Graphical User Interface Timeline
August 1, 2001 8:44 AM Subscribe
Graphical User Interface Timeline showcases the road to Aqua and it's clone XP. [via Plasticbag.org]
I want to be as historically accurate as I can
This made me laugh.
posted by gleemax at 9:28 AM on August 1, 2001
This made me laugh.
posted by gleemax at 9:28 AM on August 1, 2001
I also, could have done without the slanted descriptions, but I'm interested in tech history so looking over that timeline was pretty fun.
See also: The Obsolete Computer Museum
posted by ljromanoff at 9:31 AM on August 1, 2001
See also: The Obsolete Computer Museum
posted by ljromanoff at 9:31 AM on August 1, 2001
When a page has a link at the top declaring IE4 as evil you pretty much know what you're going to get.
So many links to so much history, there goes the rest of the working week!
posted by Markb at 9:35 AM on August 1, 2001
So many links to so much history, there goes the rest of the working week!
posted by Markb at 9:35 AM on August 1, 2001
Why stop at IE4? It seems like it all happened so fast, but of course, I am writing this on a computer running Win95, something that falls mid-timeline.
posted by rschram at 9:46 AM on August 1, 2001
posted by rschram at 9:46 AM on August 1, 2001
Well I only mentioned XP in the topic because this guy already has screenshots of ME and Whistler, so those two kinda make XP anyway.
What I thought was interesting were the screenshots, I didn't particularly care for the comments either. I mean Win 2K definitely brought more to NT family than just IE based GUI.
I personally use IE 6.0 on 98 SE, and I will gladly upgrade to XP.
posted by riffola at 9:58 AM on August 1, 2001
What I thought was interesting were the screenshots, I didn't particularly care for the comments either. I mean Win 2K definitely brought more to NT family than just IE based GUI.
I personally use IE 6.0 on 98 SE, and I will gladly upgrade to XP.
posted by riffola at 9:58 AM on August 1, 2001
Microsoft, on the other hand thinks it is fun to make users learn a completely new interface every few years.
Bill Gates oughtta be sent to jail for trying to innovate. And the Lite98 thing was a real advancement in graphical user interfaces. These "Microsucks" people are starting to bother me as much as Republicans...
posted by MarkO at 10:10 AM on August 1, 2001
Bill Gates oughtta be sent to jail for trying to innovate. And the Lite98 thing was a real advancement in graphical user interfaces. These "Microsucks" people are starting to bother me as much as Republicans...
posted by MarkO at 10:10 AM on August 1, 2001
while the XP interface "Luna" is pretty much a direct copy of Aqua, it is merely the default scheme in the WinXP interface scheme chooser (I don't know what to call it). You can revert back to the standard windows theme, or change it to one of the user developed themes which will, no doubt, be created.
Aqua, on the other hand is THE interface for MacOSX, and you can't change it.
Okay, IE is built into windows. Okay it makes it run slower. But it's also the fastest damn browser out there. During the course of a day I open up around 100 internet explorer instances. If I was doing that with netscape, or opera, it would take forever. I'm willing to sacrifice a bit of CPU speed for the ability to browse webpages twice as fast, honestly.
I'm such a bigot, heehee.
posted by starduck at 10:36 AM on August 1, 2001
Aqua, on the other hand is THE interface for MacOSX, and you can't change it.
Okay, IE is built into windows. Okay it makes it run slower. But it's also the fastest damn browser out there. During the course of a day I open up around 100 internet explorer instances. If I was doing that with netscape, or opera, it would take forever. I'm willing to sacrifice a bit of CPU speed for the ability to browse webpages twice as fast, honestly.
I'm such a bigot, heehee.
posted by starduck at 10:36 AM on August 1, 2001
The theme of a Windows interface matters not. It it all based on inferior and often just plain wrong design decisions. Microsoft an "innovator?" Please. The only innovation Microsoft has done is coming up with new and better ways to screw its customers.
posted by Spirit_VW at 10:47 AM on August 1, 2001
posted by Spirit_VW at 10:47 AM on August 1, 2001
The only mention X once and then comment at the bottom that it would take an entire site to trace it's history. For those interested, why not take a look at where the real UI fun is going on these days. Not to start a flame war, but I never understood why anyone would want to be stuck with one UI when they could have a system that lets them do basically whatever they want and make it look however they want.
posted by bonzo at 11:25 AM on August 1, 2001
posted by bonzo at 11:25 AM on August 1, 2001
I still use Windows 95; all this talk of Internet Explorer being fast is confusing.
posted by gleemax at 11:31 AM on August 1, 2001
posted by gleemax at 11:31 AM on August 1, 2001
Man, what I wouldn't give for a Xerox Alto.
posted by waxpancake at 1:28 PM on August 1, 2001
posted by waxpancake at 1:28 PM on August 1, 2001
It's too bad what happened to GeoWorks. And what about MS-BOB? From the anti-ms tone, I find it amazing that wasn't listed too :)
posted by samsara at 2:54 PM on August 1, 2001
posted by samsara at 2:54 PM on August 1, 2001
Aqua and it's [sic] clone XP.
