Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:flat as a pancake: invasion pending (Score 2) 123

by TWX (#49768437) Attached to: Microsoft Tries Another Icon Theme For Windows 10

We may end up with intuitive and user-friendly software, oh no!

So, I don't care which shade of pastel and crayons the useless interface is. I want to turn off the useless interface entirely, because it provides nothing in the way of utility.

Windows 8.1 is fast and stable, and has nice features. But it's only usable as a desktop once you install something like Classic Shell and turn off the crap that these "designers" have put in.

They're spending all the time tweaking the wrong things.

I think it's hilarious when Windows 95 icons are more intuitive than an OS that'll literally be twenty years later from the same company. That was with icons that only had the basic sixteen ANSI colors available to them at-launch. It required an update to enable 256-color icons. If anything, limiting designers to those sixteen colors and requiring a common faux-3d paradigm ensured that all of the icons had a design consistency about them that made it difficult for others to copy, so one could usually tell if a program was a Microsoft one versus a third-party.

There's been a lot to dislike about Microsoft over the years, but historically their user interfaces were legitimately not on that list. These 'advances' are changing that.

Comment: Re:Screenshots? (Score 2) 123

by TWX (#49768397) Attached to: Microsoft Tries Another Icon Theme For Windows 10

Those "screenshots" are only 600x375. They're more on the side of being huge thumbnails than actual screenshots.

Unless of course you're still using a 640x480 display, in which case you're seeing an article from the future. Hello from the future! Buy these things called "Bitcoins", they'll be worth hundreds of dollars some day!

Heh. Given how the icons are looking more like icons did in the days of Windows 3.1, maybe having a low-res screen is next. The Hipsters will love it!

Comment: Re:I guess that if a Mathematician... (Score 1) 159

by TWX (#49766363) Attached to: <em>A Beautiful Mind</em> Mathematician John F. Nash Jr. Dies

When Barack Hussein Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for doing ... oh yeah, absolutely nothing, the entire credibility of all Nobel prizes took a swift kick in the gonads. Including those based on science and mathematics.

The Nobel Peace Price lost credibility when it was awarded to Henry Kissinger, who had, I assure you, done plenty.

Comment: Re:For me it's Windows NT 3.1 (Score 1) 380

by TWX (#49758567) Attached to: 25 Years Today - Windows 3.0
No I wouldn't, I use one almost every day. Unfortunately the console UI is a little quirky and they never brought in web developers familiar with RPG and the like to build attractive web interfaces for the more common uses, so it's probably going to be replaced with a bunch of Windows servers in the next few years.

Comment: Re:Meanwhile OS/2 and Xenix existed (Score 1) 380

by TWX (#49756959) Attached to: 25 Years Today - Windows 3.0
IBM already got burned on a commodity OS that could run on non-IBM-but-compatible commodity hardware, ie, MS-DOS. Their attempts in the late eighties and nineties to mitigate that didn't work because cost ruled, and no one wanted to pay thousands of dollars for a Microchannel expansion card when an ISA card did the same thing for a tenth the price.

Comment: Re:For me it's Windows NT 3.1 (Score 2) 380

by TWX (#49756947) Attached to: 25 Years Today - Windows 3.0
Windows 95 was still sitting on DOS to a large extent, just not as visibly or largely as before. When you "shut down" windows and got the black screen with orange text that said you could now turn off the computer, if you typed the MS-DOS "mode" command with an option like 40-column you unmasked the hidden DOS prompt and could still use the computer.

Windows 95 worked like a lot of 386-enhanced DOS-based games did, loading itself after using DOS as a means to get the program loaded. '98 and ME were similar, though when they tried to strip most of that out of ME they made things screwy.

Comment: Re:Windows for Workgroups (Score 1) 380

by TWX (#49756933) Attached to: 25 Years Today - Windows 3.0
Heh. I still remember how to install sound card drivers through the MCI control panel.

I also worked at an early commercial ISP, helping people install Trumpet Winsock on their Windows 3.1 machines. It was probably WfW 3.11 now that I think about it, given that there had to be at least a rudimentary stub of a TCP/IP stack.

