s/NeXtStep/iOS/ s/vim/Angry Birds/ s/bash/Twitter/ s/less than 140/more than 50/
Come on now! Having a system where you repeatedly enter the wrong password, the system senses you have forgotten your password, and then lets you in anyway -- not that is a stroke of user-friendly genius!You, Sir, win! That is..... shockingly bad... beyond words actually.
The "coolness" of Okudagrams notwithstanding, your rant is pretty much spot on. (My Trek geekiness--let me show you it.)
- Adheres religiously to some theoretical model of user interaction devised by a PhD who can't interact with anybody with an IQ of less than 140 without hyperventilating.
I was about to say the Microsoft NT 3.5 "Windows" GUI, but then:Which is the worst GUI of all time?
OK, you win. I actually forgot about that. So, so bad, it was almost, but not quite, hilarious. That was the "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes", the "Manos", the "Disaster Movie" of GUIs.Microsoft Bob. Worst idea ever.
I remember having to 'evaluate' the OS X Public Beta. I was practically in tears after a couple of days, and couldn't bring myself to return to OS X until 10.3.That's a really, really difficult choice. Some people might judge by looks, but I've gone by familiarity here: for example, does it use established metaphors that a lot of users will be familiar with, or does it try and do new things?
I don't understand why a lot of operating systems can't evolve slowly, like OS X has done. Sure, the difference between OS 9 and OS X was massive, but we needed something new for so many reasons.
Windows 1.0. Hands down. No overlapping windows really killed it. The WIMP (Windows, Icons, Menus, Pointers) interface without overlapping windows is unusable for anything but the simplest of tasks.
Of the modern GUI, Metro is the worst. Who the heck puts a phone UI on a computer? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.
Why? It was extremely slow and buggy? Seemingly arbitrarily redone? Ugly? Or you were too attached to classic Mac OS?
It was a very long time ago, and my memory isn't what it was!Why? It was extremely slow and buggy? Seemingly arbitrarily redone? Ugly? Or you were too attached to classic Mac OS?
At least the first two versions of OS X (not counting the public beta, I never used that) were pretty bad in my opinion. The OS was sluggish, buggy, immature and lacked native apps. Panther and Tiger were the ones that began to make OS X powerful and stable.Why? It was extremely slow and buggy? Seemingly arbitrarily redone? Ugly? Or you were too attached to classic Mac OS?
OSX 1.0 was a complete new OS, with a lot of "eye candy" especially compared to OS9. It lacked a lot of the needed optimizations and being a version 1 of an OS, it had a number of bugs. Apple was good at implementing and polishing the OS, and by Tiger there was a lot of optimizations packaged in a fairly light weight OS.