Journal Chacham's Journal: Link of the Day: http://www.michaelv.org/ 4
Windows 3.1 style UI, with a working web browser: www.michaelv.org. Very cute.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Link of the Day: http://www.michaelv.org/
Scientists will study your brain to learn more about your distant cousin, Man.
thanks for that! (Score:1)
That's one of the coolest things I've seen in a long time. Makes me yearn for those better days, of Program Manager and File Manager, where things were grouped into digestable pieces, rather than all jacked into a single, mile-long list of scrolling, collapsing/expanding hell.
Re: (Score:1)
I think the start menu is better, it just doesn't lend itself to be organized, because:
1) Programs offer to put themselves straight on the menu.
2) People put things on their desktop.
3) It's easier to find the icon each time then to organize.
I use shortcuts, so i don;t always organize it either. But at the office, i have a very well organized start menu.
Program Manager lends itself to organization, but takes a lot more clicks, or key presses, to get to things.
Re: (Score:1)
The start menu is nice in that you have a single point to go to, that's typically always on the screen (vs. alt-tabbing thru and having to stop on a regular window that houses all your program icons). But Program Manager, and maybe you're saying the same thing, invited custom organization. I thought it was superior in this respect, and also that an iconic layout that uses space both horizontally as well as vertically is easier to find things in vs. being collapsed into vertical-only and mainly textual. So I
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, that was what i meant.
MS spend lots of time and money on the UI. They give the people what they want. The 95 UI was the experiemental UI on the NT 3.51 CD, so they obviously got good feedback.
They could use their "bully pulpit" and change people's opinions (to your excellent points) but i don;t think that is their business model.