I always chafe at this description; XP has similarly rounded GUI widgets at the top of windows. But Aqua lacks task-based HTML assistance. While power users might hate it, the wizard that pops up alongside the My Pictures folder to help a user download images from a digital camera is the way an image transfer function ought to work.
Strange to me that something as common as using a digital camera is getting harder on a Mac and easier on Windows.
posted by anildash at 8:46 PM on August 1, 2001
I always chafe at this description; XP has similarly rounded GUI widgets at the top of windows. But Aqua lacks task-based HTML assistance. While power users might hate it, the wizard that pops up alongside the My Pictures folder to help a user download images from a digital camera is the way an image transfer function ought to work.
Strange to me that something as common as using a digital camera is getting harder on a Mac and easier on Windows.
posted by anildash at 8:46 PM on August 1, 2001
"Aqua, on the other hand is THE interface for MacOSX, and you can't change it."
cough
and dont forget about the command line either :P
posted by sawks at 11:29 PM on August 1, 2001
cough
and dont forget about the command line either :P
posted by sawks at 11:29 PM on August 1, 2001
Well, the page linked was pretty biased and it showed in the complete lack of technical accuracy. The screen shots were kinda cute though.
Some thoughts....
1) No matter how you dress it up, X-windows is still a gasping, wheezing dinosaur and that isn't going to change. The fact that it currently doesn't have universal clipboard support (they are spottily supplied by the WM) and that anti-aliased fonts are recent additions are a good case in point.
Yeah, Gnome and KDE can make it look better - but it is big and slow on the inside.
2) XP is hardly an Aqua clone. For one thing, we don;t have that lame icon bar at the bottom - arguably that thing is one of the worse design ideas in history.
3) IE's persistant code is not much different than the games Mozilla can play for you under Linux that leaves part of itself running to speed successive reloads.
4) OF COURSE it makes sense to integrate the browser into your OS.
posted by soulhuntre at 11:19 AM on August 2, 2001
Some thoughts....
1) No matter how you dress it up, X-windows is still a gasping, wheezing dinosaur and that isn't going to change. The fact that it currently doesn't have universal clipboard support (they are spottily supplied by the WM) and that anti-aliased fonts are recent additions are a good case in point.
Yeah, Gnome and KDE can make it look better - but it is big and slow on the inside.
2) XP is hardly an Aqua clone. For one thing, we don;t have that lame icon bar at the bottom - arguably that thing is one of the worse design ideas in history.
3) IE's persistant code is not much different than the games Mozilla can play for you under Linux that leaves part of itself running to speed successive reloads.
4) OF COURSE it makes sense to integrate the browser into your OS.
posted by soulhuntre at 11:19 AM on August 2, 2001
Okay, IE is built into windows. Okay it makes it run slower. But it's also the fastest damn browser out there. During the course of a day I open up around 100 internet explorer instances. If I was doing that with netscape, or opera, it would take forever. I'm willing to sacrifice a bit of CPU speed for the ability to browse webpages twice as fast, honestly.
Starduck, have you tried Mozilla with the -turbo option enabled. It makes it do exactly the same as IE (the preloading thing). Then it's quick, lightening quick.
(on a P3 1ghz, 256mb RAM, not that swift really, also, how do you run Opera if it's not quick, in a ball and chain?)
posted by nedrichards at 4:49 PM on August 2, 2001
Starduck, have you tried Mozilla with the -turbo option enabled. It makes it do exactly the same as IE (the preloading thing). Then it's quick, lightening quick.
(on a P3 1ghz, 256mb RAM, not that swift really, also, how do you run Opera if it's not quick, in a ball and chain?)
posted by nedrichards at 4:49 PM on August 2, 2001
I can't believe Microsoft is continually chided for advancing the interface by blurring the line between application and OS, or network and machine, etc., etc.
Also, if you don't like Win9x's default shell, you can always use Litestep...
posted by Ptrin at 6:14 PM on August 2, 2001
Also, if you don't like Win9x's default shell, you can always use Litestep...
posted by Ptrin at 6:14 PM on August 2, 2001
2) XP is hardly an Aqua clone. For one thing, we don;t have that lame icon bar at the bottom - arguably that thing is one of the worse design ideas in history.
And then, of course, there are those of us who like it...
posted by rushmc at 10:33 AM on August 3, 2001
And then, of course, there are those of us who like it...
posted by rushmc at 10:33 AM on August 3, 2001
« Older Whither the Dollar? Too Strong for Its Own Good? | Cool collective art. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
...enthusiastic sales reports with each MacOS related point, listing the only feature of win2k as IE "taking over", when in fact the real selling point of win2k is NT's (relative) stability + most of the directX win9* functionality, etc.
Zealots really shouldn't be writing history. It would be much better if it was written by someone who sees the good and bad in a wide variety of OSs.
and to your post of course... the timeline doesn't even mention XP. But you're right, the XP default scheme is a copy of Aqua's embarassingly tacky beveled-everything design.
posted by malphigian at 9:03 AM on August 1, 2001