed your target.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
  4. Re:Major change? No. by PsychoSlashDot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The total change from the Windows 3.1 Start button to the subsequent Start buttons was making the Start menu a 2-column menu, putting the contents of the former Programs menu in the left pane and putting the rest of the Start menu items in the right pane. That's it. Oh, and making the initial view not show all the Programs items but only a subset, with an extra item at the bottom to show everything in the same form as it was under the Programs menu.

    As for Win3.1 being complicated, every secretary I knew managed to get a handle on it within a few days so it couldn't have been that complicated. The only people I know of who couldn't figure out Win3.1 are the ones who to this day need repeated reminders of how to get to anything that's not directly on their desktop, so methinks the problem doesn't lie in Windows.

    Um. You know that Windows 3.1 didn't actually have a Start Button, right?

    --
    "Oh no... he found the .sig setting."
  5. Re:It's not weird at all. by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Funny

    Somebody was facing a problem. He thought about the problem.

    He looked at System 7

    He proposed a solution. It worked.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  6. MenuChoice and HAM (1992) by tepples · · Score: 5, Informative

    System 7, introduced in 1991, had an Apple menu, which held shortcuts (called "aliases") to applications. Third-party extensions such as MenuChoice and HAM, released the following year, allowed aliases to be grouped into folders. (This is exactly the behavior that Microsoft would later implement in the "Programs" section of Windows 95's Start menu.) Apple later bought the rights to HAM and integrated it in System 7.5 (1995) under the name Apple Menu Options.

    1. Re:MenuChoice and HAM (1992) by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

      I was kinda surprised Microsoft didn't get sued. It was pure Mac without the finesse.

      Did you sleep through the 1990s? Microsoft got sued.

    2. Re:MenuChoice and HAM (1992) by MacTO · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Apple menu wasn't quite the Start Menu. It was similar in the sense that you could add programs in it to use it as an application launcher, but that was simply a consequence of the history of the Macintosh system software. Older versions of the system software placed device driver like desk accessories in the Apple menu. With System 7, those desk accessories became normal applications and redesigned Apple menu was changed to take that into account. Indeed, I'd be surprised if Apple intended it to be used as a generic application launcher.

      In contrast, the Start Menu was designed to contain every application on the system. This means that it was a genuine starting point, rather than a place to access commonly used applications. The designs even reflect that. With the Apple menu, you were given a menu with analogs to the old desk accessories and you had to add anything else yourself. With the Start Menu, you are given a menu that contains all of the applications on the system and you have to removed unwanted stuff yourself.

    3. Re:MenuChoice and HAM (1992) by dbIII · · Score: 5, Funny

      Later on I'm surprised the Win7 advertisements didn't go like this:
      "I'm a PC and looking like a Mac was my idea."

    4. Re:MenuChoice and HAM (1992) by dcollins117 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The other absolutely amazing thing they introduced in Windows 95 was the shortcut.

      Otherwise known as soft links or symbolic links, which DEC and RDOS have had since 1978.

      I'll assume when you say "they introduced" you meant to say "they copied" in the same manner as MSDOS is really a clone of CP/M and the Windows GUI was copied from Apple, etc.

    5. Re:MenuChoice and HAM (1992) by Solandri · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Apple Menu inverts the Windows paradigm. Your Mac's desktop lists the apps installed in the filesystem (in fact the desktop is pretty much the root of the filesystem), the Apple Menu has your shortcuts. Whereas in Windows your desktop has your shortcuts, and the Start menu lists the apps installed in the filesystem.

      This is a consequence of how the two OSes started out. MacOS was coded from the start as a GUI, so logically the desktop is the root of your filesystem. Windows was originally a shell running on DOS. So all your files were stored in the DOS filesystem, and originally the desktop just had shortcuts to your program and data files. (OS X complicated this somewhat since it is now a GUI running on top of a modified version of BSD Unix.)

    6. Re:MenuChoice and HAM (1992) by CronoCloud · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Otherwise known as soft links or symbolic links, which DEC and RDOS have had since 1978.

      and in Unix even before that

    7. Re:MenuChoice and HAM (1992) by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Informative

      There are a few differences. First, symlinks are a property of the filesystem. This means that the normal filesystem APIs just work with them and you need special APIs for things that care about whether it's a link or not. In contrast, shortcuts are just another kind of file and everything that wants to follow them needs to know what the target is. Second, shortcuts contain a lot more information than just a path: they include the path to the destination file, an icon, the set of command-line arguments to pass, and some other flags. For example, I used to have a load of different shortcuts to the WinQuake (and, later, GLQuake) executable that all had different -game flags, for launching different mods. Many of them also had different icons, if the mod came with its own icon. You can't do that with symlinks.