I also worked with some interesting Novell applications where the diskless workstation would network-book to a Novell share, the user would log-in, get drive mappings in DOS, and from the server load Windows. Didn't work half-bad so long as the network connection was stable.

Comment: Re:For me it's Windows NT 3.1 (Score 1) 380

by TWX (#49756919) Attached to: 25 Years Today - Windows 3.0
I don't know if it was so much a fragmented market as IBM still betting the farm on big iron computing, which was based around gaining shell access and running all of the programs on the mainframe. They do have a point, in the sense that the mainframe has a lot of benefits especially for highly-centralized functions like financial processing, but the eye-candy that is the GUI OS won out and IBM didn't bank on the size of the market that wouldn't involve centralized computing, like pretty much all small business.

Comment: Re:OS/2 better then windows at running windows app (Score 1) 380

by TWX (#49756907) Attached to: 25 Years Today - Windows 3.0
Wasn't there some kind of licensing arrangement that allowed IBM to either use Microsoft libraries or else to have access to the APIs for 16-bit Windows, that did not extend to 32-bit Windows applications?

I do not discount the important evolutionary step in OS that Windows 3.0 was, but given that Windows 3.1 and then 3.11 for Workgroups fixed many of the problems that Windows 3.0 had and added the initial computer networking protocols, I just can't call 3.0-even the most important milestone of even the 3.x line, let alone Windows in general. I'd be more likely to label Windows NT 3.5 with that, as that was the first version where the server-side of things was robust enough to do something useful for corporate networks, and when they were still headed in a direction where the relatively light-weight GUI on the server box wasn't a horrible resource-hog for the running machine. Hell, they even had intended on taking NT into the embedded server market before they changed course with 4.0 and 2K.

Sometimes I wonder if the introduction of general-purpose computers into business environments was a mistake. Couple the general-purpose nature in that they run anything and everything with a connection to a global network and I wonder if the productivity gained through the use of a computer for many tasks has been taken away by the ability to be distracted.

Comment: Re:WSJ is owned by NewsCorp now, right? (Score 1) 231

by TWX (#49756217) Attached to: WSJ Crowdsources Investigation of Hillary Clinton Emails
Your local news is probably the closest to being a friend for broadcast television. By only running three or four hours of news every day, they don't have to sensationalize news in-general just to survive, the bulk of their other programming does that for them.

I personally like NPR and some of the PBS news, but they're not infallible and they've made mistakes.

Comment: Re:WSJ is owned by NewsCorp now, right? (Score 1) 231

by TWX (#49756115) Attached to: WSJ Crowdsources Investigation of Hillary Clinton Emails
My point in originally posting *yawn* it's worth taking with a grain of salt. I was judging the reporter, not the report. It may be factual, or it may be wildly inaccurate, or it might be factual from a technical perspective by narrowing or qualifying the statement, I do not know. I do know that I'm not going to take NewsCorp's word for it.

Fact of the matter is, I do not trust NewsCorp's motives as I do not know what those motives are in-whole, but the way I interpret their past direct actions, ie, that which they have themselves published or broadcast through their various properties, leads me to not assume that their intentions are what they seem to claim them to be. Even if they immediately decided to be wholly transparent and above-board it would probably take several years for me to be able to trust them, as there's usually no benefit in changing a negative opinion once it has been demonstrably earned.

Comment: Re:WSJ is owned by NewsCorp now, right? (Score 2, Interesting) 231

by TWX (#49755717) Attached to: WSJ Crowdsources Investigation of Hillary Clinton Emails
Okay, post-acquisition, did WSJ make a point of investigating the Sarah Palin private yahoo e-mail that she used for business while in power as the Governor of Alaska to circumvent Alaskan law? I don't remember coverage of that being terribly strong. I also don't remember WSJ asking the public to comb through through the gwb43 e-mail personally.

"The Amiga is the only personal computer where you can run a multitasking operating system and get realtime performance, out of the box." -- Peter da Silva