      The closest thing to symlinks on *NIX systems is .desktop files.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    8. Re:MenuChoice and HAM (1992) by hudsucker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, not the same thing (though similar in purpose). A shortcut is a file whose content is parsed by the software/OS to determine the location of the target, while a symbolic/soft link is a filesystem object that points to target.

      Ah, so Windows 95 shortcuts weren't copying Unix, it was copying Mac OS aliases. Which were introduced in System 7, in 1991. Except that aliases still worked even if the target was renamed or moved to a different location, while shortcuts break.

  7. Start to stop on Super NES by tepples · · Score: 4, Informative

    On the Nintendo Entertainment System, players pressed the controller's Start button to pause (that is, stop) the game. By the Super Nintendo Entertainment System, many games were adding a quit option to the pause menu, so Start to stop was becoming believable.

  8. Win95 original "meme" by Cito · · Score: 4, Funny

    32 bit extensions and a graphical shell [on top of] a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit operating system originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that can't stand 1 bit of competition.

  9. "to this very day..." by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Informative

    and he came up with the Start button, for which he holds the patent today.

    Oh, how I hate our patent system.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:"to this very day..." by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He invented something so he got a 18-year country-wide monopoly on the idea. What's the problem?

      He invented a place on your computer desktop that you can click with a mouse and it will open a menu.

      Genius, I tell you. Who would have ever thought something like that was possible?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  10. Re:Major change? No. by khellendros1984 · · Score: 4, Funny

    You double clicked on a game icon and it launched within two seconds

    Well...either that, or you got a message saying that you needed to lower/raise the bit depth of your display, enable/disable some memory manager, or something similar. I kind of missed Windows 3.1 too, until I started playing with it in a VM and kept running into all the antiquated bits that I'd forgotten about...then it would make one of the classic "ding" sounds, and I'd forgive it in a wash of nostalgia.

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
  11. Re:Rocket Surgery by PPH · · Score: 4, Funny

    I used to work at Boeing. Some of those people are still looking for the 'Any' key.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  12. Re:simple ideas aren't obvious? by Stormwatch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now the modern form over function UX crowd with their hipster indecipherable logos (3 dots for action, 3 lines for menu?) may be heading the wrong direction

    To be fair... the largest smartphones are still tiny compared to the screen of any desktop computer. Also, your input is far less precise than keyboard and mouse. You have to make some sacrifices to design an interface suitable for that hardware.

    But then came Windows 8, trying to put a mobile interface on the desktop. Now that was just idiotic.

  13. This tells you everything... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This tells you everything you need to know about UX designers:

    It's something that gives Danny Oran, the ex-Microsoft interface designer who holds the patents for the Windows 95 Start menu and taskbar, mixed feelings.

    "In some ways, it's a little disappointing the same stuff is in there," Oran says.

    It's a simple, intuitive interface element that everyone who uses a PC can easily figure out how to use. Yeah, terrible tragedy, that. It's so old and crusty now, right? Who cares if people are, you know, actually getting shit done with their PC. We need some hip, new paradigm that people have to re-learn all over again.

    Seriously, what the hell? Stop screwing up interfaces that are functional and familiar! I wonder if the designer of the automobile's steering wheel would have "mixed feelings" about that interface still being used in cars nearly a century later?

    --
    Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  14. Re:wtf? by ArchieBunker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He most likely has a PhD in his field. He is the master of that one specific area. Everything else is foreign and complicated to him.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
  15. Re:Major change? No. by demonlapin · · Score: 4, Informative

    My recollection differs. Games were slower under Windows than DOS due to the overhead, and they definitely still crashed. You didn't have to have boot disks with "gaming" configurations to free up enough low memory, though.

  16. FORD by sycodon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I rented a Ford Focus. It has all these screens, keypads and shit.

    There was one very large button labeled Radio. I pressed it and nothing happened. Turns out that you had the press the much smaller button only labeled Vol to turn the radio on. Then there were these button on the center console, right in the middle and above the volume button. Unlabeled. Left to tune down, right to tun up...right? Nope. It control the "feature selection" on a screen on the dash. Tuning buttons were much smaller and in the upper right and only labeled with a left arrow and right arrow.

    Then I looked down by the shifter. There, was a placard that said, "Powered by Microsoft".

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.